Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe we are bound by treaty or agreement to come to the aid of Israel if they are attacked. Matters not if they start it or not.
You are incorrect. We do not have a mutual defense treaty with Israel. We just have a permanently and unaccountably sycophantic posture toward it, which has less to do with the American Jewish lobby than with the proportion of fundamentalist goons in the American electorate.
Simply because this country invested so much in Iraq in terms of cash and men. The last time I recall hearing about the 14 permanent bases being built in Iraq was from John Kerry during the 2004 election, to which G W Bush refused to answer. Those bases are still being built today despite fears of the agreement between the US and the Iraqi government to disengage collapsing.
So we throw more money and troops at Iraq because we have so much invested already? I don't buy that logic. If it was wrong to go into Iraq in the first place (and it was), it's just as wrong to stay there.
I recall some of this same reasoning with Vietnam. Well, we walked away with, what, about 58,000 Americans killed in Vietnam? We can walk away from Iraq with 4,000 dead, and be thankful this gigantic screw-up didn't cost us more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Obama now wishes to go into Afghanistan to confront those we should have focused on in the first place. I agreed with this position back in 2002, but things have changed since then. Today we have to account for Pakistan and the fact this aspect of the war is now much broader than it was to start with. While there was likely always support from the border region in Pakistan, it has now being supported by the Pakistani government as well as local tribes. So the war in Afghanistan today is much larger in scope than it was to start with, we missed that chance, I'm sad to say. I don't yet know how I feel entirely about this situation and how it should be approached.
Some people are willing to forget Bin Laden and 9/11 - I don't understand that attitude, nor do I agree with it. If it was right to go after Bin Laden then, it's right to go after Bin Laden now, and we shouldn't give a damn where he is.
Future U.S. foreign relations and especially military operations should not be governed nor restricted by the poor judgment and dangerously incorrect decisions made by Bush.
I didn't start this thread to argue about who will win. This has nothing to do with who supports which candidate... I just don't understand why people think the war will end with Obama in office? It does not matter WHO is in office, the war will not end..
Who said this?
Where do you come up with some of this stuff?
It's all opinions with nothing to back it up.
You did start this thread to argue, look at the title and your first post.
A good start is that the Iraqi's want us out and are balking at the US Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). They want to say bye-bye, haven't you heard the bushies on the news lately?
As for Israel, if they start a war, they can finish it on their own.
I'd wash my hands if they were the aggressor.
As an historical talking point what party was in office in most major conflicts the US has been in over the last hundred years? The Democrats. With the exeption of the current conflict and the first Gulf war. JFK got us into Viet Nam, Johnson kept us there, Truman put us into Korea, what is the huge difference here. Both the latter conflicts were handled ineptly by both parties but the mighty peace loving Dems started them. I think WW2 has to be excluded here because FDR had no choice but to get us into that one..we were directly attacked. But Korea and Viet Nam were DEMOCRAT fiascos. Casting the first stone again they are.
Those wars are in the past; a good number of people here weren't born.
Yes, they were absolutely wrong. The Vietnam war almost blew this country apart.
It was 20 years, that's a generation, since Nam, before Gulf War I. The world developed greater communications systems in that time.
We know more about the bs that goes into wars now, the lies and misconceptions.
That makes it different.
This war is now, we attacked a sovereign nation and a ruler that the US put into power.
Yeah, it is different.
(Don't forget Granada)
I still don't understand why the OP keeps starting opinion threads and gets huffy about them.
I'd like to see some links to where people have said that if Obama gets elected that we'd pull out the next day.
I don't hear that at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
