Bush pressed to answer `Downing Street Memo' questions

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 913179.htm

Can't anyone accept that Saddam has a long history violence and threats against the peace and security of other nations in an extremely volatile region and was too dangerous to be left in power? The War on Terror cannot be confined to Afghanistan as long as there are terroritsts in other countries. For example: If Saddam had carried out his plans to attack Irael, that would have created an Armageddon scenario. Additionally, most of the American pubic has some suspicion of Bush's motives in Iraq, but re-elected him anyway.

No, people are idiots. And yes they did re-elect him, for the same reason.

Bush misled the US? Well that's news.

Yes. Saddam Hussein was evil. I think the same thing about another certain leader too.



I have no problem trying with the US wanting to avenge the attack on September 11th. I have no problem with the US wanting the country to be safer. I fully believe that the world would be a better place without terrorists. I do not believe that Iraq is the problem.

In what country did Al-Qaeda originate? Saudi Arabia. Which country were 15 of the 19 hijackers from? Saudi Arabia. Of all the countries in the Middle East, which one is the largest sponsor of Islamic terrorism worldwide? Saudi Arabia. WHY DIDN'T THE UNITED STATES INVADE SAUDI ARABIA?

Oil and money. That is truly what Bush cares about.



Bush seems to only have problems with certain terrorists. Below is a photo of George and Laura Bush getting friendly with Sami Amin Al-Arian. Sami Amin Al-Arian is charged with 50 counts of terrorism.

Did anyone know that the 2000 Republican Platform doesnt mention Iraq once but the Democrat one says something along the lines of "We will seek to remove Saddam from power." Kinda makes you think doesnt it.

Eventually they will all need to be invaded. I haven't been happy with Bush's handling of Iraq ever since Saddam was ousted. What's needed is a blitzkrieg accross the whole Islamic Crescent. I say mass forces in the Azores, Spain, India, the Northern Marianas, and Northern Austraila to level everything from Morocco through North Africa, accross the Arabian Peninsula, through Central Asia, down into Southeast Asia, and down to Indonesia and the South Pacific. The civilian casualties would regrettably be massive, but still likely lower than if a terrorist group ever detonated a nuclear or biological device in a major metropolitan area.

It is unfortunate that such possibilities even need to be considered. If only there was some way to explain to them how our First Ammendment works, to explain to them that there is a small lunatic fringe of Muslims here out to convert everybody at gunpoint, but most live peacefully with those of other religions.

The small lunatic fringe of Muslims would grow a whole lot bigger if we did that. That is, unless we killed off every single person east of Europe.

Terrorists aren't soldiers, and thus can't be disarmed through the toppling of governments. Trying to kill off every last one of them is theoretically possible, but three times as many will surface after they're dead. Terrorists are civilians who grow too pissed off at the United States to sit back and accept the destruction of their countries. They grab box cutters and hop on American airplanes because the United States goes into their countries to destroy everything. Then the United States increases the violence as a result. It's a vicious circle. There's a certain point where two sides need to quit going back and forth trying to trump each side's respective kills for no other reason than revenge, forget about "who started it," and resolve the problems peacefully. It took America a full decade to realize that during Vietnam, and it looks like the Middle East is going to take even longer. With the continuous escalation of violence on both sides, I expect the American civilian death toll to reach some pretty frightening heights soon.

erm... sorry to rain on your parade, sean, but who exactly put saddam hussein in power in the first place...? oh, i do believe it was the US...

Perhaps you could expand on the plot a little further, I'm very interested.

You're scaring me, Sean.

Sean is right. The only way to eliminate this threat is total war without mercy.

Yes, bush lied and should be removed. But this war is like a harpoon with a barbed point-to remove it will bring about a far worse condition than to remove it. This is not vietnam.

total anhilation is the order of the day. *sighes*

I don't see anyother options that would permit survival for the USA other than long-term economisation.

Nope. You could be mixed up with the Shah in Iran, but Hussein put himself in power in a manner not all that different from Hitler.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_timeline/html/default.stm

Before explaining my Blitzkrieg doctrine further, I will need to collect some hard geographic data and population density statistics.

Ever hear of a little thing called the Muslim Holy Land or the Jihaad? One of the things that sparked all the fervor to begin with was the fact that the Great Zionist Satan was not only hired to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam back in 1991 but also had heathen infadel on the soil of the Holy Land. Right now, as much as the radicals and Rev. Jones types that you see in groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hebollah may hate us, the moderates are living under their thumbs and like what we're doing because we're trying to bring democracy and freedom and trying to debunk religious and despotic tyranny (argue about side motivations as much as you want, that still matters). Come to think of it, one of our greatest assets in terms of popular support in Iran has been the Grand Ayatollah Sistani.

On the other hand, if we'd invaded Saudi Arabia, lol, it wouldn't be just the radicals blowing themselves up. Pretty much every muslim all arround the world who was true to their beliefs would feel obligated to implement their end of the final solution - the REAL jihad. The jihad, by most moderate muslim's definition, is something that only comes into play to protect the Saudi Arabia from invaders. Being that we really don't wanna be the great satan, being that we really don't want a religious war on our hands, and being that want to see these people free to democratize just as much as we need their help in bringing in the wackos, that would have been the worst possible move we could have made.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a country right in the center of it all. One full of very intelligent people, professionals, an opressed Shiite majority, and one that had been living under Stalin the 2nd for many years. Its been great in that not only is Saddam's country not a safe refuge for terrorists, not only is he not able to pay his $30,000 U.S. to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers anymore, but the Al Arabia network has been able to get their oppinions out there and give a sharp contrast to Al Jazira's biased coverage of everything that goes on. The PR battle is the most important one for us to win, not with the Europeans but with the middle eastern muslims. When these people see that we freed their Muslim brethren from an evil *secular* dictator its a very powerful symbolic victory in terms of how they see our intentionality toward them. That and having freedom right across the border would be the best way to turn Saudi Arabia arround in that those who wanted a proper democracy in Saudi Arabia would make moves to change things internally; why try to role over 7 countries on the axis of evil when you can take the most strategic one and aid transformation in the others? It saves a lot of lives that way when you really think about it.