News-Record.com

Mr. Hammack, You state "The goal of our enemy is to impose their belief system on all of us". Is that not what we are doing to the country of Iraq? I distinctly remember Bush saying no Muslim whould ever serve as a prominent leader in Iraq.

Also, is that not what the Christian "right" is trying to do here in our own country? It certainly looks and feels like that is what is happening.

I guess I am just one of those "insane" people of which you speak in your first sentence. I don't buy into the trash Bush is selling.

"The goal of our enemy is to impose their belief system on all of us." -- actually, this is a misrepresentation of the stated purposes of Muslim extremists. Their goal is to keep Western culture from "polluting" their pure Islamic world. Much like Christian fundamentalists, who want to keep modern society from "polluting" their pure Christian world.

If anyone is doing the imposing in this conflict, it's the Americans who wiped a soveriegn government away and gave orders as to who and what would take its place.

Excellent points, Billy.
The majority of this country know what we're doing is right and just. The rest just don't get it, because they sit safe and secure thanks to people who were not cowardly enough to just sit idly by while terrorists try to destroy us.
Those sitting comfortably at their computers bashing our country and our President should get down on their knees each and every day and thank God that brave men and women fight for their freedom on foreign soil.

Yvonne,

So when did you last talk with an Islamic terrorist ? I ask only because you seem to boast a better understanding of their goals, besides of course killing as many of us as they can..
Look, unplug your computer and get a life or better yet find some socialist country that will take you in where you will find eternal happiness. Bye bye.

As is often the case with the right they resort to tirades and name calling when confronted with their failures, lies and misdeeds. Such as sad bunch.

I hardly call the recovery of Bill Clinton's downswing economy a "failure" Clementine. I wouldn't call the defense of our country and way of life a "failure." I wouldn't call the resurrection of a disgraced Justice Dept. a "failure."
Now if you were forced to kneel and pray to Mecca 5 times a day and speak only in Arabic at the risk of having your entire family murdered because our president bowed to the terrorists instead of fighting them everywhere we can...that would be a failure.

Eric,

"Their goal is to keep Western culture from "polluting" their pure Islamic world".

If you call the murder of hundreds of thousands by Islamic dictators, the rape rooms, beating women who don't wear their burkas correctly, forbidding women to drive, forced marriages, etc. "pure", I hate to see what you think is not pure.

It's amazing how liberals purportedly support human rights, but turn a blind eye to such atrocities. You guys care more about the rights of a few hundred terrorists at Gitmo rather than the rights of millions in the Middle East who seek freedom.

Granted, our culture is getting trashier and coarse, that's due to liberals in their buddies in Hollywood who seek a totally secular "anything goes" society. Some of us don't want that society, so we are called NeoCons, exteme right wingers, etc. No sweat off my back, you guys just stay on the wrong side of history and keep losing elections.

the majority believe what we are doing in iraq is right and just? then why are the armed services having such a difficult time recruiting men and women to fight for our safety and freedom?

going to afghanistan was just, and recruitment figures instantly rose. not the case with iraq, and recruitment totals reflect as much.

Just curious Hugo,

How did Bill Clinton and his downturn economy get into a discussion of the war on terrorism? Let's try to keep it marginally on subject.

Dan, I was not commending either the Islamic extremeists nor Saddam Hussein's secular dictatrorship (I assume that's why you mentioned "rape rooms" in your message). I was only trying to help others see the conflict in the terms that the Islamists have used publicly.

Surely it's not a crime to try and understand what such people are thinking. And you never know... it might just be to our advantage to actually understand what we're up against instead of just assuming that they are thinking the same way we do.

I'm also at a loss to see how you can think that I "turn a blind eye" to anything. You don't know me. So how my statement about other people's thoughts could be seen as a statement about my own is quite odd to me. But it's a pretty common thing these days for people to tell me the most remarkable and insulting things that I apparently believe. Thanks for adding to the list.

Mr. Armstrong, I've not the vaguest notion of what you are referring to in your comment to me. Mr. Hammack made the statement about what our enemy's goal was. You seem confused and distraught. Perhaps you should unplug your computer, run around the block and count to 100 before diving into an empty pool.

Eric, have you not noticed how some of those who support Bush "turn a blind eye" to any valaid criticism of him and begin to attack the writer of that criticism? It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion and just makes them look like angry malcontents.

Hugo,
There is not one soldier in Iraq that is fighting for my freedom. Let's call it like it is. They are fighting for the freedoms of the Iraqis, not ours.
I am thankful for our brave men and women for their service, because I know their sacrifices. I was military from 93-02. Bring them home Bush!!!!

To Brian, Yvonne, Eric and everyone else who is against the war, I have one question please.

I know the standard liberal talking points, No WMD's, war based on lies, war for oil, etc., etc. I know some like Brian want the troops home now. (By the way Brian, I appreciate your service, I appreciate everyone who serves regardless of political beliefs).

Despite your thoughts against the war, the fact is we are there. The elections went off fairly well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lebanon is pushing for freedom. Libya is no longer a threat. Even Saudi Arabia & Egypt are talking about reforms. The Palistenians & Israelis are getting along better and moving towards peace. We still have a long way to go, but it is promising.

Here is my question. Do you hope the efforts of the U.S., other countries, and those of the people in the Middle East themselves will result in freedom and democracy for the people who live there? Or do you hope it will fail so it will be considered a failure for Bush? Please be honest.

I heard a liberal talking head woman, can't remember her name, interviewed by Jon Stewart on Comedy Central. Mind you Stewart is not a conservative. He pointed out this progress in the Middle East. Her reply was that this progess in the Middle East is "bad news for Democrats", but then gleefully retorted that "we still have Iran and North Korea", meaning that it was good news for Democrats that Iran & North Korea were still problems for the world.

Do you guys think this way too?

I found the woman, Nancy Soderburg. Here is a little background about her and her statements on the Jon Stewart interview. So I still ask Yvonne, Brian, et al., do you guys think like this?

From 1993 until 1997, Soderberg served as the third ranking official of the National Security Council at the White House, including as Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. She was responsible for day-to-day crisis management, briefing the President and developing U.S. national security.

From 1997 until 2001, Soderberg served as alternate representative to the United Nations as a presidential appointee, with the rank of ambassador. Her responsibilities included representing the United States at the Security Council. She has also worked as senior foreign policy adviser to Sen. Edward Kennedy.

And this is what she said about the chance for a historic peace deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

it may well work. I think that … it’s scary for Democrats, I have to say.

And regarding Stewart’s comment that Bush may end up “greater than Reagan”… she said:

Well, there’s still Iran and North Korea, don’t forget. There’s hope for the rest of us.

Regarding democratic results in the region of the middle east:

There’s always hope that this might not work.

Nancy Soderberg appears to be saying that she hopes that we fail completely in our quest to spread freedom and democracy around the world, because it would be bad for the democrats. That is truly a jaw dropping perspective on things. How do these people ever hope to connect with main street America again?

Mr. Harper everything our country does to crush terrorism around the world is securing YOUR freedom. Have you forgotten what happened on 9/11/01? Do you think Al Quaeda operates in a vacuum, entirely separate from any other Islamic terrorism groups? Saddam, the PLO, Syria, etc., all supported these groups.
You sit nicely in your house here because the freedom of our country is secured by our military fighting terrorism across the globe.

You know, there is not a single terrorist in the world that is threatening my freedom, OK? That job is being taken by the folks in the Justice Department.

Now if you want to be honest, you could start saying that the military and the Justice Department are working to protect my SAFETY.

Wait a sec. That's nonsense, too. I'm in greater danger from drug dealers on MLK Drive than I am from Osama Bin Laden! The total number of people killed by terrorists in the history of the world is a drop in the bucket beside a month of deaths due to American criminals.

Maybe that's why I say we need to re-think this whole mess. Talk about a wild goose chase!

Dan,

I'm against the war in Iraq, but not for the same reasons a lot of leftists are (war for oil, etc.).

My problem with the war is that it doesn't directly affect Americans. And George Bush is the President of America, not the middle east or the United Nations or the earth. We have our own problems to worry about, and $87 billion+ of our American tax dollars shouldn't be spent on the other side of the globe. Our military is over there fighting for Iraqi freedom. Where in our Constitution does it say the Congress and the Commander in Chief shall have the power to use our military to fight wars of freedom for other people? If the Iraqis want freedom, let them revolt for it. Fight their own war. That's what America did.

I know, the argument is that Iraq MIGHT have attacked us if we didn't overthrow Saddam. But using that argument, Bush might as well nuke the whole planet, because there are an aweful lot of countries that "might" attack us some day.

I think Rusty makes some good points. It is actually quite refreshing after hearing some of the same arguments over and over again.

I voted for George Bush twice and I supported the war in Iraq. I'm not too happy with everything that has happened with Iraq. It saddens me any time young men and women die in war. I'm pretty disappointed that all of the pre-war intelligence has yet to be proven. No major caches of WMD's have been found. But honestly, after hearing Colin Powell's 'evidence' of WMD's, I didn't find it very convincing in the first place. Not enough to act like he had an open/shut case.

But I still felt like we had the right to remove Saddam Hussein because he didn't live up to the resolutions put on him after the first war (which I believe most people supported whether they were democrats or republicans). He was still defying the U.N. resolutions, he was cheating on the oil for food agreement, and made no bones about his support for terrorist acting against U.S. interests. I think it was in our nation's interest to get rid of him.

I think we actually waited too long to get Saddam. I wish that President Clinton would have found a way to take him out when he had the chance. But he waited, and waited, and waited. Does anybody remember how ineffective we were during that time. We blew up a few shacks and training areas. I think that Republicans AND Democrats would have supported a war against Iraq even BEFORE 9/11 if President Clinton would have ordered it.

"But I still felt like we had the right to remove Saddam Hussein because he didn't live up to the resolutions put on him after the first war (which I believe most people supported whether they were democrats or republicans)."

To me, the whole UN thing is irrelevant. I don't give a swimming flip what the UN or their resolutions say. My charter is the US Constitution, not some UN resolution. I wish we we'd get the hell out of the UN anyway.

Sadaam didn't attack the US. That makes the Iraq war unjustified, IMHO.

Hitler didn't attack the US either. Japan did. We still sent soldiers to fight the Germans, didn't we? Saddam didn't attack the U.S. either, he just hired thugs to do it for him. Isn't that kind of like splitting hairs. I don't care for the U.N. either, Rusty. But the U.N. as well as the U.S. did give Saddam opportunity after opportunity to avoid war. He didn't take the chance and now he is sitting in jail somewhere.

Dan,
I want everything to go well with elections in other countries. I don't want us to fail, no matter what. But other countries freedom isn't worth one US soldiers life, in my opinion. I'm not a liberal that wishes doom on Bush, heck I support some of his policies even, (SS reform), but I don't think he can recover lost respect from me no matter how well he does from now on. Remember, I voted for him in 2000.
With that having been said, yes, I do think this war was not only unnecessary, but unjustified as well. As far as N Korea and Iran goes, I don't think we as a country have any right to tell them they can't have nukes. Do I want them to posess nukes? NO! But we have thousands upon thousands of them. Isn't that hypocritical of us to tell another country they cannot have nukes, when we are the only country to have dropped them against enemies?

Eric and Brian, your isolationist attitude "since it's not happening here it doesn't affect us" is just like burying your head in the sand.
The decimation of our intelligence apparatus by Bill Clinton and his inaction in effectively dealing with terrorists led directly to the 9/11 massacre. The blood over every person killed on that day is on Bill Clinton's hands.
If you don't understand the global implications of terror on a large scale then you should just stay at home cowering under your table while men better than you safeguard your life and liberty.
I'm done with this thread.

Are we discussing WW2 or the Iraq war? Let's try to stay on topic.

So Saddam hired the thugs that flew into the WTC? That's a new one. I haven't even heard Rush say that.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say about the UN. If you don't care for it, then why rely on their resolutions? If the UN is irrelevant to Americans, then who cares what they say? Who cares what they told Saddam to do? I don't. I would only care if he did something to attack me or my country (supposedly meeting with Osama's father's sister's 2nd cousin's nephew's former roommate doesn't count). That would be the only excuse for using tax dollars to oust him.

Hugo,
I laugh at your ignorance. I served 9 years in the military, you?
You blame Clinton, that's your opinion, but what about Reagan and Rummy selling all those WMD's to Iraq in the 80's?

Rusty, you haven't heard Rush say it and you haven't read me write it either. I didn't say Saddam hired thugs to fly in to the WTC. But information is freely available from any respected news source that says Saddam paid the family of terrorists for conducting suicide bombings. And he would love those bombings to be against American interests. And if you are listening to Rush Limbaugh, may I suggest another source for your news. If you haven't heard the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11, then you haven't been paying attention. Some of our nations' leaders at least suggested as much to be true.

And as far as mentioning WW2, don't you think we should learn something from history? So we don't repeat the same mistakes. I won't even talk about how many times I've heard Iraq compared to Vietnam. Isn't that getting off subject too?

I don't care about the U.N., but those resolutions were negotiated by the U.S. If it wasn't for our involvement with the U.N., then I probably wouldn't care. But our country was instrumental in the first gulf war, we worked within the context of the U.N., and that is how we dealt with Saddam. If you go with the U.N. you lose, if you don't then you are acting unilaterally. So what are you supposed to do?

Saddam was a threat to our country and a menace to our fellow humans in Iraq. And whether we are hypocrits or not, it is not good news for us that North Korea or Iran have nuclear weapons. I wasnt' alive when we dropped the bombs on Japan. What I'm concerned about is somebody dropping a bomb and wiping out my children.

All of you anti's need to slow down and think, just a little.

Someone threw out 87 billion dollars being spent on Iraq. I don't know the number, but I would wager that if you took what 9/11 cost and added it all up, the loss of the buildings, people, financial markets, business destroyed, added security cost and so on. What ever the number is it will make 87 billion look like a grain of sand in the desert.

Right now the most of the terrorists of the world that want to get the US are busy in a fight. They are loosing the fight and don't have sense enough to understand it. That fight is not on US soil and we all should be grateful for that. It would cost one heck of a lot more than 87 billion if it was taking place here.

It is a brilliant move by President Bush to keep them busy in some other part of the world. The rest of the world is watching, the Arabs are learning. The good people of the Middle East are starting to understand what is really going on. They are getting into the fight. They want the terrorists and murderers gone as much as we do.

The current times and what is to come in the next five to ten years will mark President George W. Bush as one of the greatest leaders that the world has ever seen. He understands what is needed and he is doing it. Be glad that is happening.

Mr. T,

You said "Saddam hired thugs to attack the U.S.". That is not true. The only people that attacked the U.S. were the terrorists in airplanes.

Concerning WW2 and Vietnam, I don't see their relevance to this war. They were different wars and different circumstances. We can discuss whether they were just or not at another time. It seems to me that any time someone brings up one of those wars, it's because they're floundering in their attempt to justify or not justify the Iraq war.

You seem like a pretty level-headed fellow, but I'm still not quite understanding your point about the U.N. I don't care if the U.S. was a part of the negotiations with the U.N. after the first gulf war. We shouldn't have been a part of the U.N. then either, so any resolutions made with U.S. input are still meaningless to me. I say again, I don't care about the U.N. or their resolutions. I only care if someone attacks the U.S., and this is where you and I disagree. I don't think Iraq was a danger to the U.S. at all. Saddam knew if he ever tried to attack/invade the U.S. that he would have been wiped out. Any "pre-emptive strike" is the logical equivalent of gun control. I need to take you out first, because you MIGHT hurt me with your gun. That's not the way things should work.

I'm concerned about someone dropping a bomb and wiping out my children too. But that risk will ALWAYS be there. Short of bombing the entire planet a la Dr. Strangelove, there's nothing we can do to guarantee someone won't do that. The only thing we can do is have peaceful trade and mainatain good relations with our neighbors. Which is why our forefathers suggested as much. "Prosperous trade with many nations, entangling alliances with none".