The administration didn't fabricate the evidence. the idiot who gave the information did. As for the whole Al Quaeda and Saddam link, I honestly haven't done enough research to make any response to that one, so I'll just stay away from it. And you can't honestly say the world isn't a better place with Saddam Hussein dead. The war might not have been totally about killing him, but he died because of it, and the world is a much better place with him gone. Iraq might be temporarily worse, but that will most likely change in the next few years. Just gotta say one thing before I continue this argument. I am in no way saying those 3000 lives mean nothing. I know many people that have been personally affected by this war and who have expierienced terrible losses. War isn't a pretty thing. That said, in the civil war, we lost over 600,000 people, with over 200,000 of those being military members. And that was also in about four years. There have been greater losses. Again, no disrespect to those who have fallen, but the amount of lives lost has been extremely over publicized. Plus, there could have been less dead if we could get some agreement on BOTH sides on Capital Hill. As for the right being in power for those four years, that's an unfair argument for a simple reason: For probably the first 3 years of that period, most of America was just waiting to see how the war was going to pan out. It wasn't like everyone back then was saying "This war needs to stop now! End it!" like they are now. As we entered the fourth year, yeah, more resistance began to surface, but it didn't really boil over until a little before election time. Agreement was not reached, and I have a feeling it won't be reached until oh, say, February 2009. Nothing will be done with a Senate controlled by the left and a white house controlled by the right. That's another thing that could have been resolved with a little less "wahhhh, stop the war!" by the democrats, and a little more "Let's figure out what we can do to keep the right happy and still reach most of our goals." But I guess that's just a little too big of a concept for those amazing thinkers on Capital Hill to grasp, eh?
So in other words, give in to the republicans because they're the holy, undeniable leaders of this country and it's a crime to go against them? This isn't a dictatorship, we don't have to agree with the party in power. And the fact that only 28% of the country supports this asshole means that he needs to stop being so stubborn and give in to the Democrats who represent a clear majority of what the people want. The right (or should I say wrong?) shouldn't be kept happy because of who they are, that turns us into the same kind of dictatorship you claim you're trying to fight in Iraq.
"t's a crime to go against them?" Please, don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying that they need to completely given into them. Neither side should ever do that. What I'm saying is that, no matter what the country currently thinks, the people in power need to get things done, and if that takes compromise, then do it. Both sides need to compromise. I wish the right wasn't so set on "stay the course!" but I wish that the left wasn't so set on getting out of there within a year. Neither argument will go anywhere. Without compromise, no argument goes anywhere. That's something everybody in the world, and especially Captial hill (republicans included), needs to learn. That's all I'm saying
There's no middle ground to compromise on. You either stay or you go. And when two thirds of the country wants to go, it's a great injustice to the people you're supposed to represent to tell them that they're wrong, turn your back on them and do things your way. The Democrats are trying to do what we elected them to do: get the hell out of Iraq. You can't blame them for trying to uphold promises they made right before the election. I know that's unheard of in this country, but they're trying to do that and are failing because of our stubborn chimpanzee of a president
Yes, there is a middle ground. It's called a realistic time table to get out of there and some help doing it. I'm sure you know that we can't just jet out of there because then, honestly, the country would be left worse than we found it. That would be an absolute shame for both sides, because even some democrats voted for the war, which makes them just as responsible. I'm not saying give them three years. I'm saying give them something more than "Begin to phaze the military of Iraq now and have them all gone by the end of the year." Something more realistic is send over a few more soldiers and weapons temporarily in order to gain better control of the situation, and slowly start to send soldiers home at the beginning of 2008, with complete control being handed over to the Iraqis by the end of 2008. A few extra dollars spent and a few lives sacrificed now could save many dollars and many lives later on. I'm not asking for the democrats to kiss the republican's feet. I'm asking for them to meet them half way. Oh, and I gotta say, I admire them for living up to their promise. I just wish it was a bit bigger trend on both sides of the political spectrum.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201517.html ...that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. Apparently not. However, if they did propose that kind of timetable, I'd be all for it. I don't enjoy this war any more than any democrat does. I just think we need to be realistic about how quickly we get out of there. On a totally non related note, may I ask you....is your post count real? And if so....do you ever get off the computer?
Just because a majority of people think that troops should be taken out of Iraq..does not make them right. Opinions matter, but they also don't. If we pull troops out of Iraq at this time right now...we are open to attack all over again. The enemy has not been found..that being the reason why we are still over there. I think that deployment could be handled differently. Troops have been away from family too long...I think they should alternate. But seriously, this gas prices and too many people dying is crap. Even Linkin Park's opinion about the billions of dollars spent on war doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. We HAVE to spend billions for troops to give them supplies they need and to keep them fed. I don't know, honestly I think all politics are stupid to begin with. I was just..saying what I felt, not trying to bash anyone. I think this album will be great though, I can't wait to hear the demos and watch the DVD!
We're more open to attack now than we would be if our troops are home, protecting us here. What good is a military if you have them all overseas? If there was an attack here, we'd be fucked. We had a terrorist threat at my college in February. Distraught student, bomb threat, and white powder. It took them 14 hours to determine that white powder was powdered sugar and not anthrax. 14 hours to determine that the powder came off a shelf from the neighborhood grocery store and wasn't a biological weapon. 14 fucking hours was how long some people spent in quarantine wondering if they were infected with anthrax or a tasty condiment used on french toast. My coworker and I were talking about it the day after and I had mentioned that I can't believe it took so long for them to figure it out. He said the truest words I've ever heard...."Because all of our good guys are over in Iraq fighting this damn worthless war" So what if this would have been a genuine attack? Real bombs, real anthrax, real terrorism. Leave it up to the local rent-a-cops who don't do shit except pull people over for going 5 miles over the limit? Let the university meter maids handle it? Wait 14 hours until we can get the experts in and just hope the timer on that bomb doesn't run out? We're more vulnerable now than we ever before. But people like you have this illusion that the only place terrorists come from is the middle east, and as long as we're fighting them over there, nothing bad will ever happen. But that isn't true, bad people come from all over the world, and some don't come from anywhere and were born and raised here, just like Timothy McVeigh. We can't focus on Iraq, because Iraq isn't the root of terrorism. We're wasting time, money and lives fighting terrorism that we created, when the real key to protection is keeping our protectors close to home, not halfway around the world fighting this unjust war.
"if we pull our troops out of iraq we are open to attack all over again.the enemy hasn't been found yet"-wrong...and true..firstly,you are looking in the wrong place...it is afganistan your troops would have to look in... "We HAVE to spend billions for troops to give them supplies they need and to keep them fed."-you wouldn't have to give them supplies if they were home with their families... i don't get iraq war supporters...i mean that war is so fucking long that people even forgot why they are there...to find alledged bio weapons and to catch saddam... there are no bio weapons in the first place and you have catched saddam...so what are they still doing there?trying to restore peace?i don't think they are so good at it...and it has been 4 years...osama bin laden is in afganistan...at least you think he is in afghanistan...
Then you are saying we don't need a military? I am not supporting the war itself, but I think it would be a bad idea to pull troops out so suddenly. It's all about planning and obviously, all of the people complaining are not THE PRESIDENT. They don't know how to handle all of this, nor do I. As far as the college attack, what the hell is a military personnel going to do with determining anthrax? They signed up to fight, not be scientists. The fact that Osama Bin Laden is not KNOWN to be dead is causing this too. We have been attacked so many times before from him, I think it's time he is found. I never found violence as an answer but unfortunately, the government does. It is the people that decide for our government to be the way it is, not Bush. If we REALLY cared so much about it, we could overpower the government, and that is not made up..that is FACT. War will never end and people will never agree. It's how it is and will be until the end. (Unless people do something about it)
i was just saying that you attacked and ocupied the wrong country for no reson...except illegal free oil...everyone knows why bush has sent his troops to iraq...oil,oil and purely oil...no bullshit bioweapons,no saddam no peace mission or threat to america...but that's another story...if he wanted to fight terrorism he would attack the taliban regime...he did,actually,but so shortly that it had no effect...you can't fight terrorists by attacking only one countr...you need an international network of antiterrorist units...something on the basis of interpol,just not for crime but for terrorism...
It's not for oil..but it is rather for something else that started long ago. I don't know too much fact on how come it's happening but someone might be able to explain. Something relating to gulf war 1. As far as no threat to America? I believe Osama was mentioned a few times. He is still a great threat. The reason we deployed in the first place was to find him. Looking in Afghanistan shouldn't be our only limits. He "fled"..he could be anywhere. I never said Bush was a perfect person but I am fed up with people blaming him just to blame him. You can't believe "everything" the media tells you. The majority of things blamed on him are not even his fault. I'm done arguing now because the only thing that happens is this goes in a continuing circle until someone just starts flaming..which is where the argument ends..and honestly it shouldn't be that way. Like I said before, we have a choice for our government, if we don't like it let's change it! Farewell.
I agree that we should start heading out of Iraq, but I don't think that troops would neccesarily stop an attack from happening. I mean terrorist are going to do what ever they have to do to accomplish an attack. It's similar to the VT shootings. The guy was so set on shooting people that hardly anything would have been able to stop him. Also, I think that the FBI, CIA, and other government agenices are the guy's who stop terrorist attacks, not the military. I could understand if the attacks consisted of countries actually coming to the US with millions of people in their military, but other than that, the troops wouldn't really be of much help. I don't think the military would be the ones stopping attacks such as 9/11 from happening, that job would go to the people who investigate such attacks. Then again, I'm sure any country could decide to bring their military over here and start attacking us meaning we would be in deep trouble. Although that wouldn't be considered a terrorist attack. It would be considered a war. So in conclusion I can see where you're coming from, but I think if we're purely talking about terrorist attacks, the military wouldn't be of much help.