Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by milto, Jul 8, 2004.
Tell us about a loved one who you have lost who served the USA! check it out
Having a dangerous job does not make you a hero. Many more builders get killed than soldiers, and most of them don't involve themselves with offing innocent civilians. To paraphrase General "what wedding?" Kimmit: "Even bad guys can serve in uniform".
Having a dangerous job does not make you a hero.
WTF. Are you kidding me? You mean the men and women that die in the line of duty fighting for your rights are not hero's?
Are they fighting for my rights?
Um, yea, they are. Just because you are from jolly ole England doesn't mean that U.S. military doesn't protect your country. And they have since WWII. You think terrorists know boarders? No, they don't they attack without discression. There were quite a few people from England that died in the towers. We fight to keep the world safe.
Firstly, what rights exactly are your "heroes" protecting? Secondly, if it was to protect the ones who died in the towers, they didn't do a very good job. Thirdly, the world is no more safe than it was before 9/11.
Your right skunk. Having 3/4ths of Al Queada ranks either dead or captured hasn't made the world safer. Right.
Second, you don't like our military fine. Not a problem. That is your right. But don't insult those that serve with honor both now, and in the past by demeaning them with retoric.
though "safe(r)" may be difficult to quantify, all i can do is point to the state department's own report which indicates terrorism has gone up, not down, since 9/11.
Pure speculation. Al Qaeda membership is probably higher now than ever before.
I have nothing more against your military than against any other country's military, I just believe that being a soldier does not automatically make you a hero. Soldiers can do wrong too, especially when misused. "Honor" has got nothing to do with it. The most barbaric behaviour is consistent with a soldier's "honor".
I agree that a soldier can do wrong. BUT. A soldiers duty is honor in itself.
hmmm..it sounds i little bit too early to call the soldiers in iraq 'heros' or 'honorable'...i would say wait 10-15 years and _then_ you can decide
only time can tell the difference between "Hero","Fanatic","Mislead"
the heros of today might be ashamed to fought at all 5 years later...
No, and they aren't fighting for my rights either. The only thing they are fighting for is Bush's lies.
What good is it if we capture or kill 3/4 of the leadership if those positions are filled by the time the body of the previous position holder is cold?
One step forward followed by one or two steps back is a piss-poor solution. This isn't a game of keep-score. Unless we take out the leadership and take steps to insure those positions aren't able to be filled we are losing. Anyone who says otherwise has some pretty rose-tinted spectacles on.
Unless we take out the leadership? You mean like Saddam?
A couple headlines
U.S. Captures Al Qaeda's Persian Gulf Chief
U.S. Captures Bali Bombing Mastermind
US Captures Chief al Qaeda Mastermind
Just the first couple things that showed up on google
Are you trying to say Iraq got safer with Saddam's capture? Or are you disagreeing with my premise that we are creating terrorists faster than we are killing them?
BTW, my statement didn't end with ... take out the leadership. There was an 'if' in there you completely blew by in your zeal to prove me wrong. You might want to go back and answer the rest of that if you want to debate.
I just feel sorry for them. First, because they got dragged/manipulated/indoctrinated into this thing, second, because it killed them. What heroes?
Oh for the love of God can you guys please get off of the whole Bush's lies crap! Yea, right. Bush managed to take control of Clinton's mind, and the mind of every world leader over the last ten years, even those in SYRIA and convinced them that there were WMD's in Iraq. He also convinced the world over 20 years ago that Saddam had used WMD's on the Kurds. Please. The WORLD thought he had the weapons, and if not, then why did the WORLD starve that country for 10 years? WHY? Because the WORLD thought that he was in violation of the UN resolution. Christ, why can't you get it? Then when someone with balls enought to say enough is enough, after 9/11 we cannot sit by and wait for the risk to devolop decided to do something about what the WORLD believed for over 10 years, all of a sudden they are lies?
**** that. Do you really think that if Clinton would have acted in 98 as he wanted to that you would be calling him a liar? NO you would not. The only thing you are good at is pointing the finger at a man that is TRYING (which is more than I can say for the previous administration) to do something. Is the ideology perfect? No, neither was Clinton's. And frankly, I don't blame Clinton because we NEVER saw this type of war coming. But you guys say we are making them quicker than we can kill them.
WHAT DO YOU PURPOSE WE DO? Sit on our thumbs and wait for them to off us? Don't say, "quit supporting Israel" that ain't gonna happen no matter who is in the white house. Don't come with "Bush is a liar, and this is all his fault". Please. As I have noted in another thread every terrorist attack this country has experienced has occured either under the Clinton administration, or was planned under the Clinton administration. Again, I don't blame him. I think he did the best that he could do, and I think Bush is doing the same. Is Bush perfect? Hell no, the last time I checked the laster perfect person walked this earth about 2004 years ago. But, he is doing what he thinks is best. Does that make him a liar? NO. it means his opinion is different that yours. Does that make him stupid, a bastard, etc/ No. It means he DISSENTS with you. something that you think everyone has a right to do without being called names, unless it is the other way around and then they are bastards, liars, etc.
This ****ing arguement is so old, so beaten down, and so stupid. Can anyone not discuss it with logic, reason? Are both sides so downtradden with retoric that they can't see the forest for the trees? Why can't one friggin conservative on this board say, damn, Bush is wrong about that one. And why can't one liberal say, well, I think he thinks he is doing right. Why can't anyone agree that we have the same enemy, we just believe in different ways to fight him.
WE ARE THE ISRAEL'S AND PALISTINIANS OF THE INTERNET!
I believe that Bush's War in Afganistan was the right thing. At the time, I thought that perhaps his tax-cuts were the right thing for the economy, before there was increased gov. spending (in part because of the war effort(s)). I believe NCLB was implemented thinking it would help.
In War terms, yes I do believe that we as liberals and conservatives, are fighting the same enemy, with different ideas about how to do it. However, the implementation of these ideas have concrete consequences, and I am not convinced that Saddam was our enemy. A despot? Yes. A National Security threat? I don't beleive so, so in some cases our enemy is not the same depending on partisan policy. Neither are the citizens of Iraq, who were once not our enemy, but became so because of the chaos resulting in our actions. This is not GW's fault, per se, but it is part of his responsibility for his choices.
Generally speaking, I do not thing GW is the devil-incarnate, nor his VP. I just think he is an ineffectual President, this being judged on what he has accomplished in Office, not his intentions or ideas. That he got handed 9/11 and WOT is irrelevant...you are judged (by me) by what you get done, never mind the excuses. Do I think he gets too much of a hard-time? Yes. Does he deserve another term? NO.
Some of his foreign-policy ideas are decent, and indeed we as a country had to update our modus operandi from cold-war orientation, and this was an attempt at that, and perhaps it is indeed a decent policy. It's application, however, has been pretty poor. That is indictative of Leadership (or lack thereof) imo.
So, I am not a Bush-Hater, I am just disappointed in him and some of the priorities of the Administration.
It is a political continuum, and I am not at a pole, nor am I even in a set place...my politics are analgous to a probability-set w/in the liberal spectrum.
Awesome post blackfox! Now that is the kind of discussion that we need!
Thankyou BTTM, and I must return the compliment...although there are more liberal-ese posters on the forum than conservative, I have always respected your arguments and your opinions...I hope you will continue to keep a foot in (as it were) in these forums. I do not often agree with your positions, but I cannot often disagree w/ your integrity...(plus, I'm jealous of your digs)...
You yourself (as a "friggin conservative") have done so once or twice, and good for you! And there have been a few "friggin liberals" who have agreed in principle with the invasion of Afghanistan. It's not what he does so much as the way he does it that sets up these polarized opinions.
funny how a spam post can trigger some of the more intelligent discussion we've seen.
As for my opinion, I think that the Bush administration (partly because of the CIA, partly because of its own judgment) ignored the kind of information that would have kept us out of Iraq. Iraq USED to have a WMD program; it didn't when we invaded and there was evidence suggesting that.
Bush made a very bad decision by putting our money and our soldiers in Iraq. I will continue to maintain that no matter how bad a person Saddam Hussein is:
1) His primary interest was in controlling Middle Eastern oil interests, not in destroying the United States
2) He was committed, above all, to self-preservation
3) Iraq was more stable (not more free, more stable) under his regime
4) There were cheaper, cleaner alternatives to toppling this government
Bush did lie about a number of things, though. He lied about the nature of his tax cut; about there being definitive connections between Iraq and 9/11 or ongoing partnerships between Hussein and bin Laden; about his position on CO2 emissions; and more.
With respect to Iraq, he ignored critical intelligence and relied on intelligence that he did know or should have known was faulty. Powell knew it was faulty and probably expressed this to Bush. Powell demanded that Tenet be seated with him when he addressed the UN, because he did not feel comfortable presenting what he thought to be faulty intelligence on his own.
Bush has failed this country on a number of fronts. As blackfox said, he doesn't deserve a second term.
I don't give him or his Vice President as much credit, though. I don't think Bush is just bumbling, but that he is also cunning. His administration's Patriot Act deftly snuck in rights-limiting legislation by playing on the emotions of the nation. It is oppressive and should be ended. Bush requested an analysis of whether torture was okay, and after getting a positive response, he secured for one of the attorneys involved a judicial appointment.
Dick Cheney has probably abused his power to get Halliburton no-bid contracts. In general, he is also an ascerbic, conniving individual.
I don't think that Bush and Cheney have, in general, acted in the best interests of the country. I don't even know that they've always had the best interests of the country in mind, as much as their own personal interests.
I'm utterly disappointed and very frustrated with the White House and think it's time to change its residents.