both have attacked americans for the past 10-15 years.
Let we forget, THIS MAN hit the WTC:
_NOT_ THIS MAN:
shrub/ head/Repugs lied to the world about Saddam/Iraq and exploited the goodwill and trust of the USA post-9/11 by politicizing the WTC attack for their own Repug agenda.
The bogus Repug Iraq war is hurting, and will hurt, the USA, for decades, MUCH MORE more than did 9/11.
Expect in the next few months that the number of _US LIVES WASTED_ in Iraq to exceed US lives lost at WTC.
The Repugs have damaged and "fragilized" the USA and individual Americans with the bogus Repug Iraq war MUCH MORE than bin Laden's jihadis.
Meanwhile, the Repugs around losing their war in "slam dunk" Iraq, the really hard stuff remains:
the Taliban/jihadis are re-grouping in Afghanistan,
Iran remains unpunished for the destuction of the US Embassy,
sooner or later, shrub/Repug's bogus war hands Iraq to Iran,
and the Repugs are letting "ally" Pakistan harbor bin Laden and/or jihadis.
Lest we forget the daily insanity of shrub/ head/Repugs: "THE ENEMY WITHIN"
.
both have attacked americans for the past 10-15 years.
you weren't attacked directly by osama either..
i remember some of my friends being shot at in iraq in the past 10-15 years... threat...take it out...
attacking americans is attacking americans...
saddam hussein never stopped attacking us when we patroled the no fly zones that were part of the ceasefire agreement. you are probably too young to remember that.
how many times has north korea fired on us in the past few years?
that wasn't the only reason.. until you learn that, you will never be satisfied. i guess you were fine with saddam trying to shoot our planes out of the sky.. were you fine with that?
Some people have no idea what they are talking about. It is not possible to attack NK.
Here's the transcript of Bush's speech before hostilities began in Iraq.
In reading that again several times today, don't see any mention, in the White House's articulated reasons for going to war, of Iraqi firing on United States citizens, whether civilian or military. Instead, Bush cites only Iraq's possession of WMD (citing the fact that his refusal to disclose his weapons violated Security Council resolutions, since, without such resolutions, mere possession of such weapons wouldn't have justified a war against any nation) and the likelihood that Saddam would provide such weapons to terrorists. To date, we've been unable to find any concrete evidence to support either of those justifications.
We're fighting 2 very different wars. 9/11 very clearly gave rise and justification for the war in Afghanistan, which I fully support. The war in Iraq, to me, is an entirely different matter -- a politician's war, rather than a war of justification. I support the men and women who are in Iraq, but I fully believe that their efforts and lives could be better spent pursuing other goals.
9/11 isn't about Iraq.
Was it a 10 mile hike to school during a blizzard?
Why don't you sign up and go dodge some bullets so the Iraqi kids can go to school? Or how about so the people can vote without the threat of having their heads chopped off if they vote anti-dictator? Or so women can enjoy the unalienable rights that all humans have, as espoused by our forefathers and those who chose to build this nation?
I know it must be easier to sit at home and blog...
^its easier for Bush and the gop to just take away consitutional right after cons utional right
I have no problem with the men and women who carried out their orders. My problem is with those who gave the orders.Why would anyone sign up if they don't agree with what they would be ordered to do? Specious.Why don't you sign up?
no its like
-I won't sign up because I don't believe the war serves a purpose, was started for the right reason and is worth the american lives and money.
-coward!
Those are wonderful ideals. Why is it that we've only chosen to protect them in Iraq? The same issues are prevalent in other places in this world, but somehow, we haven't seen their existence to be enough to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation that had not attacked the United States.
Which amendments have they employed to take anything away from anyone? If you can list them, I will shut up. Oh my, he hasn't has he?
As far as you know...As far as any of us know for that matter.
right to assemble
the "protest zones", and big brother filming protesters to put "on file"
recently freedom of the press
cant show coffins comign back from Iraq or dead victims of Hurricane Katrina
What in the does that mean?
unreasonable search and siezure laws in the PATRIOT ACT
no amendments thats what makes them UNCONS UTIONAL laws and practices
So, where are the amendments? Where are the court decisions overturning anything that was supposedly uncons utional? These are your opinions, not the opinions of everyone. Therefore, I deem that there is no cons utional violation. That is my opinion, of course. I doubt we will ever agree to disagree on that (which we should always agree to disagree...we are, afterall, civilized Americans.)
What does that mean? The other situations are extremely well-known and do ented. We're not jumping into Rwanda or Darfur even though people actually were and are getting their heads chopped off there. The white hat argument can only go so far, because we clearly do not follow it in every situation.As far as you know...As far as any of us know for that matter.
so if im across the street from a protest zone, PROTESTING under my cons utional rights, and a cop can come and arrest me if i do not stop and take me to jail?
how is that not taking away someones rights?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)