It is statements like these that show how much influence the media has on what perspectives most US citizens have on the current war in Iraq. How could you say that Iraq had no terrorist connections when it contained(s) the largest Al-Qaeda training camps? Yes, Saddam and Bin Laden didn't care much for each other but so what? Does that get Saddam off the hook?
No WMD's? Give me a break! There are Iraqi generals who have testified that Iraq and Saddam did have WMD's and they were shipped out the back door to countries like Syria before the war started. If people want to believe Saddam had no WMD's at all, then let them think that. Everyone wants to believe that we would have seen WMD's crossing the borders. WMD's don't have to be huge missiles that can be seen from a mile. You can carry WMD's in a backpack if you have to.
Finding Bin Laden is irrelevant really.
Al-Qaeda is falling, and not because of political debates on Capitol Hill, but because of the fine work being done by our boys and girls over in the desert. Don't kid yourselves that diplomacy is the only answer. Diplomacy died a long time ago.
So has my view changed? Absolutely not! Take the blinders off people and open your eyes to what is happening. The Middle East, with the exception of Iran, and possibly Syria and Palestine, aren't going to be ignorant enough to pump their chests in defiance of the US and boldly state they have terrorist training camps and WMD's anymore.
Do you feel safer walking down the street, of flying in an airplane, or visiting a foreign country? I certainly do. Going to war may not be the obvious choice to enforce liberties, but sometimes it is a necessary choice.
Comments: Hi, Republicans Warmongers? No! "PARTY" has nothing to do with being a warmonger. Republicans are the Most patriotic party when it comes to War though. The Democrats are the most unpatriotic of the Lot, why? Because "Most" Democrats come from a Liberal point of View, And just what is Liberal point of View? one word "SELFISHNESS", In a case of Wars, they cannot see why we must be the ones to be involved in helping other countries of the World who are asking for our help. Democrats could care less about other Countries like Vietnam,Iraq,etc.They cannot see or will not see why we are "MORALLY" Obligated to help any country in need of help from "OPPRESSION" instead, they call REPUBLICANS WARMONGERS ..... Democrats have forgotten what "AMERICA" stands for, And what is that? It's, LIFE, "LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" And this is not just for AMERICA ALONE..... IT'S A GOD GIVEN RIGHT for ALL.
Tom Daschle in 1998
Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -
Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power
International Level: Politician / Political Participation: 109 10.9%
Name: Elizabeth H.
Subject: American politics
Message: The U.S. incursion in Syria shows to what lengths Republicans will go to win an election. We've known the situation in Syria for at least a year, but Bush chose NOW to invoke fear in us so we'd vote for a war horse. The lives of people on both sides were simply collateral damage. McCain also has this mentality as his ugly & fallacious attacks on Obama illustrate. As usual, Republicans rely on the stupidity of people, but we're waking up.
Barbary Wars US vs Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli
War 1812 US vs Great Britain
Creek War US vs Creek Indians
War of Texas US vs Mexico
Mexican War US vs Mexico
Vietnam War (started under Democrat President...ended under Republican)
Bay of Pigs
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Civil War US vs US
Spanish War US vs Spain
Invasion of Panama
Persian Gulf War
Invasion of Afghanistan
Invasion of Iraq
These are only the major wars that have been fought. There were many more operations against Indians throughout the US history. So, no, the Republicans do not hold a monopoly over war in the US History. Yes, the Democrat/Republican party did exist early in US history for about 25 years.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 86.3%
I would say no it is not the parties agenda to be at war. I think it is the individual person and what the world is like when they are in office. If something happened that place us in the need of defending ourselfs or a ally from a threat then we should go to war. We should not be just going to war because this party is on power. If that was the case they would never be elected.
Is it Time to Disband the Republican Party?
By Mike Whitney
The truth is, the Republicans are simply a party adrift, lacking both purpose and vision. The main problem is that it is extremely hard to rally support for a platform which includes just two planks; war and tax cuts. Ref. Source 8