igloo Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. A prelude to war, that is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, the prime minister of Australia, John Howard, says this: "If Iraq isn't effectively disarmed, not only could she use her chemical and biological weapons against her own people again and also other countries, but other rogue states will be encouraged to believe that they too can join the weapons of mass destruction league. That will multiply the likelihood of terrorist groups laying hands on such weapons. The consequences for mankind would be horrific." Mr. Howard, of course, is right. Failure to disarm Saddam -- and the U.N. inspectors simply can't do that -- is setting up a potential disaster that could alter the world forever. The chance is simply not worth taking. Saddam has to go. Now, no matter how much logic is used or how many articles are written, some in the world will support -- will not support, I should say, the removal of Saddam. And we've gone over the reasons which are primarily financial, France making billions from oil contracts and ideological. Here's an example of that. The singer Sheryl Crow is a big anti-war proponent, but in 1997 Ms. Crow traveled to Bosnia with Hillary Clinton to entertain American troops. Ms. Crow wholeheartedly supported American military action in the Balkans, as did I. So what has changed, Sheryl? Milosevic was a villain who allowed his army to rape and murder civilians. Saddam does the same thing. And Saddam has weapons far worse than anything Milosevic had. And we didn't get a U.N. mandate to bomb Belgrade. What say you, Sheryl Crow?This kind of selective outrage is bogus and we all know it, but there are Americans who are sincere in their dissent and once again we respect that. However, once the war against Saddam begins, we expect every American to support our military and if they can't do that, to shut up. Americans and, indeed, our allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway will be considered enemies of the state by me. Just fair warning to you, Barbara Streisand, and others who see the world as you do. We don't want to demonize anyone, but anyone who hurts this country at a time like this, well, let's just say you will be spotlighted. Talking Points welcomes all points of view and believes vigorous debate strengthens the country, but once decisions have been made and lives are on the line, patriotism must be factored in. This does not give the government carte blanche to do everything, but it does give the government the benefit of the doubt, at least until that benefit is proven wrong, as it was in Vietnam. We are all Americans here, and those fighting in our name deserve our loyalty until the time we are proven wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmahs Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 I saw that last night, like always great show! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 good shit...i totally agree...if u are against the war...then u have every right to...but we as Americans and as people who JUST LIVE HERE...have to come together...we all say that we dont want another Vietnam...well on top of many other reasons, Vietnam was a disaster b/c of the way the American people treated our American soldiers during combat and when they came back...SUPPORT OUR TROOPS...during the war and afterwards as well....just my .02 cents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 Sassa? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 Originally posted by igloo Sassa? Yes...my dear Republican friend, Igloo....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 Originally posted by sassa Yes...my dear Republican friend, Igloo....? Dear?....friend?..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepak1977 Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 Originally posted by igloo the prime minister of Australia, John Howard, says this: "If Iraq isn't effectively disarmed, not only could she use her chemical and biological weapons against her own people again and also other countries, but other rogue states will be encouraged to believe that they too can join the weapons of mass destruction league. That will multiply the likelihood of terrorist groups laying hands on such weapons. The consequences for mankind would be horrific." Mr. Howard, of course, is right. Failure to disarm Saddam -- and the U.N. inspectors simply can't do that -- is setting up a potential disaster that could alter the world forever. is saddam a real threat to the us or his neighbors? a bigger threat to the saftey of americans than say: al qaeda, north korea, or the dwindling economy?saddam hussien has been a force in iraqi politics for over 30 years, and he has invaded only two countries in that time. that hardley makes him the hitler (who invaded far more countries in a 1/10 of the time it took saddam to invade iran) the media makes him to be. saddam is more of a stalinist dictator, a dictator that is more concerned with controling what he has than creating an empire.iraq did invade iran, however iran was the aggressor . the iranian revolutionary government tried to assinate top iraqi officials and conducted border raids. the iranian government tried to promote communalism among iraq's ethnic groups. ayatollah ruhollah khamenei, made it no secret that he wanted to spread the islamic revolution to iraq, afterall that's where he was in exile during the shah's regime. it was also no coincidence that saddam invaded a country that had a weakened military after the revolution and was diplomatically isolated from the rest of the world. maybe iran wouldn't be invaded, had the ayatollahs didn't throw most of the top army generals in jail after the revolution?as for kuwait, the two nations did have issues with one another over oil prices and war debts. the invasion only occured after the first bush administration stated that we will not interfere in inter-arab issues. bush could've easily prevented the invasion, however he needed to wag the dog.saddam hussien's has only attacked when he felt vulnerable and he felt he can defeat his enemy. all of his victims, whether they be iranians, kuwaitis, or the kurd were all undermatched and isolated. he never used weapons of mass destruction against those who he know can equally retaliate with their own weapons of mass destruction. he lobbed missiles at tel aviv, because israel did not retaliated-in order to keep america's arab coalition in the gulf war. this time around things are different. ariel sharon has made it no secret that israel will attack back. israel has the weapons' technology to wipe out iraq. we all know, saddam is more concerned about keeping his power in iraq than destroying israel.is he a threat to his neighbors, when turkey, saudi arabia, and israel have recieved massive military aid from the us? or iran, who has a reformist government that is more concerned about their domestic agenda than spreading the revolution. jordan and iraq share an open border, where tons of people cross the border everyday. he didn't invade jordan. if he is a threat to his neighbors, why did we bribe the turks to allow us to put military bases? the kurds in the north and the shi'as of the south are far safer now from saddam's forces, that there is a no fly zone. And we've gone over the reasons which are primarily financial, France making billions from oil contracts and ideological. Here's an example of that. if it's wrong for france to profit from saddam's regime-which it is-then it's wrong for cheney to profit off saddam's regime too. infact, when he was ceo of halliburton, he violated american laws in making oil contracts with the iraqi government. i guess that's "unamerican" to point out the hypocracy of the bush administration or about corporations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 deepak..I respect your views, and you obviously speak from conviction..But I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusions....I am not debating your data, but your conclusions....The threat of Iraq is not just invading Kuwait again, but of a world that offers the US an enemy of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction, which is a lethal reality that slapped us in the face on 9/11.....You need to frame your conclusions differently, with a post-9/11 context....too many people dismiss the fact that this changed everything....Also, you speak of N Korea.....a major problem is universally agreed....I ask then--do you want the US and the ME to be facing a similar situation with Iraq?Also, I find it hypocritical that those who point to N Korea are the same who call for inaction on Iraq because N Korea is a "bigger" threat...does that mean you ignore Iraq?.....does that mean if Iraq was not a problem, you would support military conflict in Korea?Why don't people understand that al-Qaeda is relentless in their pursuit of WMD?....where do you think the links will be made? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 O'Reilly is a genious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 Originally posted by igloo Dear?....friend?..... can't you tell when someone is dripping sarcasm...of course you're not a dear friend, i was being cynical... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 Originally posted by sassa can't you tell when someone is dripping sarcasm...of course you're not a dear friend, i was being cynical... you seem to do alot of dripping over Igloos posts.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 Originally posted by dnice35 you seem to do alot of dripping over Igloos posts.... enough is enough. if you don't have anything logical or intelligent to say, then mind your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 It is so obvious Sassa wants me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 Originally posted by igloo It is so obvious Sassa wants me thats nothing to brag about bro..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 Originally posted by igloo It is so obvious Sassa wants me i'd rather have sex with a cow than even think of looking towards your direction... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 Originally posted by sassa i'd rather have sex with a cow than even think of looking towards your direction... I bet you anything the cow doesnt make you drip as much as Igloo does.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 Originally posted by dnice35 I bet you anything the cow doesnt make you drip as much as Igloo does.... Just fell off my chair in laughter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepak1977 Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 Originally posted by igloo The threat of Iraq is not just invading Kuwait again, but of a world that offers the US an enemy of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction, which is a lethal reality that slapped us in the face on 9/11.....what does weapons of mass destruction-ie nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons-have to with 9/11, when the hijackers used boxcutters and shaving equipment? there are ways other than "wmd" to cause mass destruction, any smart terrorist would be more interested in looking at those methods, than going for the convential crap.none of the 9/11 terrorists had any affiliation with any rouge state, especially not iraq. the 9/11 ring leader, muhammed atta was an egyptian- egypt is an american ally w/an autocratic regime-and lived in germany, hardley a "rouge state". 15 of them came from saudi arabia, a percieved "ally" of the us. saudi arabia is a state that has been a prime sponser of radical islam. yet, downtown riyadh will not be carpet bombed. the 9/11 terrorists didn't do it in the name of a country, they did it in the name of al qaeda, a highly decentralized organization that is spread out over 60 countries. it does not make sense to bomb random nations in the hunt for al qaeda, when they are spread out. in the context of 9/11, i do not see iraq as a threat, since saddam's regime does not support al qaeda or other islamic terrorists. for saddam to do such a thing, would be suicide, and i said before saddam's first and formost goal is to protect his power. if 9/11, taught us anything, it is that this is something we cannot bomb ourselves out of.Also, you speak of N Korea.....a major problem is universally agreed....I ask then--do you want the US and the ME to be facing a similar situation with Iraq?Also, I find it hypocritical that those who point to N Korea are the same who call for inaction on Iraq because N Korea is a "bigger" threat...does that mean you ignore Iraq?.....does that mean if Iraq was not a problem, you would support military conflict in Korea?as i have stated in my preivous post, iraq does not propose a threat to it's neighbors or the us. saddam is not going to attack you, unless he percieves you to be a threat and he knows you're weak & isolated. since the end of the first gulf war, his neighbors got significantly stronger, while he has gotten weaker. saddam is a psychotic dictator, but he's not stupid. he isn't going to attack israel, when he knows israel has bigger and better nukes than he ever recieved from the united states. plus israel WILL attack iraq if they attack israel.as for north korea, they're actually seen as threat to their neighbors. the japanese are panicking, the south koreans are angry at the administration for not paying attention, and the chinese are trying their best to negotiate. for north korea, this is their only chip to play with, they do not want to be another iraq, especially since bush labeled them as a part of the "axis of evil". the north koreans want to have an agreement, where in return for not launching a pre-emptive strike, they will disarm. bush needs to negotiate with the north koreans and handle their threat, before even thinking about iraq. it's not easy, especially when dealing with the "hermit state", but it has been done before. north korea needs to be addressed, because they're an ACTUAL THREAT, the us still hasn't made the case for iraq. Why don't people understand that al-Qaeda is relentless in their pursuit of WMD?....where do you think the links will be made? who needs weapons of mass destruction, when you have BOXCUTTERS!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted March 2 Author Report Share Posted March 2 deepak...you are lost son....you have provided nothing but an appeasement arguement for Iraq...And you state the obvious way too much....try and expand your thinking....One question for you: If the 9/11 hijackers had more than just box cutters....than what?..Second question: DO you actually believe al-Qaeda is not pursuing WMD....you are very naiveOne suggestion for you: Learn more about al-Qaeda, its roots, its affiliations, and how states interact with them....your depth on this is very limited Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepak1977 Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 Originally posted by igloo you are lost son....you have provided nothing but an appeasement arguement for Iraq... nobody is appeasing anybody, because the un had not allowed saddam to invade another country. despite what you think of the inspections, they did strip iraq's military capabilities and prevented iraq from building even more military arsenal. if iraq's military capabilities are such a threat to the region, then why did turkey refuse to allow american military on it's shores, despite of the fact it would recieve over $30billion?One question for you: If the 9/11 hijackers had more than just box cutters....than what?..Second question: DO you actually believe al-Qaeda is not pursuing WMD....you are very naivesure there is a worry about the possibility of al-qaeda of aquiring weapons of mass destruction, especially if things get worse in pakistan. however, we have gotten to obcessed with the possibility of their persuit of wmd's, that we forget that the world trade center was brought down by conventional means, as well as the bombings in bali, southern philippines, and other acts of terrorism.One suggestion for you: Learn more about al-Qaeda, its roots, its affiliations, and how states interact with them....your depth on this is very limited /B]the three states that have fully and openly supported the creation and rise of al-qaeda are: saudi arabia, pakistan, and the us. however, using your twisted logic that supporting terrorist was good thing as long as they were killing the big bad commies. nevermind, that we completley ignored the moderates in afghanistan who too wanted the soviets out of afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted March 2 Author Report Share Posted March 2 Just read a book....go do some research, and then get back to me...Also, where you are going with "sure there is a worry about the possibility of al-qaeda of aquiring weapons of mass destruction, especially if things get worse in pakistan. however, we have gotten to obcessed with the possibility of their persuit of wmd's, that we forget that the world trade center was brought down by conventional means, as well as the bombings in bali, southern philippines, and other acts of terrorism..What the hell are you talking about?...no one forgot anything about how 9/11 was conducted..the point is to stop them from getting their hands on things that would expand their destruction capability...Seriously, go do some homework Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted March 2 Author Report Share Posted March 2 " using your twisted logic that supporting terrorist was good thing as long as they were killing the big bad commies. BTW--don't twist my words or underlying spirit of what I said..this statement is a clear demonstration of your depth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeacasta2 Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 Originally posted by igloo Just read a book....go do some research, and then get back to me...Seriously, go do some homework Instead of presenting a counter argument to keep things constructive you resort to petty insults. You're so fucking boring, even a boomerang wouldn't come back to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeacasta2 Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 Originally posted by igloo BTW--don't twist my words or underlying spirit of what I said..this statement is a clear demonstration of your depth You're one to talk about depth. You wouldn't have an opinion if O'reilly didn't give it to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted March 3 Author Report Share Posted March 3 Originally posted by georgeacasta2 You're one to talk about depth. You wouldn't have an opinion if O'reilly didn't give it to you. What a joke......I see you are looking for membership in the imbecile brigade.....don't sweat it!--You will get in with no problem....And you reference to depth....nice try....It is not my job to "educate" some of the peeps here...I am not insulting anyone--I am simply stating that before people pop off here about shit, they should at least know what they are talking about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.