"worse Under U.s. Control Than Saddam"iraq A Year After

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Nolan-Vinny-Sam, Apr 12, 2004.

  1. LMAO
     
    #11     Apr 12, 2004
  2. Killing our troops is not giving "voice to your opinion."

    War is hell. All your clever moral equivalency and Bush-bashing will not change that. I have said from the beginning we were not handling the occupation correctly. I truly wish I had been wrong. Now we have to deal with it. I don;'t think cutting and running is an option. I have serious problems with sending our troops out in hand to hand urban warfare. For what? As soon as we pacify things, we are handing the country over to a bunch of probably corrupt Iraqi thugs and Islamist crazies. Our troops are being sent into a meatgrinder to achieve that? Or let them have a taste of Shock and Awe, Part II. The voters will forget about it by November if we clean things up now.

    I haven't heard a workable solution from you or John Kerry.
     
    #12     Apr 12, 2004
  3. Kerry's workable solution is for GW to eat crow and get the world involved.

    Make it a world versus the terrorists, you know like Afghanistan, rather than the USA versus the Clerics.

    If the rest of the world gets behind the project, the terrorists will not be as powerful.

    We need troops from all democratic countries in Iraq helping to keep the peace.

     
    #13     Apr 12, 2004
  4. I tend to agree. Not enough thought was given to the "what if" scenarios and the "what then" and "then what" scenarios.

    Who and what do we blame for this then?

    to
     
    #14     Apr 12, 2004
  5. What happens if we made it OUR clerics versus THEIR clerics?

    We sent them in and let "Jesus" and "Allah" slug it out.

    :)
     
    #15     Apr 12, 2004
  6. It has never been the world versus the terrorists. It has always been the Israelis, the US, the Brits, and a few paltry platoons from the "world" for PR purposes.

    The world didn't have 3,000 of its citizens killed on 9/11. What makes you think the world would get on board now? Most of the world, including virtually all of our European "allies," could care less about what happens to this country unless it affects their pockets. Many figure the US has gotten its just deserts, and hope for another massive attack on our soil.

    What other countries have the resources or national will to take on terrorists aggressively? Spain?

    In other words, the UN. Even if that happens, after a few UN peacekeepers are killed, they will leave and guess who will be left holding the bag? Or multiple resolutions will be issued with no follow-through. And if follow-through is actually decided on, who will perform the majority of that action? We will. The UN's record in policing hotspots is, and you know this Rogue, horrible.

    As long as there is an Arab Middle East composed solely of dictatorships and theocracies that espouse hate toward us and keep their citizens in a state of fear and with little economic opportunities, terrorism against us will always exist. And we are the only ones who can fight that war with any vigor.

    We are on our own.
     
    #16     Apr 13, 2004