Reply With Quote
whottt, I'm against the war. That does not mean I support the terrorists.
http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?mkt...//www.msn.com/
Hats off to these ladies. Way to support the country...rather than the terrorists.
whottt, I'm against the war. That does not mean I support the terrorists.
Why are you against the war?
And it just might....
For reasons you probably don't approve. But IMO they are legitimate reasons. And it does not mean I support the terrorists, which I obviously don't.
And it just might what?
Tell me your reasons and I'll let you know if you are supporting terrorists...this is a political discussion forum...if this isn't the place for you to discuss why you are against the war then where is?
In a nuts , the US had not enough evidence to go to war with Iraq.
1) No link between 9/11 and the Saddam regime
2) No WMDs
3) Iraq was no threat to the US.
But you will proly refute these reasons anyway and I don't feel like getting into a discussion with you on this topic.
All I wanted to say is that I don't support the war and I don't support the terrorists. That's my bottom line.
Whott, you keep repeating this total BS that serving in the US Forces in Iraq is serving the USA.
Anybody who signs up in the Armed Forces may want to "serve their country" but you damn well know probably most them, esp the grunts below field grade, are using the Armed Forces as "employer of last resort", it's just a ing, can't-get-fired $$job, room and board included. Just like the private army mercenary contractors in Iraq, it's strictly $$business, not patriotism.
The problem is that these poor mofo's probably don't know enough recent history (eg, Viet Nam) to know the risk, to realize that "good and just wars" like WWI and WWII have not occurred since ... WWII. Viet Nam and Iraq are political wars of choice, not necessity, not security. The mofo's risk, it's THEIR responsibility to measure/know the risk, getting ed up physically or mentally, or killed, for a purely, exclusively Repug war of calculated political expedience, NOT for the interests of the USA.
The Iraq war is simple Repug _domestic_ political ploy aimed at the 2004 elections, aimed at inflating the price of oil and pumping $Bs into the the oil co's,
aimed at enriching Halliburton and all MIC high-margin and/or no-bid govt/mil contractors, etc, ALL of which heavy Repug paymasters. Co-incidence? no.
The Iraq war has NOTHING to do with or for the USA's interests, security, or fighting terrrorism or whatever foggy euphemism shrub's Repug operatives and suits apply to it this week.
btw, I fully supported/support the invasion of Afghanistan. That WAS and is in the USA's interests and directly against a country harboring and abetting the terrorist organization responsible for 9/11.
Last edited by boutons; 08-17-2005 at 06:56 PM.
We were long involved in WW2 and WW1 for political reasons by siding with the allies in both wars. We lent money to Britian and Germany in both wars but we were more flexible with the brits. this was long before the Day of INFAMY!
But guess what in each of those wars our casualties were over 150 grand and we lost battles hear and there. WW2 took four years. 150k+ casualties. Vietnam was a decade and we only had 48k casualties and were undefeated. Some how we lost in Vietnam because half of the american public was limp wristed.
We were fighting to stop communism from spreading. More Communism meant more Soviet allies. We also did similiar missions in S america to stop communism.
IF iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, then we must be fighting gas station attendants and really horrible dollar store clerks over there.
but i guess alqueda is not in IRaq either.
Boutons you....how do you know why people join the military....
It may surprise you but some people actually love this country and do think it's worth fighting for.....not every one thinks we're the bad guys and the worst nation in history. So you and your liberal commie terrorist sucking at ude.
Not every one hates this country...
And I wish it was as easy to get in the military as you think it is...it's not...or else I'd be in it. I lied about my past injury history to get into it after September 11th and they still wouldn't let me in. I was a 34 year old man with a college education and I wanted to enlist. So you...some people do think this country is a great country...some people with an education...who in fact have an education studying the history of mankind...and they ing know how special this country is.
And there were a lot of mother ers with me that wanted to be there...and they were of all races and sexes and econimic backgrounds.
Not everyone is trying to be the hip drug deluded liberal commmie gots that think they're so goddamned smart, that ed this country up in the 60's.
Yeah we're not perfect...we're just better than every other world power in History.
"the american public was limp wristed."
BS. The American public, very much like now, were not convinced the 50K dead and 250K wounded were worth whatever the original, or later, objectives were in VN.
Very much like Iraq, half or more Americans originally supported, trusted whatever the it was "the best and brightest" were getting them into.
(btw, de Gaulle told Kennedy to stay out of VN, and de Gaulle was right.
Chirac told shrub to stay out of Iraq, and Chirac was right.)
But when the American public saw what VN was, what it cost, and couldn't see, after very seriously looking, and listening, for years, what the VN was going to bring to the US, then they said "no way" and " no, we won't go".
There you go again, faux Macho Man, "US public limp wristed". I don't see you posting in this forum from Iraq, Macho Man.
VN "radicalized" many of my generation, with the result being that we NEVER EVER trust the US govt to start wars except in the most clear cir stances. NEVER EVER say "my country, right or wrong". Afghan was clear and justifiable and "right", go for it 150%. Iraq is total, exclusively Repug BS, and "wrong". Tough luck for the US forces sacrificing themselves for the Repug jerk-offs.
How hard is it to figure out that the entire middle east is a humanitarian hole where every government is one of those "corrupt dictators" we are always accused of supporting?
How hard is it to figure out that suffering breeds religious fanatacism and hatred of the rich?
How hard is to figure that as long as the middle east stays with a bunch of idiot despots, who weild absolute and total power and who control the lives of hundreds of millions of people, ruling it, that this problem will grow and become more dangerous?
How hard is it to figure out that we had sanctions on Iran and South Korea for 30 ing years and it has not done one shred of good?
How hard is to figure out that the European approach of crass indifference to the peasantry as long as they have friendly leadership causes the worst forms of corruption and human suffering?
How hard is it to figure out that any society which silences the female voice is a violent and destructive one?
How hard is it to figure out that what they hate about us more than anything is our liberalism?
You go listen to what Usama tells his followers about why America is the great Satan...
He says we have no gods...and we are all sexuals...
So keep defending them you ing fools.
It was time for things to change in the middle east....negotiating doesn't do with the people in power over there...they consider it weakness.
I don't care even if we went over there for Oil...the fact is that things had to change...the suffering and corruption had gone on for long enough.
And we damn sure can't pull out now...so anyone protesting the war is an idiot. And they aren't nearly as worried about human rights as they claim.
The last poll I saw said 61% of the Iraqis thought it was worth it to get rid of Saddam...I suspect it's much higher than that...or else we'd be fighting the 30 million people that live there instead those that hide behind women and children and can only kill civillians...or occasionally us if they were willing to kill themselves to do it.
Whatever the motivations for going over there...we have an opportunity to change things over there....just like we did in Europe. Spreading Democracy has never just been lip service with us like it has been with the Europeans...look at where we have been.
I hope you don't believe everyone opposing the war is an idiot too.
Whott, some of your points are just fine. But IRAQ is the wrong target in the war on terrorism. Iraq/Saddam were castrated/marginalized in the Gulf War, and since then, nailed down and policed by the flyovers and sanctions. Was it perfect? no. But it was "good enough" as it was, allowing the US to go after the real targets, militarily, financially, diplomatically, etc.
The real targets are Iran (but the Repugs macho-ism doesn't cover REAL opponents, only soft pushovers like Iraq 10 years after it was castrated, Panama, Grenada, a few bombs on Libya), Wabbism/Saudi Arabia (the shrubbies can't get their mouths off SA's oily s), Afghanistan(still not stabilized, not "won", at risk of being "lost"), Pakistan, Syria, NK, etc.
"just like we did in Europe"
Europe was western, modern, rational, industrialized Judaeo-Christian, Graeco-Roman civilization and even then it was 55 years for the communist countries to collapse.
The M/E and other Muslims countries are mostly medieval, tribal lands centuries behind the West, totally incapable of democracy, which is opposed as un-Islamic. Even if Iraq democracy works, the real probblem with the Repub "theory" is that countries in that region won't EVER follow suit and switchover to democracy.
Just like the corrupt Repugs are consolidating their power and wealth by ing up and gaming the US govt in order to maintain a one-party system, the corrupt regimes in those countries will NEVER just give up power and wealth. It's simply against human nature to yield power and wealth voluntarily, and NEVER "for democracy" which isn't even a concept in Islamic thought and civilization.
Tough for the Iraqi people about Saddam being a murderous tyrant. There are lots of others in the world, but only Saddam had the oil.
If the shrub had said the "immediate, no-other-option" of war in Iraq was for the primary objective of bringing democcracy to Iraq on the wild-eyed hope that democracy would break out everywher else, and that the war would cost 2000, or 5000 US lives, 20K US injured, fiascos like Gitmo and abu Ghraib, and cost a trillion dollars, the US people would have said "no ing way".
Now that the Iraq war has taken a clear form AND costs, AND ALL the Repug reasons for the war have been proven to be lies, the majority of the USA is now saying "no ing way", Iraq ain't worth it.
100% if you don't support what the US is doing in Iraq right now and want them out you support the terrorists...
Who wants us out of Iraq? The terrorists do. and if you do, then you are a terrorist supporter.
The provisional government.
We had the cause and the right to take out Saddam based on the violations of the cease fire agrement,...he was sitting on billions of dollars and he at one point had WMD technology...
On top of all that...the suffering of the Iraqis under the UN sanctions was a leading cause of anti-Americanism in that region...and it was a bad thing anyway...
See that's the problem with sanctions...they never ing work...when have they worked? THey haven't worked on Castro...they haven't worked on North Korea...they haven't worked on Iran...they didn't work on Saddam...
And there are probably more religious fanatics in Iraq now because of the suffering of the Sanctions...sanctions cause that misery and human suffering thing....
And Saddam an enforcing the no fly zone so he didn't go trying to take over more countries and drive up the price of gas to 50 dollars a gallon was also a reason we were stationed in Saudi Arabia...another source of Muslim outrage.
Yes Saddam was a weakned and contained target...which is exactly why he should have been the first to go...you want we should have attacked the strongest first? With an inexperience and green army? With a rusty war book?
You attack the easy targets first to safely increase presence in that region to go after and threaten the stronger targets.
What was the first major US offensive in WWII?
Operation Torch in North Africa against the Vichy French...would you call that attacking the strongest power first? We got attacked by Japan and declared war upon by Germany and Italy...who did we go after first? None of them.
So then why hasn't the President started imprisoning MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, NBADan, et al.
Didn't he say that if you weren't with him, you were agin' him?
So by your logic (however twisted and condescending), they should be treated as the insurgents are, right?
So everybody against the war will be dead in the next few weeks?
I get so sick and tired of the BS rhetoric about those opposed to the war.
Is that like believing conservatives when they say, "we don't have anything against gays" but yet want to limit their rights?
It just can't be!!!
Opposing the war is NOT supporting the terrorists.
That is just plain BS!!
Oil = money...
Money can develop those WMD things you know.
And you are the second liberal I have seen that would just rather leave the Iraqis to their fate and thinks them incapable of self government...
What ed that region up was War in the first place.
Those people have brains just like you and I...it's Islam that's ed up....as is any religious extremism. But suffering only makes it stronger.
No one expect it's to be the 51st state....it's is going to be Theocratic to an extent, that doesn't mean it can't be moderate...and pro US..just like the Kuwaitis...
They aren't going to totally embrace Iran because they don't want us kicking the out of them and getting sanctioned...and there is that power and glory thing you mentioned.
Clandestino,
I didn't want the the USA in Irag, but now that shrub has broken Iraq horribly, irreparably, we simply can't cut and run. I do not support packing up and leaving Iraq now. We're damned if we stay, we're damned if we pullout. I figure Iraq will become "The Islamic Republic (and Terrorist Training Central) of Iran West", sooner or later, and Iraq really will have, at that point, nuclear WMD, all thanks to shrub.
Staying in Iraq will cost USA 1 trillion dollars, many more 1000's of US deaths, 10's of 1000's of US injured, 10s of 1000s of Iraqi civilian deaths, but we have no choice but to "stay the course". The problem is that shrub and his posse of desk-riding cowboys don't have a ing clue how to fix Iraq. In their myopic hubris, they are stuck in the Iraqi quicksand.
But he warned us, shrub did before he was elected, so smugly and condescendingly, that he didn't believe in "nation building". How clearly we see that to be true now.
And WTF are you talking about? The terrorists absolutley LOVE having the USA in Iraq. The USA as convenient, nearby sitting ducks for every wild-eyed martyring jihadist. No need for complex logistics to strike CONUS. The USA has come to the terrorists' backyard, and the terrorisits, "in their last throes", are loving it, pouring in from Syria and Iran. boom! boom! boom! 1800 US dead and counting. The longer the USA stays in Iraq, the more US dead. How can the terrorist not love it? Just a few more months, and the US dead in Iraq will surpass the US dead of 9/11 WTC.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
