Yes we will see them and they are justified.
Yes we will see them but they will not be justified.
No we will not see them but they would have been justified.
No we will not see them and they would not have been justified.
Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Our values have been wrecked ever since we ventured out in the world Europe created. After all all three 20th century explosions or crisis (WWI, WWII, Cold War) started in Europe. The problem is that we can't maintain our American values all the time and deal with the European messes we are expected to deal with. Would you have prefered an all out nuclear war with the Soviets or the dictator support game we both played to spread a specific influence to maintain a sense of stability, which we would later equate ot "peace" no matter who sufferred underneath.
The rule of law would have Hitler throwing himself parades as he burned people alive his entire life as long as he satisfied his quench for death inside Germany. The rule of law would have genocides in Africa dealt with if the UN applied the word (genocide) towards the situation. The rule of law is selective and is only scrutinized when we need an action done or when we wish to protest an action.
And...by the way....Hypocracy lives in all people and governments. I just showed you a little bit of that with yor argument of "American values" or international "rule of law." Know any body else who dropped two atomic bombs on civilian cities and preaches to the rest of the world that they will not use or even develop nuclear weapons? And how much of the West was more than willing to watch Africans suffer genocide, yet move the earth to stop it in Europe as a matter of international law during the same period? Protestors. Always swimming in exaggeration and fantasy.
Like I stated earlier, the only thing "un-American" is losing. Which is why Vietnam stands out so boldy to us.
Last edited by MSgt; 12-31-08 at 02:55 PM.
The American people were sold a lie about the spread of communism in the same exact way that this administration manipulated 911 and preyed on the fears of the American public based on lies to sell the invasion of Iraq.
"A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"
But "no reason to be in Iraq in the first place" is an illusion preached by protestors who pretend that containment was to be our ever lasting policy. Being a man in uniform, I grew tired of seeing our troops being treated like a yo-yo because we had to deal with Hussein, but also had to refrain from ripping the band-aid off once and for all.
It's a shame that "victory" continues to be defined as it used to be, because Iraq's current theme is successful. We labeled the Gulf War as "victory" even though we allowed the dictator to go home to torment his people and publicly deny the conditions of his continued existence all the way up to 2003. I guess that was "victory" to some. After capturing Hussein in 2003, the tribes would commence to massacre each other while protestors blamed the President (while always being careful to "support the troop"). But because no one came to a table to offer a surrender like the old days of war, there is no "victory."
Last edited by Navy Pride; 12-31-08 at 04:50 PM.
"God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."
I would disagree. The American people were sold on the lie that we needed to go to Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism. Turns out....that was a lie and we lost countless lives fighting a war that we should have never been in in the first place.
Iraq was sold to a frightened public by countless numbers of lies and manipulation....as a result countless lives have been lost fighting a war that we should never have been in in the first place.
I don't fault our troops....like you said....they are doing a fantastic job and are doing their best to salvage some positive measures out of a disaster of a foreign policy.
But lets not kid ourselves, Iraq, like Vietnam was a bad mistake based on a flawed and poor foreign policy.
"A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"
Iraq: 5 years after toppling Hussein, the Iraqi government is pulling the tribes together and has a capable security and military force assuming all responsibilities in just about all provinces. Iraq has shown that it wants us out and knows that the quicker they gain independent security the quicker we leave. The Iraqi people have stood in lines just to wear a uniform and to be trained by American forces for their country.
Afghanistan: 8 years after shoving the Tali ban into the mountains, the Afghani government rely heavily upon us. Their military is almost non-existent. They are showing no interest in stepping up other than public rheotirc from behind microphones. They are talking about "talking" to the Tali ban, but only after they have been subdued to a point by western forces so that the Afghani government has the upper hand. This is very near to how the Vietnamese government treated their situation.
Afghanistan was always the "quagmire" protestors were mistakenly attributing to Iraq.
The poor foreign policy was that we allowed ourselves to be stuck in this never ending game just to protect a dictator from what should have happened in 1991. Your argument should not be that the prick was toppled, but that our politicians did it without any regard to what was to come after the statue fell. That is where we screwed up.
But going into Iraq was less about a "lie" than it was about simply not knowing what he had. We could have gone ahead and assumed what was probably obvious to most in our intel world. Even Operation Desert Fox revealed to us that there were no targets when it came to some sort of WMD program. Even Clinton later revealed that this operation created a problem; if there were WMD issues within these targets, they were probably destroyed, but we have no proof either way. This left the international community guessing and assuming. But WMD was not the end all be all issue here. We had over a decade of issues that needed resolved.
Last edited by MSgt; 12-31-08 at 08:08 PM.
Well, here is the problem with this. Haven't you been on that band wagon of accusing Bush of being a "Hitler," or comparing Gitmo to a "Gulag," or flirting with the "genocide" aspect?
When protestors "choose" to protest in this manner they neglect to appreciate what they are actually implying. If "Hitler" is in the White House, then what does this say about his troops? If Bush is guilty of "genocide," what does this say about his troops? If Gitmo is a "Gulag," then what does this say about the troops that run it? I believe Hitler's troops found no safe haven when they tried to defend themselves by stating that they were just "following orders."
There have been no mass slaughtering or engineered mechanism to slaughter Muslims simply because they are Muslims, yet the "Hitler" aspect was and is a favorite amongst protestors. (Funny how the actual engineered slaughterings of Muslims by Muslims gets defended and absolved while protestors seek to blame America for their doing.) Even with religious rights, nourishment, and medical care, Gitmo is compared to a "Gulag."
Yet, the bumper sticker protests and exaggerated accusations go on simply because the protestor lacks the ability to be honest and the intelligence to build a proper case without those exaggerations. If Bush is a "Hitler," then the American troop is a "stormtrooper." And if Bush is to be accused of war crimes, what does this mean about every single troop that fired a rifle? Were we just following orders like good Nazis?
Last edited by MSgt; 12-31-08 at 08:44 PM.