Yes, I'm aware of our inability to cross into pakistan, to find a man that's killed thousands of our citizens.. It's horrible... It won't happen, but in my eyes I don't understand why we are not allocating our full resources to find this guy... last time I heard anything about it, we had between 10k-15k troops in A-stan, and over 160k troops in iraq... Is that justice for those killed on 9/11?
Instead handed purple hearts if they're lucky enough to survive, otherwise the family gets handed an American flag? I'd rather our troops get handed orders home to their family, where you don't have to worry about roadside bombs and snipers (well, most the time)...
You mean common sense like constantly elevating the threat levels based upon dated intelligence? Or common sense like Cheney knowing in 1994 that Iraq would be a "quagmire" but going in anyway? Do you mean common sense like WMDs? Or how about common sense like doing whatever it takes to get body armor and equipment to the troops, instead of spending on a "Mission Accomplished" banner? How about the common sense that eliminated the tried-and-true military justice system in favor of the methods being used in Guantanamo? Authorize mercenaries to work as agents of the US government. They could cross into Pakistan and hunt Bin Laden. Bolster domestic security tangibly, not by authorizing wiretaps. The 9-11 report is RIFE with inefficiencies and failures by domestic agencies to recognize and stop the 9-11 attack. How has any of that been addressed? Pakistan is a military dictatorship, hardly better than Iraq was under Hussein. If they are harboring Bin Laden, claim to be our allies and won't let us get him, what kind of allies are they? It will all come out in the wash. 10 years from now, people will still argue that Iraq was necessary "to fight them over there, so we wouldn't have to fight them over here", but I am expecting history in general to regard this as another Vietnam.
And why can't our troops go into Pakistan to get bin Laden? Isn't Pakistan supposed to be our friend? Some friend they are. Bush forgets all about Osama when it's embarassing for him. That's not the mark of a leader, that is the mark of a coward.
It's hard to say. With all those false assertions and half ass truths, one can't *honestly* agree or disagree with you on that one. But then for some, only the message matters. Hindsight. That's how Ron Paul would lead. And, of course, sit down at the typewriter and whip out a letter to terrorists asking them to please stop If? What makes you think they are harboring him? Pakistan doesn't even want to go into those remote regions. You are basing positions upon hypothesis, as usual. There are many who wish for nothing more than defeatism for their country. I can't say I'll ever understand that beaten wife syndrome self-loathing attitude. It has to be a lack of home training. You assume Pakistan knows where he is? You assume he's even in Pakistan. He could be dead. Forgets what? Hypotheticals by a disgruntled keyboard ranger?
I'm not sure what is worse. Your lack of knowledge when it comes to the Constitution, or your self-loathing for the principles this country was founded on. Musharrif (sp!) is from NWFP, the same territory that is said to be harboring Bin Laden. That's absolute horsecrap about not wanting to go into those "remote" regions. Islamabad is less than 300 miles from the Afghan border. We talking about a small country here. I admire that you stick up for the folks no one else will, but at the end of the day, you're defending incompetence, and no amount of subtle insults or allusions to anti-americanism can cover up lies and inefficiencies. It is what it is GTech. Your consistent record on this stuff doesn't do credit to your intelligence. And while you are incredibly loyal, a pig is still a pig, no matter how much you argue with the slaughterhouse.
Does that explain why you took no exception and in fact, went to great lengths to defend, a democrat that proclaimed defeat on behalf of his country? That the observation is correct...you seek defeat for your country? Allrighty then...
I know of no passage in the Constitution that calls for defeatism. Perhaps the copy you have is different from mine? There is a passage about treason. Unfortunately it's not horsecrap at all. It's pretty well documented. I wasn't aware I was sticking up for "folks." Perhaps it's standing up for my country that is so upsetting to you? No amount of lies or subtle insults can cover up anti-Americanism. It's alive and well. patriotism - "devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty." I guess they haven't received the new updated and redefined definition yet, huh? Perhaps one day you'll defend your country, right here on this very forum. A turd dressed in a tuxedo is still a turd. Bush will be out of office soon enough. Perhaps then you might stand up for your country. Four year patriotism seems to be a popular fad these days.
Osama was the patsy after 9/11. Amazing after all the fuss and the hysterical media repitition of his name that six months later he was barely mentioned. If GTech had half a brain he might have figured that one out by now. You would think that someone (ostensibly) responsible for the death of over 3,000 innocent people would have been chased a little bit harder than he was. But he wasn't. Why? Because the patsy had served his purpose, that's why.
I'll defend my country and it's principles. I'm not going to defend a bunch of war mongers (see peace, liberty), nation builders (see sovereignty) or crooks (to uphold...). Look at who you are defending so vehemently and ask yourself honestly, if they represent all that America aspires to be. If they set the gold standard for behavior by a civil servant and proud American. Then when you know what is worth fighting for, get back to me with your veiled slights about treason.
Defeat (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/defeat): Since it would be naive to think the insurgents don't want us there, as we make it easy for them to kill American's, they wouldn't be winning anything by us withdrawing to save US lives... I suppose you're for the anti-troop option of leaving our guys there indefinitely, loosing lives, and showing the world that we're not able to beat a 3rd world country in a guerrilla war, destroying $17b worth of equipment each year, and decreasing our readiness... Are you too blind to see that defeat is leaving our troops there?
Eh? Why are you equating 9/11 with Iraq? If there was ONE thing that Bush and Saddam agreed on it was that Osama Bin Laden was a dangerous fundementalist nutcase. (Don't forget under Saddam Iraq was a secular state). In Iraq both Al Queda (and Iran) have now gleefully joined in but only because we've given them the opportuniuty. 'After the 9/11 attacks we had to do something'. Even if I accept that "Two wrongs DO make a Right" - why attack Iraq? How many Iraqis were involved in 9/11? Why didn't you attack Saudi Arabia instead?
That's the question no one wants to answer. Just like there is no plausible answer to attack Iraq when OBL is rumored to be in Pakistan, which is a very small country, run by a military dictatorship. Bill Maher brings up a good point on his recent shows. Bush said this was a new kind of war, and yet we're still fighting the traditional kind of war. Perhaps it is naiveity on my part, but I truly believe that tougher enforcement on incoming air travellers, and a more sophisticated domestic defense, intelligence and response system would have gone a lot farther towards serving "the people" than running around like Don Quixote, hacking at bushes shaped like dragons and challenging backwater nations to gentlemanly duels. I'm wondering when the math will add up on this one. I'm pretty sure (without knowing figures off the top of my head) that we have exceeded the death/wounded count and cost of the 9-11 attack in Iraq alone, with no end in sight. Contrary to a certain poster's opinion of my stance in this forum, I am all for going to war and fighting to win. It's just that the war needs to be voted on by Congress so that the government has the tools it needs to succeed (including extra taxation), and the war should be for something, something more than an ideology. If we have democracy and freedom at home, why do we have to die and compromise our economy to spread it? Not a big fan of evangelism. I prefer to set an example, and provide opportunity for other folks to participate. I'd like to see us "win" in Iraq. How we define winning though is different person to person. For me, winning would be extricating ourselves with a minimum loss of life and cost, without leaving Iraq in a shambles. If it costs a lot of American lives and further undermines the dollar to stay, I'm not "for" that. Pulling out of Iraq in a graduated and organized fashion is not "defeat" or "failure". Anything that saves American lives and protects the rights and freedoms of the people at home is a winning outcome. After all, does anyone believe that if we beat Iraq and maybe later Iran, that we will have won the war on terror? Does it mean we'll be able to fly without invasive inspection of our carry-ons or without the lingering doubt in our minds that a hijacking is possible as pre-9/11? Things have changed. We've all been changed. No amount of middle eastern combat is going to change that.
ok, using your stats....the # of US soldiers killed has gone down from april till last month...so therefore the surge is not working??? WTF?? Do you realize what you said? Furthermore, why do you blame the large attacks against the iraqi's on the US troop surge? You say they are not doing their job since more iraqi's are being killed....heres an idea, why don't you tell your buds to stop blowing each other up.
d16, here is the deal on that though. Under Saddam, there were hardly any suicide bombings. In Baghdad, one was much more likely to find women working, getting an education and wearing blue jeans (a pretty big deal in throwback islamic countries). Saddam had a secular government, and was not a known pal of Bin Laden. It's been proven, time and time again that suicide bombings have a very direct relation to either occupation or oppression. If they weren't suicide bombing Saddam, why the hell are they suicide bombing us? It's a valid question.
thats because he had them on his side...yes, no suicide bombings, but plenty of killing of innocent people, ordered mainly by saddam...remember that he was tried and convicted of this.... if you call a crooked dictatorship a secular govt...he oppressed many people, all the while making his pockets heavy with the "oil for food" money... Saddam was in power and a member of the minority group of muslims...Now his group is mad that they are the minority and don't have as much control...look at the whole situation...his whole party is still the problem....why are you going out on a limb to defend him and these terrorist goons?
I'm not arguing that Saddam was a good guy. Obviously, he was one of the most evil people in history. But my point is that even though he was evil, and he oppressed and killed, Iraq wasn't a region known for it's insurgents (discounting the northern Shia region) or suicide bombers. He did run a secular government though. He kept the religious fanatics and extremist clerics marginalized. What some people misunderstand about Iraq is that it was (for a dictatorship) a very modern and developed society in that region. I'm not saying the evil of Saddam is to be credited with it, but one has to recognize what was there before we arrived. The Royal Family of Saud don't exactly run the most westernized nation over there in Saudi Arabia, and they certainly gouge their people on the oil income as well. I'm not going out on a limb. I'm not defending terrorist goons. As usual, I'm trying to talk about facts, discuss both sides of a story and hopefully find some enlightened conversation. It's a small minded man who paints another view point as supporting the terrorists, and you are not a small minded man, so please, let's try to have this discussion without the theatrics, finger pointing and name calling.