God Bless the United States...

[Nbadan]

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public"

-Theodore Roosevelt (1918 editorial after W. Wilson cracked down on WW1 dissent)

[travis2]

You know, lets stop the ing bull !


THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT GO AROUND DOING THINGS IN THIS WORLD UNLESS THERE IS AN UNDERLYING REASON WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT WILL GIVE YOU WARM FUZZIES.

I'm sick of the way the military actions of this country are always sold as some noble crusade where we are off to save the world.

We do things that have beneficial consequences, and I am not denying that. There are definetly people in Iraq who are now better off because of our actions.

But the fact remains that we will do less than desirable things to innocent people across the globe whenever it suits our goals, short sighted and noble. We did not go into Iraq to save the masses, we went in for other reasons. So don't try and sell the operation as a humanitarian one, it's ing insulting.

What other reasons? Oil? That conspiracy theory was trashed ages ago. If you are stupid enough to continue to spread that lie, then we will trash your opinions too.

No terrorist ties? Oops...that one is heading for the trash can too.

Why don't you stop the ing bull (your words). Instead of whining like a 6-year-old girl about what somehow you are owed, get off your fat ass and do something for others. How about enlisting? Or get your degree and go to OTS? Then maybe you'll actually learn something about the military instead of spewing garbage about it.

[MannyIsGod]

What other reasons? Oil? That conspiracy theory was trashed ages ago. If you are stupid enough to continue to spread that lie, then we will trash your opinions too.

Wait Wait. You're saying oil hasn't played the largest reason for going to war in Iraq? THE ENTIRE REASON WE HAVE ANY MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE PERSIAN GULF REGION IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO OIL!!!!!

There is a reason we don't go "save" people in places like Rawanda and the Ivory Coast Travis, and that's because they don't have that we need.

No terrorist ties? Oops...that one is heading for the trash can too.

Oh you mean like the ties that are linked to the government in Saudia Arabia and Pakistan, 2 of our supposed Allies????? So are those countries next to be invaded? , why don't we go save all of the oppressed Saudis Travis?

Why don't you stop the ing bull (your words). Instead of whining like a 6-year-old girl about what somehow you are owed, get off your fat ass and do something for others.

Want to compare our resume of volunteer hours over the past year Trav? I'm all up for seeing which one of us has done more helping of others.

How about enlisting? Or get your degree and go to OTS? Then maybe you'll actually learn something about the military instead of spewing garbage about it.

Spewing garbage about the military? No dumbass, I'm pissed off by the way the military is used. But of course, as was discussed previously in this thread, you have trouble seperating those 2.

As for enlisting, no. Why on earth would I go to an organization that I feel is being misused in the largest way?

[Yonivore]

Wait Wait. You're saying oil hasn't played the largest reason for going to war in Iraq? THE ENTIRE REASON WE HAVE ANY MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE PERSIAN GULF REGION IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO OIL!!!!!

Stability in the oil-producing regions means economic stability which means means national stability which translates into national security...it's not just that there's oil in them thar sand dunes, it's that we have, like it or not, a global economy that depends, in large part, on the free trade of petroleum -- not extortive trade such as would be the case if we DIDN'T have a presence in the Gulf region (just ask Jimmy Carter what happens when you let that region run roughshod over you -- I remember gas lines).

Some day that will change, but not on a dime...And, what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan (liberating the people and introducing self-determined government - in addition to weaking global terrorism and their supportive regimes), is the only way to ensure that we can, in the future, deal with the region diplomatically instead of militarily.

There is a reason we don't go "save" people in places like Rawanda and the Ivory Coast Travis, and that's because they don't have that we need.

Fair enough...but, on the other hand, should that prevent us from engaging, altruistically, in regions where we do gain some national benefit? And, on a similar note, name one other nation on the globe that does either -- goes to the Rwandas and Darfurs and Ivory Coasts without any ambition of self-gain...or, goes to the Afghanistans, Iraqs, Bosnias, on missions of relief where they too, didn't reap a benefit....

Oh you mean like the ties that are linked to the government in Saudia Arabia and Pakistan, 2 of our supposed Allies????? So are those countries next to be invaded? , why don't we go save all of the oppressed Saudis Travis?

I would argue that our relationship with Pakistan is a strained accommodation as opposed to an alliance and that in Saudi Arabia, our gripe is more with the unruly Mullahs and Islamic Extremists than with the obviously out of touch (and out of control) Monarchy. And, I see our relationship with Pakistan deteriorating in direct proportion to the stabilization of Afghanistan. Also, I see the Saudi Government becoming much more pro-active in reigning in their terrorist element.

Just read the news sometime..

But, as to terrorist ties between Iraq and al Qaeda or other global terrorist organizations...let me direct your attention to this tidbit from David Kay. Remember him? The left was all atwitter over the release of his report when they mischaracterized his words by claiming he reported there was absolutely, positively, without a doubt, no link between Iraq and al Qaeda?

"We know there were terrorist groups in state [Iraq] still seeking WMD capability. Iraq, although I found no weapons, had tremendous capabilities in this area. A marketplace phenomenon was about to occur, if it did not occur; sellers meeting buyers. And I think that would have been dangerous if the war had not intervened."

Just because you're adept at taking out-of-context quotes (in the case of reporting on the final David Kay report) or totally ignoring quotes (in the case of the above), and just becuase the news sources you choose to listen to doesn't mention these things, and just because you don't read the source do ent on which your news sources base their "reports," doesn't mean those things weren't true or not said...think about it.

I've read the Kay report and it demonstrates that Saddam Hussein was continuing to develop WMD's, that he may have had them as late as two months prior to invasion, that he WAS engaging terrorist organizations, that he WAS allowing various terrorist organizations to operate within Iraq, etc...

It's a fascinating report, you should read it sometime.

[desflood]

The military's principle purpose is to kill enemy combatants and to destroy enemy assets. Period.

However, having said that, the photo demonstrates our military has other uses...and, we're damn good at it.

Recall the Revolutionary War. The rude military formed then. The purpose was to ensure that all civilians would be allowed to keep the basic freedoms. That is what they do now. The difference is, they are doing it in another country.

[dcole50]

And, yet, you oppose the Iraq operation...where we're fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves.

There are people being oppressed all over the world. We can't invade every nation where this is present.

[Yonivore]

There are people being oppressed all over the world. We can't invade every nation where this is present.

True, that's why we pick the ones that pose a clear security risk to our nation.