Reply
Tue 6 Apr, 2004 11:15 am
This is an idealogical war to the middle easterners anyway, and they are willing, in fact eager to die for it.
This is a war that can and perhaps will go on for a hundred years or more. We are in it.
Are you willing to see American soldiers and civilians involved in this war directly until 2104?
Think about it....it's not far fetched.....
Judging from the polls, Americans have almost reached bowel tolerance for Bush's guerilla war in Iraq for oil and legacy.
I want to post to this and bring it closer up front so that I can ask the bush loyalists once again...how long are you willing to commit America's sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters to this war that I personally do not believe will ever end without the direct intervention of a deity?
bush and rummy say this war against terrorism will be long and ongoing so I again ask how long are you willing to support it? 10 Years? 20? 50? 100? Because this crap has been going on for 100 years already, and longer than that really.
How long are you willing to divert the money it takes to run our country at the standard we want to live to the war effort? Are you willing to sacrifice your life style and the lifestyle of your children and grandchildren at the altar of the "war on terror" for 10 to 100 years?
Huh?
"direct intervention of a deity?"
Do you honestly believe in a diety that intervenes in anything regarding this planet?
Iraq has zero to do with a war with Al Q.
I believe that the war with Al Q. could be scaled back to almost zero if the US would do certain things in the next three years.
I am trying to illustrate the futility and arrogance of thinking we can do anything to fix this Terror or Middle East situation by pouring our resources into it.
And yes, Iraq HAD zero to do with it,,,but not anymore. Our actions have engaged and coalesced the entire area. On top of that, the Middle East has been at war in one form or another with the West for centuries.
We can and will be engaged permanently as long as the powers that be want it that way, and make no mistake that they do......profits to be made ya know...... there will always be a war of some kind going on in that region and now we will be specific targets unless we do things VERY differently.
I am also, as the post clearly states, asking the bush loyalists and war supporters HOW LONG are you willing to commit to this noble cause?
As long as it takes is too vague, so I ask again, what if it takes 100 years? Are you willing to still be spending, in the year 2104 our most precious resource, human flesh, on this war?
Bear:
It appears that most of the Bush loyalists, safely encased in the their suburban homes, hammering away at the keyboard, cheering Bush on, in fact do not have sons in Iraq.
As I said, if the draft returns and the sons of wealthy, white Congressmen begin piling up on the steps of the US Capital, Bush's war for oil and legacy will come to a dramatic close.
I will support it until it ends. That will most likely be when some weak-kneed liberal gets into office and signs our military over to some UN organization and our troops really start taking a beating.
I, and others who agree with me, strongly support this war and here's why.
1. It was right to invade in the first place. The WMD issue boils down to this: as technology advances in the world, weapons only invented in this century, and once only available to a few of the most advanced nations, are coming within the reach of more and smaller countries, and even well financed private groups. When things get to the point that dozens of countries and several private groups have WMD, then civilization ends for the simple reason that they will then be used. I assume you know what a nuke detonated in a large city, or a man-made plague deliberately started in the US or another country would do. Whether Iraq had WMD immediately prior to our invasion or not, the totality of the history made the probability that it did too great, considering the nature of the weapons. Iraq is only the beginning. We will be confronted with the spectre of really, really bad people acquring WMD more and more as time goes on and technology advances.
2. Since we removed the (hideous) government in Iraq, we are under a moral obligation not to leave without giving them some kind of stable one. I would rather that they have a consitutional democratic republic than whatever government the strongest warlord or cleric is able to impose. As has sometimes been said about this war, if you break it, you have to fix it. Although I am not personally called upon to participate in the execution of this war, nonetheless, I think many people accept the idea that sometimes you have to stay and fight for things that are important like giving the Iraqis a decent government for the future.
3. The behavior of the insurgents, e.g. their prediliction for deliberately taregetting non-combatants, their recent seizure of non-combatant hostages and their threat to burn them alive, decapitate them, etc., their targetting of Red Crescent vehicles is a fairly clear indication of what sort of people they are. People of this ilk ought not to be allowed to win or take over the country.
4. Despite the undeniable fact that war is hell and every death is a tragedy, it is nonetheless true that this war has not been going on very long so far compared to many past wars.
It's unlikely that Bush will institute a draft. Instead he'll hire more mercenaries through private contractors. It's cheaper and potlitically safer.
This war is a disaster and demonstrates the obsessional nature of this superficial president.
While Kerry was in Vietnam learning about war first hand—the school of hard knocks, so to speak—all Bush was learning was the best way to get high. He certaintly didn't learn what America had supposedly learned from Vietnam about not starting wars.
Bush has stuck us on a huge pile of dung, and it will be for Kerry to get us out. Let's hope he has the will and the abilility.
McGentrix wrote:I will support it until it ends. That will most likely be when some weak-kneed liberal gets into office and signs our military over to some UN organization and our troops really start taking a beating.
I will assume it is okay with you if we lose let's be real conservtive and say 10 people a day for the next 100 years if that's what it takes. That's 365,000 people, no doubt some of your children and grandchildren, nieces and nephews. You are a true patriot. If only you were able to serve. Who knows maybe my son will be drafted and blown to bits. One less weak kneed liberal who's just as bad as a terrorist right? :wink:
I supported aspects of the Iraq war, aspects that Brandon posted, when we started it (though there are many aspects mainly concerning how and how quickly we went into it I disagreed with and still disagree with) and thus am obligated to support it till we see it through. Now that we already did it, there's no going back as far as I'm concerned.
I will probably never advocate that we cut our losses and run and let fundamentalists in Iraq destroy their nation again. So I guess until it ends is that only answer.
Brandon9000 wrote:I, and others who agree with me, strongly support this war and here's why.
1. It was right to invade in the first place. The WMD issue boils down to this: as technology advances in the world, weapons only invented in this century, and once only available to a few of the most advanced nations, are coming within the reach of more and smaller countries, and even well financed private groups. When things get to the point that dozens of countries and several private groups have WMD, then civilization ends for the simple reason that they will then be used. I assume you know what a nuke detonated in a large city, or a man-made plague deliberately started in the US or another country would do. Whether Iraq had WMD immediately prior to our invasion or not, the totality of the history made the probability that it did too great, considering the nature of the weapons. Iraq is only the beginning. We will be confronted with the spectre of really, really bad people acquring WMD more and more as time goes on and technology advances.
2. Since we removed the (hideous) government in Iraq, we are under a moral obligation not to leave without giving them some kind of stable one. I would rather that they have a consitutional democratic republic than whatever government the strongest warlord or cleric is able to impose. As has sometimes been said about this war, if you break it, you have to fix it. Although I am not personally called upon to participate in the execution of this war, nonetheless, I think many people accept the idea that sometimes you have to stay and fight for things that are important like giving the Iraqis a decent government for the future.
3. The behavior of the insurgents, e.g. their prediliction for deliberately taregetting non-combatants, their recent seizure of non-combatant hostages and their threat to burn them alive, decapitate them, etc., their targetting of Red Crescent vehicles is a fairly clear indication of what sort of people they are. People of this ilk ought not to be allowed to win or take over the country.
4. Despite the undeniable fact that war is hell and every death is a tragedy, it is nonetheless true that this war has not been going on very long so far compared to many past wars.
So you too are okay with being there in 2104 if that's how long it takes, right?
Delusion
consitutional democratic republic in Iraq?
The US Govt. is already in the process of builing 14 Military bases in Iraq and the largest Embassy in world-3,000 members without any persmission from anyone in Iraq. Does this sound like the US Govt. is planning on an actual consitutional democratic republic in Iraq?
Re: How Long Are You Willing To Support This Iraq Thing?
I haven't supported the war since day 1. But after it started and the damage had been done, I'll admit to have said we need to stick with it to a conclusion.
Now I just want us the hell out of there. I think we should drop everything, pack up and leave now.
Re: Delusion
pistoff wrote:consitutional democratic republic in Iraq?
The US Govt. is already in the process of builing 14 Military bases in Iraq and the largest Embassy in world-3,000 members without any persmission from anyone in Iraq. Does this sound like the US Govt. is planning on an actual consitutional democratic republic in Iraq?
Yes. Whether they will end up with one, I don't know, but we are certainly trying.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:I, and others who agree with me, strongly support this war and here's why.
1. It was right to invade in the first place. The WMD issue boils down to this: as technology advances in the world, weapons only invented in this century, and once only available to a few of the most advanced nations, are coming within the reach of more and smaller countries, and even well financed private groups. When things get to the point that dozens of countries and several private groups have WMD, then civilization ends for the simple reason that they will then be used. I assume you know what a nuke detonated in a large city, or a man-made plague deliberately started in the US or another country would do. Whether Iraq had WMD immediately prior to our invasion or not, the totality of the history made the probability that it did too great, considering the nature of the weapons. Iraq is only the beginning. We will be confronted with the spectre of really, really bad people acquring WMD more and more as time goes on and technology advances.
2. Since we removed the (hideous) government in Iraq, we are under a moral obligation not to leave without giving them some kind of stable one. I would rather that they have a consitutional democratic republic than whatever government the strongest warlord or cleric is able to impose. As has sometimes been said about this war, if you break it, you have to fix it. Although I am not personally called upon to participate in the execution of this war, nonetheless, I think many people accept the idea that sometimes you have to stay and fight for things that are important like giving the Iraqis a decent government for the future.
3. The behavior of the insurgents, e.g. their prediliction for deliberately taregetting non-combatants, their recent seizure of non-combatant hostages and their threat to burn them alive, decapitate them, etc., their targetting of Red Crescent vehicles is a fairly clear indication of what sort of people they are. People of this ilk ought not to be allowed to win or take over the country.
4. Despite the undeniable fact that war is hell and every death is a tragedy, it is nonetheless true that this war has not been going on very long so far compared to many past wars.
So you too are okay with being there in 2104 if that's how long it takes, right?
This is basically a baloney question. Would you have been in favor of us helping to defeat the axis powers in WW 2 and stopping the Nazis from ruling the world if it had taken 100 years? It's simply an uninteresting question. The point is, we were right to go into Iraq, there are lots of reasons for wanting to stay and see it through, and it hasn't been going on very long yet compared to other wars.
P.S.: Would you have wanted us to declare indepence from Great Britain if the Revolutionary War had lasted 20 million years? It is hardly the most enlightening way of analyzing the merit of the Revolutionary war.
Brandon - how will the invasion of Iraq help stop the spread of WMD?
Are you saying the US invades any country from now on which gets WMD?
As you know, possibly a greater danger is terrorist groups getting hold of nuclear weapons - or chemical - how does invading Iraq help with this?
If anything, I'd say if there ever were WMD's, the reason we couldn't find them is because the terrorists already got their hands on them when we got rid of sadam. We weren't able to secure all of the sites the day we went in there.
Though, my core belief is that there were no WMD's.
Brandon9000 wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:I, and others who agree with me, strongly support this war and here's why.
1. It was right to invade in the first place. The WMD issue boils down to this: as technology advances in the world, weapons only invented in this century, and once only available to a few of the most advanced nations, are coming within the reach of more and smaller countries, and even well financed private groups. When things get to the point that dozens of countries and several private groups have WMD, then civilization ends for the simple reason that they will then be used. I assume you know what a nuke detonated in a large city, or a man-made plague deliberately started in the US or another country would do. Whether Iraq had WMD immediately prior to our invasion or not, the totality of the history made the probability that it did too great, considering the nature of the weapons. Iraq is only the beginning. We will be confronted with the spectre of really, really bad people acquring WMD more and more as time goes on and technology advances.
2. Since we removed the (hideous) government in Iraq, we are under a moral obligation not to leave without giving them some kind of stable one. I would rather that they have a consitutional democratic republic than whatever government the strongest warlord or cleric is able to impose. As has sometimes been said about this war, if you break it, you have to fix it. Although I am not personally called upon to participate in the execution of this war, nonetheless, I think many people accept the idea that sometimes you have to stay and fight for things that are important like giving the Iraqis a decent government for the future.
3. The behavior of the insurgents, e.g. their prediliction for deliberately taregetting non-combatants, their recent seizure of non-combatant hostages and their threat to burn them alive, decapitate them, etc., their targetting of Red Crescent vehicles is a fairly clear indication of what sort of people they are. People of this ilk ought not to be allowed to win or take over the country.
4. Despite the undeniable fact that war is hell and every death is a tragedy, it is nonetheless true that this war has not been going on very long so far compared to many past wars.
So you too are okay with being there in 2104 if that's how long it takes, right?
This is basically a baloney question. Would you have been in favor of us helping to defeat the axis powers in WW 2 and stopping the Nazis from ruling the world if it had taken 100 years? It's simply an uninteresting question. The point is, we were right to go into Iraq, there are lots of reasons for wanting to stay and see it through, and it hasn't been going on very long yet compared to other wars.
P.S.: Would you have wanted us to declare indepence from Great Britain if the Revolutionary War had lasted 20 million years? It is hardly the most enlightening way of analyzing the merit of the Revolutionary war.
I like how you right wing guys whine about how the "lefties" won't give a straight answer and avoid intelligent discussion, and resent "liberal"people throwing insults and childish responses.
Then you follow up with , "that's a baloney question". A real one two punch there Captain Mature Debate. I salute you. :wink:
dlowan wrote:Brandon - how will the invasion of Iraq help stop the spread of WMD?
Are you saying the US invades any country from now on which gets WMD?
As you know, possibly a greater danger is terrorist groups getting hold of nuclear weapons - or chemical - how does invading Iraq help with this?
Yes Brandon and those like him on these threads want to invade not only everyone with weapons but everyone who is developing weapons they don't like......unless of course they are in some sort of for profit venture with our own government.......in other words...whatever bush inc. says......they will bleat the party line......I should think, Ms. Buns dear, that would by now be patently obvious. Or was that a rhetorical question?
The problem is, who decides who is allowed to be on the "side of right" and who are the "evil ones"? Because both sides are standing at the ready to go to war and/or strike preemptively, killing thousands and destroying whole cultures.....so I guess at the end of the day the leaders with the most war toys make that decision......trouble is that's a changing scenario that bush inc. overlooks...one of these dys China or Russia will have more toys than us and then they may decide we're the evil doers......then my grandchildren will be slaughtered and perhaps the USA will be bombed into the stone age..........someone forgot to think about that......corrupt leaders throughout history are always forgetting to think about that........and they're always empowered by a citizenry that is too short sighted to think about it......
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace