peaple look at a map of the world. What is between Afganistan and Iraq
Printable View
peaple look at a map of the world. What is between Afganistan and Iraq
the next war?
Excuse my lateness on this response, Jaguar291 , but I only come on every so often. Work and my personal life keeps me away.
A) Oh! I SEE! It's all clear now, my dear. So if top Executives are bad, that must mean all the workers are bad too!
Bull.
You are still using the minority to represent the majority here, which is just ridiculous.
--------------------------------
I can understand Bush adding to his evil agenda, but as you said, his goal has been from the begining: Terrorism. Al-Qieda. The search for Mr. Osama mama Binladen. Yea, see, funny thing is, he's not doing that anymore. He's not going after the organization in which he has solid proof to go hunt down. Bush is now just blindly pointing his oiled up finger on targets that had nothing to to with his "Clean out the Terrorist" agenda. His ever changing agenda is very scary.
B) I'm not saying that you can't have an opinion, but when the "president" sent Colin Powel to the U.N. to reveal some ground breaking information to garner support for war from our fellow nations, the information was nothing more than assumptions, blurry gray photos, and only cut out excerpts of crackly intercepted calls (which didn't reveal much either). Needless to say, no one really jumped into the U.S.A.'s war band-wagon. They asked for more, better proof. None could be given, not even in private. Even now, nothing can be shown for the silly war.
I'm sorry, but if our leaders have all this "information that we don't have access to", than one would assume that by now, they would have shown us solid proof for the war. Where are the weapons of mass distruction? How Is Saddam connected to Al- Quieda? This terrorist organization proudly omits to who their "important" memebers are. It would not be hard to confirm Saddams connection to such an organization. Time is passing quickly, and still nothing. I thought you said that they had that "only for my eyes" information! If the infomation was as good as you claimed, they would have had something to show for it. Instead, all they have to show for it is dead U.S. soliders, and even more dead civilians.
I'm sorry honey bunny, but when someone wants to go to war, I want them to go with solid proof and fact, not on a bloody guess.
So my dear, I take your opinion as worthless, but, to each their own.
Darling, when I said the people who were fighting (the U.S. toops) had no reason or say, it was true. I know many people in the military and none agree with the war, but as my close friend Krystal best phrased it "We don't get to choose our battles ." She's right, no soldier gets to pick what cause or war to fight in.
They all joined before the Sept. 11th thing, mind you. Why did they join? Why do this stay? College money. The same reason why many young people join the army stright out of high school. I did it too.
I believe the people that took our country to war are in a better position to judge what they did than you. These people have access to plenty of information that you don't and are able to see things that you don't so unless you are actually in the President's cabinet or in Congress, I take your opinion as worthless (no offense). As the connection between Saddam and bin Laden is concerned, I'm aware that our government said that there was a link between the two, and has yet been unable to back it up, but remember, it's only been (guess) six weeks since we had troops in Iraq. I doubt that sensitivie information like that will easily be found... it will take time and when we do find it, you all'll be singing a different song. President Bush never changed his statements, he always said that we are fighting terrorism (and continues to) but he added another objective to our agenda, what's wrong with that? And then finally you said that people that fought in the war had no choice? Did we draft them? No, we don't have a mandatory military service in America. They joined and they knew they would be taking orders from a higher power, additionally if they don't want to fight for America, they can easily get an dishonorable discharge.
C) I may be a mere civilian, but so are you. To just disregaurd me (and your self) for that mear fact that we are civilians is just supid. As civilians and citizans of this country, we have every right to question things that will affect us. It's our job to do so, our founding fathers made sure we had the right to do so.
I did phrase what said wrongly earlier, but it happens. Let me rephrase:
The only thing wrong with the Constitution is that one man gets to decide whether or not the option of war is needed. It may need to go through congress (this I know, I always have), but to me, this is not a real "check and balance"; especially if the majority or congress is from the president's part (Rebulican). It's not real "check and balance" when the majority of congress have the same political agenda as Bush. It's not real "Check and balance" when the majority of congress are his supporter.
So essentially, one man gets to decide. The choices made by the party leader is almost always supported by his fellow party supporters.
D) I'm glad you agree with the last statement, but to mention Kuwait was a bad angel on your part. We had proof of that invation, we also had an alliance with that little country, thus we were obligated to help the poor country out at the time. An alliance held us to Kuwait.
The international community would not be on our asses for not jumping into wars before taking a closer look. Know why? Because we are not the world's police. We only have obligations to allies (alliances is what turns a war into a wold war. It's like a domino effect, but alliances are not as big as they use to be before. They seem to cause more harm than good .) they only jump on our ass when we do something stupid.
"He coulda...He woulda...He's gonna...He might...I'll bet..." nothing but guess, nothing but assumptions, nothing but nothing. there are many other threats we had proof of, that were more dangerous, why didn't we get to those guys first?
If we make it a habit of going into a war on a hunch, some other countries may follow in our foot steps, and we won't be able to really contest them since we do the samething. If it becomes a trend, we have only our selves to blame.
I am for war when it's needed, when we have proof. I am not for it when someone just "feels" such-and-such is a threat. Honey, it don't cut it.
American didn't get rid of a problem in the Golf War. They kept a nation from taking another. That's it. No one got rid of Saddam.
As a civilian who married into the military (my wife was a LT in the navy) lets clear one point up. If you look ata command chart in any militray base whose on top...thats right civilians. In this country we as civilians are a setp above the military personal not the other way around. They are our employies even if a bunch of right wing nuts fail to remember that.
Green Bird wrote:
No offence, but how can you justify any of your claims here? Do you work for the U.S government, are you on the terrorism task force, do you work for the FBI or CIA, my guess is no.Quote:
I can understand Bush adding to his evil agenda, but as you said, his goal has been from the begining: Terrorism. Al-Qieda. The search for Mr. Osama mama Binladen. Yea, see, funny thing is, he's not doing that anymore. He's not going after the organization in which he has solid proof to go hunt down. Bush is now just blindly pointing his oiled up finger on targets that had nothing to to with his "Clean out the Terrorist" agenda. His ever changing agenda is very scary.
I suggest you really take a look at what our forces are actually doing before you make such broad statement.
I would take a good look at this page if i were you greenbird:
counterterrorism
I think i have pointed this out to you in another thread, but it's worth repeating to discount your claims.Quote:
Bush is now just blindly pointing his oiled up finger on targets that had nothing to to with his "Clean out the Terrorist" agenda.
Here's a quote from globalsecurity.org:
For the full article go here:Quote:
Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.
Salman Pak