anti-war does not imply anti-Americanism. they can coexist, but do not have to. this is obvious, and those that immediately shout 'unpatriotic' are either being argumentative or are trying to sell the policy. that saddam is evil and heinous is accepted fact, but does not necessarily imply that a preemptive overthrow of his government in opposition to world opinion is the proper course of action. ie, there are multiple possible policies regarding saddam, and disagreeing with one does not imply disagreement with all. that it is the chosen policy does not imply that it is the best policy, unless you assume the administration is infallible. one may disagree with both President Bush and Saddam, while simultaneously fully supporting both the US Constitution and the US military. to say otherwise is absurd. contrary to what the more vocal fools on ET say, one may like and support President Bush, yet simultaneously disagree with his political position, or vice versa.
There are many other regimes that 'terrorise' their own people. Is that justification for invading another sovereign nation? Perhaps in your book it is. I wonder how many of you would havet taken kindly to a Soviet invasion of America for her abuse of her own black population during the first half of the 20th century. I'm sorry, but the "he's an asshole" argument just doesn't cut it with me. (I wonder how keen the administration would be to depose a despot whose major resource was flaxseed oil.) And it's not so much a case of me being 'jealous' than it is of being disappointed. Disappointed that there is so much that is good and so much that is right about America and the American way, that it is spoilt by foisting these phony wars on her public and the world at large.
Hey, I resent that. What are u implying with that statement???........Cuba isnt about Communism anyways its about Castroism.....Look at all the five star hotels from Spain, France and Germany packing the beaches on Varadero Beach...Looks like capitalism to me..
Well put. It's like people have blinders that block other possibilities from entering their heads. But what would be the best outcome now that we're in the middle of it?
Oh come off it. When has there EVER been an established link between Iraq and 9.11? That is pure fantasy. By the way, in criminal cases, it in necessary to FIRST prove guilt BEFORE administering punishment. Oh, but proving guilt would be 'divulging sources'. Hmm, I wonder if all prosecutors should start using that one.
I understand what you are saying. However, if in fact Saddam and his regime did sponsor terrorism, that would that provide justification, correct?
And all of that good created a naive enviroment. So naive that we got it slammed back in our face. After that attack we stated that we will start to attack terrorism b4 it attacks us. Well I have to agree that pre-emptive strikes are now neccesary for our own security. Basically we are nipping terrorism at the bud. Yes it is justified and yes we have to bend the rules in order to play at an even level. This shit that we are supposed to follow the rules has gotton way out of hand. If our enemies do not have to follow them then we cannot niether. It is a case of being jelouse, you want what we have. It is not going to happen becouse we will protect this with our lives.
I agree we may have overstepped our boundary here, I was against the War because of the sending of our young troops period ( it is hard for a mother to watch a son or daughter go of to war ).....but the fact remains that we are at War and we need to show more support to our soldiers ( which are there wether they like it or not ). Besides this isnt about 9-11 and we dont have to prove guilt agasint the Saddam Regime, they have been in violation for many many years. Getting back to your criminal case example, if you are on probation ( because you have been sentenced meaning you are already guilty) and you fuck up on any of the rules of your probation you go back to jail.......peace