|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/13/2007 05:02:14 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It is merely balance. I would expect that anyone having a "love" for their country would eagerly post criticism AND praise - often enough to where a reasonable reader could discern that balance. |
One further thought occurs to me. I don't see you regularly praising the good things that other countries do, and many countries do amazing things for other people.
The reason is because you don't as a general rule get singled out for special praise for doing what you are supposed to do. Rich western countries are expected to help out the rest of the world. You do get criticised for doing things that you are not supposed to do. Rich western countries are not supposed to invade poor countries and kill hundreds of thousands in order to preserve their wealth.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 06:07:01 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Rich western countries are expected to help out the rest of the world. You do get criticised for doing things that you are not supposed to do. Rich western countries are not supposed to invade poor countries and kill hundreds of thousands in order to preserve their wealth. |
There you go again, saying we owe you our money, all while you slam us as war mongering murderers. I hope you are consistent with this thought, as in every leading nation in history...Rome, France, England...
Sometimes I just shake my head.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 09:46:09 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
By getting involved militarily in the middle east the Bush administration has destabilized the whole region and this will continue for a long time to come. |
Saying the region has been destabilized implies that it was stable before. I don't think that's the case. Iraq invaded Kuwait and probably had an eye on Saudi, numerous nations have serious internal issues which always seem to be ready to boil over into revolution (or already did in some cases), then there is the constant conflict between Israel and her neighbor states. A long list of problems that generally involve bloodshed on varying scales.
If anyone set the stage for a middle east focused WW3 it was not the US, it was the former powers who ran the place and left a mess for everyone else to be bothered by. |
Are you serious in your statement that Iraq (under Hussein) wanted to invade Saudi Arabia? Knowing what we know today about the severely weakened state of his military after the Gulf War and Iraq's lack of WMD's after they were all destroyed by UNSCOM I take your statement to be mere speculation not based on facts. As if the US would have sat by and allowed an attack/invasion on one of their closest allies with the largest reserves of oil on the planet. Yeah, right.
Since the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq hundreds of thousands, if not by now into the millions, of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war. Survivors are living in poverty and hunger with high unemployment and little hope for the future. A civil war is raging between religious factions, warlords, and militias and the new Iraqi government is no where to be seen outside of the green zone. Chaos reigns and horrendous sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing is being carried out, even against women and children. Iraqi refugees are fleeing their country to the tune of 2,000 per day and a total of 4.4 million people have been displaced overall impacting the surrounding countries (which the Bush administration refuses to help in any monetary way). Only 700 of those refugees have been allowed entrance into the US.
The ranks of extremist terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, are increasing and there is the increasing threat of military conflict between Turkey and the the Kurds in northern Iraq. Mass killings by American hired mercenaries, as well as, renditions of Muslims throughout the world and torture carried out by the CIA and US military are causing even more anger and hatred of the US.
The new Iraqi government is ineffectual, full of fraud and corruption, and the police force and military have been infiltrated by extremists. Oil theft is rampant and is helping to fund the different extremist groups. With the Iraqi government controlled predominantly by Shiites the Bush administration is worried of future friendly relations and agreements with Iran, another Shiite country, and probably the reason the US will not extricate its military from Iraq, and have ramped up war talk against Iran. Imagine how powerful an influence and destabilizing force a united Iraq and Iran can be. But if the Bush administration do in fact attack Iran, there is even a greater likelihood of involving other countries in the region or countries with economic and military ties to Iran (such as China and Russia), escalating the matter to huge proportions that could involve nuclear war, which have not been ruled out by Bush. US relations with both China and Russia have cooled in recent years under Bush.
We are seeing a destabilization of the region, and possibly the world, caused by the Bush gang, as never before. I fear the worst.
Message edited by author 2007-12-13 21:57:16. |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 11:06:18 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
By getting involved militarily in the middle east the Bush administration has destabilized the whole region and this will continue for a long time to come. |
Saying the region has been destabilized implies that it was stable before. I don't think that's the case. Iraq invaded Kuwait and probably had an eye on Saudi, numerous nations have serious internal issues which always seem to be ready to boil over into revolution (or already did in some cases), then there is the constant conflict between Israel and her neighbor states. A long list of problems that generally involve bloodshed on varying scales.
If anyone set the stage for a middle east focused WW3 it was not the US, it was the former powers who ran the place and left a mess for everyone else to be bothered by. |
Are you serious in your statement that Iraq (under Hussein) wanted to invade Saudi Arabia? Knowing what we know today about the severely weakened state of his military after the Gulf War and Iraq's lack of WMD's after they were all destroyed by UNSCOM I take your statement to be mere speculation not based on facts. As if the US would have sat by and allowed an attack/invasion on one of their closest allies with the largest reserves of oil on the planet. Yeah, right. |
Yes I'm serious, yes your assumption about the US response is correct - that is what started this war in the first place as you may or may not be aware. It's not idle speculation, it's what happened and is an example of how the region is, was and will continue to be anything but stable. |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 11:24:15 PM · #105 |
Why not respond to the rest:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Since the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq hundreds of thousands, if not by now into the millions, of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war. Survivors are living in poverty and hunger with high unemployment and little hope for the future.
|
I don't care. Sorry, I just don't.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
A civil war is raging between religious factions, warlords, and militias and the new Iraqi government is no where to be seen outside of the green zone. Chaos reigns and horrendous sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing is being carried out, even against women and children. Iraqi refugees are fleeing their country to the tune of 2,000 per day and a total of 4.4 million people have been displaced overall impacting the surrounding countries (which the Bush administration refuses to help in any monetary way). Only 700 of those refugees have been allowed entrance into the US.
|
Sounds like a pretty pathetic bunch of people. I don't see how you can blame the US government for this beyond giving them the freedom to behave in a manner they obviously have no problem behaving in.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The ranks of extremist terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, are increasing and there is the increasing threat of military conflict between Turkey and the the Kurds in northern Iraq.
|
The first statement is certainly speculation, the latter describes as a 'threat' something that has been going on since 1915 both within and beyond Turkey's borders.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Mass killings by American hired mercenaries, as well as, renditions of Muslims throughout the world and torture carried out by the CIA and US military are causing even more anger and hatred of the US.
|
Don't care. The war is being fought much more humanely and much less efficiently than it could be.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The new Iraqi government is ineffectual, full of fraud and corruption, and the police force and military have been infiltrated by extremists. Oil theft is rampant and is helping to fund the different extremist groups. With the Iraqi government controlled predominantly by Shiites
|
See above re: a pathetic people currently incapable of civil society.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
the Bush administration is worried of future friendly relations and agreements with Iran, another Shiite country, and probably the reason the US will not extricate its military from Iraq, and have ramped up war talk against Iran.
|
This is probably one of many reasons, yes.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Imagine how powerful an influence and destabilizing force a united Iraq and Iran can be. But if the Bush administration do in fact attack Iran, there is even a greater likelihood of involving other countries in the region or countries with economic and military ties to Iran (such as China and Russia), escalating the matter to huge proportions that could involve nuclear war, which have not been ruled out by Bush. US relations with both China and Russia have cooled in recent years under Bush.
|
Speculation. You could as easily fantasize that Russia, being a massive oil exporter on its own, could do nothing but profit from a situation wherein it became the only sure supply of oil while the middle east was engulfed in war and not exporting oil to the west. China cares about oil, not the people living on the ground above it.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
We are seeing a destabilization of the region, and possibly the world, caused by the Bush gang, as never before. I fear the worst. |
The region has danced on the edge of war for decades. The current situation is just new actors in the same play. I have no doubt that you can find countless examples of much more dire situations in history. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 12:55:16 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Yes I'm serious, yes your assumption about the US response is correct - that is what started this war in the first place as you may or may not be aware. It's not idle speculation, it's what happened and is an example of how the region is, was and will continue to be anything but stable. |
So if Hussein had plans of invading Saudi Arabia then why didn't the Bush administration use that as one of the rationals for going to war? I don't recall ever hearing anything about this in Colin Powell's speech to the UN in early 2003.
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 00:56:34. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:54:55 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Since the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq hundreds of thousands, if not by now into the millions, of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war. Survivors are living in poverty and hunger with high unemployment and little hope for the future.
|
I don't care. Sorry, I just don't. |
I didn't ask if you cared but was just pointing out one of the causes of instability in Iraq.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
A civil war is raging between religious factions, warlords, and militias and the new Iraqi government is no where to be seen outside of the green zone. Chaos reigns and horrendous sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing is being carried out, even against women and children. Iraqi refugees are fleeing their country to the tune of 2,000 per day and a total of 4.4 million people have been displaced overall impacting the surrounding countries (which the Bush administration refuses to help in any monetary way). Only 700 of those refugees have been allowed entrance into the US.
|
Sounds like a pretty pathetic bunch of people. I don't see how you can blame the US government for this beyond giving them the freedom to behave in a manner they obviously have no problem behaving in. |
The US has been funding insurgency groups for the purpose of fighting al Quada and at other times have also been funding al Quada linked Sunni groups to counter the Iranians.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Mass killings by American hired mercenaries, as well as, renditions of Muslims throughout the world and torture carried out by the CIA and US military are causing even more anger and hatred of the US.
|
Don't care. The war is being fought much more humanely and much less efficiently than it could be. |
A humane war...now that's an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Question is if it's being fought according to Geneva Convention provisions.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
China cares about oil, not the people living on the ground above it. |
Same could be said of the current US Government. But what I really don't understand is why you would care about innocent Chinese people, but not care about the innocent Iraqi people.
[/quote]
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 03:20:05. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 03:00:14 AM · #108 |
The only real "winner" in the Iraq war is Iran.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 05:07:15 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Flash:
There you go again, saying we owe you our money, all while you slam us as war mongering murderers. I hope you are consistent with this thought, as in every leading nation in history...Rome, France, England...
Sometimes I just shake my head. |
I thought that this was a joke, but I see that it is not.
I never suggested that the US owes the UK all its money. I said that, like every other rich western country, the US should financially contribute to other countries in times of disaster and militarily contribute to international peace keeping duties.
Saddam Hussein did a lot of great works in liberalising the ME (before the Gulf war). The general approach in the US was to criticise him for the illegal war in Kuwait, rather than to praise him for his good works.
On the basis that most of the world considers the US invasion of Iraq to have been illegal (and people like routerguy666 averring their belief that it is and was a strategic resource grab, it seems that people in the US recognise it for what it is, even if they don't care), then please accept that the US will be criticised for it.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 07:42:09 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Yes I'm serious, yes your assumption about the US response is correct - that is what started this war in the first place as you may or may not be aware. It's not idle speculation, it's what happened and is an example of how the region is, was and will continue to be anything but stable. |
So if Hussein had plans of invading Saudi Arabia then why didn't the Bush administration use that as one of the rationals for going to war? I don't recall ever hearing anything about this in Colin Powell's speech to the UN in early 2003. |
Hi. See if you can keep up.
You say the current conflict has destabilized the region.
I say the region was already anything but stable.
I offer as one of many examples of a history of instability Iraq's move to invade Saudi.
You are either too young or too narrow minded to see that I am referring to the events that started the Gulf War, and instead accuse me of fabrication and go off on a tirade about how bad things are in Iraq.
Toodles. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 09:56:40 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
On the basis that most of the world considers the US invasion of Iraq to have been illegal (and people like routerguy666 averring their belief that it is and was a strategic resource grab, it seems that people in the US recognise it for what it is, even if they don't care), then please accept that the US will be criticised for it. |
Criticism versus the relentless less than accurate attack, are in my opinion different.
I cannot speak for all americans, however when Colin Powell spoke before the UN, that was the turning point for me, in my support. I believe that Colin Powell was "used" and thus impacted his decision to leave the administration. I also believe, (based on many many factors - some of which are religious in nature), that a strategic pressence was necessary. Some claim that strategic catalyst was oil, I disagree. It may have been a by-product, but not the catalyst. Thus the contiued criticism of the "war for oil" is off base - regardless of the coincidences. What is of strategic importance was to have a pressence in Afganistan, then a pressence in Iraq, (thus having stations on 2 borders of Iran and separating Iran and Syria). This is a military strategy at its root. A strategy of prevention, with the ability of response if required. A sound strategy if one were to look at it Globally. A strategy that, if used in Viet Nam, likely would have saved thousands and thousands of lives - compared to the timid action strategy utilyzed in that debacle.
The concept of War should be as follows; engage ONLY if you plan to use ALL resources to acheive the desired goals. Anything less, will cost more (lives, capital, infastructure, etc), and take longer. One cannot serve 2 masters. Trying to tightrope walk diplomatically through a war, results in more lives lost - period. Engage, conquer or be conquered, and leave. As Attilla the Hun is referenced as saying; "War may result from failed diplomacy; however sometimes war is necessary for diplomacy to begin".
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 10:05:42.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 10:16:02 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Some claim that strategic catalyst was oil, I disagree. It may have been a by-product, but not the catalyst. Thus the contiued criticism of the "war for oil" is off base - regardless of the coincidences. |
As an aside, I find it telling that you use the word "coincidence" in different places to both shore up your argument, and, as here, to break down another's argument. The Swiss Cheese factor in your style of conversation is striking.
Also, your hint that there were "religious reasons" for the current war is kind of weird, but more than that, it's sad and grotesque, and all the more reason to abhor it. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 11:28:10 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The concept of War should be as follows; engage ONLY if you plan to use ALL resources to acheive the desired goals. Anything less, will cost more (lives, capital, infastructure, etc), and take longer. One cannot serve 2 masters. Trying to tightrope walk diplomatically through a war, results in more lives lost - period. Engage, conquer or be conquered, and leave. As Attilla the Hun is referenced as saying; "War may result from failed diplomacy; however sometimes war is necessary for diplomacy to begin". |
ALL resources? Using that rationale, the US should have just nuked the whole country and kept the troops at home.
The problem is that, unlike Attila the Hun, the war in Iraq is now not a conventional war, fought between two armies. The Iraqi Army has been vanquished. What to do after the Iraqi Army was defeated was not planned out and the ensuing blunders, politically and militarily, have resulted in a disastrous insurgency that the US was, and to an extent still is, ill-prepared to fight.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 12:34:21 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Some claim that strategic catalyst was oil, I disagree. It may have been a by-product, but not the catalyst. Thus the contiued criticism of the "war for oil" is off base - regardless of the coincidences. |
As an aside, I find it telling that you use the word "coincidence" in different places to both shore up your argument, and, as here, to break down another's argument. The Swiss Cheese factor in your style of conversation is striking.
Also, your hint that there were "religious reasons" for the current war is kind of weird, but more than that, it's sad and grotesque, and all the more reason to abhor it. |
1. I put the word coincidence in specifically for you. It was intentionally chosen, as I surmised that you would grab it.
2. If you would like to know what I meant by "religious reasons' then you should ask. To presume and imply it was about christianity/Islam is wrong. The post was about strategy, specifically military strategy, thus you should think more specifically how that might apply to Israel and a "possible attack from the North", as your prior studies surely would have you informed.
edit as I think faster than my 2 fingers type
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 12:36:13.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 12:40:58 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
ALL resources? Using that rationale, the US should have just nuked the whole country and kept the troops at home. |
Depends on what the desired goals were. Defeat of a target is not the only objective. It is a major one. My point was, and I believe you know this already, is that if your are going to do something, then go do it! If you are not, then stay home. Once you've started, then any change in intensity, will result in increased cost. Most likely lives.
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 12:43:21.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:44:24 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Criticism versus the relentless less than accurate attack, are in my opinion different. |
Do a small bad thing, get a small amount of criticism.
Do a big bad thing, expect a lot of criticism.
Iraq was a big bad thing. Please remember that there are 3.5bn nhon-US citizens on this planet. Even if it is good for the US (for strategic, resource, or religious reasons - all of which I doubt) it is a bad thing in the eyes of almost everyone else.
Just like the voters on DPC, while US citizens can view their nation's actions as wonderful, that will not prevent the commentators from damning them as they please.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 01:49:35 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Flash:
1. I put the word coincidence in specifically for you. It was intentionally chosen, as I surmised that you would grab it. |
You would risk compromising your credibility on two fronts to zing someone with nothing more than a private needling?
Originally posted by Flash:
If you would like to know what I meant by "religious reasons' then you should ask. To presume and imply it was about christianity/Islam is wrong. |
Probably about as wrong as assuming I even considered it was about Christianity/Islam.
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 13:49:45. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:46:28 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
1. I put the word coincidence in specifically for you. It was intentionally chosen, as I surmised that you would grab it. |
You would risk compromising your credibility on two fronts to zing someone with nothing more than a private needling? |
People here have already made up there minds regarding my credibility. That "zing" won't enamour those that don't agree with me or cast away those that do.
Seriously though, my first thought when selecting that word was the interpretation you would choose for it. I chose it anyway, knowing that its defense was possible due to context.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:51:04 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
ALL resources? Using that rationale, the US should have just nuked the whole country and kept the troops at home. |
Depends on what the desired goals were. Defeat of a target is not the only objective. It is a major one. My point was, and I believe you know this already, is that if your are going to do something, then go do it! If you are not, then stay home. Once you've started, then any change in intensity, will result in increased cost. Most likely lives. |
The biggest failure on the part of the leadership of the military (civilian and within the military), aside from invading in the first place, was not having a plan for what to do after the Iraqi military was defeated. They totally fumbled everything on that play and have yet to recover. They didn't have a clear objective apart from defeating the Iraqi Army. Without an objective, you can't have a plan. After the military was defeated, it was a "What now?" moment. While the U.S. leadership was sitting around on their thumbs and declaring victory, the insurgency was forming. The insurgency accelerated, thanks in large part to the ill-informed decision by the U.S. leadership to dismantle the Iraqi Army to the lowest levels instead of using them to rebuild the country. This left a large number of men with military training, access to weapons and a grudge against the U.S. for cutting off their income.
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 14:52:07. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:54:09 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Just like the voters on DPC, while US citizens can view their nation's actions as wonderful, that will not prevent the commentators from damning them as they please. |
I doubt most americans view thier nations actions as wonderful, in fact I specifically have referenced examples such as: (Colin Powel was used and subsequently left the administration). However, just because one's sister is a whore, doesn't mean another can call her that. At least not without a scuffle. So scuffle we do.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2007 02:55:27 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
ALL resources? Using that rationale, the US should have just nuked the whole country and kept the troops at home. |
Depends on what the desired goals were. Defeat of a target is not the only objective. It is a major one. My point was, and I believe you know this already, is that if your are going to do something, then go do it! If you are not, then stay home. Once you've started, then any change in intensity, will result in increased cost. Most likely lives. |
The biggest failure on the part of the leadership of the military (civilian and within the military), aside from invading in the first place, was not having a plan for what to do after the Iraqi military was defeated. They totally fumbled everything on that play and have yet to recover. They didn't have a clear objective apart from defeating the Iraqi Army. Without an objective, you can't have a plan. After the military was defeated, it was a "What now?" moment. While the U.S. leadership was sitting around on their thumbs and declaring victory, the insurgency was forming. The insurgency accelerated, thanks in large part to the ill-informed decision by the U.S. leadership to dismantle the Iraqi Army to the lowest levels instead of using them to rebuild the country. This left a large number of men with military training, access to weapons and a grudge against the U.S. for cutting off their income. |
On this we seem to agree. I really don't think they expected it to be over so soon. I think they truly mis-calculated the "formal military" resistence and thus found themselves without the support structure/strategy for the aftermath. We were preparred for a military campaign - not a police action.
Message edited by author 2007-12-14 15:01:14.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2007 12:21:58 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Yes I'm serious, yes your assumption about the US response is correct - that is what started this war in the first place as you may or may not be aware. It's not idle speculation, it's what happened and is an example of how the region is, was and will continue to be anything but stable. |
So if Hussein had plans of invading Saudi Arabia then why didn't the Bush administration use that as one of the rationals for going to war? I don't recall ever hearing anything about this in Colin Powell's speech to the UN in early 2003. |
Hi. See if you can keep up.
You say the current conflict has destabilized the region.
I say the region was already anything but stable.
I offer as one of many examples of a history of instability Iraq's move to invade Saudi.
You are either too young or too narrow minded to see that I am referring to the events that started the Gulf War, and instead accuse me of fabrication and go off on a tirade about how bad things are in Iraq.
Toodles. |
Obviously I thought you were referring to the current Iraq war, not the Gulf War. I was not accusing you of fabrication, but was stunned at what I thought you were presenting as a new rational for the 2003 invasion. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yes, the mideast has a history of instability, but aided and abetted by US meddling. Befriending Hussein in the 80s, supplying him with arms and WMDs, ditto with the Iranians while the two were at war. Arming Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan; policies based on lust for oil; cozy relations with Israel and the brutal rulers of the Saudi royal family, etc.
In 2003 Iran and Iraq were not at war and kept each other in check. Israel was at peace with Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. No major wars were going on in the region. Sadaam Hussein's military had already been greatly weakened in strength and number and his WMD programs had been put to an end. He was no threat to other countries in the region, or the US. Sure there were problems there (especially with the Palestinians), but nothing like the long list of destablizing "tirade" I presented above brought about by US invasion and occupation. Relatively stable, imo.
So it's ok by you that your country invades another for plundering its resources? That's how you're going to measure success there? I'm sorry, but I don't understand your dismissive attitude to the suffering going on there.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2007 12:33:32 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So it's ok by you that your country invades another for plundering its resources? That's how you're going to measure success there? I'm sorry, but I don't understand your dismissive attitude to the suffering going on there. |
I accept human nature for what it is (individually and on the larger scale of nation states) and scoff at utopian fantasies that dream of it changing. Countries who feel it is important enough to invade another nation because of a natural resource issue would just as likely be held hostage by that country (or countries) who own those resources were they in a position to do so. Certainly this has happened in the past and continues to happen to varying degrees in the present albeit without bullets flying.
Imagine how fun things will be when the shortage of fresh water starts to bear on global politics. |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 12:53:50 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
How is one to know the proper time to enter a war? The U.S. is getting slammed as we speak for a) not entering the war ( genocide ) in Darfur, and b) entering the war in Iraq. |
To state the obvious, the U.S. didn't "enter" the war in Iraq; the U.S. INVADED Iraq and CREATED a war that did not already exist. |
The quote above was said back on the first page of the thread and i just wanted to respond to it.
I just wanted to say that maybe there wasn't an "official" war going on in Iraq, yet daily Iraqi citizens fought battles to survive the tyrannical reign of Saddam Hussein. So, in that regard we "entered" the war. There were thousands of people who were tortured and brutally murdered by Hussein. People can bash on Bush for entering the war for "weapons of mass destruction" or for "obtaining oil", but we entered the war to save these Iraqi's lives.
Someone I know works as a nurse in labor and delivery and she had a patient the other day who was from Iraq. She was born in a cave in Iraq, because her mom was running from Saddam because her husband had been tortured for an entire year in prison. The Kurdish Leader eventually persuaded Hussein to release him and he told him to take his family and run, and thus they live in America today. My friend what they thought about us going into Iraq and capturing Saddam Hussein, and all she could say was "God Bless America."
Maybe some people have had the wrong motives about this war, but the overall outcome is a huge success. We have saved countless lives and given these Iraqi citizens a place that they can be proud of rather than a place where they are always afraid.
Message edited by author 2007-12-16 12:54:26.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 12:12:21 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 12:12:21 PM EDT.
|
