Sign in to follow this  
Winnie G

As I Pound In My Vote Liberal Sign On The Lawn

Recommended Posts

Well I am sure this will shake a few angry voters out of their trees were Republicans fling their waste at each other.

So I tern on the TV this evening after proudly hammering in the stakes to my Vote Liberal sign in to my front lawn. And what do I hear?

Al Qaeda got no help from Iraq, says 9/11 panel?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?sid=100822&nid=6

Words like "no credible evidence" that al Qaeda and Iraq cooperated in the attacks fill my ears.

Well push me over with a feather!

You mean Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden weren’t queer bedfellows? Well what about those credible newspapers at the grocery check out were it was front-page news that Saddam and Bin Laden were married in their cave hid out last winter???

On top of that as I sat in a doctor’s office today and had the chance to read Time Magazine issue awarding the man of the year to the American soldiers, I was impressed and deeply touched but there was a under lining thought that fallowed the coverage that fallowed Tomb Radars that the reporter fallowed. It was after they been their awhile and watched as friends and leaders died even after Bush declared end of major combat was why the military was now in a almost hidden seek trying to draw out insurgents were more soldiers were being picked off in a urban shooting gallery then they were shooting back.

Some of the soldiers what to know were they get there turn to kick butt? And I quote “do they know what is going on over here”?

It brought back memories of Vietnam and a badly run war were the Whitehouse tied the hands of the military while young men and women died.

I have to say part of me was angry that those young men and women are target practice for insurgents, wile an election year drags on.

I would like to ask those of this board to think about those men and women when they vote.

I want to say SHOW ME THE WEPOINS of invisible Destruction!?

And explain to me the meaning of "no credible evidence"?

And does Bush deserve another four years in office to prove he was right the first time? While soldiers are picked off?

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Starsky

I say NO!!!!!! Bush should not get another chance to finish the destroying of our country!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be easier to make a response if I could understand fully what you're trying to say. Not offense intended, but could anyone please interpret the following quote from your post?

Some of the soldiers what to know were they get there turn to kick butt?

I think you are trying to say a lot of things but fail to get your point across due to your poor spelling and syntax.

I did kind of see a semi-clear question about WMD's and the supposed lack of their discovery. Perhaps you have missed this in the liberal newscasts lately, but a few days ago it was reported by UN inspectors that numerous banned Iraqi WMD components had been found in scap yards in neighboring countries. The report apparently stated that the components had been shipped out of Iraq before, during, and after the American-led bid to oust Saddam. And maybe you also missed the report a couple months ago about the soldier exposed to a bomb containing sarin gas. Or maybe you, as well as the major (liberal) media, choose to ignore or quickly forget these things, because they tend to go against your preconceived biases.

Let me ask a few questions, and please try to answer concisely. Knowing what you know now, do you still wish that the US had never gone to Iraq and that Saddam were still in power? Do you think your answer would be different if you or some of your relatives had previously held political views that did not agree with Saddam? Can anyone tell us how many innocent people Saddam and his regime were responsible for killing and/or raping? Is that number comparable to what the US has done to innocent Iraqi people?

I don't know what rags you read in Canada, but I haven't heard of any credible news agency reporting that Saddam and Osama were married. I always figured both of those guys as heterosexuals, but I guess they could possibly have more skeletons in their closets than most mass murderers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by john doe@Jun 17 2004, 01:08 AM

I think you are trying to say a lot of things but fail to get your point across due to your poor spelling and syntax.

Amen... not trying to be mean, but I couldn't understand half of it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Starsky@Jun 17 2004, 09:05 AM

There is another party....Independant..

That is how I'm registered but unfortunately there will never (well, at least probably not in my lifetime) be a president elected who is not a member of one of the two big parties. I would vote for someone besides those two on order of principle, but I really see it as a waste of time. For the record though, I will vote!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Starsky
Originally posted by shanstress70+Jun 17 2004, 07:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shanstress70 @ Jun 17 2004, 07:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Starsky@Jun 17 2004, 09:05 AM

There is another party....Independant..

That is how I'm registered but unfortunately there will never (well, at least probably not in my lifetime) be a president elected who is not a member of one of the two big parties. I would vote for someone besides those two on order of principle, but I really see it as a waste of time. For the record though, I will vote!

They say...don't vote independant because they want to keep us within their power...did you know that it doesn't matter who you vote for, Kerry or Bush...they are actually the same party? chosen by the same body of people?

Yes...it is true...we really don't have a choice...it is all for show...all to make us think we have some power in what is happening....but it really isn't so...

Here is a political forum

There is a lot of savy people who have actually studied all of this out....

You might get some insights or ask some questions there....and get some good answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The party that I would be interested in is the Constitution Party.

I think that as long as we believe that only someone from the two big parties will be elected, then that is what will happen. If everyone who said I would vote for someone from X party, but ....................., really voted for the other party, I think it would really shock America into making some big changes.

IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jenda@Jun 17 2004, 10:17 AM

I think that as long as we believe that only someone from the two big parties will be elected, then that is what will happen. If everyone who said I would vote for someone from X party, but ....................., really voted for the other party, I think it would really shock America into making some big changes.

Jenda,

Hypothetically, that is true. But I still don't think it will ever happen. I have made up my mind though to vote for someone other than Bush or Kerry. Thanks for the inspiration to do so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jiggs Casey

On the issue of WMDs - yes, one shell with sarin gas was found. And perhaps banned Iraqi WMD components have been found in neighboring countries´ scrap yards. But how old were these things? (the sarin gas shell is believed to be from the Iraq/Iran war of the 1980s.) The components in scrap yards were probably just as old. The question really is, how many functional WMDs were in Iraq in March 2003 when Cheney said there was NO DOUBT that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? I dare say not very many. Was Iraq able to evacuate them right before, or even during, the war? Not likely. Iraqi organization is an oxymoron.

Saddam played the neocons like a cheap violin. He apparently had no WMDs yet convinced US leaders, with the world´s most sophisticated and extensive intelligence capabilities at their disposal, that he had oodles of them lined up and waiting to be launched at the great Satan. Talk about effective psychological warfare, and we fell, hook, line and sinker.

Bush/Cheney took a huge gamble invading Iraq (the real reason for which we may never know). They lost the gamble, and we have lost almost 1,000 soldiers and marines in the process. Rumsfeld singlehandedly destroyed US foreign policy with his arrogance. Powell sold his credibility by touting "evidence" to the UN that even he didn´t appear to believe.

And they still won´t admit that they have made any mistakes.

What an administration. Thank the Lord for term limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Starsky

I know I feel like we fell for a trap....and we are paying dearly.

The thing that makes me the madest about this war is the pathetic way we are going about it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Starsky@Jun 17 2004, 08:52 AM

I know I feel like we fell for a trap....and we are paying dearly.

The thing that makes me the madest about this war is the pathetic way we are going about it.....

I guess it depends on how you define "paying dearly".

Maybe we didn't find any WMD, but we have liberated a country which desperately needed liberating, and (when you look past the liberal media) are praising our name in the streets. Did we make some mistakes? Yes. Will we make more mistakes? Unfortunately, we probably will, but we will make them no matter who is president.

I, personally, don't feel that Bush was any worse for America than Clinton was. And at least he brought back morality to the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Starsky
Originally posted by Jenda+Jun 17 2004, 09:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jun 17 2004, 09:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Starsky@Jun 17 2004, 08:52 AM

I know I feel like we fell for a trap....and we are paying dearly.

The thing that makes me the madest about this war is the pathetic way we are going about it.....

I guess it depends on how you define "paying dearly".

Maybe we didn't find any WMD, but we have liberated a country which desperately needed liberating, and (when you look past the liberal media) are praising our name in the streets. Did we make some mistakes? Yes. Will we make more mistakes? Unfortunately, we probably will, but we will make them no matter who is president.

I, personally, don't feel that Bush was any worse for America than Clinton was. And at least he brought back morality to the White House.

I don't know that using one's office to conduct personal business is moral....but if you are talking only about sex...then I guess bush is moral....

And I don't see a country being liberated....It is, if anything, being destroyed....the people are under seige daily....they don't dare go out to eat, shop, or send their kids to school....how liberating is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jiggs Casey

Maybe we didn't find any WMD, but we have liberated a country which desperately needed liberating

Unfortunately, Bush/Cheney´s entire justification for the war revolved around WMD, not liberating people. If it were just about liberating people, there are a few other countries that could stand in line, too, but we don´t seem to be interested in them. In fact, Bush did not mention liberating the people until the week before the war started. It was about disarming Iraq, then it was regime change, then it was "if Saddam goes, we don´t invade", then it was "Saddam doesn´t have to go, but if he disarms, then that is regime change enough". It was always about the WMDs which allegedly posed a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. Only in the days before the war started did Bush even mention liberating the Iraqis - that was when he was grasping for straws, using the shotgun effect to try to find any reason for war that would resonate with the people. I remember it vividly, hearing the "reason of the day" as I was sweltering in the heat in Kuwait (even in February and March) preparing for the war to start, thinking "I hope these guys are right - I hope we find all these WMDs, otherwise we are going to look pretty stupid."

Well, they were wrong. Plain wrong. And yes, we do look pretty stupid.

I would consider losing almost 1,000 young (and some not so young) soldiers and marines to be paying dearly - I would imagine their families feel the same way. Not to mention the enormous cost in terms of money and other resources going down the drain on a daily basis over there. Personally, I don´t think it was worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jenda@Jun 17 2004, 11:03 AM

Maybe we didn't find any WMD, but we have liberated a country which desperately needed liberating, and (when you look past the liberal media) are praising our name in the streets. Did we make some mistakes? Yes. Will we make more mistakes? Unfortunately, we probably will, but we will make them no matter who is president.

We can't go around doing this. For one thing, it's dangerous to say, "Oh we're America, the best country in the world. Everyone needs to be like us." First we declare war on Iraq, then Saudi Arabia, then maybe England since they are not like us. There are so many countries that we think need liberating. But do we really want to do that? I know I don't want my child to be drafted in the future to go and fight to liberate Indonesia! Fighting to defend our country is one thing!

I agree that Hussein is a miserable excuse for a person, and that Iraqi's will be better off b/c of it, but our military did not sign up to sacrifice their lives so that Iraq could be liberated. They did so to protect our country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jiggs,

When were you there, and what role did you play?

I am always scared that if I have a negative opinion about the war that I will come across as being unsupportive of our troops, which is furthest from the truth. I guess some may think I am, just because I don't think we should be there. But I know the troops don't have a say-so. The biggest reason I don't think we should be there is because of them dying for a cause that is something other than fighting for their country. It's kind of a catch 22. What do people in the military think of people who don't support the war? I bet they get pretty p###ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TheProudDuck

After 9/11, I suggested in a published letter to the Los Angeles Times that anti-American terrorism is equivalent to a hostile military alliance. That is, although there are separate groups, all of them share the same goal -- killing Americans, which in their mind brings the world closer to establishment of a global Islamic caliphate organized according to their radical interpretation of Islam.

Treating all global terrorists as an alliance avoids the crippling problem of having to wait until a particular terrorist group makes a really big score like 9/11 before acting against it. That is, we treat al-Qaeda as if it were in alliance with the Abu Nidal group, which is in alliance with Ansar al-Islam, which is in alliance with Laskar Jihad, which is in alliance with Hamas, and so forth. They all want the same thing, and cheer when one of their brother groups is successful.

Insisting that after 9/11, we focus only on the particular al-Qaeda group is like declaring war in 1941 only against the six Japanese carrier groups that hit Pearl Harbor. That would have been absurd. We declared war on everybody on Japan's side. (Granted, Germany and Italy were stupid enough to declare war on us first, which made President Roosevelt's job of declaring war on them a lot easier, but he would have done so anyway.) In World War II, our first large-scale ground offensive was against France, (the collaborationist Vichy forces in North Africa) not Japan (or even Germany). (The Guadalcanal campaign, begun three months earlier, involved only one division.) The North African campaign wasn't a direct attack against the ultimate enemy -- but it was strategically aimed at them, and laid the foundation for direct attacks which played a giant part in the war (the ultimate destruction of Rommel's German-Italian Afrika Korps, the invasions of Sicily and Italy, and air strikes on Axis-occupied Europe from Mediterranean bases.)

Saddam Hussein's Iraq clearly sponsored, supported, and harbored terrorist groups, even if there's little clear evidence of direct cooperation with al-Qaeda in particular. (Although Stephen Hayes' new book -- can't remember the title -- makes an intriguing case for such a connection.) The groups involved with Saddam included Abu Nidal's organization, Abu Abbas, and Ansar al-Islam, as well as the Palestinian terrorist groups. That's enough in my book to range him with the enemy. Frankly, I thought we should have conquered Syria and Iran as well. But Saddam was foolish enough to breach his truce with the UN in the 1991 war he started, by kicking out inspectors and failing to demonstrate he'd disposed of his weapons of mass destruction, all of which was acknowledged by the UN Security Council. In other words, a nasty and potentially dangerous dictator gave the world a passable legal ground for removing him. I'm glad we took it.

The way I see it, the jihadist terrorists are implacable. Since their goals are so extreme, they're not going to negotiate; when you're fighting to remake the world in the image of a religious fantasy, and you've succumbed to a death-loving cult, the old give-and-take of diplomacy, with minor concessions here and there, isn't going to work. This war is going to continue until (1) Sharia is imposed on the entire world; (2) all of us are dead; (3) a moderate Islamic civilization takes root in the Middle East; or (4) all of the Muslims are dead. Of those three goals, (1) and (2) aren't going to happen. Of the remaining options, I'd say (3) is preferable to (4). Steering Muslim civilization in a constructive direction is preferable to nuclear genocide (to understate the matter) if only because of what the latter would do to us as a civilization. But let two nuclear bombs go off in American cities, and we may well conclude that burning down the entire desert house to kill the cockroaches the locals can't seem to control is the only way to survive as a civilization. Faced with the choices of the wars of the ancient world (total victory or total destruction), I suspect the practices of ancient warfare might return.

So -- pick apart the whole terrorist alliance, group by group and state by state, to the greatest extent we can manage. The alternative is a lot uglier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the soldiers what to know were? opps (when) they get there turn to kick butt?

That was a quote fro Time Magazine

The US service men are paying a wait and see game wile their friends die. I can see there point of view.

I don't know what rags you read in Canada, but I haven't heard of any credible news agency reporting that Saddam and Osama were married.

It was a joke silly, :rolleyes: but it was on one of those tabloid rags from the US at the check out counter at the grocery store.

"paying dearly".

Just ask any family who has lost a son or daughter in this war.

We can't go around doing this. For one thing, it's dangerous to say, "Oh we're America, the best country in the world. Everyone needs to be like us." First we declare war on Iraq, then Saudi Arabia, then maybe England since they are not like us. There are so many countries that we think need liberating. But do we really want to do that? I know I don't want my child to be drafted in the future to go and fight to liberate Indonesia! Fighting to defend our country is one thing!

I agree that Hussein is a miserable excuse for a person, and that Iraqi's will be better off b/c of it, but our military did not sign up to sacrifice their lives so that Iraq could be liberated. They did so to protect our country.

Need I say More.

PS did any of you read and conpare the links?

And my spelling is a long time issue here your learn to live with it; I’m a product of US public schools with a learning disability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by shanstress70+Jun 17 2004, 09:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shanstress70 @ Jun 17 2004, 09:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jun 17 2004, 11:03 AM

Maybe we didn't find any WMD, but we have liberated a country which desperately needed liberating, and (when you look past the liberal media) are praising our name in the streets.  Did we make some mistakes?  Yes.  Will we make more mistakes?  Unfortunately, we probably will, but we will make them no matter who is president.

We can't go around doing this. For one thing, it's dangerous to say, "Oh we're America, the best country in the world. Everyone needs to be like us." First we declare war on Iraq, then Saudi Arabia, then maybe England since they are not like us. There are so many countries that we think need liberating. But do we really want to do that? I know I don't want my child to be drafted in the future to go and fight to liberate Indonesia! Fighting to defend our country is one thing!

I agree that Hussein is a miserable excuse for a person, and that Iraqi's will be better off b/c of it, but our military did not sign up to sacrifice their lives so that Iraq could be liberated. They did so to protect our country.

And, are you implying that they didn't (or aren't) protect our country?

If I were you, I'd go back over the last 15-20 years and see who committed all the acts of terrorism against the US (excepting 9/11/01). You'll find Saddam Hussein's finger in every single one of them. Maybe you don't mind almost-yearly terrorist attacks against this country or citizens of this country, but I would bet the rest of us are tired of it.

Why are you insinuating that we went over there to show off our stripes and declare everyone needs to be like us? I think that is far from the agenda the president had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jun 17 2004, 11:25 AM

Treating all global terrorists as an alliance avoids the crippling problem of having to wait until a particular terrorist group makes a really big score like 9/11 before acting against it.  That is, we treat al-Qaeda as if it were in alliance with the Abu Nidal group, which is in alliance with Ansar al-Islam, which is in alliance with Laskar Jihad, which is in alliance with Hamas, and so forth.  They all want the same thing, and cheer when one of their brother groups is successful. 

Saddam Hussein's Iraq clearly sponsored, supported, and harbored terrorist groups, even if there's little clear evidence of direct cooperation with al-Qaeda in particular.  The groups involved with Saddam included Abu Nidal's organization, Abu Abbas, and Ansar al-Islam, as well as the Palestinian terrorist groups.  That's enough in my book to range him with the enemy.  Frankly, I thought we should have conquered Syria and Iran as well.  But Saddam was foolish enough to breach his truce with the UN in the 1991 war he started, by kicking out inspectors and failing to demonstrate he'd disposed of his weapons of mass destruction, all of which was acknowledged by the UN Security Council.  In other words, a nasty and potentially dangerous dictator gave the world a passable legal ground for removing him.  I'm glad we took it.

The way I see it, the jihadist terrorists are implacable.  Since their goals are so extreme, they're not going to negotiate; when you're fighting to remake the world in the image of a religious fantasy, and you've succumbed to a death-loving cult, the old give-and-take of diplomacy, with minor concessions here and there, isn't going to work.  This war is going to continue until (1) Sharia is imposed on the entire world; (2) all of us are dead; (3) a moderate Islamic civilization takes root in the Middle East; or (4) all of the Muslims are dead.  Of those three goals, (1) and (2)  aren't going to happen.  Of the remaining options, I'd say (3) is preferable to (4).  Steering Muslim civilization in a constructive direction is preferable to nuclear genocide (to understate the matter) if only because of what the latter would do to us as a civilization.  But let two nuclear bombs go off in American cities, and we may well conclude that burning down the entire desert house to kill the cockroaches the locals can't seem to control is the only way to survive as a civilization.  Faced with the choices of the wars of the ancient world (total victory or total destruction), I suspect the practices of ancient warfare might return.

So -- pick apart the whole terrorist alliance, group by group and state by state, to the greatest extent we can manage.  The alternative is a lot uglier.

I have a Brother-In-Law whom I love dearly who is serving in the war as a cargo loader in the Air force. There was a bomb that was attacking some of our soldiers while they slept. The bomb was very close to him...he won't really talk about it or give any details... but he is a changed man. :(

The reasons why we are in this war are so clear to me in PD's post. I don't want to lose anyone I love in this war or any other war that may happen. My father was in the military and I know many return veterans who have fought and who are now fighting for the freedom we share. To give up our freedom would be a slap in the face to all of those who have given so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Iraqis don't seem to like their liberators very much these days:

"Poll reveals hostility to US and support for rebel cleric

By Anne Penketh Diplomatic Editor

17 June 2004

The Bush administration's last remaining justification for the invasion of Iraq has been demolished by a private poll revealing that only 2 per cent of Iraqis regard the occupying forces as liberators.

The poll results are devastating for both President George Bush and Tony Blair, who are fond of saying that future generations of Iraqis will thank them for liberating their country. Tony Blair has consistently said that history will prove him right for engineering the downfall of a cruel tyrant, even if weapons of mass destruction were not found.

President Bush, giving a pep-talk to American soldiers in Florida yesterday, said: "We have come not to conquer, but to liberate people and we will stand with them until their freedom is secure."

Yet the main findings of the poll, which was commissioned by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) last month and which was leaked yesterday, reveal that only 2 per cent of the Iraqis polled in mid-May see coalition troops as liberators, while 92 per cent said they were occupiers. In a crumb of comfort for the coalition, only

3 per cent expressed support for Saddam Hussein.

A total of 54 per cent believed that all Americans behaved like the guards at Abu Ghraib. But 71 per cent of those polled in face-to-face interviews in six Iraqi cities said they were surprised by the guards' behaviour.

Safety and security emerged as a major concern for the population in general, as nearly half of Iraqis said they felt unsafe in their neighbourhoods.

Asked whether they would feel safer if the 138,000 US troops left immediately, 55 per cent agreed, nearly double the 28 per cent who held that view in a poll carried out in January.

Asked if the Americans should leave immediately, 41 per cent agreed, while 45 per cent said they preferred US forces to leave once a permanent Iraqi government was installed.

Hostility towards the Americans was also reflected in strong support for the rebel Shia leader, Muqtada Sadr, who galvanised the resistance to the occupation in April. His blend of religion and populism has proved popular The CPA's poll shows that 67 per cent of Iraqis say they support or strongly support him, making him the most popular man in the country after the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. A total of 81 per cent of Iraqis had an improved opinion of Sadr in May from three months earlier, and 64 per cent said the acts of his insurgents had made Iraq more unified. But only 2 per cent would support him for president. The coalition's confidence rating in May stood at 11 per cent, down from 47 per cent in November, while the troops themselves had the support of only 10 per cent.

The survey questioned 1,093 adults who were selected randomly in Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Diwaniyah, Hillah and Baquba between 14 and 23 May.

The White House spokesman, Scott McClelland, put on a brave face when reacting to the survey: "The President has previously said no one wants to be occupied. And we don't want to be occupiers," he said

But a coalition official in Baghdad interviewed by the Associated Press news agency, which obtained the survey, was despondent. "If you are sitting here as part of the coalition, it [the poll] is pretty grim," said Donald Hamilton, a career diplomat who helps oversee the CPA's polling of Iraqis.

In Washington, Congressman Ike Skelton, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he found the poll "disturbing. ... It demonstrates quite jarringly that we are not winning the hearts and minds" of Iraqis.

Among the poll's other findings, 63 per cent believed conditions would improve when the Iraqi interim government takes over at the end of the month, and 62 per cent believed it was "very likely" the Iraqi police and army would maintain security without US forces.

A State Department spokes-

man said: "Let's face it. That's the goal, to build those up to the point where they can take charge in Iraq and they can maintain security in Iraq."

The Foreign Office had no comment last night."

The US didn't finish the job against Al Qaeda, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. That was job one, after 9/11. The Iraq invasion has not reduced terrorism by much, either, with more willing jihadists entering Iraq daily. But the very failures of this policy of US aggression have inspired the "nuke all the Muslims" crowd all the more. Funny kine...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bush gets re-elected then there will be another war with North Korea. Only this time, just like Iraq, the job will be finished. The reason that Iraq is in such bad shape is because the US is trying to cater to the world's desires, and when the rest of the world does nothing but complain. Canada, France, Germany, and Russia have yet to lift a finger to help the people of Iraq. It is very easy to complain when you sit back and do nothing.

Why don't we do a survey of the Iraqi people:

*Who wants Sadaam back in power, check box A

*Who wants Sadaam to remain in American custody and never kill another innocent person, check box B

By reading some of this crap, it sounds like some of you are eager for 9/11 to happen again. Some of you might just as well paint bullseyes on your homes for these terrorists.

but our military did not sign up to sacrifice their lives so that Iraq could be liberated. They did so to protect our country

#1) Unless you are the President on the United States, you do as you are told. Everybody who wears the uniform knew and understood this before they signed their papers.

#2) Going to Iraq has helped protect the future of the American people.

I would consider losing almost 1,000 young (and some not so young) soldiers and marines to be paying dearly - I would imagine their families feel the same way

And still many countries do not feel it necessary to lift a finger to help. People have blamed the US for not getting involved soon enough and now those same countries are doing the same thing. Hypocrites, all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this