Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Sep 23, 2006.
i don't suspect many here will be surprised.
Wow, I wish I could collect on what these guys are being paid for their "Expert Opinions" And this report only took them HOW LONG?
I had that much figured out before we went in to Iraq.
Once again politically embarrasing information is "Highly Classified"
Real quick, imagine if a country invaded the U.S. and one of your innocent family members was killed. Don't you think you would become 'radically' opposed to the invading country?
How long did it take to figure that out?
Bush Sr knew this, why didnt he tell his arrogant im missing from the national guard son?
This was a forgone conclusion. Had a lesser action been taken, the terrorists would have recruited more to their ranks with their success and lack of response.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Yes but when your entire family fortune is built on military industrial contracts,
there's nothing like making fer damn sure that business is good for a few more decades.
Weak, weak excuse. How to respond to September 11 / conduct the "war on terror" was not a choice between invading Iraq and not invading Iraq. There were countless options to pursue. This administration has pursued the wrong ones.
"The War of Terror' was and is nothing more than a blank check excuse to fleece the American people.
At best there may have been 50 or so original close knit supporters of Bin Laden's twisted ideology. Now there are millions.
The entire world was ready to support our nation to go after Bin Laden.
These were international criminals and every international agency would have
done all they could to track Bin Laden and his small band of followers until they were brought to justice.
NO Country would have effectively been able to stop international pressure
to allow search parties to find him.
Very few Muslims supported that kind of unwarranted violence and there would have been far better cooperation, but that important spirit of international cooperation ended when the neo-cons used 9/11 to invade Iraq.
They had him, they knew EXACTLY where he was, but catching him too early
would have undermined the whole grand plan to justify billions upon biillions
of military industrial contracts.
The strongest supporters of the War On Terror are those who depend on those
contracts to earn a living.
Complete failure to recognize the truth of the situation. Also, sorry FFTT, you live in a utopian dream-world.
What, praytell, is the truth of the situation? How is what I said inaccurate in any way?
The truth of the situation is that Bin Laden became that " Necessary Evil "
needed to build support for a PRE-DETERMINED plan to invade Iraq.
The amount of money at stake is so far beyond the comprehension of most people
that they can't see the forest for the trees.
What I am saying is that no matter what option was pursued, the Islamic militants would be able to recruit more members. Either by claiming we were weak in our response, or that we responded too brutally.
No matter how strongly I disagree with another forum member's opinion,
I have never once lowered myself to a personal attack on another forum member.
OK. That makes some sense although it's a just a tad on the apocyptic side. But that also means that there was no reason to invade Iraq (since it couldn't have possibly helped), which is the point of this thread and the article.
Invading Iraq did help and will pay in the future. It may be hard to see that now. A lasting, secure peace in the middle east will only be gained by establishing democratically elected governments. Dictatorships will not lead to peace and safety. Not now, not ever.
Just because some would have claimed we responded too brutally (wrt a "weak" response) doesn't mean we may as well go and do it.
I always thought that you handled international terrorism like a police operation, not a military one. Mainly because there's really no one to invade when a nationless group secretly lurking in multiple states (including your own) is your enemy.
What did invading Iraq help, if it didn't help limit the recruiting power of terrorists?
And OK Mr. Sharansky, do you think that countries are more likely to become democracies by evolving politically from within or by being invaded by foreign armies?
Just to be clear, I have no problem with criticizing the current administation's actions. Please offer a viable alternative of what to do from this point forward. Not what should have been done in the past. What has been done is done. Where do we go from here. If all anyone has to say is "Bush did wrong", I can't support that. Give me a working alternative, and I will support it. What would you do different?
You'd have to be drinking the purple Flavor-Aid to see a positive future for Iraq. It's going to take a long time for this nation to recover. We didn't understand the job we'd be tasked with and we botched the one we set about undertaking in vain.
What we've done to Iraq has pushed it backward out of the 20th century, not led it forward to some brave new democracy.
It shouldn't be hard to see that now.
Beg the UN and Arab League to fix Iraq and then we pick up the tab.
The United States cannot fix Iraq.
Indeed I must! I am an optimist in this, Iraq will prevail and be safe, secure and free.
Beg someone else to do the task? Hardly acceptable. We can and will "fix Iraq".
Maybe if we stay long enough to kill everyone.
We HAD that kind of cooperation on a massive scale.
And every international agency was prepared to move mountains
if that's what it took to hunt them down.
It's quite clear Bush doesn't have a plan.
You've asked and I've answered. Now I'd like to hear how you think Iraq can be fixed.