Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by sanjuro, Jan 26, 2006.
So we are still worse off for having deposed Saddam...
Please register to disable this ad.
I think the best we can hope is that when they finish sucking the oil out of it the whole friggin' place implodes. The place will stabilise eventually, the present level of chaos can't be sustained I feel. The problem however smacks of the classic line from Vietnam -"In order to save the village we had to destroy it".
Actually the Kurdish region of Iraq wasn't that bad before the invasion. It had been a while since Saddam had been able to really screw them.
And I'd not be so sure about the assurance of 'owning', once the US gets out of Iraq I doubt there'll be any rush back and the example of Afghanistan three years on is hardly shining. If the US is so bothered about wholesale ethnic genocide they'd be looking a lot harder at Saharan and Central Africa.
Still, so long as the US confiscate all the copies of the Koran when they leave the Iraqis will have to be nice to each other as they'll have lost their crib-sheets...
No. I'm for not making anything worse. If I thought that pulling out right now would accomplish that, I would advocate that. If the Iraqi gov. were to ask us to leave, I would support that. It doesn't mean I support the war, especially since I'm talking about simply now trying to limit the damage.
Is it that much better for them now? Do they have electricity or clean water?
There's already reports that Shiites might be torturing and killing Sunnis. We at least knew what we had with Saddam, we don't know what we will get now.
They were better in some ways for the people. They might end up being better in the end, but we don't know that yet, nor do we know what might have happened if we hadn't taken action. Sure, Saddam sucked, but was it worth breaking the rule of law and turning the whole world against us to go in there and possibly make things worse?
Also, don't try to make a parallel between the American Revolutionary War and the Iraq War. In the ARW, we had a situation where citizens rose up to demand democratic representation, while in the current war we are going in and pointing guns at the Iraqis and demanding that they be democratic.
What happened then is different than what has happened since. The bottom line, again, is that at the time almost all were for some action against Iraq based on information they all had. The Bush haters say he lied, the non-Bush haters say that the intelligence was not as good as they thought. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the Bush admin. because I'd rather think he tried to do what was right rather than just do some crazy scheme to send us into war for no reason at all. My judgement is not clouded by some ridiculous anger at some guy that I don't know that got elected President.
Anyway, the thread was about a jackass writing something about not supporting the troops, basically saying how can you support troops and not support the war.
I suppose his goal was to get people to pay attention to his useless editorial...it worked.
I don't like his position because he is under the impression that none of the military want anything to do with it either and that they have a choice. His point is that a true pacifist will not support troops or the war...not so much just this war. I don't think anyone on this thread, based on the debates, is a deep down pacifist, so I guess the discussion is a little off.
The military is what it is. It is volunteer, the rules are not mysterious, everyone knows the consequences when they join. If ours was different, where you could join, then just walk away, we'd be Canada's bitch by now.
All I know is that it isn't to hard to say that I'm glad there are people that want to be in the military because I know it's not for me. I'm glad they were there before Iraq and after and will be there for some other conflict.
I would hardly call it ridiculous anger, nor would I say we don't know him. We know him as well as we have probably ever known anyone outside our close circle of friends. We know his words, his actions, his family, what he claims as values and beliefs. We know what he does on vacation. We know most of his history: business, personal, and political. We make judgements about people based on far less all the time. How do you feel about Hillary Clinton? Do you know her better or worse? Rush Limbaugh? Jesse Jackson? Just as an extreme example, how well do you know Hitler? Probably not nearly as well as you know Bush.
How can you NOT judge a president, either positively or negatively, and still call yourself a responsible citizen and voter?
Given your viewpoint there it is more important that you wish the government to exercise good judgement in which conflicts it chooses to engage in as contentious and ill-advised ventures such as Iraq are likely to reduce the number of people willing to take up a military career.
I'm sorry, but you can't go back and re-write history. Bush and co. were talking about the 9/11 Saddam link and pushing it, even though it was pretty roundly criticized AT THE TIME. Also, the UN weapons inspectors were not finding WMD and said so, but the Bush admin kept pushing that they were there instead of listening to the people on the ground. Plus, we find out that the intel that was sent to the Senate (the Dems. especially) was NOT the intel that Bush got, but a doctored version. I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt too, if the president weren't shown to be a liar and disproven on just about every point (and hotly criticized at the time he made the lies and doctored the intel.)
In September 2002, President Bush said Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." The next month, he delivered a major speech to "outline the Iraqi threat," just two days before a critical U.N. vote. In his address, he claimed without doubt that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons." He said that "Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons" and that the government was "concerned Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."
On March 6, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, the president claimed, "Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents."
On September 25, 2002, Bush said, "you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam."
Yes, but he was sincere. Isn't that what matters?
Don't forget the yellow cake from Niger.
What does sincere mean again?
It's up there some where (above...)
That he lied wholeheartedly? Dunno, it works for Blair..
I don't like the guys editorial column.
Well, maybe he'll smack you in the back of the head repeatedly.
You know, its nice to see that after taking a 5 month vacation to the desert that even after that much time, your still a schmuck chang.
Just so you know, I did miss our little fights.
:love: Did anybody shoot at you?
My new hero
Your comments don't count.
Anyway, I doubt it, he's admitted to being a wuss.
Wait till you meet him properly.
Hey, GP71, welcome back! Where in GA are you? I'm here temporarily; until the end of the month. If we're close, I need to buy you a beer...
Stop hitting on him...Shirley'll get jealous.
Be good to hear some stories too General. Any chance of that or was it all hush hush?
Here's a poll showing that the military is not 100% behind Bush. In fact, they are barely 50% behind Bush right now.
What do you mean? 54% is a HUGE MANDATE!
I'm Down here in Columbus. Drop me an IM
Thats why they call it a combat zone.
To be fair that is the % in favour. Given that there is always a % of no opinion it is not necessarily correct to assume that 46% are against. I tried to find that detail in the article but it wasn't given (that I saw).
That's correct, but it does contradict the sentiment of a couple posters in this thread who made generalizations about how supportive the military is of this action.
It should also be noted that the sample was largely from career military guys, who historically have been much more supportive of actions and are much more Republican leaning than the average soldier.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said all service members support current actions.
So, if you aren't making that argument, then why bring up the anecdote of a couple friends who do support the war? It's utterly pointless. Either it is anecdotal evidence that doesn't support whatever argument you are trying to make, or it is empirical evidence of a fact that no one is disputing.
Obviously you did not read whom I was replying to. Jodysbike said he lost friends in Iraq. I simply replied and said so did I. Then I stated why they did not die in vain.
I hope they didn't die in vain either, but that isn't assured yet.
Hopefully you can at least see now that one does not have to support the war in order to support the troops.
Aww. Were you scared?