|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 6, 2008 17:40:46 GMT -5
For starters, when it comes to international humanitarian efforts it's best to have a coalition of the world's forces to help spread the cost. It is positively stupid to go in unilaterally unless absolutely necessary. I'd be willing to join forces with other countries to help the people in Darfur who are being brutally slaughtered. There's a great documentary out now called Darfur Now if you want to learn more about what's happening in Darfur.
Regarding cost, in dollars or human lives, it is hard to put a number on it. I guess it relates to the specific issue, the risk, and the potential gain.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jun 6, 2008 18:01:35 GMT -5
Good start.
GWB is the commander-in-chief of the US Military.
He determined that, in terms of $$ & lives, it was worth it to invade Iraq.
No other person, nor Congress, holds that responsibility.
He has determined the risk/gain factors & committed this nation to the effort.
He assembled a coalition of willing partners to share the burden.
In other words, he has done exactly what you just stated you would do if it were your call.
Standing on the sidelines is a swell place to shout, but it never affects the outcome of the game.
What sacrifices are you willing to make to fix your pet problems?
Who are you willing to anger in order to address an issue you feel cannot be ignored?
What old friends are you ready to say goodbye to in order to serve the highest duty you feel you have?
What price are you willing to pay to do what you think must be done?
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 9, 2008 11:28:55 GMT -5
It is totally based in sober reality and should be a wake up call for many who support this war. The question is: Is it really worth all the deaths, bloodshed, and mental suffering of our American soldiers for the small, unlikely chance that one day (maybe 100 years from now according to John McCain) Iraq might be a democracy? If the answer is NO (as mine is) then we need to pull our troops out NOW. Since we have found bringing freedom to Europe to be worth the lives of 416,800, 100 times the number in Iraq after four years of fighting, I think it would be a great disservice to leave a war we voted on entering. Finish the job, or the 4,015 soldiers will have died for nothing. Honor their sacrifice and finish the job. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 9, 2008 11:35:55 GMT -5
Regarding the earmarks, the Democrats will let Bush hang himself and the Republicans with the war through November. Of course there will be earmarks so that they can address important issues. Of course Bush will threaten a veto but we all know he won't follow through, his reputation is on the line. In other words, the Democrats are willing to play games with the American Soldiers life, because, in the end, they hope to get Bush to sign on to their pet projects that have nothing to do with the military. And, if a few hundred soldiers should die in the mean time, that is what they are paid for, and we can hang them around George's neck anyway. That is what you meant, right? |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 9, 2008 12:25:53 GMT -5
"Since we have found bringing freedom to Europe to be worth the lives of 416,800, 100 times the number in Iraq after four years of fighting, I think it would be a great disservice to leave a war we voted on entering. Finish the job, or the 4,015 soldiers will have died for nothing."
Iraq has nothing to do with WWII. Millions of people were NOT being slaughtered in Iraq at the time we invaded, Saddam was NOT invading other countries at the time we invaded, and Saddam had NO interaction with the Al-Queda terrorists we are supposed to be looking for. On top of all that, our march to war was based on false information. That should be reason enough for us to get the hell out of there. We made a mistake. Now we must admit it and leave in a safe and responsible way, relinquishing power to the Iraqi people.
Unfortunately, the 4015 American soldiers who died were casualties of a war that was based on a lie and should never have been waged. It's also unfortunate for the 600,000 to 800,000 Iraqi civilians who were killed as a consequence of our actions. Your idea is to continue a was that was based on a lie so that one day (maybe 100 years from now as McCain has mentioned) we might pull off some semblance of a victory?? Get real!
|
|
|
|
Post by iraqvet2003 on Jun 9, 2008 12:50:12 GMT -5
Aside from Pearl Harbor and the battles fought in the Aluetian Islands during WWII, the US hasn't fought a battle against a foriegn enemy on our shores since the War of 1812.
When provoked, we have chosen to take the fight to the enemy. Using superior fire and manuever, we lay waste to those that would see harm done to our people and our way of life.
If you choose to believe that you were deliberately deceived into going to war in Iraq, then fine. Come November, cast your ballot and vote your conscience. Hopefully, you'll be rewarded with an administration that won't "lie" to you.
I, for one, will continue to serve my country and do my best to support the effort to take the fight to the enemy. I would rather spill blood overseas than clean up blood at home.
Bolverk, thanks for reiterating a claim I've made before. I'll state my case again. The reason for being in Iraq is moot. We are there now and have a responsibility to finish what we started. That is what honor means to me: Having the courage to finish what you start.
If we are pulled out now, as far as we've come and with the progress we made, our honor will be cheapened. Further, my fallen brother and sisters in arms will have died for nothing. Let us finish this fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 9, 2008 12:52:21 GMT -5
Saunterelle you can continue to cry lie lie, which is ITSELF a lie. You KNOW full well the previous administration thought he was a threat. They were just too scared to act for fear of the crybabies like yourself. And saying stuff like " Saddam had NO interaction with the Al-Queda terrorists we are supposed to be looking for" like it is PURE 100% FACT is just plain dumb. Do you know this to be a un-disputable FACT? Why becuase a Despot said so? www.husseinandterror.com/READ it..Saddam loved ALL terrorists equally. |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jun 9, 2008 12:58:37 GMT -5
Same unsubstantiated horse-pucky every day.
Again I ask: if Pres. Bush lied our way into Iraq, why have the Nancys & Harrys failed to bring him up on charges?
Answer: no lies. None that could be admitted as evidence, at least.
It is a Romantic Lie, & fun to believe in, but no evidence. None.
It is simple to tell if someone is telling the truth. Demand evidence & watch 'em Porky Pig (buda-buda-budah) their way to hysteria. Works every time.
Hating Pres. Bush (All Eight Years!) is a hobby; like believing in UFO's. Faith is all that is required. Ask for one single piece of a saucer, & you hear about all the sightings.
I ask for evidence & proof; knowing that if you had it, your leaders would have used it already.
Laughable rants like "Bush lied, people died" make the children chant but fail to sway the Dem.s to actually do something about it.
Put up or...keep ranting. It is tiring but somewhat entertaining. Sorta.
|
|
|
|
Post by bagron3 on Jun 9, 2008 13:08:27 GMT -5
"Or is it because that it is a verifiable fact that Lebanon renounced terrorism after George W. Bush showed his level of resolve in both Afghanistan and Iraq?"
This statement is completely incorrect. Did you mean Libya?
|
|
|
|
Post by bagron3 on Jun 9, 2008 13:32:37 GMT -5
Supporting a war that has no direction or reason for fighting? Even if we won (exactly how would we ?) what would we have? No exit stategy and in general no plan. Did Bush just want to get even with Saddam Hussein because Saddam sent out assassins to take our Papa Bush? Did the CIA fail in it's job to protect our president when CIA assassins failed to do the job on Saddam? This should have all been settled by our clandestine operatives and not brought to the war table.
Oh, by the way, the Clinton Administration foiled 12 international terroist plots through the CIA and FBI. Clinton did not want the public aroused over these clandestine events as there was no "need to know" and security issues involved with the operatives. No doubt there are CIA and FBI agents still active in defeating insurgent terrorist and we probably will not here about these unless one choses to use it politically as did Bush when outing Valerie Plame.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 9, 2008 13:37:43 GMT -5
For starters, when it comes to international humanitarian efforts it's best to have a coalition of the world's forces to help spread the cost. It is positively stupid to go in unilaterally unless absolutely necessary. I'd be willing to join forces with other countries to help the people in Darfur who are being brutally slaughtered. There's a great documentary out now called Darfur Now if you want to learn more about what's happening in Darfur. Regarding cost, in dollars or human lives, it is hard to put a number on it. I guess it relates to the specific issue, the risk, and the potential gain. Actually, this has been proven to be incorrect. In Africa, and I will have to verify which nation it was, a private army was hired to protect the country from militants. It was working very well, with civilian deaths falling and safety increasing, until the UN got involved and said it was illegal to hire a private army. The country has since fallen into chaos. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 9, 2008 13:47:32 GMT -5
"Or is it because that it is a verifiable fact that Lebanon renounced terrorism after George W. Bush showed his level of resolve in both Afghanistan and Iraq?" This statement is completely incorrect. Did you mean Libya? Yes, I did mistype. But, it does say that earlier on in the thread, so good catch, even if you are picking nits. Bush is the only President to get a leader of a known terrorist state to renounce terrorism. |
|
