Reptile & Amphibian Forums

This is an open discussion.
-----
----------
Some things are too hot to touch,
the human mind can only stand so much
You can't win, with a losing hand.-dylan

.Other than some of the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan that might have been blown up (fortunately, because of smart bombs instead of carpet bombing this was minimized), I suspect his policies will help the native animals and possibly hurt nonnative imports a little bit.

Primarily, I am talking about the "thinning of the forests" policy that cause forest fires to be "more" survivable than without thinning. These fires will be smaller and less intense so not only will less habitat be damaged by any one fire, but there is a better chance for the animals within that "fire area" to survive it. Unfortunately, it will take years for that effect to take place because so many of our forests are so overgrown. The "environmental" activists have caused so much damage in this area over the years, that it will take years to correct it. We will suffer with some major forest fires (like San Diego, Ca.) until then.

As for importing, it might be a little easier to import them and thus harder on species that are imported. But, that could be a good thing. If those animals fall into the hands of experts, and knowledge of husbandry and breeding help that particular species in question--which could reduce importing them in the long run while it will temporarily increase importing in the short run. It also will make some species easier to get. For us reptile fanatics, it is good.

Plus, some of our imports will be more highly valued by the exporting country if there is a value on them, so they will be protected. People tend to protect thing in proportion to their value.

Rodney

While the thinning of the forest policy may be good elsewhere,
The South Florida ecology depends on the flow from Lake Okeechobee to keep those fires minor. Bush ( we have the governor) in delaying the Everglades cleanup by 25 years has extended the damage to the region by stalling the corrections to the flow patterns disrupted by the construction of the canal system. The result here is the "Drying out" of large tracts in the glades which causes the fires to be worse (burning off the peat layers underground) and because of this the root systems of trees and shrubs (most of which have shallow roots due o our elevation)that would normaly grow back after a fire are severely damaged. The reason why South Florida had such a huge population of wildlife (especially herps and birds) besides temp...was the combination of thick vegitation and lots of water. reduce the water and numbers plummet.
While in other parts of the country, the elevation is high enough for animals to take refuge from a fire in holes and burrows, here the land level averages 0'-3' above sea level through the glades so there is no place for anything to hide if the water level falls too low. Everything that can't run gets burned. I have been out there after fires and found canal after shallow canal dried, burned and filled with charred herps.
The Bush brothers have been bad for South Florida. George's wars have limited tourism which is the lifeblood of this area. I was in the food/restaurant business till recently. Most of my customers have had major financial setbacks..this includes all the support businesses like trucking etc...So if you are in the reptile business here ( like any other non necessity business)there just isn't as much money going around.
Another impact of this has been increased predation (by humans on the turtle population. Cheap food.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

The one thing I would disagree with here, is that the reduced tourism was caused by the hijacking of the planes. The increased security, plus the public's fear of terrorism is what caused the decrease in tourism--nothing that Bush has done, as far as I can see, has affected tourism. But, the economic recovery that is well under way from the tax cuts, may drastically increase tourism over the next year or two--as people return to work and have discretionary spending money again.--Assuming there are no more terrorist attacks to put the fear of traveling back into people.

(On a side note, did you see Dick Gephardt trying to take responsibility for the tax cuts last week--what a hypocrite! After years of lying about the tax cuts only going to the rich and corporations, and that the cuts wouldn't help the economy, now that those cuts have helped the economy, all of the sudden it is the democrats who caused it!)--Arghhh!!! Politicians!!

Rodney

Hey Rodney! Again you really need to be here. Planes are our life's blood (we are the hub of N-S American tourism. The longer these wars go on, the more we suffer. Blame some on fear...but the more the news is full of war and the threat to travel the more business we lose. Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Very interesting posts, good reads. If I wasn't so uninformed I'd post something of substance. Thanks.

Excellent Post!

Ed

HI Frank,

I totally understand that tourism is very important for Florida, I just doubt that anything Bush has done has had much of an affect on it, if any--especially compared to the publics general fear of flying after 9/11.

What if Bush hadn't done anything? Imagine if another terrorist attack had taken place since 9/11, or many attacks. What would that have done to tourism? That would really have fueled many American's fear of flying!

We know that Clinton didn't do anything about terrorism, other than to make some speeches and say, "We will hold you responsible"-- and numerous follow-up attacks took place. We know about the embassy bombings, the U. S. S. Cole, and 9/11. Since 9/11, there has been virtually nothing except for threats against the U.S.--and threats have always taken place. Look at how the missile attacks on Libya stopped Moamar Kadaffi from being a major terrorist ally. That worked great, we haven't heard from him in years.

Weakness is a very poor thing to show the Arab world, especially to the terrorists. That just gives them hope that they are making some progress and that they should hit us again.

I know it is kind of conjectural since we can't see the future, but I think the actions Bush has taken have made things "less bad" than not taking these actions, or not being resolute. Even the vast majority of Democrats running for president believe that these actions are needed and we should not get out because that will show weakness and almost guarantee another big hit on the U.S.

So basically, it's what would have happened vs. what is happening. It's hard to argue either way, but I believe Bush's stance has given us a much better outcome than what could have been happening instead---and that includes Florida's tourism.

Rodney

I think the war with Afganistan was necessary. However the war with Iraq was not (the evidence he used to back it up was proved phony). Nor was the confrontations with China and North Korea (which is a real nut case). The more this President talks war, the longer he hurts Florida's economy.
I should point out that I am a Disabled veteran ( 1970-72 Navy)and was behind his father's war (which was when it was justified and should have been completed).
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

and was behind his father's war (which was when it was justified and should have been completed).

VERY WELL PUT!!!

The objective of "his father's war" was, very specifically, to remove the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Mission accomplished. In other words, "his father's war" was COMPLETED.

Ed

"The more this President talks war, the longer he hurts Florida's economy"

As long as there are terrorists out there that want to kill Americans, you are going to hear Bush "talking war". What's wrong with that?

Bush Sr accomplished his objective in the Gulf War. Your Monday Morning Quarterbacking is miniscule in comparison to what Bush Sr, accomplished.

Ed

The stated purpose of the war was to drive the Iraqis out of Kuiat. The real purpose was to end Sadam's threat to the region...which would have made Jrs war unneccessary. Bush's not achieving that was something that was a controversy at the time....Not Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

"The real purpose was to end Sadam's threat to the region..."

After that war, Saddam's military was no longer a threat to that region, and if that was the "real purpose" the Bush Sr. should give himself a pat on the back! You see he really did achieve his objective.

"which would have made Jrs war unneccessary."

"Jrs" was was backed by 80% of US citizens. Wouldn't that make it "America's war"? Wouldn't that make it YOUR war too? Anyway, "Jrs war" was necessary, not because Bush Sr didn't take him out, it was necessary because A wealthy terrorist like Saddam (UBL) had orchestrated a tradgedy (9/11) in a way that Saddam was certainly orchestrating himself. Between wars, 9/11 caused the USA to drastically change its approach to terrorism. We got proactive.

Ed

If Sadam was no longer a threat to the region (or us for that matter)...Why did Bush have to attack? That makes no sense. What Proof do you have that Sadam caused 911? That's news to me...I thought we were still chasing the man responsible in Afganistan.....Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

"If Sadam was no longer a threat to the region (or us for that matter)...Why did Bush have to attack?"

You have ignored the very different and distinct differences in the context and circumstances surrounding these two wars. Before 9/11 we couldn't visualize how Saddam might be a threat to US citizens. UBL changed all of that. Of course he was Bush's first target in his war on terror. Saddam was a fine second choice. Of course you will probably complain about whoever Bush's next choice will be too?

"What Proof do you have that Sadam caused 911?"

Absolutely none! I never claimed that Saddam caused 9/11.

"I thought we were still chasing the man responsible in Afganistan"

Be my guest, go ahead and try to prove that he still has a pulse.

Ed

Just a question. Why do you think we were attacked?

We were attacked as a result of an extremely demented religion that portrays the US as "the evil satan". Pathetic fanatics are brainwashed into thinking that innocent US citizens deserve death without considering the actual facts. I certainly hope that your question doesn't imply that you believe there was some perverted justification for 9/11.

Ed

No I think We were attacked because our government put their noses where they didnt belong about 18 yrs earlier.

I'm glad you are happy!

Ed

Hey are you "Fast Eddie" from "the color of money" movie?
Anyways, whats reasoning with you is going to accomplish.

Depends on how you define "reasoning". When I think of the 3,000 innocent people who were killed on 9/11 (especially the kids) there is no "why". I think that if you are capable of believing there is a "why", then you have too much in common with the hijackers on 9/11. Disturbing!

Ed

No, the problem is that you believe everything you see or hear.

Lets just face the fact that youre a die hard republican, and Im wide eyed.

WRONG! I'm neither Republican of Democrat. Rush Limbaugh is just as big a zero as Clinton. You are not making any sense. I'm about done with ya. Dismissed!

Ed

oh yea you took me to school "Fast eddie", Thanks for dismissing me.

Save your jibberish for allah.

Ed

Yep Im a commie too, dont forget that.

WOW!

Ed

I don't believe a word out of your mouth.

Ed

Reguards to George"s war talk. Depends on where your paycheck comes from.... Personally I prefer someone like Reagan, who talked less of war but did the job when necessary. Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Bush wasn't in the habit of "talking war" before 9/11, and, since seemed to have overlooked some very obvious current events, HE WALKS THE TALK TOO. Wher've you been?

Ed

Bush had confrontations with China before 911. Just for the record.
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

abc

Couldn't be worse than what we have...(LOL)
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

How many died in that "confrontation"? How bad did Bush affect your precious tourism THAT time? What else would you like to blame Bush for? Why do you hate him so much? What's the problem?

Ed

It's very easy to answer.

I care about what happens to my friends...Which seems to be an unusual quality these days.

The "confrontations" with China and Korea gave the world a taste of what this president was about.

I do have a problem with arm chair warriors who never had to back their opinions with their lives. Bush Sr. saw combat. Jr Was a substance abusing (alcohol)rich kid who was involved in financial scandle before he got to the white house. There is a differance that non veterans cannot understand because they sat home safe and sound and did not make the sacrifice, did not get out there and see what war really is.

Any student of history can tell you Moslems (like other historically "fanatic" peoples) do not fight a war for 5-10 years. They fight for generation after generation. Look at what happened to Russia in Afganistan. They also do not fight "nice" like we do. Our rules say "Do not fire on civilians and hospitals", so that is where they concentrate their weapons in those places they know we will not attack. What you call terrorism (murder, hostage taking...etc...) is normal acceptable policy to them). They were masters of politics before the Crusades even started. We get our math from them, our astronomy...our numbers.

No I do not love them. But it is important to point out they are not stupid people, as the gung-ho crowd would have you beleave. And because we declare victory! does not mean that they will nicely lay down their arms EVER.

Americans are foolish in the belief that other cultures will see how we live and immediatly want to be like us. All that supremist view has done has made us enemies by people who feel we should mind our own business.

I am not anti-American. But we have become involved in a war where comitting ground troops will get us into the same problems we had in "Nam". We did better with the bombing war of Bush Sr. I left too many friends back Viet Nam to take the prospect of another long ground war/occupation lightly. For over 800 years these people have been fighting the Christian enemy. Do you really think a war of less than a year or an occupation is going to change that?

Oh, and for the record I thought Clinton was the worst president in US history before this one showed up. Persoally I liked Regan (a gentleman...and no coward).
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

"I care about what happens to my friends...Which seems to be an unusual quality these days."

Again Frank, give yourself a pat on the back! Everyone cares about their friends.

"The "confrontations" with China and Korea gave the world a taste of what this president was about."

You haven't said anything that makes sense about this. What the heck are you talking about? Care to EXPLAIN why these "confrontations" paint a negative picture of Bush IN YOUR MIND?

"I do have a problem with arm chair warriors who never had to back their opinions with their lives."

It's clear that want the rest of us here to think that you are part of some elite group that qualifies you for being able to understand more than plain old US citizens, like me, could possibly understand about the relationship between Bush and tourism in South Florida. Simply because you say you were in "Nam" and I wasn't. Get a grip Frank, you don't seem to be able to "back up" any of your opinions.

"Jr Was a substance abusing (alcohol)rich kid who was involved in financial scandle before he got to the white house."

You really give yourself away here. Bush MUST be the cause of South Florida's drop in tourism because you say he was a substance-abusing rich kid involved in financial scandal. Is this the kind of comment that your supposed tour in "Nam" has qualified only a veteran like you to make?

"There is a differance that non veterans cannot understand because they sat home safe and sound and did not make the sacrifice, did not get out there and see what war really is."

Enough already! Nobody cares that you are a supposed veteran! Even if you were, it has nothing to do with the validity of the arguments being made in this thread.

"Any student of history can tell you Moslems (like other historically "fanatic" peoples) do not fight a war for 5-10 years. They fight for generation after generation. Look at what happened to Russia in Afganistan. They also do not fight "nice" like we do. Our rules say "Do not fire on civilians and hospitals", so that is where they concentrate their weapons in those places they know we will not attack. What you call terrorism (murder, hostage taking...etc...) is normal acceptable policy to them). They were masters of politics before the Crusades even started. We get our math from them, our astronomy...our numbers."

You seem to have lost your way here Frank. What does any of the above rambling have to do with supporting your opinion that Bush is responsible for the drop in tourism in South Florida?

"No I do not love them. But it is important to point out they are not stupid people, as the gung-ho crowd would have you beleave. And because we declare victory! does not mean that they will nicely lay down their arms EVER."

You have clearly digressed!

"Americans are foolish in the belief that other cultures will see how we live and immediatly want to be like us. All that supremist view has done has made us enemies by people who feel we should mind our own business."

Speak for yourself Frank! Were the terrorists who vowed "death to America" minding their own business on 9/11?

"I am not anti-American. But we have become involved in a war where comitting ground troops will get us into the same problems we had in "Nam". We did better with the bombing war of Bush Sr. I left too many friends back Viet Nam to take the prospect of another long ground war/occupation lightly. For over 800 years these people have been fighting the Christian enemy. Do you really think a war of less than a year or an occupation is going to change that?"

I've learned that usually the guys who go out of their way to say that they were in "Nam" are the guys who either weren't there at all, or they were there, but far, far away from any action. What's the real deal Frank?

"Oh, and for the record I thought Clinton was the worst president in US history before this one showed up. Persoally I liked Regan (a gentleman...and no coward)."

Bush is a "coward" and YOU are what? A Hero????????????? The truth is Frank, Bush Jr makes you look very small.

Ed

PS You almost got one right. Clinton was the worst President in US history.

I said what I thought in my earlier posts. Now are you going to require a Bibliography and references for every statement made here?

Yes..I feel Veterans are an ELITE group. You should to. They fought and many died so that you could sit safe in front of your computer and make "witty remarks".

Am I supposd to submit my DD214 to prove I served? To You? Don't be a jerk. I am Ex-navy and a disabled veteran. The rest is my business.

I did not say I was in Nam. I said I lost friends there. The we I was refering to was the country, possibly before you were born or weaned.

And yes...Veterans have experience and a perspective on the world that "Plain old Americans" don't have. Your remarks are discriminatory and insulting towards vets...What are you Jealous?

"The value of an idea is measured by the price one is willing to pay for it..." Veterans paid that price.

This debate forum is supposed to be for fun and to exchange and debate Ideas. The form of personal smear debate I see here is disgusting....and a waste of my time. Here is your opportunity to declare your victory to anyone that cares.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Your question is ridiculous. I'm a proud American, and I certainly appreciate what veterans have done for this country. However, I'm not very impressed with you. You injected something into this argument that is totally irrelevant. What does your claim that you are a disabled vet have anything to do with your claim that Bush singlehandedly ruined tourism in Southern Florida?

Everyone knows at least a few war veterans. The ones that I know certainly don't hate Bush, like you. As a matter of fact, they support him because he's done a great job. You, on the other hand, have some obvious hang-ups, issues, etc., that lead you to trash Bush as you have here. There's nothing "elite" about an anti-American, self-proclaimed "disabled vet" who paints the President of the US as being a rich drug addict involved in financial scams. Even while you rant your convoluted anti-Bush ideas, Bush is busy protecting YOU. US soldiers are dying as we speak so that YOU can spout your garbage. YOU are certainly in no position to lay guilt bombs on non-veterans. You are in a position, however, to learn to appreciate the guys that are laying their lives on the line for YOU.

Bush has NOTHING to do with Southern Florida's decline in tourism. Sober up!

Ed

Again...
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

My nephew has seen combat in Iraq and is going back there...Third generation Navy. Any more petty remarks?
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

No "petty remarks" Frank, but you should be ashamed of your anti-American comments, ESPECIALLY if you have a nephew in Iraq! Stop bashing your President, ESPECIALLY in wartime!

Even if you are a Disabled Vet living in Southern Florida, with a nephew in Iraq, you are totall y wrong that Bush ruined Southern Florida's tourism.

Ed

So you are saying it is anti American to speak an opinion other than yours? I have to pause and admire the wit of someone who never served his country.... and by the way. Proof anything requires evidence...Where are those weapons you speak of?
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

"So you are saying it is anti American to speak an opinion other than yours?"

Absolutely not. I'll say that it is extremely anti-American to trash your President like you have, escpecially in wartime. It's equally anti-American to go against what 80% of Americans agreed was necessary to protect this country against terrorism. You are not an anti-American simply because your opinion differs from mine. You are anti-American because of your comments and beliefs. Don't blame anyone else but yourself for that Frank!

"I have to pause and admire the wit of someone who never served his country...."

There you go again insulting non-veterans. You are like Star Jones who incessantly injects the fact that she's a lawyer, thinking that she has a free pass to make idiotic comments and not be held responsible. Whether you are a Disabled Vet or not, you are responsible for your idiotic belief that Bush is responsible for Southern Florida's decline in tourism, and you are responsible for you anti-American comments. By the way Frank, war veterans are just as capable of being anti-Americans as non-vets.

"Proof anything requires evidence...Where are those weapons you speak of?"

Wouldn't you be so disappointed if and when they are found?

Ed

PS Saddam was a WMD

Actually...I would look forward to proof of those weapons...It would mean that 300 odd Americans died for a good reason.
You just don't get it. I really don't give a ---- about winning this debate. I care about the wasted lives of those people. I car that my nephew makes it home safe or if he dies serving his country it be for a legitimate cause.
As stated earlier I backed Bush on his attack on Afganistan...Being in a FREE country means you don't have to swallow every word the president says like it was a pronouncement from on high. Did you agree with Clinton (LOL)?
And the day someone says that the price veterans pay doesn't allow them to speak in critisim of their president without committing Treason by doing so...I think it's a sorry day for freedom of speech.
Frank

PS: You are correct in calling Sadam a WMD.
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

"Actually...I would look forward to proof of those weapons...It would mean that 300 odd Americans died for a good reason."

Since you agree that Saddam was a WMD, what more do you need as proof? Doesn't that tell you that 300 Americans didn't die in vain?

"I car that my nephew makes it home safe or if he dies serving his country it be for a legitimate cause."

I hope he makes it back home safe too. I recognize that it's extremelt difficult to have a loved serving in Iraq right now. Joining the military is a roll of the dice regarding life or death, and I get it that you are highly critical of the decisions being made by the guy (Bush)who, ultimately, is responsible for your nephews well-being. I also recognize Bush's resolve to combat terrorism and I haven't heard ANYONE come up with a better approach than his, so I'm highly critical of those who criticize Bush.

"And the day someone says that the price veterans pay doesn't allow them to speak in critisim of their president without committing Treason by doing so...I think it's a sorry day for freedom of speech."

Nobody here has committed Treason Frank. Let's keep this in perspective. But it would also be a sad day if non-vets were denied the opportunity to voice their criticism of those who make false accusations about their President.

Getting back to the original point, I've yet to see how Bush is responsible for S. Florida's decline in tourism, and my focus is not on 'winning a debate".

Ed

I do appreciate a clever twinge...Touche'. But until they have caught Sadam or Osama I will hold judgement on that thought.
As to the rest...My reasoning has been amply stated and it is your right (thanks to Vets!) to draw your own conclusions. You should remember that your right to disagree I value as highly as my own......That is what the military taught me!
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Good post Frank. Touche!

Ed

Don't buy the Bush spin that the lies about Iraq are only "16 words" -- the administration lied, deceived or committed outright fraud about every single point they used to justify invading Iraq (except to say that Saddam was an evil man.)

The "16 words" spin reveals just how shameless their lies are. Short lies don't matter? Well, Clinton got impeached for just 8 words -- "I did not have sex with that woman." Even by that ridiculous standard, Bush is twice as big a liar as Bill Clinton.

The uranium allegation (the "16 words" is famous because the fraud is so obvious. That charge, which Bush stated directly in his State of the Union speech, was based on blatantly forged documents -- one purported to be from a Niger official, to himself. The Bush Administration knew they were forged. They had been told several times that the charges were false, including by our own CIA and State Department. Bush and his top aides fought to put the words back in his speech, using weaselly phrasing -- Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has actually argued that the statement wasn't a lie because Bush didn't SAY Iraq did try to buy uranium, he just said "British intelligence HAS LEARNED that they tried to buy uranium." Once again, Bush imitates Clinton, arguing about what the meaning of "is" is.

Before considering each of the dozens of individual deceptions, lies and misleading statements that Bush and his aides used to push the US into war in Iraq, let's not lose track of the big picture. The Bush administration justified war, immediate war, because alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Those weapons do not exist. They have not existed for years. The Bush adminstration knew this, because a top Iraqi defector told us this over 4 years ago, but they kept that information secret. And weapons of mass destruction were not the reason the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq. Top officials have even admitted this, saying flat out that they had other reasons but chose WMD because it was the most effective argument politicially.

There were many other deceptive charges by the Bush administration -- about unmanned drones, orders to use chemical weapons, aluminum tubes, links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, etc. But don't forget the big picture. The Bush administration knew that there were no WMD in Iraq. They deliberately and consistently lied to the American people about this, to justify war in Iraq. And 300 US soldiers have died as a result.

n/p
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

" And weapons of mass destruction were not the reason the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq. Top officials have even admitted this, saying flat out that they had other reasons but chose WMD because it was the most effective argument politicially."

"EFFECTIVE" is what it's all about. Thank you very much george bush for being practical! Bush knew the caliber of weasels he was dealing with in the UN and the with the Socialist element in this country. Who really cares what he said to the anti-Americans? He recognized what he had to do in order to sweep them out of the way. What's the problem?

Ed

PS Where's your proof that WMD don't exist?????????????????????

The Administration has said there are many reasons for invading Iraq and weapons of mass destruction is just one, some other are...

This is a war on terrorism! Iraq and Saddam's regime is very connected with terrorism. They have given 35 million to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. They had Al Queda training camps being run in Iraq, not to mention what the regime was doing to it's own people. Even if they aren't connected to 9/11 (I think they are financially) they are still a terrorist organization supporting country!

Violating UN resolutions for 12 years---and the UN doing nothing about it! Someone had to eventually stand up to this nonsense and take some action. (by the way, standing up like Bush did is VERY brave in my opinion, not cowardly like some Bush bashers like to claim is a characteristic of his. It would have been a lot easier for him to just go along with everyone else. Doing that wouldn't show any leadership at all, it would show him to be nothing more than a poll follower like Clinton was.)

Resolution 1441 was based on intelligence reports from China, Russia, Great Britain, Germany, France, the U.S. among others and everyone's intelligence was the same...They have WMDs. Even countries that opposed the war said Iraq had these weapons. Most, if not all, of these countries still stand by these intel. reports as accurate today! The UN voted unanimously for resolution 1441 based on all these intelligence reports from all these different countries. Why is repeating this to the American public a lie? Does any democrat out there who hates Bush care to explain why "Lie" has a different meaning that it did 2 years ago? Is it because Clinton got you all so confused about the definitions of "is" and "sex"? At the worst, Bush was wrong, and that is only because every countrie's intelligence reports would have also been wrong. At best, the weapons were either moved or hidden. I've heard left wing talk show hosts saying how the administration said there were 500 tons of WMDs. Think about that for a second. The average car weighs about 2 1/2 tons That's only 200 cars worth of weight. How easy would it be to hide 200 cars in California (about the same size as Iraq) by burying them? We already found a couple of fighter jets buried in the sand and only found them because of an aerial sticking up through the sand from one of them. 500 tons of WMDs is a huge amount, when talking about their potential destructive capabilities, and a very small amount when trying to locate them. The reason they are so dangerous is because they are so small and hard to locate/detect!

Resolution 1441 called for severe consequences if Iraq didn't comply. Then when everyone agreed that they didn't comply, only America and Bush took action. True leadership. The UN seems to be useless. A true paper tiger. A lot of talk with no actions to back it up.

Iraq violated many other parts of many resolutions--like the range of his missiles. This was put into the resolutions to protect his neighboring countries. Why don't democrats care about these violations? Iraq did about 20 things wrong but the only one we care about is WMDs because that gives us a reason to bash Bush?

WMD programs were a violation. We found a lot of evidence of that. So what if we didn't find WMDs? The programs themselves are a violation!

Iraq was loosing over 100 civilians a day prior to the war. (The estimates before the war were anywhere from 2,000 to 6,000 a month). Doing some simple math, the average of those estimates is 4,000 a month or about 133 people a day! America has, by initiating this war, exchanged 133 Iraqi civilian deaths a day in peacetime with about one American death a day during a war! Think about that to put some perspective on things. The U.N. even said that things were a lot worse in Iraq than they even imagined, so those estimates are low. Who, in their right mind, thinks that trading 133 lives for one death is a bad trade? If you think it is bad, is it because you are racist and think one American is worth more than 133 Iraqis? More than twice the number of military deaths in Iraq have occurred in just California due to crime in that same time period! One of the things agreed to by Iraq in the ceasefire agreement of the Gulf war was that he would stop killing his people! Another violation we shold have done something about years ago.

A lot of people had said, "Why now?". I say, "Why didn't someone take action 10 years ago when all these ceasefire agreement rules were violated?" Oh, yeah, I forgot, that was Clinton.

And on another side note, look how the military hated Clinton and loves Bush. When Bush landed on the aircraft carrier, everyone loved him. The military was proud once again. Anyone can see it in their faces. No one had to be given orders to "not create trouble" like when Clinton visited the military. The main reason some military personnel are now mad is because they were promised some leave they didn't get. That leave had to be rescinded because promises of troops from other nations were broken. Who broke those promises?--Not Bush, but the same countries that wouldn't uphold Resolution 1441 when it counted!

One last question. We already know that these fanatics want to kill us all. (They even want to kill the other sects of Islam that don't completely agree with them!) Would you rather start dealing with them today, or tomorrow when technology and WMDs are far superior to what is out there today? Frankly, I wish we had dealt with them years ago. after the U.S.S. Cole or embassy bombings and before 9/11.

Rodney

Hell of a post dude!

Ed

Now this is what I consider good debate. Rodmalm and sobek..go for it guys!
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

What did George Herbert Walker Bush, the former President, say in his book, "A World Transformed"?

I firmly believed that we should not march into Baghdad....To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter day Arab hero...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war.

Maybe someone should read Dubya his dads book for bedtime

Bush senior didn't go into Bagdad because the U.N. had a coalition of countries that was built for the exclusive purpose of getting Iraq out of Kuwait. (Remember, Iraq was trying to take over the middle east and control of its oil at that time.) Bush senior didn't want to damage that coalition by going against that U.N. resolution and invade Iraq.

Bush junior went into Iraq because the U.N. wouldn't enforce it's own resolution (1441) and because Iraq supports terrorism and this is, after all, a war on terrorism.

Both junior and senior were enforcing U.N. resolutions in both cases. How would junior reading seniors book change any of this?

Rodney

"I firmly believed that we should not march into Baghdad....To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter day Arab hero...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war."

A pre 9/11 quote. What's your point? You've taken a quote by one guy, made in one particular context (before 9/11), obviously to bash another guy in a completely different context after 9/11. Again, what's your point?

Do you think that Saddam is some kind of modern day "Arab hero", now that we have "marched into Baghdad? Only a fool would think that.

Bush Sr, by the way, hadn't declared war on terrorism, so marching into Baghdad was simply an option at that time. Bush Sr made a smart decision at that time not to do it.

Can you not understand, sobek, that meaning of comments made in one circumstance will sometimes change if the circumstances change? Bush's comments were made with regard to cirumstances prior to 9/11, therefore, his comments don't apply to the situation his son found himself in. All things are relative. Do you understand?

Regarding the "unwinnable urban guerrilla war" comment, thanks to modern technology, sanctions, and a more advanced military, Bush Jr was able to march into Baghdad and take control, in record time with an extraordinarily low casualty rate. Again, what's YOUR point?

Do you have any quotes that Bush Sr made back then regarding the rebuilding of Iraq phase, or are we supposed to pretend, like you, that Bush Sr's quote above was in regards to what's going on in Iraq right now? What's your point?

Again, what's your point? What's the problem with Bush Sr's quote? Should it be telling us something that you are seeing that no one else here sees? Do you think you are smarter than the rest? What's your point in posting this quote? What am I missing?

You've got some explaining to do.

Ed

and think the same. As soon as I posted my response, I see you posted almost the same thing. It's nice to see someone else using logic around here.

Good job Ed.

Rodney

Without taking sides on this...I would just like to make you aware of a book you may never have heard of. Mao Tse Tung:ON GUERRILLA WARFARE. How this relates to the topic is that it has been used as a blueprint for third world Guerrilla fighters since it's first publishing. In it Mao explained why the American revolution succeeeded and correctly predicted the French and the US failures in Viet Nam. Che Guevara used it as a blueprint for his operations. It's philosophies are very well thought out by a man who was Good at the art of war (even if his ideas on politics sucked). It has no doubt influenced the fighters of Middle East.
I checked and Amazon has copies.
I read this thirty years ago and the principles apply today. Check it out.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

You rock Rodney!

Ed

Its impossible to prove a negative. - just to let you know... So something can't be proven not to exist. Understand?

Joe

Exactly Joe! You CAN'T prove that they don't exixt, which means MAYBE THEY DO. Get it?

Ed

Bill Press: Don't blame it on Bill Clinton
October 18, 2001 Posted: 12:24 PM EDT (1624 GMT)

By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services

WASHINGTON (Tribune Media Services) -- Here is one of the first rules of politics: It’s not enough that I do well; I must also destroy my enemy.

Sadly, even in America’s war against terrorism, that rule still drives a lot of Republicans. I see it on the op-ed pages. I get avalanches of it in my e-mail. I hear it in their public statements. For them, it's not enough that most Americans give George W. Bush credit for doing a good job in leading the nation against Osama bin Laden. They're not satisfied unless everybody also holds Bill Clinton responsible for getting us into this mess.

Yet the evidence shows his detractors have more to answer for than he does.

The attacks of September 11 were only a few hours old when conservative Congressman Dana Rohrbacher, R-California, blamed Clinton, not the terrorists: “We had Bill Clinton, backing off, letting the Taliban go, over and over again.”

Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh trumpeted on the pages of the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Clinton can be held culpable for not doing enough when he was commander-in-chief to combat the terrorists who wound up attacking the World Trade Center and Pentagon.”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who resigned in disgrace, also chimed in, citing Clinton’s “pathetically weak, ineffective ability to focus and stay focused.”

Don't you love it? Gingrich and company derail the president and the country for two whole years over a minor sex scandal in the White House -- magnifying one act of oral sex into a full time, $50 million Independent Counsel investigation, weeks of House Judiciary Committee hearings, impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate -- and then they accuse Clinton of not staying focused on government business!

Have they no shame?

The truth, of course, is just the opposite. Given how distracted he was by the Lewinsky scandal, (which was of his own making, but blown out of proportion by his political enemies), it’s amazing Clinton was able to continue governing at all. And during that time, as The Washington Post reveals, he did a great deal to combat terrorism, much of it behind the scenes.

Clinton’s most public response, of course, were the cruise missile attacks of 1998, directed against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Sudan, following the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Operating on limited intelligence -- at that time, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to share information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan -- U. S. strikes missed bin Laden by only a couple of hours.

Even so, Clinton was accused of only firing missiles in order to divert media attention from the Lewinsky hearings. A longer campaign would have stirred up even more criticism.

So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas.

Those actions, we knew about. Others, we did not, until recently. Starting in 1998, for example, Clinton gave the CIA a green light to use whatever covert means were necessary to gather information on Osama bin Laden and his followers, and to disrupt and preempt any planned terrorist activities against the United States.

As part of that effort, the CIA, under Clinton, trained and equipped some 60 commandos from Pakistan to enter Afghanistan and capture bin Laden. The operation collapsed when Pakistan experienced a military coup and a new government took over.

In 1998, Clinton also signed a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to begin joint covert operations against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces have been training there ever since, which is why the Pentagon was immediately able to use Uzbekistan as a staging area for forays into Afghanistan.

Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In 1996, his administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart.

Conclusion: Rohrbacher, Limbaugh, Gingrich are dead wrong when they blame Bill Clinton for September 11. Did Clinton get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive?” No, but he came close, several times -- long before tracking down terrorists became a national priority.

Clinton was responsible for weakening the US military over his eight years in the White House. He created a climate of vulnerability in the US. Unfortunately, Bush wasn't in office long enough to clean up Clinton's messy legacy by the time 9/11 happened. Terrorists love a guy like Bill Clinton. Clinton neglected the defense of our country in favor of his Socialist agenda. Terrorists love a weak America. The two had something in common. Face it, Billy Boy sucked!

Ed

Good job Rodney.

Ed

>>This is an open discussion.
>>-----
>>----------
>>Some things are too hot to touch,
>>the human mind can only stand so much
>>You can't win, with a losing hand.-dylan

` Hell, I can't resist that one.
` I mean, I try hard to stay out of pointless babble.
` That question is just too much for my self control.
`
` So: I think our current president Bush affects the "reptile world" by making reptiles look intelligent, and selfless, by comparison.

` Dylan also said," I'll let you be in my dream, if I can be in yours."
-----

Hey since we're talking wwIII I think someone said
"Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
Some of the people can be all right part of the time.
But all the people can't be all right all the time"
I agree with you.

Profound!

Ed

No. Pointless!

WOW!

Ed

What did I say that wasnt compliant with the forum rules? I slandered no one. I made nonspecific genrealizations about no group/ establishment in particular. All my swear words were edited(as they would have been anyways). Whats the deal??? What rule did I break??

>>What did I say that wasnt compliant with the forum rules? I slandered no one. I made nonspecific genrealizations about no group/ establishment in particular. All my swear words were edited(as they would have been anyways). Whats the deal??? What rule did I break??

Being lucky enough to have read your post before it got yanked, I think I know what the problem is. Since the moderators have made it very clear to the people on this forum in the past that cussin' ain't allowed I believe it quite obvious what rules you broke.

TOS:

"Posting obscene materials, profanity, or racial, sexual, personal, or religious slurs to this website are violations"

"Any attempts to thwart profanity, website, URL, or other filters, or any other security features on our site, are a violation"

That you made a direct attempt to thwart the profanity filter by masking parts of some words that the site apparently wishes to filter out completely is probably what got the post pulled. Many websites frown on "masked" vulgarity and profanity because it is still very obvious what word you were hoping/wanting to use and children do play on the forums.

:::shrug:::
-----
Wraith/Zephyr

Thanks. Im used to seeing this style of expression/editing used at other KS forums, so I hadnt thought of it being wrong. I guess since this forum is so much smaller, that its noticed easier.

Thanks for responding! Ill have to be more creative with my written expressiveness next time!
~Michelle

n/p
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."