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 can see clearly now. 9/11 attacks wasn't the reason Iraq was invaded, or terrorists (like bin laden) lurking in the shadows of the imperial palace, or wmd's like the one's that could cause a "mushroom cloud", it was because of the 1991 cease fire agreement violations, wow, imagine that!thanks I needed that, may I pleeeease have another sir!
I can see clearly now. 9/11 attacks wasn't the reason Iraq was invaded, or terrorists (like bin laden) lurking in the shadows of the imperial palace, or wmd's like the one's that could cause a "mushroom cloud", it was because of the 1991 cease fire agreement violations, wow, imagine that!thanks I needed that, may I pleeeease have another sir!
Yes that puzzled is solved now, and to think that I thought it was the broken cease fire agreement between the Hatfields and the McCoys.
The 1991 Cease-Fire agreement (which Iraq signed) gave the U.S. the authority to resume military action against that country if it was broken, which it was. No "imperialism" here.
That is all true to Reichwingers, and it somehow warrants to their minds that an unprovoked and full scale occupation of a Muslim country thru military force, is justifiable. I guess thats how you folks think. What it actually does is make the world despise the biggest terrorists since September 11th, 2001, neoconservative Republicans and their warmonger supporters.
Perhaps the most revolting irony of their war of conquest is that most used deferments and family connections to avoid Vietnam, because they are chickensh*t cowards
To see the Iraq supporters draw this comparison between military actions is as ridiculous as it is absurd, and shows the prism that these people view the world through.
Truly, it's a distorted view
I believe I made it clear that I DO NOT agree with us being in Iraq. Nor do I believe we should have been in Viet Nam,Bosnia and a host of other brushfire conflicts that cost American lives. What I do believe is that we can and should project force in a judicious manner that actually does some good. Massive occupations of Muslim countries are certainly not in our best interest and cost lives that need not be lost. Smaller tactical insertions and covert ops would be just as or more effective against a terrorist enemy. We do need to make it clear that attacking us will not be tolerated and our methods need to be brutal and decisive. I'm curious how one can feel that drawing comparisons between military conflicts can be considered absurd? From a military standpoint these comparisons are needed to define strategy and tactics. What I see as distorted and absurd is supporting one conflict over another because of who the president happens to be and because of partisan politics.
What I see as distorted and absurd is supporting one conflict over another because of who the president happens to be and because of partisan politics.
Well then DON'T support Iraq because you voted for Bush then.
As far as Bosnia, considering there was not a single combat fatality and ethnic cleansing was stopped, I'd say that was worth it.
With our invasion of Iraq, we have lost over 4,000 American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and not a single death was worth the reasons that caused them.
Maybe you should quit letting politics get in the way of your thinking.
That is all true to Reichwingers, and it somehow warrants to their minds that an unprovoked and full scale occupation of a Muslim country thru military force, is justifiable. I guess thats how you folks think. What it actually does is make the world despise the biggest terrorists since September 11th, 2001, neoconservative Republicans and their warmonger supporters.
Perhaps the most revolting irony of their war of conquest is that most used deferments and family connections to avoid Vietnam, because they are chickensh*t cowards
No, this is true to everybody.
I should also point out the fact that in 1998, Congress and passed and Pres. Cliton signed a bill making regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy. In other words, removing Saddam from power was being planned years before Bush became President.
Then people reelected most of the same people that helped start and continue the war, even the anti-war voters. People also voted to support the Patriot Act and the War on Terror.
I voted yes. Not only did Bush lie to start a war, but has dragged us as a nation through the mud in his embrasing torture. When they began saying this or that really isn't torture I was enraged. This was being done in my name. No, there is no excuse. To save the honor of all of us this in which this was done for we need to establish that we have not forgotten right and wrong.
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.
thanks I needed that, may I pleeeease have another sir!