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.
We torture people too, maybe not with meat grinders, we just call simulated drowning 'a little dunk'. We didn't seem concerned with Sadaam's use of the WMD WE SOLD HIM, on the Iranians, in fact, Rumsfeld was sent over to Sadaam to assure him that we didn't hold it against him. We sold him all sorts of weapons, then applauded him when he used them. We knew what kind of tyrant he was before we helped him gain power in the Baath Party.
What do you call 'get the damn job done?' - you mean drop the big one, like Nixon wanted to do in Vietnam? Thankfully he was not listened to. How about we stop causing these problems in the first place, by minding our own damn business?
no, we remove the code of engagement or change it to allow us to attack those who would attack us. Right now the rules of engagement only allow for us to fire, if fired at. So a militant can walk right in front of our soldiers with a shoulder fired grenade launcher, and we cannot do anything about it untill he fires it at us.
as I have said in earlyer posts I AGREE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION SCREWED THINGS UP, PAST ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE DONE THE SAME.
why do people keep trying to argue this point with me when I AGREE THEY SCREWED UP.
happy reading, 660 is the one you should probably start with.
There should have been a resolution condemning The United States for invading Iraq on false pretenses, and another for imposing the sanctions on Iraq during the 90's that killed over 500,000 children.
no, we remove the code of engagement or change it to allow us to attack those who would attack us. Right now the rules of engagement only allow for us to fire, if fired at. So a militant can walk right in front of our soldiers with a shoulder fired grenade launcher, and we cannot do anything about it untill he fires it at us.
as I have said in earlyer posts I AGREE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION SCREWED THINGS UP, PAST ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE DONE THE SAME.
why do people keep trying to argue this point with me when I AGREE THEY SCREWED UP.
No, we do not need to formally 'allow' pre-emptive strikes, although this administration seems to have already done so. If you see anyone possessing a weapon as a potential threat, does that give you the right to attack first? Then I guess Russia was right to have engaged in the arms race, knowing our true nature.
There should have been a resolution condemning The United States for invading Iraq on false pretenses, and another for imposing the sanctions on Iraq during the 90's that killed over 500,000 children.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that this is a mess over there, but I think you are wrong on this one. The sanctions didn't kill the 500,000 children, Saddam did by not giving them anything and saving it for his army.
There should have been a resolution condemning The United States for invading Iraq on false pretenses, and another for imposing the sanctions on Iraq during the 90's that killed over 500,000 children.
did you read the resolutions? There was a CEASE fire called, it was to be upheld as long as Iraq followed the UN's guidelines. THEY DID NOT. and it is not just the WMD thing, there are many many many other things that Iraq did not follow, and did not do that they were required to do to keep the CEASE fire, including allowing the UN nuclear officials into sites, which Iraq continuously kicked out, and gave in after international pressure, but then kicked out when they felt it was safe to again.
Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself as to what is actually in these resolutions
"it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought of as a fool, then to open your mouth, and remove all doubt"
How about we stop causing these problems in the first place, by minding our own damn business?
BINGO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No other post counts. Not yours or mine. Gorgeet's post said it all and said it well.
Anyone stop to think that without the fake Iraq war, that money we wasted there could have begun the worlds greatest national health care system free for all Americans? There would also be enough money left to give a free college education to any American who wanted it.
I was opposed to it from the beginning, I was very surprise how many supported it, even some of my friends, but they are Bush fannatics and disagree with their polical views.
did you read the resolutions? There was a CEASE fire called, it was to be upheld as long as Iraq followed the UN's guidelines. THEY DID NOT. and it is not just the WMD thing, there are many many many other things that Iraq did not follow, and did not do that they were required to do to keep the CEASE fire, including allowing the UN nuclear officials into sites, which Iraq continuously kicked out, and gave in after international pressure, but then kicked out when they felt it was safe to again.
Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself as to what is actually in these resolutions
"it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought of as a fool, then to open your mouth, and remove all doubt"
Do you want me to present you with a list of the UN sanctions that ISRAEL has not complied with? I assure you that it is longer than Iraq's. The UN weapons inspectors, inclusing Scott Ritter and David Kay said that Iraq has no WMD. That all of the weapons that the US and other Western countries had sold Sadaam had been destroyed. Please educate yourself on the facts.
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.