Reply With Quote
I guess the question I'd have for you is: When did they reveal their plan to finish the job? Troop replenishment? Exit strategy?
The plan is that there is no plan...
Yeah, we are divided, but honestly spurswoman, do you see us withdrawing and ending this war prematurely? Part of me wants this so bad, cuz I could give a about fighting for Iraqi freedom when mine is being eroded.
But I don't see us withdrawing from Iraq....and all i hear from the lefties is hope that we will withdraw...
We'll finish the job.
I guess the question I'd have for you is: When did they reveal their plan to finish the job? Troop replenishment? Exit strategy?
The plan is that there is no plan...
Well, it wouldn't have if Clinton had gone ahead with it in 1993.
Well, Clinton was convinced, as late as 2000, that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. If was Clinton, in 1998, that declared that regime change in Iraq was the U.S. objective.
War isn't waged on a poll.
You haven't been paying attention.
When Iraq is capable of handling it's own security, we leave. Or, if asked to do so by the Iraqi government.
The car bombing, yesterday, was a positive development in that direction. Yes, 20 people were killed but, were you also aware that it was Iraqi security forces that repelled the attempt, by the terrorists, to storm the hotel and take a bunch of foreign journalists hostage? American troops arrived after the intial combat was completed and all terrorists were dead or captured.
Quite a difference from what the Iraqi Security Forces were capable of just a year ago.
Yeah, and over the course of the clinton administration and the bush adminstration, the congress/senate's authority of declaring war has lessened, while the executive branch's has increased.
Clinton did make attacks on several of hussein's strategic bases, I remember seein that on Channel One (lol)
...because of the freedoms we have that enable us to prosper, like if they weren't living under the oppression they were living under they might eventually be able to enjoy the same freedoms and revolt was what I was getting at. Yonivore said it better, obviously.
I'm still pissed User got the UPS seat upgrade tonight at the game in my seats...so I've been a little distracted, sorry.
Well, gee, if you'd just listen to the President, this is what he's been saying...I didn't pull this out of my ass.
But a state that feels threatened due to loss of power experiences a political threat, and what you seemed to say was the people as a whole + the state just hate america because it's against their national religion and they all want us dead.
Only when he needed a distraction from domestic "affairs."
No, the "people" hate us because we're told that do by al Jazeera and the rest of the biased media.
Talk to a few soldiers serving in Afghanistan or Iraq. They'll tell you the "people" love America. Did you see the posters of President Bush and the Iraq President, together, being held by voters last weekend?
It is plausible, but that doesn't make it right.
The only way we will win this war and be able to say that we won a "just" war is if the democracy we intend to set up actually works, which remains to be seen.
We are already "unjust" in the pre-emptive strike we engaged in, because the assumptions we made and gave to the public turned out to be false.
Lefties and skeptics pop up right around this area, when the Administration conveniently shifted the war's goal/reason when we found no WMD's.
Libya felt threatened and straightened up their act.
Syria felt threatened and left Lebanon...only to that up by assassinating a national hero.
Saudi Arabia is being more cooperative.
Egypt is loosening it's grip on the political process there.
And on and on and on.
Do you remember who the big dog, in the middle east, was -- prior to 1990? Yep. Iraq, everybody was afraid of Iraq. Taking them down has created a vaccuum of power in that region. Iran is threatening to fill the void but only if we're unsuccessful in transforming the region.
If Iraq becomes democratic or self-governing, Iran is surrounded by Western-style governments that probably won't take their crap.
Yes, it's possible Iraq will be friendly with Iran, but it's more likely the hostilities are much deeper over the Iraq/Iran conflict than the compassion witnessed by Iraqis over our occupation/rebuliding of their infrastructure.
Possibly, but it was action nonetheless.
the "you" in my post referred to SW
As the President so eloquently stated, he was "...tired of swatting flies."
I don't see us going anywhere with W. still president, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing when you think of what happened in Vietnam when we left prematurely. I do think Iraq has a much better chance though, of making it on their own.
Maybe I just don't see how I've lost any freedoms....?
And so divides the american people..
Sure it does. As long as that region festered in it's 13th century caliphate mentality, it posed a security risk to the United States. For better or worse, 60 years of international diplomacy left nations inextricably bound to the region -- there was no picking up our toys and leaving. Particularly when the leaders of those nations were willing to abandon 13th century technology in order to destroy a Western culture.
If it was safe to assume they'd stick to 13th century weapons as well as 13th century sensibilities, then I'd say yeah, let them wallow in their own bassackwards nonsense. But, do you honestly believe that region would withdraw from the rest of the world if only we'd withdraw from them?
No.
Well, every milestone has been achieved so far...all over the cries of the left that it couldn't be done.
Not true.
Iraq continued with hostile acts against our pilots in the no-fly zone in violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement.
Iraq was in violation of over a dozen UNSC resolutions.
Iraq was continuing to threaten its neighbors.
Iraq massacred Shi'ites in the South when we withdrew.
Iraq was draining the south wetlands to punish Shi'ite farmers in what is being described as the greatest environmental crime since -- yep, that's right -- Iraq set fire to the Kuwaiti oilfields.
And, even though the WMD's weren't found (and may not have existed), his WMD infrastructure was intact and there is testimony that he intended to recons ute his WMD program as soon as the sanctions were lifted -- which, we now find out, he was bribing France, Germany, Russia, and the UN (along with Galloway in Britain) to get done. He's still never accounted for the thousands of pounds of WMD's that were known to exist in 1998 but were never accounted for.
Nah, I'm comfortable with the invasion of Iraq. It probably should have been done a long time ago.
You need to go back and read the President's speech to the UN, he mentioned all those things during that speech and others, contemporary to the time.
What freedoms have you lost?
Patriot Act I, Patriot Act II.
Its not that they're lost, they're being eroded. I see the values and human rights upon which our nation was founded as such that they should not be altered or shifted under any cir stance. I feel that the moment you allow for temporary or situational suspension or changing of the basic cons utional rights, you open the door for futher suspension or changing.
There is no "objective point" in which too much rights erosion becomes "too much" once we allow those basic rights to be changed more and more.
The only sure-fire, closest to objective standard we have, is to allow our cons utional rights to stand alone, not be changed, and find ways already within the framework of our government to deal with imminent threats, as opposed to opening new paths to dealing with threats that involve eroding rights.
I see. So Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War wasn't reversed? And, the Japanese Roosevelt threw into internment camps are still there?
Again, give me a concrete example of where you've experienced a loss of freedom.
I knew you'd bring up Lincoln.
I have not personally been denied any freedom, but the rights as a whole have been eroded....you can't deny that.
I wont say that it is impossible to erode rights to achieve a justified end, and then reverse them.
But if we don't have our rights as an unwavering benchmark for what our democracy means, then what do we have?
Sure I can. Name one provision of the Patriot Act I or II that erodes my freedoms.
If we allow terrorists destroy every ins ution of society through fear or actual attack, THEN what do we have?
I'll give up carrying my boxcutters onto the flight, thank you very much.
Well i'm surprised to see CBF having a reasonable discussion. As for Clinton not responding:
U had that movie called black hawk down...except in real life it was called "mogadishu"
you had the bombing of the Nigerian embassy, USS COle, and the WTC in the early nineties.. and ofcourse you have the admission of BIll clinton that he turned down an offer from the sudanese to have OBL handed... and thats all up to you to judge.
Mouse, thats cool how like your sober now and you like watch the news and like... you care now... about... world stuff and current events.. and like you have a sean penn dildo which inadverdently made you hate bush.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions