To only people who are allowed to have a proper say on the "War in Iraq" to being a great idea, are the American soldiers who fought there, they're the ones who put their asses on line, not all you 'keyboard warriors.' Note: I said American soldiers cause...obviously...no-one tends to give a f*ck about the Iraqis.
When one lives in a free society, one generally has civilian control of the military. Anyone is a free society is allowed to have a proper say on anything they like, and one does not have to actively participate on something in order to be able to educate oneself about that something and make decisions pertaining to that something.
No one in this entire thread has said or implied that the War in Iraq was a "great idea." Plus, I think BOTH sides of the argument care about our soldiers AND the Iraqis. That is what his is primarily about, different ways of expressing real caring.
One side says that one should not risk people's lives to save them (or at least in this case we shouldn't have), the other side says sometimes you should. BOTH sides care about all of it, they just view things differently.
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
Well, iam not sure if the Iraq War was really good planned. I talk about the organization and plannings after the war and after the withdraw of all military forces. If you think about, strategical the war is not a sure win. The war on terror is either temporal or regional restricted. There are not many options what the US can do, install a pro american regime - you can hope only if it survive longer than Nadschibullah in Afghanistan - or they accep the shiits as key role which would lead to an islamic republic tight on the koran.
If we remember on the war on terror, most terrorists even doesnt come from Afghanistan or Iraq. Even Bin Laden is not comming from Afghanistan, hes from Saudi-Arabia. And up to know it is still not sure if 911 was really planned in a cave in Afghanistan or just from students with the origin of saudi arabia.
The totally dissolving of the iraq army did prevent the idea to establish a new regime ala saddam light - which would probably not the best option anyway -, which took and still takes a lot of time to rebuild them.
The aim or dream of an established parlamentary democracy and free market economy was probably a bit naiv at least hard to believe that would happen. The Iraq under Hussein was a secular nation, so this alone did change and the danger is huge that this country changes from a secular nation to a new islamic state, which will happen probably.
And when we talk about Afghanistant, their old and traditional tribe system is still far away from any western democratic thoughts. Freedom and democracy like we live it cant be assigned to all parts in the world, the same counts for free market economy. Same here, its hard to believe that the war can be won in Afghanistan. The british failed, the sovjets failed and iam not so sure if the US with their coalition partners will succeed.
The problem is that terror cant be defined like conventional enemies, terrorist groups reach from Morocco to India. We should also not forget that terrorism is not an opponent, it is just a type of engagement. The run after al qaeda due to 911 did alrady fade longer ago and Bin Laden is almost forgotten since 2001, so what are the aims and in what did the western countries succeed already in the war on terror.
Well, time will tell but there are a lot of problems and questions, the military withdraw alone wont solve them.
That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off. What a piece of human trash.
This is a typical dumb comment from someone who really thinks that bush saved Iraq from saddam.
Yeah. What happens under the rule of a despot isn't any of our business. I lost a good friend of mine in Iraq, and while that goes with the job, it was utterly pointless. I could give two shits less about Saddam, or Iraq, or anywhere else save for the US. We have enough of our own problems, let alone bringing the hammer down on a third world shithole with more AK-47 wielding ambush squads than Vietnam.
SO glad I'm out of the Army now. That wasn't as fun as I'd thought it be.
On the flip side, there isnt anything wrong with invading a country. I simply wish we would have stated - Saddam, we don't like you. We're going to kill you, and take over your country.
Hell, even Hitler eventually said "You're getting invaded, son."
Comments
When one lives in a free society, one generally has civilian control of the military. Anyone is a free society is allowed to have a proper say on anything they like, and one does not have to actively participate on something in order to be able to educate oneself about that something and make decisions pertaining to that something.
No one in this entire thread has said or implied that the War in Iraq was a "great idea." Plus, I think BOTH sides of the argument care about our soldiers AND the Iraqis. That is what his is primarily about, different ways of expressing real caring.
One side says that one should not risk people's lives to save them (or at least in this case we shouldn't have), the other side says sometimes you should. BOTH sides care about all of it, they just view things differently.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Oh yeah, I'm getting myself a pair also!! check this article out, turns out bush does something uber great!
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/22/turkey-george-bush-shoe
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
Well, iam not sure if the Iraq War was really good planned. I talk about the organization and plannings after the war and after the withdraw of all military forces. If you think about, strategical the war is not a sure win. The war on terror is either temporal or regional restricted. There are not many options what the US can do, install a pro american regime - you can hope only if it survive longer than Nadschibullah in Afghanistan - or they accep the shiits as key role which would lead to an islamic republic tight on the koran.
If we remember on the war on terror, most terrorists even doesnt come from Afghanistan or Iraq. Even Bin Laden is not comming from Afghanistan, hes from Saudi-Arabia. And up to know it is still not sure if 911 was really planned in a cave in Afghanistan or just from students with the origin of saudi arabia.
The totally dissolving of the iraq army did prevent the idea to establish a new regime ala saddam light - which would probably not the best option anyway -, which took and still takes a lot of time to rebuild them.
The aim or dream of an established parlamentary democracy and free market economy was probably a bit naiv at least hard to believe that would happen. The Iraq under Hussein was a secular nation, so this alone did change and the danger is huge that this country changes from a secular nation to a new islamic state, which will happen probably.
And when we talk about Afghanistant, their old and traditional tribe system is still far away from any western democratic thoughts. Freedom and democracy like we live it cant be assigned to all parts in the world, the same counts for free market economy. Same here, its hard to believe that the war can be won in Afghanistan. The british failed, the sovjets failed and iam not so sure if the US with their coalition partners will succeed.
The problem is that terror cant be defined like conventional enemies, terrorist groups reach from Morocco to India. We should also not forget that terrorism is not an opponent, it is just a type of engagement. The run after al qaeda due to 911 did alrady fade longer ago and Bin Laden is almost forgotten since 2001, so what are the aims and in what did the western countries succeed already in the war on terror.
Well, time will tell but there are a lot of problems and questions, the military withdraw alone wont solve them.
I am still laughing over this, they even made a shoe memorial in Tikrit.
LOL
S*D
Unfortunalty the Iraqie government took down the monument.
But the good news is shoe throwing is catching on. Just yesterday a British guy threw his shoes at the Prime Minister of China.
I'm waiting for someone to throw theirs at Putin, and then come down with Plutonium sickness.
I remember when Bush went to Georgia.
And the crowd threw a hand grenade at him.
This is a typical dumb comment from someone who really thinks that bush saved Iraq from saddam.
Yeah. What happens under the rule of a despot isn't any of our business. I lost a good friend of mine in Iraq, and while that goes with the job, it was utterly pointless. I could give two shits less about Saddam, or Iraq, or anywhere else save for the US. We have enough of our own problems, let alone bringing the hammer down on a third world shithole with more AK-47 wielding ambush squads than Vietnam.
SO glad I'm out of the Army now. That wasn't as fun as I'd thought it be.
On the flip side, there isnt anything wrong with invading a country. I simply wish we would have stated - Saddam, we don't like you. We're going to kill you, and take over your country.
Hell, even Hitler eventually said "You're getting invaded, son."