This is tired. Commentator tell you this? I failed to see the M16s pointed at Iraqi civilians as they freely went to the polls. Or do you mean that we removed the tyrant who oppressed them at gun point? Was your son aiming in on Iraqis as he forced them to vote? Did the camera crews some how miss this? If what you stated has occurred in Iraq, then surely the Afghani voters did so under M16 gun point as well. And, of course, if your accusations are true, then surely the voters in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia and the protestors in Egypt are acting because we have them at gun point.
Your accusation is more insulting to them than the military. You imply that a desire to be heard and for individual celebration of choosing one's own destiny is too much for Muslims to grasp and therefore had to be forced to the booths. Even the couch potatoes saw the true monsters when they were killing just to stop the flood of free voters. And the big picture mission is to affect positive change within this
region. This means that those who would massacre over the prospect of a free Muslim is the problem because they are the ones who look towards the foriegn devil to blame his failed civilization on.....never himself.
None of that explains why it's our responsibility to invade a sovereign nation and depose it's leader. If the Iraqis wanted to vote, then it's their responsibility to make that happen. Voting does not constitute democracy. You could argue that the Iraqi people were too oppressed to do it alone. That still doesn't make it our job to take our military and remove their nation's leader. There are plenty of examples throughout history of rebellion against brutal tyrants.
Not to mention, of course, that we violated the UN Charter that we helped create. One of the purposes of the UN is to prevent war.
Have we affected positive change in the region? Iran has more influence. Hamas and Hezbollah are stronger and more influential, Al-qaeda is still functioning and Bin Laden is still on the loose. Global terrorism has RISEN since 9/11, the region is more unstable than before the wars, Iraq is split into 3 regions and hundreds of thousands have died... possibly over a million.
Here's a little list of terrorist organizations operating around the world. Doesn't look like our wars have stopped terrorism.
U.S.-Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations — Infoplease.com
Because their monsters have chosen us as their enemy and no amount of humble ass kissery is going to change this fact.
Who's monsters, Iraq's? If I remember correctly, and I do, none of the terrorists were Iraqi but many were Saudi. Why did we choose Iraq to invade and "stablize the region" instead of where the problem with terrorism lay? Seems like we do a lot of "ass kissery" with Saudi Arabia. :roll:
We looked the other way and even used tyrants to stabilize this
region during the Cold War. Shouldn't we seek a better way to accomplish this mission in the post Cold War...
Are you serious? You think that killing hundreds of thousands of people is a better way to stabilize their region? Has it worked? No, we've seen an increase in terrorism, an increase in our opponents (around the world) influence and an increase of violence.
while offering them the same opportunity we gave Europe and Asia?
That statement shows either your intellectual dishonesty or your lack of knowledge. The people of Europe and Asia are nothing like the people of the middle east. These people are religious fundamentalists and they have been at war with each other for hundreds of years over their religion. It's this lack of knowledge in the White House that made Cheney make idiotic statements about being greeted as liberators. It's a blatant lack of understanding their culture and history.
Are we supposed to be the humble punch taker for every single one of their organizations, wahhabist creations, and depraved hate mongering indoctrinations?
Are we so childish or insecure that we need to respond with force to every piss-ant who flicks a booger our way? Aren't we the biggest, baddest mutha on the block? When a mosquito lands on me I don't drain my pond and kill all the fish, I swat the mosquito.
In case you didn't notice, the 9/11 terrorists came from all over the region.
Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. Hmm, don't see anything about Iraq there. So if 15 guys from Canada, 2 from Mexico, from Brazil and 1 from Cuba were to blow up some **** in Russia, you'd understand if Russia invaded the USA?
And 9/11 wasn't the only terrorist attack our people sufferred over the last two decades.
Which has ****all to do with the war in Iraq. If you think that turning Iraq into a democracy will end Islamic extremists then... :damn
Hussein was a sponser of terrorism for the Palestinian extremists
So, what does that have to do with us? The Saudi's, the Syrians...and many other regimes around the world support various groups that do horrible **** to each other and their neighboring countries. How is it our responsibility to engage in war over someone else's conflicts?
and acted as the greatest supporter of terrorist tactics in the
region.
That's not true, the Saudi Royal Family is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the region. Regardless, it's not our problem because it's their region.
Do you actually not understand the concept of globalization and how country X will and does affect country Y? Your basic "Grunt" understands this. Disease crosses borders. Poisoned foods cross oceans. Tyranical monsters on a rampage pull in armies from other nations. Economies strengthen or weaken economies.
Regions are affected by a single countries actions. And
regions affect a world.
No, your basic grunt doesn't understand this just as you don't. Military action is not the way you resolve the vast majority of these conflicts and you certainly don't need to send the worlds greatest military force and attack a nation that not only didn't attack you first nor had the capacity to do so. Not to mention that you don't fight terrorism with an entire military. Islamic Jihad is an ideal and you don't crush such an ideal with an M16 unless you can kill off ALL of those carrying that ideal. Obviously that's never going to happen.
This is a "War on Terror"....not a "War on 9/11 terrorists," which most died on 9/11.
Again you show your lack of military acumen. The "war on terror" is a bumper sticker. You cannot wage military war against a tactic. The Reich-wing just loves to use the word "war" to incite the ignorant; war on xmas, war on drugs, war on drunk driving, the war on abortion... The more you say it, the more ignorant you look.
Which one would you like to attack first? This reasoning is for those who actually wish to do nothing.
No, it is a reasonable question to an illogical action. Why Saddam when there are worse out there? Your response is merely an obfuscation, a dodge. Which is why your ilk don't like to answer it.
Our problem is Islamic extremism. Ridding the African
region of Mugabe will not deal with the Islamic extremism of the Middle East.
And removing Saddam has? You're brilliant. keep going.
What we did have was Saddam Hussein and the Tali-Ban.
I'm sorry but, what? That is quite the Palinesque sentence.
The populaitons of Lebanon, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia will do what needs to be done on their own after this. The evidence of this is already in concrete.
I thought it was up to us to stabilize the region? What if Lebanon, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia don't get it done? Should we invade another country on their behave? For that matter, why didn't we leave Iraq to Syria, Jordan, Iran to do what needs to be done? Your position gets more tenuous and ignorant the more you try to justify this nonsense.
Do you really want to or are you trying to create an excuse to sit on your hands? Again...the threat is this
region. Therefore, we deal with this
region.
You still haven't made it clear why we need to be involved in that region when we live in THIS region which doesn't even have a land border with THAT region. Oh yeah, because we need to stamp out islamic extremism, which is all over the world.
Europe isn't our
region either. Yet Yugoslavia was a focus.
Oh, I didn't know we sent 150,000 troops to Yugoslavia. Not to mention that the Bosnian-Serb conflict was a very different situation. Again you show your ignorance of military action and foreign policy.
Once again...an attempt to argue for impotence. The problem is the
region. Islamic terrorists come from all over the
region. How do we address the
region? By maintaining the most oppressive and brutal individual in the
region who also happened to openly support terror within the
region?
You still haven't proven why it's our responsibility to stabilize that region.
Iraq is not about only Iraq. It is about the
region.
So you keep telling me, but you haven't had a coherent argument as to why it's our responsibility to take care of someone else's
region. Are you a socialist? Why can't the people of the mid-east do these things for themselves? If you give them a military handout you're just creating a
region full of dependents. Can't the mid-east pull itself up by the bootstraps? You neo-cons just think you can pour money at a problem... :2wave:
Explained. Catch up.
Uh, excused but never explained. Another poorly executed attempt at a dodge.
No.....because we "supported" Hussein during the Iran/Iraq War.
Which we shouldn't have done.
Because we maintained his throne for him after the Gulf War.
Which we shouldn't have done.
Because we insisted that his people suffer under him through a decade of UN food-for-oil programs.
Which we shouldn't have done.
Somewhere in here....an America that preaches about human decency and social justice should show some sort of responsibility don't you think?
Yes. But not by killing hundreds of thousands, displacing millions more, spending hundreds of billions of our future generations tax money, borrowing that money from Communist China, risking the lives of our troops and losing over 4000 of them already. That is nowhere near to a good plan.
***
The rest of what you stated was more of the same excuse tossing for impotence. Corporational conspiracies and false issues just to argue. Weren't you just glorifying yourself about how much wiser you are than the average dumb Grunt? Seems that you like to deal in obtuse excuse making and conspiracy dabbling rather than understanding what is going on.
Uh huh, I think the number of times you used the word "impotence" gives us a clear picture of how you never outgrew puberty. Your would view is directly related to male virility, machismo.
Once again I'll toss out the word...
region.
Oh, I thought you were going to toss out impotent again.
