So your definition of to attack is something that needs to be done right here and now and by the attacker himself?
ok first off we didn't invade libya, so your example is making the case that war was unnessacary, that air strikes can be an effective deterent Secondly Saddam has not attacked us, not since the gulf war , outside of maybe shooting at our planes while they bomb him Your logic is that someone attacked us so we must attack somebody, ANYBODY and that will fix it makes no sense. We need to attack the people who created 911, the people who planned it, the people who funded it, etc Just attacking a random dictator does nothing to help us. Even the president has said that Iraq didn't have anything to do with 911
It's a good thing you're doing such a great job of being what the report tells dems to stay away from But please, keeping doing what you're doing! 2008 is just around the corner
I'm not for or against the Republican party. If the next candidate can form a sentence in the english language that makes sense he'll be one ahead of Bush in my book automatically I don't view things by political party, I view things by what's right for our country and my future. I want as much freedom as possible and not to be killed by a hap-hazzard war. Bush doesn't seem to care about either of those things
Ferret, that is exactly the statement that scares me, because it slices the pie so thin. What about all the cells that are developing as we speak? The whole "let's just get the ones responsible" argument sound great, but in reality in other parts of the world children in school are being tought that dying as a suicide bomber is a glorious thing. The problem is so much bigger than just the ones who just did one thing. And who do you trust when you go in there? My fear is often the ones who silently symphasize and when it's time to take action, they might. Where am I wrong here? Haven't we experienced 35 years of consistent threads on some levels out of the Middle East? When will this shit ever stop. And please don't tell me it's because of Bush, it's been like that for a long time before Bush came into office. The difference is that we used to bend over and Bush refuses to. Bending over means getting it deeper (lol) and right now we're at a point where we can make a difference. So why leave Iraq now? Will has made a great point blaming Bush for not making it a part of the strategy to educate the American people and people world wide about the reasons to go into the war, other than the reasons that generate headlines. Yes, he has allowed himself to get deeper and deeper into this pissing contest over WMDs. Ask yourself what you think about the people over in nations that are being run by Tyrants just like nations in Africa where the people are starving and the dictator and his friends are smiling all the way to the bank. My point is that it's time to stop looking for the quick fix. This problem will not go away.
do you think having our troops in Iraq is doig anything to stop the cells from forming, if anything it is taking manpower and money away from hunting those cells Do you understand that none of 911 terrorists came from Iraq, they wern't trained in Iraq, and that Iraq is one of the most secualar countries in the middle east. And that by being in Iraq we are helping those people push their radical agenda in the neighboring countries Will thinks all wars are great, and its ok for the government to lie to the american people about why they are sending their kids over there to be killed or maimed. I think that its fucked up we let those people in Africa get slaughtered and we only help a country if there is oil for us in it. If anything the problems in Africa show the massive hypocrisy of the US foreign policy. Do you understand that just killing a bunch of arabs, doesn't fix anything, it pointless and even murderous unless you are targeting our real enemies.
Such good points ferret. I already brought up the part about Africa. They have it way worse than Iraqis ever did in parts of Africa. Talk about committing genocide? hundreds of thousands of them are starving to death because they have no food. Does anyone know how many people we could have fed with the $200 billion we've spent in Iraq killing people? we could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 8 years Source: http://costofwar.com/index-world-hunger.html Do you know what invading Iraq is solving? NOTHING. Even if we manage to set up a democracy and a legit free society, do you think thats going to stop extremist ideas? Do you think thats going to end terrorism? If you do you better wake up...
It's like having an entire German tank division coming towards you, but only being able to attack the tanks in front, because the tanks in the back haven't attacked you yet. Let's all try to remember that in WWII we won the war by killing a lot of Germans -- even those who were not actively shooting at us.
thats terrible analogy, very disappointing will you basically saying we have to kill everyone in middle east because eventually they all will attack us, and also we were at war with germany a better analogy for the Iraq War would be japan attacks pearl harbor and we invade vietnam, because they have slanty eyes
Are you sure you didn't quote will exactly with that sentence.. it sounds just like something he'd say. Will you think we should just attack all the muslims in the world huh? You never know which ones are going to become terrorist right?
When has the left ever been concerned about terrorists, other than their rights? Who said 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq? You mean these lies? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=283676&postcount=4 I've seen nothing that would lead me to believe you would ever be satisified. The format goes something like: But what about xxx? Someone gives an answer and it continues on with: But what about xxx? Someone gives an answer and it continues on with: But what about xxx? Someone gives an answer and it continues on with: But what about xxx? Someone gives an answer and it continues on with: But what about xxx? Someone gives an answer and .... Has anyone let zarqawi know that? Or is it still acceptable to give others credit for his deeds?
No it doesn't sound anything like something he, GTech or Debunked would ever say. If you took the time to read and open your mind a little bit, you would know. This comment like so many of yours just proves that you come in here with your mind made up and unwilling to even listen to the other side.
see this is sort of blanket right wing statements that add nothing to the debate Right wing nut jobs mostly, anyone with any sense knew it was about securing oil from jump, right wing nut jobs like newsmax http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/27/174809.shtml rumsfield knew how to exploit 911 quickly http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml or dick cheney http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/ Next Gtech will be excluding Iraq from the "war on terror" or the "global struggle against islamic extremism" In few years when we pull out of iraq and it turns into another repressive islamic state, or splits due to civil war, what will you say then? I'm just curious at what point you will admit its stupid to send troops to fight a defensive war , surrounded by enemy countries I mean is there any point , or anything that will make you admit it was the wrong idea? Gtech and Will probably think vietnam was a great idea. Anything involving military force just seem to give you guys woodies.
Its funny even the president says the war was about oil, but gtech just keeps on keeping the faith http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/ this pretty much sums it up http://www.lies.com/wp/2005/09/08/bush-we-need-to-stay-in-iraq-for-the-oil/
You're right after Will made statements like "boo hoo war is war and people die" I lost all respect for him and his idiotic (crackbrained: insanely irresponsible; ) views of human life. The facts remain that this redicolous war hasn't stopped terrorism and never will. We've spent $200 billion of money we don't even have, and our soldiers have died. There's now going to be at least 15,000 more "injured war vets" our tax dollars are going to be paying for the next 60 years. What exactly do you think is ever going to be accomplished from this war? The only thing I can think of is using it as a central base to go around invading more countries.
Who said 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq? From your link to Cheney: There are clear links to al qaida and I've presented them before. I can't accept responsibility for your refusal, whatever it may be, to recognize them. But who said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? Rumsfeld's story "But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld." Unsourced and it appears the article writer is not sure himself. Newsmax, pointing out the 9/11 report may have some mention. But who said? I take it you had no exception to the list of democrats who "lied?" Doubtful indeed. There are some who are concerned about it, and others who make excuses for it. I know which category I fall in I'm not convinced it will happen that way. But I'm not calling for immediate retreat and defeat so terrorists can make that happen. I prefer to say it's stupid to pull out now and let terrorists win. I tend not to be one of those that would sell out my country by giving aid and comfort to the enemy and their causes. But yes, there might be some scenarios out there. I do know who sent troops over there initially and who brought them home.
Quoted and bolded for emphasis Fist this war was about finding and destroying Saddamn's non-existent WMD's. Then this war was to liberate Iraqi's from Saddamn's brutal regime and therefore save them from everyday misery. Now this war is about keeping oil fields from terrorists!
Yet if we hadn't protected them after invasion, or protect them today, you'd be disappointed in that. It's a no-win situation. We should protect them. They are an asset of the Iraqi people. I suppose the alternative is to just pull out of Iraq and let terrorists win and take over them? I'm sure some would find that acceptable.