Originally posted by Extensioncord: I think all of us agree -- I just wonder whether selective strikes would have been a better solution than occupying an entire country.
That's a chicken $hit approach. Clinton did that already.
There needs to be humanitarian back-up for disaster recovery. Most former military members know this.
quote:
Originally posted by Extensioncord: We have friends in the middle east, so it's not like we needed Iraq as a friendly base from which to launch targeted missions.
My business partner is Shia. He would disagree with you and ask you to your face.....how much is YOUR freedom worth to you.
He experienced Saddam's racism and ugliness. He fled to our current Safe Haven (U.S. of A.) and finished his education.
He communicates with his family OFTEN, and we should all put the blame where it is due. The Sunni Rebels are pissed off that some of the Shia are able to be in positions of government and they no longer have to hide who they are.
I have made it a rule never to smoke more that one cigar at a time. -- Mark Twain
Posts: 284 | Location: In the SouthWest! | Registered: December 10, 2005
Originally posted by Extensioncord: You're probably right, 'oz.
But we didn't go to war with radical Islamic murderers. Our President took us to war against a dictator on the basis that he had WMD (wrong) and that he was sheltering Al Qaeda (wrong again).
An apparently unexpected consequence of the war was creating MORE extremists and giving them MORE power and cred than before. So naturally we had to take them on.
All I'm saying is if this whole Iraq situation works out for the best, it will be purely by accident.
Yep. Just like a bleading heart liberial. No truth to anything you spew. I feel sorry for your kids.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mikeyd501,
Mike D
I hate violence! I hate it so much I am willing to kill anyone who tries to use it against me. -- Mike Waidelich
Being an American does not mean "following the masses". In this case (initially anyway) going to war.
Yes some idiots are oppressing thier country and others as well.
The debate about going to war is almost insignificant now because we are there now. So I DO support our troops, however I would have liked to see proper checks and balances to be followed. Otherwise my arguement would be fruitless.
War is necessary sometimes, again (as I have stated before) it should be not done so readily and through the proper channels.
The gap lies in our political ideologies true, however our bridge should (and I think it is), is wanting the best for our country. We just disagree on what that is. I am no "bleeding liberal" nor a "staunch conservative" either. Is it so hard to fathom a independent? I guess so...
"There is no true enlightenment without conflict." - Carl Jung
Posts: 233 | Location: Las Cruces, NM | Registered: March 05, 2006
Originally posted by mikeyd501: I feel sorry for your kids.
Right now, I feel sorry for other peoples' kids...like the soldiers who were sent into battle with a half-baked plan and inadeaquate equipment and support. And I don't want mine to be among them. There are a lot of things worth fighting for but I think the least we can expect from our elected officials is to be clear on the whys and hows before we send kids to the slaughter.
It's a new world -- no more Pearl Harbors, lots more 9/11s -- and the enemy isn't always easy to identify. But my idea of strategy isn't "we don't know who to fight so let's start in Iraq." I'm not saying we might not have ended up there eventually, but I wish we spent more time identifying the enemy before we unified them by handing them a Jihad on a silver platter.
Originally posted by THEMONK: "handing them a Jihad on a silver platter"...WTF
I am not for personal attacks .... so I will just LOL and shake my head.
You can LOL or WTF and probably abbreviate some more stuff too. Invading Iraq created more reasons for every radical on earth to hate the U.S. We practically hand-fed them enough recruiting propaganda for 20 years.
Ironic, huh? Because of our actions, they can recruit more crazies than they need. And because of those same actions, we can't recruit enough troops for our armed forces because people are scared of joining a military that will send them into a half-assed war.
There's only so many troops and more trouble in the world than we can handle. Systematic attacks against the radicals, as opposed to destabilizing a whole freaking country, seems like the smarter approach.
Joe Iraqi who owned a pet store in Baghdad probably only sorta hated the U.S. until we bombed his shop, through the country into chaos and forced him to defend himself against sectarian violence that was previously kept under control. Now he has a beef -- so he joins the radical nuts because after all, he's got nothing to live for now anyway.
Well heck, I'll pitch into this fight. First though, I have to tell you that I'm just a caveman who likes to smoke an occasional cigar. The way I see it (again, I'm a caveman - very simple) the world is mostly sheep. They just want to live, eat well, and sleep at night. Unfortunately in this world, there are also a fair number of wolves. Wolves and sheep don't get along all that well. Fortunately, there are a group of people in this world who are sheepdogs. They understand that it is their purpose in life to defend the sheep, all the sheep. So, the beautiful thing about this whole string of posts is that whether you're for or against the war it's almost irrelevant. What is relevant is that you have the Freedom to spout what you believe.
Now, here's what I believe. Having been a sheepdog for many years I am not convinced that Iraq had no WMD. The reality, which for some reason is so easy to forget, is that we know Saddam had at least nerve gas because he used it on his own folks. I think it's fairly naive to think that he would just stop production and risk his power base. I do think it is very realistic that when you give a country six months notice that you are going to attack (thank you United Nations) it is very possible that he made a lot of WMD "go away". That said though, if you want an equalizer, Clinton sent troops into Europe because of a guy mass murdering people he doesn't like (Milosevic) so why not send troops into Iraq for the same reason? Even our media, which frankly I see as maybe 40% accurate, keeps telling us about mass graves in Iraq. Maybe Iraqi people just aren’t worth as much as our European cousins? Personally I think they are. I just got back from Iraq and honestly I didn’t see this horrific loss of morale that people seem to think exists. What I did see is a bunch of grunts who believe in what they’re doing. Sure we can find disgruntled men there, heck I can find disgruntled folks almost anywhere. I just don’t make a habit of looking for the bad in life. If the terrorists/insurgents/bad guys want to live, all they have to do is let other people live and pretty soon the war just goes away. Not gonna happen though because they need for America to go away. Not from Iraq or the Middle East in general but from the world. To this humble caveman, that sounds like a bad idea. My vote is that we continue to let them die on our terms, not theirs.
Hans Blix himself said that he could not rule out the presence of WMD's, which in the media was mistated as "there are no WMDs". He just wanted to pussy-foot around for more permission to search those places already sanitized by Iraq.
I hold to this day that the seven months during which we waited for compliance and transparency, much weaponry (WMD and conventional) went into places like Syria.
You remember Syria, the "other dead meat".
Posts: 818 | Location: Central New Jersey | Registered: March 15, 2005
Hans Blix himself said that he could not rule out the presence of WMD's, which in the media was mistated as "there are no WMDs". He just wanted to pussyfoot around for more permission to search those places already sanitized by Iraq.
I hold to this day that the seven months during which we waited for compliance and transparency, much weaponry (WMD and conventional) went into places like Syria.
You remember Syria, the "other dead meat".
Posts: 818 | Location: Central New Jersey | Registered: March 15, 2005
Originally posted by GrinchF16: I do think it is very realistic that when you give a country six months notice that you are going to attack (thank you United Nations) it is very possible that he made a lot of WMD "go away".
I tend to think that too. ^^^
quote:
Originally posted by GrinchF16: To this humble caveman, that sounds like a bad idea. My vote is that we continue to let them die on our terms, not theirs.
That's my vote as well. We need to stand our ground and not allow the terrorists manipulate us. Take a look at France's wishy-washyness.
I have made it a rule never to smoke more that one cigar at a time. -- Mark Twain
Posts: 284 | Location: In the SouthWest! | Registered: December 10, 2005
Originally posted by mikeyd501: I feel sorry for your kids.
Right now, I feel sorry for other peoples' kids...like the soldiers who were sent into battle with a half-baked plan and inadeaquate equipment and support. And I don't want mine to be among them. There are a lot of things worth fighting for but I think the least we can expect from our elected officials is to be clear on the whys and hows before we send kids to the slaughter.
War is hell. People on both sides die. Ours is a brave, well equipped, highley trained volunteer military. You under stand this I hope. These brave men and women have volunteered and continue to do so. Why do you think that is? That's got to just drive you guys nuts.
As a military tactician could you please tell the class your great plan to win the war on terriorism? What equipment would you develop, manufacture and have ready for deploment now!
quote:
It's a new world -- no more Pearl Harbors, lots more 9/11s -- and the enemy isn't always easy to identify. But my idea of strategy isn't "we don't know who to fight so let's start in Iraq." I'm not saying we might not have ended up there eventually, but I wish we spent more time identifying the enemy before we unified them by handing them a Jihad on a silver platter.
I agree. Who would have thought that our own congressmen and senators would give aid and comfort to the enemy!
Mike D
I hate violence! I hate it so much I am willing to kill anyone who tries to use it against me. -- Mike Waidelich
I think American troops deserve a lot of credit for the job they do. I am not certain I have the balls to stand in combat. Not my thing. I think this speech from a GWB perspective was long overdue and will help his numbers. Politically it is a winner.
Even though I disagree strongly with any and all motives and justifications for the invasion of Iraq I can concede that Saddam was an evil tyrant and am glad he is gone.
Although I have those opinions I consider myself fairly objective when it comes to international politics.
What troubles me continually about this board (and more if it is a representation of society as a whole - and maybe it isn't) is the troubling lack of objectivity. A number of Extensioncords posts have acknowledged a middle ground in the discussion. In return many respondants have felt the need to label him in some way "weak, liberal etc". Not sure if that is due to a lack of intelligent commentary or just a deep seeded anger towards anyone that would dare post a contrary opinion.
The tolerance that the US was founded on seems to be eroding quickly.
Too bad.
Posts: 176 | Location: Toronto | Registered: February 08, 2003
I could not agree with you more "smokinsteve". I have bit my tounge when it comes to responding to political postings on this site. Mainly due to the lack of intelligent debate, or foundation of truth when some post here. Most are out of emotion, and really can't openly debate the subject matter of politics here. I leave that for other sites. Hell, I came here to speak of other things anyway. You are correct though in seeing the "if you don't share my opinion, then you are an idiot" type of responses. No intelligent debate, no open mindedness, no room for fact based conversation. I am just glad that others see it too. Happy Fathers day dads! Hope you have a good one. Rik
"I would rather be dead and cool, than alive and un-cool.."
Posts: 116 | Location: San Antonio, Tx. | Registered: May 25, 2006
Originally posted by rikaguilera: I could not agree with you more "smokinsteve". I have bit my tounge when it comes to responding to political postings on this site. Mainly due to the lack of intelligent debate, or foundation of truth when some post here.
Really? That's what gets me to respond. I love it when some dope says something stupid. I quote him and make him eat his words. That's why liberals hate me.
Mike D
I hate violence! I hate it so much I am willing to kill anyone who tries to use it against me. -- Mike Waidelich
