Could this have accelerated the decision to go to Iraq?

Originally posted by GigaShadow
First of all terrorists don\'t prescribe to international law so fighting them with "law" is pointless.  If we do nothing we look weak to those terrorists and it only encourages them to attack us again - sooner rather than later.  

I should point out that liberals tend to want to discuss things rather than act.  They lack the stomach to follow through with force when it is called for.  Unfortunately terrorists don\'t like to sit down at tables to settle their problems.  The faith I have in our military power is much more solid than my faith in diplomacy.  Diplomacy does not work with terrorists and it certainly didn\'t work with Saddam.

I would hardly call invading Iraq an emotional response.  A diplomatic solution was attempted, but it failed.  In times such as these we need people in power who are decisive and will act if we are attacked or if there is an immenent threat to our country.

No criminal observes the law, terrorist or otherwise; that\'s what makes them a criminal.  When we enforce the law, we need to observe it ourselves, lest we be accused of being criminals ourselves.  What\'s wrong with that reasoning?  I have no objection to a legal, rational retaliation to an attack, such as our invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow of the Taliban.  It\'s our illegal actions such as a preemptive invasion of Iraq that are in question here.

Your accusation that liberals "lack the stomach to follow through with force..." is a little insulting.  Are you saying that conservatives are more manly than liberals?  That\'s a weak and shortsighted argument.  I see it more as a difference in intellectual problem solving.  When a short-sighted person is attacked, the reaction is to look one step ahead; "We must strike back."  If we suspect someone is going to attack us, "We must destroy them first" even though such an action may be illegal and cause us harm in the long run.

When a more thoughtful person is attacked, they might consider "What outcome do I want that will benefit me the most?  If I take x action, my opponent will probably take y action, and what will happen next?  What action should I take which will end in the most beneficial state for me?"  It often seems to me that such considered wisdom is entirely absent from our executive branch at the moment.

Originally posted by Coredweller
Your accusation that liberals "lack the stomach to follow through with force..." is a little insulting.  Are you saying that conservatives are more manly than liberals?  That\'s a weak and shortsighted argument.  I see it more as a difference in intellectual problem solving.  When a short-sighted person is attacked, the reaction is to look one step ahead; "We must strike back."  If we suspect someone is going to attack us, "We must destroy them first" even though such an action may be illegal and cause us harm in the long run.

When a more thoughtful person is attacked, they might consider "What outcome do I want that will benefit me the most?  If I take x action, my opponent will probably take y action, and what will happen next?  What action should I take which will end in the most beneficial state for me?"  It often seems to me that such considered wisdom is entirely absent from our executive branch at the moment.

So what you are saying is liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.  I find that quite insulting as well - but since I am more manly than you I shall beat you upon the head with my club.  As the saying goes... "the meek won\'t inherit shit, cause I\'ll take it."

Back to the topic... I feel that our adminstration has shown foresight in dealing with Iraq.  It solved an eventual problem - you see it as creating more problems.  By your rational there is no solution.  The invasion of Iraq was not illegal - Saddam\'s numerous UN Resolution violations were illegal.  He was given ample opportunity to avoid war, but he chose not to.

[clips]

Originally posted by GigaShadow
So what you are saying is liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.  I find that quite insulting as well - but since I am more manly than you I shall beat you upon the head with my club.  As the saying goes... "the meek won\'t inherit shit, cause I\'ll take it."

Back to the topic... I feel that our adminstration has shown foresight in dealing with Iraq.  It solved an eventual problem - you see it as creating more problems.  By your rational there is no solution.  The invasion of Iraq was not illegal - Saddam\'s numerous UN Resolution violations were illegal.  He was given ample opportunity to avoid war, but he chose not to.

problem there..when saddam was fully complying with the inspectors..(letting them go wherever they wanted) bush stated it was too late for that...and no wmd\'s yet..it\'s been over a year already..and that small amount that was found before the gulf war doesn\'t count

[Titan]

If we have good intelligence that someone is going to attack, I say we strike their MILITARY targets before they get us (unless its terrorists, then I say kill the terrorists). It will save many lives, possibly on both sides, in a preemptive strike. As for the North Korea conflict right now and not preemptive strike; would we really want to fight two wars right now? We are struggling with Iraq now and a great percentage of our forces are there. We have thousands of troops in Korea now just incase (last I heard atleast). We can\'t afford two wars right now. Lets finish in Iraq first or atleast get it stable so we can get more men to Korea. I can see us at war with Korea within 10 years, sooner if Bush is re-elected. I\'m for diplomacy. If it doesn\'t work, attack but I don\'t think we should spend all this time on diplomacy. Send our troops to the borders and tell the leader "we have thousands of troops at your border ready to attack. Now let us sit down and discuss this or they will be on your ass like Racer in the shower".

Originally posted by GigaShadow
I have not heard the President or anyone in the administration say there was a direct link between Iraq and the events of 9/11 yet apparently, the media seems to think they did.

Thats because it was implied. To say that because he did not say "Saddam was involved in 9/11" directly then he is in the clear is bullshit and you know it. When ALL of the post 9/11 jingoism was war on terror/taliban/al qaeda and you say (direct quote) "The war on terror is....You can\'t distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda when you talk about the war on terror" you are saying to the general public that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Whether directly or indirectly it is the same thing.

If I implied that I had a weapon and robbed a liquor store I would STILL go to jail. Just because I technically did not lie does not make what I did right.

Your statement is an insult to everyone here\'s intelligence(including your own).

Originally posted by Black Samurai

Your statement is an insult to everyone here\'s intelligence(including your own).

Apparently you don\'t read the news.  The President has clearly stated the opposite.  There was no link between 9/11 and Saddam.  This all stems from the media distorting the final report from the 9/11 Commission.  

Your rabid jargon on what the war on terrorism is and implication shows your lack of understanding of what I said.  Some in the media are claiming the administration went to war with Iraq because they (the adminstration) stated there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq.  I said they never made that statement and this is true.  Implied or not - they never made that accusation.  A case could be made that there was indeed a connecton and it wouldn\'t be hard to make, but it doesn\'t matter since I am not dealing with theories.

^^^Bush has clearly stated the opposite?!?! WTF?

In his speech, Bush noted that "some citizens wonder why it is necessary to confront Iraq now: There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of Sept. 11." Bush then went on to adduce evidence of linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Also Dick Cheney has suggested a link between Iraq and 9/11 MANY times.

Of course the media is at fault for twisting Dubya and the Veep\'s obviously misunderstood words. :rolleyes:

I love revisionist history.