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.
Yes and my Republican and Democrat classmates were not pleased about it at all... I felt like I was talking to an angry wall... I will say that I was the ONLY one who was against it and said something about it... if there was someone else against it, they didn't say a word probably because of all the anger that Republicans and Democrats displayed... and to be honest, most of my young classmates were Democratic (it goes along with their maturity level)..
Well a huge difference between then and now is the fact that the vast majorityAmerican people were for the Iraq war. In this case the majority are against attacking Syria.
As for taking sides with Russia, China and Iraq. I would also add the UN and the world body to that list.
Yes and my Republican and Democrat classmates were not pleased about it at all... I felt like I was talking to an angry wall... I will say that I was the ONLY one who was against it and said something about it... if there was someone else against it, they didn't say a word probably because of all the anger that Republicans and Democrats displayed... and to be honest, most of my young classmates were Democratic (it goes along with their maturity level)..
The problem was that the president declared that if you were not for it, then you were against the US as a nation.
I'll never understand how Democrats can believe this is ok.
Did you feel the same way about the first Iraq war (which was actually boots on the ground) under George HW Bush, or the invasion of Grenada under Reagan, or the air strikes in Kosovo under Clinton? The opposition to the second Iraq war was that there was no evidence that Iraq had militarily significant WMDs, and that the government of Iraq didn't have a link to 911. Even Bush admits that the failure of intelligence (people in his administration made up the case to go to war) was the biggest failure of his presidency.
This situation is nothing like the second Iraq war. NATO is convinced now that the intelligence clearly shows that the Syrian government was behind the attacks, and they're calling for a response from world leaders. Turkey, one of our strong allies, neighbors Syria, and they're scared witless. WMD's used by a rogue nation in that part of the world destabilizes the region even further.
Well a huge difference between then and now is the fact that the vast majorityAmerican people were for the Iraq war. In this case the majority are against attacking Syria.
As for taking sides with Russia, China and Iraq. I would also add the UN and the world body to that list.
The vast majority of the public were told by the architects that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Only a small percentage of us knew immediately that was untrue. At first I thought he might have been behind the attacks, but it later became clear he was not.
There is no denying that the Bush Admin. used a horrific tragedy to convince the public of the necessity to invade Iraq.
The vast majority of the public were told by the architects that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Only a small percentage of us knew immediately that was untrue. At first I thought he might have been behind the attacks, but it later became clear he was not.
There is no denying that the Bush Admin. used a horrific tragedy to convince the public of the necessity to invade Iraq.
Did you feel the same way about the first Iraq war (which was actually boots on the ground) under George HW Bush, or the invasion of Grenada under Reagan, or the air strikes in Kosovo under Clinton? The opposition to the second Iraq war was that there was no evidence that Iraq had militarily significant WMDs, and that the government of Iraq didn't have a link to 911. Even Bush admits that the failure of intelligence (they made up the case to go to war) was the biggest failure of his presidency.
We had lots of international support when going into Iraq. I'm not very familiar of Grenada under Reagan, but air strikes are cowardly. As for air strikes, how does randombly bombing a country, using the justification that they cant respond, ok?
Who gives a crap about who we kill, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
This situation is nothing like the Iraq war. NATO is convinced now that the intelligence clearly shows that the Syrian government was behind the attacks, and they're calling for a response from world leaders. Turkey, one of our strong allies, neighbors Syria, and they're scared witless. WMD's by a rogue nation in that part of the world destabilizes the region even further.
So what you're saying is Obama is so weak of a President, that he cant convince other nations and allies to support him taking action, even though NATO is convinced that Syria was behind attacks?
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.
