One question: would any of you anti-Bush guys like to live in a society such as the former iraq used to be?
You dont get the point, laws are here for a reason, if all the presidents were like bush and figured they were above the law, this world would be chaos.. how is that hard to understand... he had the chance to do it the right way, its obvious iraq was nowhere near capable to wage a war against america, hell look at them...
HA HA HA! I also wouldn't want to live in China, let's go get 'em!!!! Let's go blow up every country we wouldn't want to live in!
whether or not laws make sense, they are there to be followed, if you break a law whether or not it makes sense in america, you get punnished, that's how it works. If you want to change the law, you do so with words, you dont just go out and break them and assume everyone will be fine with it.
It lacks context. How many hundreds of thousands were killed under Saddam's regime? There have been deaths, but at least, these serve a purpose that many thousands won't have to die in the future if a more peaceful regime is put in place afterwards.
Oh God, not this again. The bizarre concept that George Bush broke some imaginary law. The next thing they will do is forget once again that the U.N. passed a resolution authorizing the use of force. Then they will forget that the U.N. resolution was entirely unnecessary, because the U.S. is not some minor department of the U.N. They will conveniently forget that the U.N. is a coordinating body, not a true law-making body. Then they will forget that the U.S. Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of force. Then they will conveniently forget everything else which stands in the way of their blind hatred...
"Was it worth it? An Iraqi family debates." On the eve of the three-year anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, the Methboubs, like most Iraqis, feel a mix of frustration, disappointment, and hope in the face of daily sectarian violence.... http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0317/p01s04-woiq.html
It is as if these morons would not fight WWII because people were hurt in that war. 60 million people were killed in that war, if I recall correctly. But I guess it was wrong for the U.S. to join, fight, win, and end that war -- because people got hurt. I am amazed at how wildly illogical people can be when they are consumed with hatred.
How many millions have been killed in Africa while we did nothing about it. Face it dude, we're not in Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqis. The Iraq war is one of the most astonishing failures in military history!! And that's looking good right about now.
We're not there to "blow people up". And China doesn't have death squads trained to kill us. They are not really a threat to us. They don't follow a book that calls on killing us. They have a fucked up ideology and they do violate human rights. But as in so many cases, such as we have seen with the downfall of Europe style communism, sometimes things take time and the peaceful way of making an impact can accomplish more. We have strengthened the eastern Europeans from within, given them a taste of freedom, having stood our ground protecting West Berlin, a pillar of freedom within a communist world. We have done what we could and it worked. It's different with Muslims. They don't make sense. They will kill until they die. Good luck trying to use your good old American common sense over there.
Actually, our behavior in Africa is one of the most astonishing failures in the history of human rights. The Iraq War, militarily, was handled extremely well. Remember the Mother of all Battles? Instead, it's been a prolonged skirmish. Remember, we sufferred 70k+ casualties at the Battle of the Bulge and that is considered a major victory. We suffered, in a historical context, very few casualties in the Iraq war. We are now engaged in a struggle to support the Iraqi people in rebuilding a civil society which they have not had since the Baath party came to power. This is not our struggle, we are merely a supporting actor. It is the Iraqi's, with our aid, against the Islamist tyrrany. We will leave Iraq (mostly) when the Iraqi government feels confident that it can handle the situation on its own.
Right.... http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/conciliation.htm http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/race.htm http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/religion.htm http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/treatmentprisoners.htm http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.htm http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol1.htm http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm I know you probably wont read it, but at least try. Will, by you saying that this war is going extremely well, you are just again showing your ignorance. Turn it from the simpsons, and watch the news for a day, you might learn something.
So please tell us, how many people thanked you because their parents, brothers, sisters, uncle and aunts were killed or they have lost a leg, an arm or were burned all over their body? Just think if these people are so thankful, how thankful will be the dead. Too bad that the dead can not talk and thank you personally for all the good you have done for them.
Why don't you? You keep saying you have read it. But I'd be willing to bet serious cash that you haven't.
It is a WAR... people die... I think that is to be expected. But a few thousand lost for the sake of the greater good... that's what is important. For example... there were thousands of innocents lost in Hiroshima/Nagasaki... when we dropped the big bombs... but think of all the millions that were saved by not drawing out a lengthy war. Now to apply that to Iraq, without the firepower and air to ground bombing, we wouldn't have accomplished as swift, and as quick of an end to war. Sure if we just sent our soldiers in on the ground, there would have been few civilian losses in comparison, BUT.. there would have been many thousands more soldiers lost, and the numbers would be more horrific as far as total deaths go.. but the major difference, would be that the US and allied forces would have lost substantially more lives. Sure, by not going to war, we would have saved all of those lives... but how long do you think Saddam could have sat around before something had to go down? We couldn't take that risk. He's killed thousands of his own people, what would prevent him from sponsoring terrorism? Or worse? By ousting him, we probably saved hundreds of thousands from oppression, the quality of living is going up substantially, and finally women have rights in the country... sure people died, but so much has also been gained. It is WAR, People DIE... that's all there is to it. But the overall greater good can already be seen in Iraq as children dance to music on the streets, women go to schools, and own shops... you can already see how much change has already happened... and it's definitely for the good. How many women and children needed to die? How many people needed to live under fear? How long did you want this to go on? It's a far bigger picture than most people care to admit. As a veteran of the Gulf... seeing what I saw in Iraq BEFORE the war and seeing what I see NOW... is a HUGE IMPROVEMENT... and I would sacrifice my life day in and day out to give people, regardless of who they are the same qualities of life that we enjoy in the states... And if that means I support a shitty cause, then so be it... but that's what I believe to be ETHICALLY and MORALLY right and just. We are creating a better world for future generations in Iraq..