Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 24 Posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3360 times:
Ok, this is a serious question. I'm going to put forth some points here. What has this war achieved?
If we went to war to find and destroy WMD caches and production capability, well we most likely destroyed production capability if there ever was a massive program that our officials claimed there was. We didn't find any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
We got Sadaam out of power and rid Iraq of an extremely oppressive regime. Yet people are still dying at an alarming rate in the last three years just as they were before the invasion during the sanctions.
They had an election that was imposed by the United States. While it is a more free form of government that they had before, it is divisive along ethnic lines (Sunni, Shiite, Kurd) and is really their only option. They may have a very shaky form of democracy in place, but the security in the country is not exactly very good.
What have we achieved for the Iraqi people? Unemployment is up to 60% in Iraq. Anywhere from 30,000 - 100,000 civilians are dead as a result of the war. Electricity and running water is suspect. We were supposed to repay for the construction with the oil but instead are lining the pockets of big American corporations and security firms. Doesn't sound like the Iraqi people are all that much better off honestly.
What has this war done for the American people? Are we safer from WMD's? We don't know where the majority of Sadaam's nuclear scientists are as they dissapeared after the invasion. Terrorism in the form of militant Islamic fundamentalism is now rampant in Iraq where it was barely noticeable before. We are now more disliked around the world. Rather than fight the culture war in an attempt to stop global terror, we're using guns and bombs, and terrorism doesn't seem to be decreasing. Sure, we haven't had any attacks on our soil, but prior to 9/11, how many did we have?
And for the American families who have soldiers serving in Iraq, what is in it for them? How many families have been torn apart by the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq? How many more of our young men and women have to die there? And for what? What does "stay the course" mean? What IS the "course"? What was the "course" from the beginning? Is it just staying there desperately trying to bring an impossible situation under control? Is it trying to control a low level civil conflict from exploding into an all out civil war? Is it even possible for our troops to achieve this sort of mission without the troop numbers or adequete equipment they've been begging for so much from Donald Rumsfeld?
I understand three years isn't much time to secure a large country like Iraq, but were we in over our heads from the beginning when we tried to invade a foreign country and nation build with less than 200,000 troops? What about Bush's promise not to nation build?
The only solution I see is to withdraw our troops. Not immediately, that's not what I'm saying and that's not what anybody is saying. But if we can withdraw our troops within the next 6-12 months with minimal casualties to our men and women in uniform, I say we do it. This insurgency is out of our hands, it doesn't matter how many people we kill or capture or torture, I don't think the insurgency is going away. Do we honestly think we can stop the insurgency through force? Do we honestly think we can stop a popular uprising in a country of 26 million people with 150,000 troops? Democracy or not, these people aren't working, they don't have regular water and electricity, and they don't have security. I don't think this is a problem our troops can fix.
Is it time to finally demand our troops get out of there? Within 6-12 months? How many more of them have to die for a cause we don't even understand?
TheSorcerer From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 1048 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3349 times:
I think it didn't achieve much, as you said most things are the same apart from the government and military forces in the country. At first when people said oh bush is only doing it for the oil I didn't believe it by now I'm starting to believe it. Our Soldiers are dying for nothing, if you say soldiers are paid to go to war then fine, look at it from a purely non-personal view, troops are being killed when we might need them somewhere else for a better cause.
In some aspects it's even worse than before the war, the promise to get running water and electricity was made 4 years ago and it still there is no running water or electricity in most areas of Iraq.
What annoys me the most is that Blair sent troops just to please Bush.
ALITALIA,All Landings In Torino, All Luggage In Athens ;)
KLMA330 From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 708 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3339 times:
Great Britain should have never been involved. Of course tell that to Shell and BP, for as brilliantly stated in another thread, business runs the world, not govt's. And what bigger business than Oil? Incidentally, what were the profits of oil companies over the past couple years? Record breaking? you bet!
As to what this war has achieved? Nothing, for there was no clear mandate from the beginning, so it was bound to fail. Their "course" has changed more frequently than Bush changes his shirts.
Wardialer From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1193 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3323 times:
Ok people - Just let me explain something here to you that will make this whole thing or topic make sense to you guys...
Here we go and hear me out really real good...Ok??? Ok...Here we go....ready???
Thats it...Thats why Bush wanted to invade Iraq NOT because of oil...But because he knew that right after the 9-11 attacks our ecomony and worlds economy went sour...so Bush knew that war will equal better economy and guess what??? HE WAS DARN RIGHT...The unemployment rate now has gone down and I dont know how many more jobs got back on their feet again...
Invading Iraq was a very smart move torwards our economy and we succeeded our goal..And if you dont beleive me...read the papers..Thats I would suggest and esp...the Financial section..
Xjramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2496 posts, RR: 48
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3241 times:
Tell me something I want an honest answer to:
I have come to the conclusion that the left wingers are invested in losing this war that we are currently fighting. Think about it....we have everyone big on the left saying bring home the troops now. Yet, when we still have the finest brave men and women signing up for another tour in Iraq, this confuses me.
If Bush does well, as in being correct in fighting and winning this war, it will be hell for the left wingers. As it stands, the right wingers "need" to win this war. Vise versa for the liberals. They need us to lose the war. This is so fu**ed up, it angers me to no end. Why are you wanting your own country to lose its own war? Why?
BHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3230 times:
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 20): If the Pentagon and military commanders in the field say they could carry out a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops within 6-12 months with a minimum of U.S. casualties, would you support it?
Assuming that all the bad guys are dead or incarcerated at the end, yes.
?????They have had two elections held at their own discretion. Remember not too long ago when the word was they would not even be able to have one, and then it would be a bloodbath? Then they were taking forever to create a Constitution even though it took the United States 7 years to create and ratify ours? Now that has been accomplished and not one polling place was guarded by U.S. soldiers. All of them were secured by Iraqi security forces. By all accounts of the election watchers it was a free and fair election and it has been accepted by all but the insurgents.
Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter): Unemployment is up to 60% in Iraq. Anywhere from 30,000 - 100,000 civilians are dead as a result of the war. Electricity and running water is suspect.
What was employment before the war? 100% in the workers paradise? Prove those numbers please and how many were combatant deaths? ????Electricity is being restored to many areas that haven't had it for years and in what middle east country is the water not suspect? Yet if it were that bad how come we have not heard reports of cholera, typhoid, or dynestry?
Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter): We were supposed to repay for the construction with the oil but instead are lining the pockets of big American corporations and security firms.
Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter): Sure, we haven't had any attacks on our soil, but prior to 9/11, how many did we have?
World Trade Center number 1, that would be in New York City. Kenya and Tanzania embassies, considered American soil. The USS Cole which is considered American territory if you are on it. Isn't that enough?
Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter): And for the American families who have soldiers serving in Iraq, what is in it for them?
Their sons and daughters volunteered for the service. By this time virtually all the low ranking soldiers saliors and airmen knew exactly where they might end up when they enlisted. Those that have reupped knew as well.
The lunacy of this statement is beyond comprehension. They have beheaded people that were non-combatants, blown up a wedding party, just yesterday the blew up a bunch of kids and women recieving toys from U.S. Marines. If you really believe you will "change their culture" then you are a lamb headed for the slaughter.
Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter): Is it just staying there desperately trying to bring an impossible situation under control?
The best answer for that is th news from a few days ago "Then a new Republican representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message to the House that she said she had received from a Marine colonel in her district: "Cowards cut and run; Marines never do." We stay there until the Iraqi security forces can control the situation themselves. People said we would be forever winning a war against Saddam. We did it in record time. People said the Iraqis would never be able to elect their own government that "some people weren't ready for democracy". They had their election and the people abided by the results. Then they said they would never reach agreement on a Constitution and today it is a done deal. So why don't you give it a break and let the system work? What is a stake for the U.S......
Mr. Ishihara said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent" and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack. Indeed, he asserted that China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Asian and American cities—even at the risk of a massive U.S. retaliation.
The governor said the U.S. military could not counter a wave of millions of Chinese soldiers prepared to die in any onslaught against U.S. forces. After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw."
That is the perception we are setting ourselves up for if we cut and run before the job is done.
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3202 times:
Quoting Xjramper (Reply 8): I have come to the conclusion that the left wingers are invested in losing this war that we are currently fighting.
Quoting Xjramper (Reply 8): Vise versa for the liberals. They need us to lose the war.
Ok, I think you're coming to very wrong conclusions here. Why would liberals want us to lose this war? Why would we want more soldiers to die? If Bush and Rumsfeld and all the other people in the administration were to properly carry out this war and make more proper decisions, I would support them in it. I supported them at the beginning of the war in the decision to go into Iraq, but now I'm seeing its a big mistake. I'm also seeing that they are not the sort of people I want running this operations, Donald Rumsfeld is a complete idiot who didn't know what the armed forces were getting into in Iraq from day one. Just ask ANCFlyer about that.
But if the war was run properly and we were "winning" the war (which right now we're not if you ask me), then I would support it. But right now, I see no end in sight and want our troops out.
Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 9): Assuming that all the bad guys are dead or incarcerated at the end, yes.
What if you can't get all the bad guys? What if this insurgency were to continue for ten more years? Would you support our troops staying there for ten more years? We don't have to agree here, I just want to know.
Clearly, like I said before, three years is not much time for a country to get up on its feet. However, I feel we didn't help them from the start by not controlling the looting and not having enough troop numbers from the outset of the war. Now consider that we have 150,000 troops and this is a country of 26 million in the middle of a popular uprising. It may not be a majority who support the insurgency, but certainly there are millions who do.
The 60% unemployment rate was the number that Murtha said in his speech after he came back from his visit in Iraq. I believe it, its up to you if you do.
Also, Americans who volunteer to serve in the army I respect very much. However, do you think they signed up to go to a war which is extremely questionable? I don't believe in the "be an obediant soldier" idea, that was what got Colin Powell into big trouble. Why shouldn't soldiers question why they're being sent overseas? They don't sign their lives or their conciousness over the government. They sign up to defend this country.
So know we know there were no WMD's. Like it or not, our soldiers are stuck there with no purpose except (A) Survive and (B) Kill the insurgents that are trying to kill you. Is this why we sent our troops over there? What's the plan of the war right now? Where is this going? I have no idea, do you? Certainly nobody in the administration has told us anything except a bunch of hogwash about election dates this and election dates that. We have Rumsfeld lying to us about Iraqi troop numbers. We have Cheney telling us "the insurgency is in its last throes".
Bush made a promise not to nation build, what happened to that promise? I believed we were in danger from Sadaam three years ago, now I know it was either a lie or we just got it plain wrong. And since we did bungle this so bad, why stay anymore? And if we do stay, for how much longer? What does "stay the course" mean? 5, 10, 20 more years?
Quoting Gilligan (Reply 11): The lunacy of this statement is beyond comprehension. They have beheaded people that were non-combatants, blown up a wedding party, just yesterday the blew up a bunch of kids and women recieving toys from U.S. Marines. If you really believe you will "change their culture" then you are a lamb headed for the slaughter.
I think you misunderstood my statement. One of the biggest problems we have right now around the world is that people view us as the aggressor, as the nation that blows up and kills thousands of people. So after Afghanistan, we did a great job in liberating that country from the oppressive regime of the Taleban.
Now, why don't we have more Arabic translators in the army? Our troops can hardly communicate with the people we are supposed to be liberating. It is extremely important for our troops to be seen as liberators rather than oppressors. And one of the biggest parts of this is the culture of the people we are freeing.
I'm talking about stuff like going around the world and having Americans teach English. Having American dollars building schools in impoverished Arab countries. Spread quality American television and radio to poor areas of the world. Education, education, education. Where does terror come from? Poor, uneducated people. Poor uneducated people are easily seduced into blaming the United States and Israel for their problems and WHAM! You've got a whole new bunch of terrorists. Instead, we should fight back at the same level and spread honest education to these poor people and thus give them more of an opportunity. Side by side with military action targetting existing terrorists, I think this is a better strategy.
However, we got ourselves into such a hell hole with the insurgency in Iraq that I think this opportunity is long gone.
Also, I don't care what China thinks if we leave Iraq. What's more important, what China thinks about us or how many body bags we load up home everyday? I'll leave that for the other thread, which I avoided commenting on because I honestly thought it was a ridiculous discussion.
Great question. I guess that depends on your viewpoint. If you saw Saddam as a threat to the US, then the war eliminated a threat. If you didn't see him as a threat, the war has been mostly useless other than to help secure oil supplies, an important strategic resource.
Quoting Wardialer (Reply 3): Thats it...Thats why Bush wanted to invade Iraq NOT because of oil...But because he knew that right after the 9-11 attacks our ecomony and worlds economy went sour
Huh? Got any proof for this one? If you want to know why we are in Iraq, take a look around the website www.newamericancentury.org . The group was founded in 1997 by some familiar names like Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. The letters to Clinton in 1998 and to Bush in 2001 are very interesting, as is the report titled Rebuilding America's Defenses. Reading this may change your mind on why we went into Iraq.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
It may be true that our economy is better because of the war. But is it worth the cost in the lives of our soldiers? Being ready to die for the protection of your country is something I hear associated a lot with the military, being ready to die so that your country can have a better economy isn't. It would be pretty shameful if the only way we could get our economy up were to send our troops into battle.
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 7): If the Pentagon and military commanders in the field say they could carry out a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops within 6-12 months with a minimum of U.S. casualties, would you support it?
We are in Iraq. Nothing will change that. A premature withdrawl will not be productive - two wrongs don't make a right. If we can get out of the country within 6-12 months, great. But if that is to be the plan, then we must make sure that Iraq is stable enough that we will not have to go back in. Because if Iraq deteriorates into civil war (which I could easily see happening if we pulled out now), it will become the breeding ground for terrorists that we said it was before the war, and we will have no choice but to do to Iraq what we did to Afghanistan. The presence of Iran is another wild card - nobody knows what they would do in the event of civil war in Iraq, but we're idiots if we think they won't try to take advantage of the situation somehow. When we leave Iraq, we must leave it in a stable condition, otherwise we'll be dooming even more of our soldiers in the long run.
With that said, we can't "stay the course." Our current course in Iraq is a perpetual cycle of small steps forward and small steps back. We need to start making serious progress toward the goal of getting Iraq in stable condition - this may mean changes in policy, changes in leadership, etc. We will be able to withdraw after that goal is complete. But our goal should not be simply to get the troops out - focusing on that will end up with us leaving prematurely.
Simply said, I support getting the troops out as soon as practical, and to get serious about making the conditions for that happen. But getting them out as soon as possible may not be in our country's best long-run interests, and it does worry me that this may soon become our objective - such thoughts are dangerous. There is a middle ground between staying the course and pulling out, and the debate should be working towards finding that middle ground.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3162 times:
It ended a stalemate that was expensive in terms of lives lost, and was unsustainable militarily and politically. The U.N. sanctions led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, because even with the oil-for-food program, which we now know was completely corrupted, Saddam was still diverting massive funds for his own uses. The sanctions paused Saddam's WMD programs, but we now know they would have been instantly reactivated the moment the U.N. lifted the sanctions, which France, Russia and China were actively pushing for. Does anyone remember all the propaganda about how the sanctions were cruel and had to be removed? Removing sanctions with Saddam still in power would have put us all back to square one.
There is now an Arab, Muslim nation with a constitutional democracy, at least on paper. It remains to be seen if that can be translated in practice to a functional democracy. The original intent of the invasion, according to neocon theory dating back to 1998, was to establish a democracy and see if that would seed reforms in other parts of the Arab world. Right now, Arabs from all over the Middle East are watching to see if democracy can work, and there is increasing pressure in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to begin granting democratic rights. An Iraqi democracy is beginning to show fruit in that Arabs are beginning to realize that there is another option apart from their existing totalitarian regimes and the islamo-fascist movements that have challenged those regimes in the past 20 years, particularly in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
The modern world needs to ensure that Iraq survives as such an example of a viable, Arab democracy. There are many people who do not wish to see this happen, particularly the islamo-fascists themselves, as well as non-democratic states outside Iraq who have no desire to see democracy in the region, and people in the west who wish to embarass certain political parties so that they can score political points in the next elections, even if it costs the hope of hundreds of millions of Arabs. These are the enemy of progress, and they need to be recognized for what they are.
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3155 times:
Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 13): Great question. I guess that depends on your viewpoint. If you saw Saddam as a threat to the US, then the war eliminated a threat. If you didn't see him as a threat, the war has been mostly useless other than to help secure oil supplies, an important strategic resource.
Absolutely. I see it as your second point, and even there I feel we haven't really secured oil supplies. But on your first point, I believe this is hardly a debatable point (IMO). Sadaam was in power for 12 years after the first gulf war. The sanctions and inspections kept him in check, and inspectors repeatedly said that he wasn't harboring WMD's.
So what is a definition of a threat? It's now known he had no WMD's, perhaps the capability to produce them, but even that was extremely minimal.
It's also now known that Al Zarqawi wasn't even connected with Al Qaeda before the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld before the war was making this claim as the proof that Iraq was connected to terrorism. This weekend he went on the morning news talk shows and when questioned admitted that Zarqawi wasn't connected to Al Qaeda before the war. Sure Sadaam was giving Palestinian families of suicide bombers money, but wasn't this an Israeli problem? Is this a threat to the United States, something worth invading a country and starting a war over?
So in my opinion, Sadaam never was a threat to this country except for his occasional shooting at American planes. There never would be the threat of a "smoking gun in the form of a nuclear cloud".
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 16): people in the west who wish to embarass certain political parties so that they can score political points in the next elections, even if it costs the hope of hundreds of millions of Arabs. These are the enemy of progress, and they need to be recognized for what they are.
Ahhhh, the thinly disguised punch below the belt. Disagree with them, well just call them the unpatriotic, undemocratic enemies of progress...
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3150 times:
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 17): Disagree with them, well just call them the unpatriotic, undemocratic enemies of progress...
Where did I call them unpatriotic or undemocratic? Are you feeling a little tinge of guilt?
The fact of life about politics is that some people are willing to put their own political interests ahead of the good of society. Some of them do so because they are too stupid to know better, but others know perfectly well what they are doing, and those are the people I dispise.
For example, Jesse Jackson is educated enough to know that the types of things he argues for will not help black americans, and will indeed ensure that black americans, generally speaking, remain a couple rungs below everyone else. He knows this but that is OK because as long as blacks see themselves as "disadvantaged", then many will continue to fund Jackson's lifestyle. Another example are fat cats like Ted Kennedy or George Soros who argue for higher taxes, but have all their money in Caribean banks where the IRS can't touch it.
This is my main beef with the left. The guys at the top have grown a habit of this sort of cynical behaviour, more so than the right. The right is pro-business and makes no excuses for it. The left pretends it is for poor people, but is actually more interested in making sure they stay poor.
In this case, they are saying that Iraq was a useless war, and we should cut our losses and run. They know that by doing so, they will simply be fullfilling their own prophesy, and ensuring that all that blood and treasure was spent for nothing. But that is a better result for them than allowing Iraq to actually work out well, thus vindicating Bush. They prefer to sacrifice the interests of nations and the lives of people in order to shame their political opponents, rather than actually work for the good of all, and let the chips fall where they may on election day.
BTW, Republicans may do it less often than the left, but they have stooped to this sort of behaviour as well on occasion. For instance the Clinton blowjob episode was blown WAY out of proportion.
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3137 times:
Really? So we're saying withdraw from Iraq just to spite Bush? Honestly, do you ever think a little deeper than that?
The "left" who is calling for a withdrawal and who are opposed to the war are a majority of the U.S. We're not calling for an immediate "cut and run" like you keep saying, we're calling for a planned withdrawal with approval from the military. Of course, nobody heard this part of what Murtha said, he just said "cut and run! cut and run! we're cowards!" (sarcasm)
We're saying withdraw because... well hell.... why don't you just read my previous posts. Where once did I say I want our troops to withdraw just to spite Bush? Maybe I want our troops to withdraw because I don't want any more of them to die and that this war is also killing thousands of helpless innocents as well.
Nope nope, its all just to spite Bush that's all. Seriously dude, why go after the messenger? Go after the message.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3128 times:
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 19): Really? So we're saying withdraw from Iraq just to spite Bush? Honestly, do you ever think a little deeper than that?
No, I don't think YOU ever think deeper than that.
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 19): We're not calling for an immediate "cut and run" like you keep saying, we're calling for a planned withdrawal with approval from the military.
Leaving before the goal is accomplished is "cutting and running", even if it's done gradually to save a little face. If Iraq is not a sustainable democracy when the U.S. leaves, whether next week, next year or next decade, it will still be a failure and the left will be able to harp on about Bush starting a useless war.
If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that you DON'T want Iraq's new government to succeed, and you will be dissapointed if the insurgency starts dying down. I know you will deny it in public, but admit it to yourself.
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 19): The "left" who is calling for a withdrawal and who are opposed to the war are a majority of the U.S.
That's a natural reaction in the world of TV. TV ratings suck showing the new schools being built, the curriculums being taught, the improved utilities, etc. They are boring. But a good car bomb or an assassination is worth millions in advertising dollars.
If WWII had been fought with TV cameras on the front lines, I would bet that the war would have ended differently.
Here is the most telling evidence of this: The people who are the most opposed to finishing the job (apart from the ones with political goals) are those who have never been there and who only see what's on the news. But the re-enlistment rates for the troops in Iraq are record-setting. One of my high school buddies just came back from his 3rd tour there as a Marine and he says that he will go back. They know the dangers first-hand, but also see first hand the good that they are doing.
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 19): Maybe I want our troops to withdraw because I don't want any more of them to die and that this war is also killing thousands of helpless innocents as well.
If you are really interested in stopping the killing, why don't you push to stop the people who are doing the killing, like Zarqawi? You think he will stop killing if the U.S. pulls out?
I am reminded about a passage in "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". You remember the glasses that prevented from ever being afraid? As soon as something dangerous would appear, they would go completely black, preventing you from seeing the danger, and thus you won't be afraid. Your mind seems to operate along the same principles, if you really think that the U.S. or anyone else would be better off if the U.S. does not complete the job. Other than the fascists, that is.
Itsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2830 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3118 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 14): It may be true that our economy is better because of the war
I disagree. GM just announced the layoff of 30,000 hourly workers with probably more to come and the closing of 9 U.S. plants. Delphi Corp. has gone bankrupt and a couple major airlines are not yet out of the woods. Oh, and we're still paying $2.50 for a gallon of gas here on the west coast. But, there was a major rush at area Wal*Mart stores on this, the busiest shopping day of the year. Maybe that's what you based your comment on.
Seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 12606 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3062 times:
Quoting Xjramper (Reply 8): Yet, when we still have the finest brave men and women signing up for another tour in Iraq, this confuses me.
They are signing up again because there is nothing waiting for them back in the States. Funding for VA and post-military lives have been cut by the Republicans
Quoting Gilligan (Reply 11): Their sons and daughters volunteered for the service. By this time virtually all the low ranking soldiers saliors and airmen knew exactly where they might end up when they enlisted. Those that have reupped knew as well.
Yes, those that have reupped knew where they were going, but the rush of enlistees immediatly following 9/11 thought they were going to fight a group called al-Qaida and a man named Osama bin Laden. Remember him? Remember the reason we were attacked? Remember that Iraq had nothing at all whatsoever to do with it?
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 16): The modern world needs to ensure that Iraq survives as such an example of a viable, Arab democracy. There are many people who do not wish to see this happen, particularly the islamo-fascists themselves, as well as non-democratic states outside Iraq who have no desire to see democracy in the region
Correct me if I am wrong, but violence aside, isn't Iran a democracy? Isn't Jordan a democracy much like the Netherlands and England (King and queen and parlement)? More to the point, has anyone asked the people of countries like Syria, Barahin, Qatar, Yemen et al. if they really do want this or any brand of democracy? Why is it up to the neocons to force democracy on the world if it is not wanted or needed?
Besides, is the United States really safer since the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Just because the terror threat level goes up before an election, is the color orange really going to save us if al-Qaida strikes again? Is the economy really any better? Where were the National Guard troops to assist in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita? If the war is so great for the economy, why are we in Oregon paying as much as $2.50 for gas? Why are we paying as much as $2 for eggs and $2.50 for a gallon of milk if the war is so great for the economy? If this war in Iraq is so great, why are there protests against it? Why do most of us in Portland get pissed off whenever we see the flags at half-staff on the Fremont Bridge letting us know another son or daughter from Oregon has been killed because there were no WMDs and no connection between Iraq and al-Qaida?