5 Years Later -- Are we any safer (A soldiers thoughts)

Well, if saddam's goons say it, it must be true. Meanwhile, you still ignore the overwhelming evidence I presented? Oh, that's right, it was all "bs" because you didn't want it to be true.

 

Do you mean Bush should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq? Or should Iran be next?

Please explain why you want to sacrifice another few thousand of your brave troops - do you have a rational for wanting to sacrifice troops to invade Iran?

 

Sacrificing troops is a part of war, Mr. Mix.

It's either sacrificing some troops that signed up to fight for their countries or to sacrifice a lot of people that aren't expecting it...

 

It's that or sit around and let gutless thugs kill 3,000 innocent people in one day instead.

 

Try 8 hours...

 

Where the people who attacked us Iraqi?

Or just the same color as Iraqis?

 

Ok. You think any muslim country in the middle east should be invaded because 'there is no getting thru' . You are happy to kill another few hundred thousand civilians and troops because of 'danger coming from Islam'.

I see the danger coming from the terrorists but I also see that you dont prevent terrorism by invading the countries they reside in. Keep Voting Bush, Iran 2009

 

NO, and I did not say they were. In fact, I never said anything about Iraq. Only a few people here have decided it is important to whip out the "Iraq card" because the Fox News Card, apparently will not work.

This fixation with Iraq is almost as bad as AC fixation with Nixon. It is getting quite disturbing actually.

 

Don't you want to provide a rationale for wanting to invade another country before you send thousands of troops to their death?

Do you have a rationale that is worth acting on?

 

yeah its just minor thing, a war that over 100,000 Americans are particpating in, it only costs what 5 billion of our tax money a month.

Its not like the president is on the Tv talking about it or anthing.

 

Just say anything about Muslims and WMDs in the same sentence and you'll have full support for invading anyone you want. That's how (regrettably) dumb my fellow americans seem to be.

 

Say anything about terror attacks, and you will make full excuses for them.

 

Full excuses for who?

We're fighting a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.. in fact the guy claimed to be responsible for it all is still playing commando laden out in afghanistan, where we've allowed the northern alliance to grow 10x more opium than ever before.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

 

I here you buddy. I wouldn't call them dumb outright but the combination of scare mongering by the media and Whitehouse is enough to send most people into a state of paranoia.

Its the complete support of Bush and his policies that I don’t get. Here in the UK the politicians/prime minister is looked at with a critical eye rather than a blind patriotism.

You either support Bush or you are a terrorist.

 

You appear to be discussing me, and your assumptions about me, instead of the original post. I would not presume to know that much about you, even though you post here significantly more often than I.

My counter to the original post was intended to point out that talking to only 20 Iraquis means nothing.

You don't know who "we" are??? Seems obvious that "we" are the people of the US, led by the current administration. Is that a problem for you?

You don't know enough about me to jump to the conclusion that I "never have a good word about the US and always seek to blame it first". I love my country. I love the state I live in. I love my town. I love my home. I vote in every election. I sing patritioc songs in public. I pay my taxes without complaining. I appreciate the political system we have. I'm happy that we can freely debate current political issues as we are here today.

You assume that because I don't agree with the current administration policies that I tend to blame the US first. You are mistaken. I have critical opinions about other countries actions. But expressing those opinions to my fellow citizens will have zero effect on what those countries will do. I discuss what the US is doing because we have the obligation to participate in public debate about what our policies should be.

If I had more time, and I don't, I might discuss the relative merits of other countries policies and actions. But it would be a pointless exercise since I am entirely unable to participate in policy making outside of the US.

You post here a lot. You could raise the level of discourse by avoiding assumptions and generalizations about other posters you don't really know, and by focusing on the issues.

 

No, I asked you a question. And based upon seeing a number of your posts here, it was a fair question, considering you never have anything good to say about "our" country.

Maybe not to you.

I didn't know who your "we" is, that's why I asked. Some people's "we" here are terrorists and anyone that would do "our" country harm.

That's exactly why I asked. It is possible for people to only complain, but have these feelings.

No, I asked you a question regarding whether you do. There is a difference. You tell me not to assume, may I suggest you follow your own advice?

You have that choice.

So could you. You could also answer simple questions without assuming. I don't just give people the benefit of the doubt here. I used to, but there are too many people that genuinely support terrorists and have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that only the message matters, the truth doesn't matter, and lying is an acceptable excuse for blind hatred of a president.

That's the kind of scum we have down here. So you'll excuse me if I did happen to give you the benefit of the doubt by asking you a direct and pointed question *before* I made that assumption about you.

 

From the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ex=1158552000&en=1ca74ea452e64bf8&ei=5070

 

It's that very line of thinking that is the reason you and the UK have so many problems today.

You don't take it seriously, even when it's right in front of your eyes. For example:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2313135,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...FFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/13/nplot13.xml
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2006/08/14/Foreign/abbomb.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1219067.ece
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1841008,00.html
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1145782006

You make a very weak argument, for someone whose country has an overwhelming and alarming problem with people who openly admit terrorist actions are justified and use these very events to made demands (of sharia law) and special treatment for appeasement.

And yet with all that's going on in your own country that you turn an intentional blind eye to, you want to warn people of other countries that it's an illusion, "scare mongering," and you wouldn't necessarily call them dumb?

I submit for the UK, it's already too late. For Europe, in general. It's becoming Eurabia because too many people with too many blind eyes with opinions just like yours have ignored the problem for too long.

There is a difference between "scare mongering" (creating something to be scared about that doesn't exist) and one who turns a wilfull blind eye to the problem because he submits "he" is not scared personally. The latter, I would say, is an example of pure stupidity. The comments of an individual who only cares about himself and his own personal views and has never been a part of something bigger than himself, like his own country.

 

You don't even believe he is responsible, so what do you care if he is wandering around out there?

you are against the war on drugs. what do you care if they grow opium or not?

 

Plase explain to me what the US has done to prevent terrorism in the US and what the UK is doing wrong? Which policies are you referring to?

We prevent terrorism with intelligence from investigations by MI5 and the police. We also invaded Iraq.

Please explain what you think the UK Government has done wrong?