KlokWyze
Diamond Member
Sorry I don't willingly support corrupt government with fixed elections that lie endlessly about pretty much everything.
Sorry I don't willingly support corrupt government with fixed elections that lie endlessly about pretty much everything.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
The 'plan' that failed in Vietnam had more honesty and credibility than the 'plan' that is currently failing in Iraq.
Your comment of a nations support - if you really mean it, is dishonest and if you believe it, you are a disgrace to the uniform.
Bush's mindless agenda is not the will of the people of the united states, only the purpose of a few who want to rule the world for their own gain.
Don't bring your 'push around and pulling rank' from your military service in here - you'll find out that you are outranked and many are a hell of a lot brighter than you think you are.
Do your goddamn job and quit whining about what the majority of the country's poulation thinks when it doesn't agree with your narrowminded view.
KlokWyze
Diamond Member
Exactly. Whoever supports this puppet government is a tool. Literally. You are defending the very people who ****** you over. Real bright.
Todd33
Diamond Member
- Oct 16, 2003
- 7,842
- 2
- 81
Your support for these civilian clowns who get your fellow servicemen killed is sickening. Welcome back to P&N, we missed your RNC talking points mixed with "dissent = traitor" talk.
"lack of support in our own nation doesnt help"
Priceless. No matter what lies they tell, no matter how incompetent the actions the public must support the conflict? Guess what, 60% of American don't support the mission in Iraq. We were sold a bill of goods and it was a bait and switch. No WMDs, no al Qauda links, no flower and candy. No matter how long we stay, we will be targets and the Shia majority will elect leaders that will ultimately turn Iraq into Iran II. Of course people said this before the invasion, but who likes facts or reality when you can play war?
So let me see here..
You can grasp International Forgien Policy with no issues and "dumb" it down for everybody, but you have a problem with a simple sentence.
You compare Nazi Germany which started to attack the US. You also compare SK with Iraq, the US has a strong stance againts the spread of communism. To a country who was not a threat to its neighbors (Iraq).
It was clear even before the war started that the major groups in Iraq were kept under control by Saddam.
I see three options:
1) Full pull out. Fine by me.
2) Stay there. Bad move, nothing is getting done over there, it is just going to sit and boil and get worse before it gets better.
3) Go back to the Iron Fist rule like Saddam had it. Bad move just postponing the problem.
None of those examples compare to what we are discussing, not even a little bit. It's shameful and sad.
Todd33
Diamond Member
- Oct 16, 2003
- 7,842
- 2
- 81
I'm looking for quotes in the run up for war that said we were going to rebuild and occupy Iraq for 3, 8, 25, 50 or 60 years. Can you link that for me? I could have swore we went into get rid of Saddam and WMDs, it was supposed to take months if I can recollect (or just read what Rummy said above). Not to mention it was supposed to cost $1.7B.. err... $50B and be paid for by Iraqi oil revenue. What are we at now, $300B and the estimate is $1.2T after everything is paid for?
I'm wondering how many blind support post you would have made if Clinton had started this failed endeavour? Would all the GOP congressmen who attacked him during Kosovo be labeled as traitors by you if he was in charge now? Hummm...
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
wrong. there have always been those who protested our extended occupations of those nations, especially within 3-5 years after each began. they were few and far between, though, because very few people involved themselves in the actual war-fighting process, or concerned themselves with the day-to-day activities during said occupations.
The difference is this: the news covers Iraq every day. Thus, every American thinks about it every day. Back in the 40's, 50's, and early 60's, the media hardly understood or printed the situations in Germany, Japan, or S. Korea.
Now, Iraq is a 24/7/365 thing for them.
Combine that with the general tendency for Americans to want everything here-and-now, or to be resolved in a two-part mini-series, or the end of a 30 minute sitcom. Do so and you'll begin to grasp why the majority of Americans are "tired" of our presence in Iraq after only three years.
Beginning with Vietnam, our nation has been forced into "half-fought wars" because the media and the civilian populace began to tie the hands of those doing the fighting. Only since the invention of the TV has the average citizen cared to involve themselves in the day-to-day logistics of fighting a war.
The media is the single biggest influence on modern warfare, and it's the single biggest reason we have as many problems as we do.
Sure, it grants access to information to every breathing soul, but is such insight or knowledge a good thing? Is it a good thing that Americans no longer have the tenacity to finish what they start? Is a weak national face the one we really should be showing the world? Does the world honestly see strength in our inability to agree to anything within our own borders? Does the 24/7 attack on our President truly represent democracy and a free society? Is that the example we really want to show the world? Does their seeing our extreme divisiveness spilled across their TV screens every day make us safer, or put us in more danger? Do you really believe that their perception of us improves when all they see is our internal bickering day-in and day-out? Do the nations who desire to become democracies see our lack of solidarity and change their minds? Is our right to disagree enough of an example of how democracy is great, or do the other strong nations in the world see it as weakness?
Does our own internal bickering and lack of solidarity make us stronger or weaker in the eyes of the world?
Todd33
Diamond Member
- Oct 16, 2003
- 7,842
- 2
- 81
Yes, the media is the problem. They expose lies about WMDs, they disclose info about illegal wiretapping. They show us the mess that Rumsfeld had made in Iraq. Damn the media, if we could only hide everything the government and military does from the voters and taxpayers.
I bet palehorse74 would love to have a military coup here at home, well assuming Hilary or a (D) won.
We won't be there forever. Just look at quickly the Israelis were able to solve their problem with the Palestinians.
The mission was to stop a huge supporter and enabler of terrorism before he used/provided already developed and further developing WMD especially given his ties to alqaeda. That has been accomplished.
Second - enable the country to maintain itself in a peacful manner. Working on that, making great strides.
Second - enable the country to maintain itself in a peacful manner. Working on that, making great strides.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 173
- 106
I can't really see us (the USA) accomplishing #3.
So, I find our situtaion to be of a range from #1 to 2.
Pull out now, immediately, being one end of the range, to stay there idefinately at the other end.
I believe what WILL happen is somewhere in between the two extremes (duh).
I hope they (military) are making suffiecient progress on building a legitimate Iraqi security force for our eventual pull-out and their capability to sustain some stability.
At the same time, I hope the various political factions, and their new leaders, continue to work on developing legimate political processes. I suspect it's all new to them, in this post-Saddam era.
Fern
[/quote]
You need to do some serious research before spouting off that old tired party line.
For the last time Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and he hated Bin Laden and Al Quaeda as much as we did. My God the continued belief that Saddam=Al Qaeda is mind numbing.
Where are the developed and/or developing programs of WMD? Oh wait, none have been found. Did Saddam use WMD's on his own people in the past? Yes. Did the UN or subsequent American invasion turn up WMD's or even programs? Nope.
Is he different then other dictators we support? No. Did we support him during the Iran/Iraq war? Yes.
Hyprocisy
By the way, I am an ardent anti Bush republican who believes we must stay the course in Iraq (and hold the President and his Kabal responsible) for the war there. We cannot abandon the Iraqi people or our troops now. If we really cared about stopping terrorists we would have cracked down on Syria, Iran, N. Korea (Saudi Arabia our ally), Yemen, Sudan, and to a lesser extent China (love those imports though). These nations hadn't already been defeated in a war and monitored (even if unevenly) and I would bet their WMD programs are a lot further along than Iraqs was (oh wait none have been found) before our invasion.
"Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Pat Roberts (R-KS), definitively concluded Bush?s claim is inaccurate. From pg. 109 of their report:
Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and?the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."
Read it and weep
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter