View Poll Results: Should We Always Support the Troops

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    36 63.16%
  • No

    21 36.84%
Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 215

Thread: Should We Always Support the Troops?

  1. #191
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Should We Always Support the Troops?

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    So you have an immoral act composed entirely of moral acts?
    No. Again acts are separable things. Attempting the return Vietnam to the French was immoral. Rescuing Vietnamese boat people was moral.

  2. #192
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Should We Always Support the Troops?

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    No, actuallly that is not logical. It's the code which says that the ends justifies the means, and if an end requires immoral means, then the end is also immoral.
    No it is not. If the desired end is moral and the acts to get there are moral you and I don’t have a problem. But with me if the desired end is moral but there is and immoral act necessary to get to the desired end then that act is immoral and stays immoral and shouldn’t be done. So, if you are bombing Germany to stop win and stop the killing of say Jews, but some unintentional killing of the wrong people will suffer and be killed, is the killing of those intentional. No. Is the bombing moral? I say yes.

  3. #193
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Should We Always Support the Troops?

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    So, if you are bombing Germany to stop win and stop the killing of say Jews, but some unintentional killing of the wrong people will suffer and be killed, is the killing of those intentional. No. Is the bombing moral? I say yes.
    No. The bombing is immoral. Regardless of your goal, the act is not changed. It may be necessary in order to accomplish what you intend, but to say it's moral is not logical.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  4. #194
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should We Always Support the Troops?

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    I disagree completely. I believe both wars were completely just and in line with our morals and ideals. Not to mention, we were the reason thouse countries were bass ackwards and ruled by maniacal dictators. After the fall of the USSR we had no reason to support these dictators any longer, and it was our moral duty to free these people from the rulers we put over them in order to prevent a nuclear war that would have killed billions of people.
    Afghanistan was not ruled by a dictator but by a terrorist group. Sure, we made mistakes in the 80's regarding our treatment of the Mujahideen. But the people of Afghanistan allowed their country to slip into the hands of the Taliban, not us. Further, the initial execution of OEF was flawless until Operation Anaconda when politics got involved. At that point, we should have left. When "jointness" (the idea that all branches of our Armed Services should have a stake in the war) became such a huge deal, larger groups of conventional forces began coming over, and politicians started arm chair quarterbacking the war, it was time to go.

    Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein who we had already smacked down in 1991. The way Bush Sr did it in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm was just IMO. He removed them from an ally's land and left it at that. He didn't pursue, try to nation build, etc. However, the idea that a country having WMD's (regardless the reliability of the intel) is a reason to invade is ridiculous. If that were the case, why didn't we invade when Saddam dropped nerve gas on his own people (Kurds)? Why haven't we invaded Pakistan? Why hasn't someone invaded us? It was an excuse to gain a foothold in the ME.

    What we should have done is hunt OBL and leave it at that. We did not not need any sort of airfield for that raid either. Pakistan is extrememly close to the Arabian Sea as well as Qatar. Afghanistan would not have been needed for that raid. The intel gained was gained from sources that had nothing to do with our operations in Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is that we are trying to help people that don't want our help. If the Afghani's wanted a democracy, they would make their own. You know, kind of like we did.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  5. #195
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

    Re: Should We Always Support the Troops?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Afghanistan was not ruled by a dictator but by a terrorist group. Sure, we made mistakes in the 80's regarding our treatment of the Mujahideen. But the people of Afghanistan allowed their country to slip into the hands of the Taliban, not us.
    You think the people of Afghanistan had a chance fighting against an American funded and supplied militant group? Do I blame America for it? No, not at all. It was necessary to support insurgents in Afghanistan in order to stop the USSR from spreading it's influence in the the ME and siphoning off of its oil revenue. If they had gotten control of the ME, it would be us that would have folded under economic sanctions and not the USSR. So although the people in the ME suffered greatly by being stuck in proxy wars, it was necessary to save the world from nuclear conflict.

    Further, the initial execution of OEF was flawless until Operation Anaconda when politics got involved. At that point, we should have left. When "jointness" (the idea that all branches of our Armed Services should have a stake in the war) became such a huge deal, larger groups of conventional forces began coming over, and politicians started arm chair quarterbacking the war, it was time to go.
    I disagree completely. The initial execution of the war was flawless, however, by exonerating the entire government and its entire military and security force, we left the country open for sectarian violence. That's all the outside influencing forces from Iran, to Palestine, to Syria really needed to take a swing at the US by sending in militant groups to pin down the US in the ME. While also getting the US military caught up in a civil war. Taking out Saddam was easy, but the planners did not foresee the insurgency.

    Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein who we had already smacked down in 1991. The way Bush Sr did it in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm was just IMO. He removed them from an ally's land and left it at that. He didn't pursue, try to nation build, etc.
    And this was the biggest mistake he made. They should have marched all the way to Baghdad and taken out Saddam while they were chasing his military back into Iraq. Instead, we waited a decade for Saddam to recover and then went in again.

    However, the idea that a country having WMD's (regardless the reliability of the intel) is a reason to invade is ridiculous.
    I agree, but it is also rediculous to say that this was the only reason given to invade. Iraq had already invaded 2 neighbors, and had fired projectiles into other neighboring countries. It had been under sanctions for decades and still refused to come completely clean on the disposition of it's WMD program. And did so because it was trying to keep Iran from invading. There was a reason why Saddam would not ever come completely clean, the doubt he manifested by ALMOST saying all his weapons were destroyed kept Iran at bay. You can not tell me that at the time, any world leader would have taken Saddam's word for it that he had destroyed all his WMD's if he could not provide proof. It is easy to say such things in hindsight, but at the time, no one could say they absolutely knew Saddam did not have WMD's. All of this is of little importance when if you actually have a heart beating in your body. After 2 decades of harsh sanctions, how much longer are you going to punish the innocent people of Iraq because of the actions of it's leader? Something had to be done to get rid of him. That is why it was called the Liberation of Iraq. The only way sanctions would have ever been lifted is by overthrowing the government.

    If that were the case, why didn't we invade when Saddam dropped nerve gas on his own people (Kurds)? Why haven't we invaded Pakistan? Why hasn't someone invaded us? It was an excuse to gain a foothold in the ME.
    I don't think we had enough evidence at the time to make a strong enough case to invade based on the gassing of the Kurds. We really did not have the evidence we would have needed until after we invaded.

    Why did we not invade Pakistan? Do you think we have the resources to invade both Afghanistan and Pakistan? We did not even have enough resources to invade Afghanistan. Which is why we kept sending aide to Pakistan to be our ally. Its called Geopolitics. We played that game during the Cold War as well. We supported some nasty leaders in order to keep the USSR at bay. Well, we are now supporting some nasty leaders to keep Pakistan from falling back into the hands of the Taliban or another group like the Taliban. Pakistan also has nuclear weapons...

    What we should have done is hunt OBL and leave it at that. We did not not need any sort of airfield for that raid either. Pakistan is extrememly close to the Arabian Sea as well as Qatar. Afghanistan would not have been needed for that raid. The intel gained was gained from sources that had nothing to do with our operations in Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is that we are trying to help people that don't want our help. If the Afghani's wanted a democracy, they would make their own. You know, kind of like we did.
    Osama was living in Afghanistan and only moved to the border regions in Pakistan after we invaded to remove the Taliban from power. The Taliban government knew exactly where OBL was and could hand him over to us, but they refused. They would only hand him over to a 3rd party muslim country to be tried in a muslim court where he probably would have gotten off completely. Could you imagine a US president allowing the friends of our enemies to handle justice for us?

    Not to mention, there are about 100-200 thousand Osama Bin Ladens in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Taking out OBL would have done little to prevent another attack on US soil. We had to cripple the groups that held the same ideological beliefs.

    By the way, democracy / liberty was originally a French idea. Without the French we would have never won our independence.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  6. #196
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should We Always Support the Troops?

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    You think the people of Afghanistan had a chance fighting against an American funded and supplied militant group?
    Yes, I do. Do you think Americans had a chance against the British military? Obviously, they did. There's a difference between a funded group and equipped group. Yes, we funded them when the Russians were there. We stopped when they left. The gear we gave them athrophied at an alarming rate because they have no maintainers. Further, most of the gear we gave them was given to beat the armor and air power of Russia (Stingers, etc) not fight ground troops. Fighting ground troops is a matter of will and skill when no supporting arms (artillery, mortars, air, etc) are being used. Obviously, in a post US funded mujahideen, there would have been no supporting arms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    I disagree completely. The initial execution of the war was flawless, however, by exonerating the entire government and its entire military and security force, we left the country open for sectarian violence. That's all the outside influencing forces from Iran, to Palestine, to Syria really needed to take a swing at the US by sending in militant groups to pin down the US in the ME. While also getting the US military caught up in a civil war. Taking out Saddam was easy, but the planners did not foresee the insurgency.
    You are confusing OEF with OIF. OEF was masterful. OIF was a blunder from the start. I was there, I saw it. I had to listen to women get raped all night. I had to listen to men wail when their children were caught in the crossfire. And I could do nothing about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    And this was the biggest mistake he made. They should have marched all the way to Baghdad and taken out Saddam while they were chasing his military back into Iraq. Instead, we waited a decade for Saddam to recover and then went in again.
    And then what? Nation build? Then we're right back where we started. Leave? We create the vacuum you speak of above. There is no viable option when you fight to displace a ruler whose people do not fully support his ousting. The Iraqi people danced in the streets when his statue came down. Then they wished for him back a week later. They didn't NEED him gone. They just kinda wanted him gone. And when a people half heartedly want something, they aren't prepared to do the heavy lifting required to get it done.
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    I agree, but it is also rediculous to say that this was the only reason given to invade. Iraq had already invaded 2 neighbors, and had fired projectiles into other neighboring countries. It had been under sanctions for decades and still refused to come completely clean on the disposition of it's WMD program. And did so because it was trying to keep Iran from invading. There was a reason why Saddam would not ever come completely clean, the doubt he manifested by ALMOST saying all his weapons were destroyed kept Iran at bay. You can not tell me that at the time, any world leader would have taken Saddam's word for it that he had destroyed all his WMD's if he could not provide proof. It is easy to say such things in hindsight, but at the time, no one could say they absolutely knew Saddam did not have WMD's. All of this is of little importance when if you actually have a heart beating in your body. After 2 decades of harsh sanctions, how much longer are you going to punish the innocent people of Iraq because of the actions of it's leader? Something had to be done to get rid of him. That is why it was called the Liberation of Iraq. The only way sanctions would have ever been lifted is by overthrowing the government.
    Who are we to say Iraq can't have WMD's? Who are we to say they can't fire into other countries? It's their problem. If we would leave the region alone and allow them to work their own problems out, all of these power vacuums and instability would probably go away. People have a weird way of getting tired of tyranny. Look at Syria. Saddam never threatened to use WMD's on us and Israel showed they had Saddam completely under control when they bombed his nuclear facilites in the 80's. The threat against Israel wasn't viable. They had that under control. There was no threat against us. So what was the need?
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    I don't think we had enough evidence at the time to make a strong enough case to invade based on the gassing of the Kurds. We really did not have the evidence we would have needed until after we invaded.
    Inaccurate. Iranian press published pics of that soon after it happened.
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    Why did we not invade Pakistan? Do you think we have the resources to invade both Afghanistan and Pakistan? We did not even have enough resources to invade Afghanistan. Which is why we kept sending aide to Pakistan to be our ally. Its called Geopolitics. We played that game during the Cold War as well. We supported some nasty leaders in order to keep the USSR at bay. Well, we are now supporting some nasty leaders to keep Pakistan from falling back into the hands of the Taliban or another group like the Taliban. Pakistan also has nuclear weapons...
    It was a question meant to point out the hypocrisy in invading at all. Not a serious one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    Osama was living in Afghanistan and only moved to the border regions in Pakistan after we invaded to remove the Taliban from power. The Taliban government knew exactly where OBL was and could hand him over to us, but they refused. They would only hand him over to a 3rd party muslim country to be tried in a muslim court where he probably would have gotten off completely. Could you imagine a US president allowing the friends of our enemies to handle justice for us?
    Did we turn him over when we got him? No, we went in and killed him. That's exactly how it would have gone down had we not been in Afghanistan. The only difference would have been the launch point for the operation ie instead of Afghanistan it would have been Qatar or an aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea. In addition, I never said I didn't support the initial invasion of Afghanistan. I complimented it actually. And the aforementioned Operation Anaconda was the reason OBL fled to Pakistan to begin with. With the pressure put on him by the now unfriendly Afghani tribes, he would have most likely been in Pakistan living it up anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    By the way, democracy / liberty was originally a French idea.
    Actually, the Greek invented it and the Romans refined it bro. Not the French.
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    Without the French we would have never won our independence.
    Agreed. But we started it, not the French. That's my point. The French didn't come to America and tell us to write the Declaration of Independence. We did that on our own. Only afterwards did we send Ben Franklin and John Adams to France to woo them into joining us. I don't remember any Iraqi delegates coming here.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  7. #197
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    57

    Re: Should We Always Support the Troops?

    The phrase 'support the troops' is a euphemism for 'support the war.' It is an attempt to separate the reason of the war from the fact that Americans are fighting and getting injured and are dying.

    Those who use the phrase make this clear in the context in which they use it, which is to criticize others regarding disagreements that namely have nothing to do specifically with the troops; whereas, issues related directly to the troops are ignored:

    For example,
    1.
    Republicans fight and win against proposal requiring that troops be given as much time at home as they had spent overseas before being redeployed:
    - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/wa...on/20cong.html
    2.
    Senate GOP block...[ed] veterans job bill to tackle the "nearly 11 percent unemployment rate for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, [which others thought] merited action from Congress."
    - Senate GOP blocks veterans jobs bill - CBS News

    Supporting troops and supporting a war are different. Supporting troops means social, financial, and mental support, and it is divorced from agreement or disagreement about a war.

    Arguing against a war, is not arguing against support for troops, as support is about helping troops and not helping war propaganda.

  8. #198
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

    Re: Should We Always Support the Troops?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Yes, I do. Do you think Americans had a chance against the British military? Obviously, they did.
    With the help of France. And we barely squeeked out victory in many cases. Without France's Naval power, we would have been destroyed.


    There's a difference between a funded group and equipped group. Yes, we funded them when the Russians were there. We stopped when they left. The gear we gave them athrophied at an alarming rate because they have no maintainers. Further, most of the gear we gave them was given to beat the armor and air power of Russia (Stingers, etc) not fight ground troops. Fighting ground troops is a matter of will and skill when no supporting arms (artillery, mortars, air, etc) are being used. Obviously, in a post US funded mujahideen, there would have been no supporting arms.
    Well, you also forgot to mention they were also trained by the CIA on how to fight a more powerful and well equipped army. They were given the tactics they used on us by the CIA.

    You are confusing OEF with OIF. OEF was masterful. OIF was a blunder from the start. I was there, I saw it. I had to listen to women get raped all night. I had to listen to men wail when their children were caught in the crossfire. And I could do nothing about it.
    It took the lack of planning after the initial planning to cause the insurgency. We created a perfect storm for all ME countries to have a free for all in Iraq while getting a shot at attacking the US at the same time. It was like throwing steaks into a den of lions.

    And then what? Nation build? Then we're right back where we started. Leave? We create the vacuum you speak of above. There is no viable option when you fight to displace a ruler whose people do not fully support his ousting.
    Yes, it was our obligation. We supported Saddam against Iran to keep Iranian influence out of the ME and to have a geopolitical ally. The concequence of that was that a majority sect of Iraqi people would be oppressed. It was something we had to accept. The lesser of two evils in order to keep the ME from collapsing and the USSR or China from stepping in and exerting influence. Just imagine the world today if China or the USSR had influence in the ME instead of us. N.Korea would definatly have weaponized Nukes and maybe have unified Korea in the midst of a weakened and unfunded US ally, South Korea. Taiwan would have been part of China and China would be exerting its influence in Asia. We would be screwed in other words. Iran would have definately invaded and annexed Iraq via proxy from either China or the USSR. Kuwait would be gone and I would almost like to think that the radical islamists would have thrived on the funding of the communists in order to gain access to all that oil.

    The Iraqi people danced in the streets when his statue came down. Then they wished for him back a week later. They didn't NEED him gone. They just kinda wanted him gone. And when a people half heartedly want something, they aren't prepared to do the heavy lifting required to get it done.
    Are you serious?? They did want him gone, they just did not want the US stuck in their business for as long as we were. And the only reason we were is because the US government was playing politics at home trying to appease the anti war crowd. Which lead to a war that lasted a decade instead of maybe 2-3 years.

    Who are we to say Iraq can't have WMD's? Who are we to say they can't fire into other countries? It's their problem.
    The international community says they cant have WMD's.

    Inaccurate. Iranian press published pics of that soon after it happened.
    You think the anyone would have believed the Iranian press at the time?
    Last edited by Capster78; 03-06-13 at 08:29 PM.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  9. #199
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

    Re: Should We Always Support the Troops?

    Quote Originally Posted by shelphs View Post
    The phrase 'support the troops' is a euphemism for 'support the war.' It is an attempt to separate the reason of the war from the fact that Americans are fighting and getting injured and are dying.

    Those who use the phrase make this clear in the context in which they use it, which is to criticize others regarding disagreements that namely have nothing to do specifically with the troops; whereas, issues related directly to the troops are ignored:

    For example,
    1.
    Republicans fight and win against proposal requiring that troops be given as much time at home as they had spent overseas before being redeployed:
    - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/wa...on/20cong.html
    2.
    Senate GOP block...[ed] veterans job bill to tackle the "nearly 11 percent unemployment rate for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, [which others thought] merited action from Congress."
    - Senate GOP blocks veterans jobs bill - CBS News

    Supporting troops and supporting a war are different. Supporting troops means social, financial, and mental support, and it is divorced from agreement or disagreement about a war.

    Arguing against a war, is not arguing against support for troops, as support is about helping troops and not helping war propaganda.
    It's willfull ignorance at best and dishonestly at worst. As I said, if you joined a voluntary military during a time of war, or leading up to a time of war you support the war. If you are supporting the troops, you are supporting the war. You can't separate the two based on those two facts.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  10. #200
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should We Always Support the Troops?

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    With the help of France. And we barely squeeked out victory in many cases. Without France's Naval power, we would have been destroyed.
    I don't see anyone in Afghanistan with any sort of skill set equating to the British Navy requiring a equally powerful skill set such as the French's naval power.
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    Well, you also forgot to mention they were also trained by the CIA on how to fight a more powerful and well equipped army. They were given the tactics they used on us by the CIA.
    Yes, a more powerful and well equipped army. Not a rag tag group of guys fighting on their level with a cause. Believe it or not, it is easier to fight a force such as the Russians or the US whose center of gravity is equipment rather than a group whose center of gravity is their homes and families.
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    It took the lack of planning after the initial planning to cause the insurgency. We created a perfect storm for all ME countries to have a free for all in Iraq while getting a shot at attacking the US at the same time. It was like throwing steaks into a den of lions.
    Actually, the initial planning is what led to the perfect storm. We did not hold anything we took. If we smoked a town, we left it. We didn't leave troops to backfill the towns and make sure we held it. That is where the insurgency took effect. In addition, the insurgency was preplanned. We found many bodies with Iraqi passports with the purpose for the visit printed "Jihad".
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    Yes, it was our obligation. We supported Saddam against Iran to keep Iranian influence out of the ME and to have a geopolitical ally. The concequence of that was that a majority sect of Iraqi people would be oppressed. It was something we had to accept. The lesser of two evils in order to keep the ME from collapsing and the USSR or China from stepping in and exerting influence. Just imagine the world today if China or the USSR had influence in the ME instead of us. N.Korea would definatly have weaponized Nukes and maybe have unified Korea in the midst of a weakened and unfunded US ally, South Korea. Taiwan would have been part of China and China would be exerting its influence in Asia. We would be screwed in other words. Iran would have definately invaded and annexed Iraq via proxy from either China or the USSR. Kuwait would be gone and I would almost like to think that the radical islamists would have thrived on the funding of the communists in order to gain access to all that oil.
    So then we would be paying Iranians/Chinese/USSR/etc for oil instead of Saudis? I'm failing to see the difference. Oil is oil dude. We are the largest consumer of it. No matter who has it, they control us to an extent. Saudi Arabia is one of the most heavily populated countries as far as terrorists go. So instead of Saudi getting the pass they get now, it would have been one of the other countries I mentioned. We are a slave to oil right now. There's no way around that. And we'll deal with anyone who has it. Why do you think Venezuelan owned Citgos are on every corner?
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    Are you serious?? They did want him gone, they just did not want the US stuck in their business for as long as we were. And the only reason we were is because the US government was playing politics at home trying to appease the anti war crowd. Which lead to a war that lasted a decade instead of maybe 2-3 years.
    Yep, I'm serious. You were at home being fed what the media (and Federal gov't) wanted you to see. You didn't see the dozens of daily protests telling infidels to go home. Those people did not want what we were offering even a week after arriving. What difference would there have been had we left the Iraqi Army and police in power? None. What difference was there when we removed them? Worse. Where would we have gotten a replacement force of locals fast enough to replace all of the police that were lost? How would we even know if the replacements weren't just former Iraqi soldiers/police? If we were the enforcers, how would we communicate with them? There were no interpreters. We were in a lose lose situation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    The international community says they cant have WMD's.
    Then the international community can go take them
    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    You think the anyone would have believed the Iranian press at the time?
    A picture's a picture dude. There was no photoshop back then.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •