It would be best to limit invasions to nations that actually have terrorists plotting against us in them. Rather than invade, topple a government, and let the terrorists in. That just seems like a bad policy.
It would be best to limit invasions to nations that actually have terrorists plotting against us in them. Rather than invade, topple a government, and let the terrorists in. That just seems like a bad policy.duxup
Invade, you mean liberate. And we didn't let the terrorists into Iraq, we drew them into Iraq in order to kill them.
I think it's the stupidest names for a "war" ever.
duxup
it's better than "overseas contingency operation". It might be better names "Damn what have we gotten ourselves into!" Yeah, especially when you send 30,000 new troops and then say you're gonna send them home in 18 months. What's the point of sending troops if you don't give them enough time to do their job?
[QUOTE="duxup"]It would be best to limit invasions to nations that actually have terrorists plotting against us in them. Rather than invade, topple a government, and let the terrorists in. That just seems like a bad policy.whipassmt
Invade, you mean liberate. And we didn't let the terrorists into Iraq, we drew them into Iraq in order to kill them. It is like you went to the "education" programs the Bush administration ran for their propaganda campaigners during the run up to the war. It is unfortunate people still buy that stuff. The death toll and damage absorbed mostly by civilians, the lack of human rights granted in Iraq, and a government just waiting to topple isn't much for liberation. Let alone, no WMDs. Or are you still going to argue they were mysteriously hidden again?
[QUOTE="duxup"]It would be best to limit invasions to nations that actually have terrorists plotting against us in them. Rather than invade, topple a government, and let the terrorists in. That just seems like a bad policy.duxup
Invade, you mean liberate. And we didn't let the terrorists into Iraq, we drew them into Iraq in order to kill them. It is like you went to the "education" programs the Bush administration ran for their propaganda campaigners during the run up to the war. It is unfortunate people still buy that stuff. The death toll and damage absorbed mostly by civilians, the lack of human rights granted in Iraq, and a government just waiting to topple isn't much for liberation. Let alone, no WMDs. Or are you still going to argue they were mysteriously hidden again? I think he was joking....
[QUOTE="duxup"]It would be best to limit invasions to nations that actually have terrorists plotting against us in them. Rather than invade, topple a government, and let the terrorists in. That just seems like a bad policy.whipassmt
Invade, you mean liberate. And we didn't let the terrorists into Iraq, we drew them into Iraq in order to kill them. It's cute that you actually believe that.
[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Invade, you mean liberate. And we didn't let the terrorists into Iraq, we drew them into Iraq in order to kill them.
Raikoh_
It is like you went to the "education" programs the Bush administration ran for their propaganda campaigners during the run up to the war. It is unfortunate people still buy that stuff. The death toll and damage absorbed mostly by civilians, the lack of human rights granted in Iraq, and a government just waiting to topple isn't much for liberation. Let alone, no WMDs. Or are you still going to argue they were mysteriously hidden again? I think he was joking.... If so, he's been doing a good job running the joke for a months now ;)
[QUOTE="duxup"]It would be best to limit invasions to nations that actually have terrorists plotting against us in them. Rather than invade, topple a government, and let the terrorists in. That just seems like a bad policy.duxup
Invade, you mean liberate. And we didn't let the terrorists into Iraq, we drew them into Iraq in order to kill them. It is like you went to the "education" programs the Bush administration ran for their propaganda campaigners during the run up to the war. It is unfortunate people still buy that stuff. The death toll and damage absorbed mostly by civilians, the lack of human rights granted in Iraq, and a government just waiting to topple isn't much for liberation. Let alone, no WMDs. Or are you still going to argue they were mysteriously hidden again? Define WMD. In the hands of that Maniac Hussein an Ak-47 could be considered a WMD (Aks have probably killed more people than nukes have anyway). Oh and the WMD thing wasn't started by the Bush Administration, it was started by the Clinton folks (that's why Bubba bombed Iraq in the 90s).
It's a war that can't ever be won. It's a waste of lives, money and resources. How can one fight and win against an idea? If all the Afgan terrorists are gone right now, then that means none will ever resurface? Terrorism only exists in the Middle East?
It's a war that can't ever be won. It's a waste of lives, money and resources. How can one fight and win against an idea? If all the Afgan terrorists are gone right now, then that means none will ever resurface? Terrorism only exists in the Middle East?
Our country (the USA) needs to stop this ****
neo_starwind
and if we stop fighting them, how will we prevent them from attacking us. Yes the fight will be long and hard, but we can't just sit on our asses and twiddle our thumbs and hope the terrorists won't come trying to kill us.
It would be best to limit invasions to nations that actually have terrorists plotting against us in them. Rather than invade, topple a government, and let the terrorists in. That just seems like a bad policy.duxup
Imagine that if GW had two brain cells ,what could be achieved for 1 million dollars ,one good assassin and kill Saddam and let Iraqis fight it out.
Same recipe for Israel/Palestinian conflict ,arm both sides equally let them kill each other and wipe out survivors and presto peace in Middle East.
Anybody who takes my posts seriously should drink more coffee
It's a war that can't ever be won. It's a waste of lives, money and resources. How can one fight and win against an idea? If all the Afgan terrorists are gone right now, then that means none will ever resurface? Terrorism only exists in the Middle East?
Our country (the USA) needs to stop this ****
whipassmt
and if we stop fighting them, how will we prevent them from attacking us.Fighting the Afgans isn't going to solve anything. Wait until a homegrown terrorist shows up and blows some **** up. I don't think you understand that we CAN NOT win this "war" ever. It's impossible. You can't control what another human being will do.
My brief thoughts: Afghanistan - justified course of action. Sadly it's turning into 2nd Vietnam for coalition forces. Iraq - well the only reason for which coalition forces are in this country was a witch hunt after 9/11. To this day no WMD (main reason for invasion) where not found. In addition the puppet government will collapse as soon as coalition forces pull out of the region.
After 9 years of war, pacification and stabilization missions not much will change. This is a sad period of human history.
[QUOTE="duxup"]It would be best to limit invasions to nations that actually have terrorists plotting against us in them. Rather than invade, topple a government, and let the terrorists in. That just seems like a bad policy.whipassmt
Invade, you mean liberate. And we didn't let the terrorists into Iraq, we drew them into Iraq in order to kill them. wait what? WE drew them into Iraq to kill them ?????
it's not as much of a joke as the War on Drugs, but our policy in fighting this "war" sucks. I'd support it a little more if we did a better job eliminating terrorists to be quite frank with you.
[QUOTE="duxup"]It would be best to limit invasions to nations that actually have terrorists plotting against us in them. Rather than invade, topple a government, and let the terrorists in. That just seems like a bad policy.duxup
Invade, you mean liberate. And we didn't let the terrorists into Iraq, we drew them into Iraq in order to kill them. It is like you went to the "education" programs the Bush administration ran for their propaganda campaigners during the run up to the war. It is unfortunate people still buy that stuff. The death toll and damage absorbed mostly by civilians, the lack of human rights granted in Iraq, and a government just waiting to topple isn't much for liberation. Let alone, no WMDs. Or are you still going to argue they were mysteriously hidden again? The other day in Critical Thinking, we took a look at Bush's speech and his reason to go to War with Iraq and we all lol'd. I cant believe I fell for that back then :(
Lets look at the facts, The two Middle East american wars have killed more than 250 000 civilians.
One country, Iraq, never attacked america nor did it show any intention to, and the other country, Afghanistan (if one could consider it a country) had one of its factions use its American CIA training and funding to attack a building in america killing 3000 people.
So all the current conflict trace back to being of american responsibility.
There is more to this story. I think everybody at this point just wants it to end.GrandJury
This. Too much show, too many lies, too many excuses. Too many lives and press involved. They are screwing with the laws everywhere in illegal or very totalitarian ways. I just want it to end so that people can have a good look at what they let happen in the meantime.
[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Invade, you mean liberate. And we didn't let the terrorists into Iraq, we drew them into Iraq in order to kill them.
Tjeremiah1988
It is like you went to the "education" programs the Bush administration ran for their propaganda campaigners during the run up to the war. It is unfortunate people still buy that stuff. The death toll and damage absorbed mostly by civilians, the lack of human rights granted in Iraq, and a government just waiting to topple isn't much for liberation. Let alone, no WMDs. Or are you still going to argue they were mysteriously hidden again? The other day in Critical Thinking, we took a look at Bush's speech and his reason to go to War with Iraq and we all lol'd. I cant believe I fell for that back then :( But at least Bush isn't giving terrorists miranda rights and trying them in Civilian courts. And at least he did something, which is more than I can say for Clinton.
[QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"][QUOTE="duxup"] It is like you went to the "education" programs the Bush administration ran for their propaganda campaigners during the run up to the war. It is unfortunate people still buy that stuff. The death toll and damage absorbed mostly by civilians, the lack of human rights granted in Iraq, and a government just waiting to topple isn't much for liberation. Let alone, no WMDs. Or are you still going to argue they were mysteriously hidden again?whipassmt
The other day in Critical Thinking, we took a look at Bush's speech and his reason to go to War with Iraq and we all lol'd. I cant believe I fell for that back then :( But at least Bush isn't giving terrorists miranda rights and trying them in Civilian courts. And at least he did something, which is more than I can say for Clinton.
action is always better than inaction. at least you have a degree of control over what happens that way...
lol at people saying kill them all, and wipe out the entire place. you do realize that this is not going to last forever and it will eventually back fire at you? this is simply how the world worked for thousands of years.
Log in to comment