Full Version: America's Future
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#34]
8 Oct 2006
To: Dee (DEENA-ONLY) [#33] 8 Oct 2006
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#35]
8 Oct 2006
To: Dee (DEENA-ONLY) [#33] 8 Oct 2006
All I can say is that we see things from different perspectives. I respect your's, but dissagree.
I believe that leaving because we have talked ourselves into thinking that we can't win is the wrong way to proceed.
I understand your concern with the right being considered "zealouts" as many on the right feel the same way about the far left. I like to consider myself capable of logical thinking, not just emotional thinking, thus eliminating me from what would be considered a zealout......
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#36]
8 Oct 2006
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#34] 9 Oct 2006
From: Jim (RETAIL74) [#37]
8 Oct 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#36] 8 Oct 2006
I can't even remember why we are there anymore.
Is it because Sadam is a threat with his weapons of mass destruction?
Is it because we need to stop the insurgents? The terrorists that did not exist under Sadaam?
Is it because we need to try to prevent an all out civil war?
Sure it would be great to stay the course. Just pick a course. It appears that our enemy keeps changing.
So if GWB could take it all back, do you think that we would be where we are right now?
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#38]
8 Oct 2006
To: Jim (RETAIL74) [#37] 9 Oct 2006
To further muddy the waters, add the fact that N. Korea has conducted an underground nuclear test to the mix.
From: Dee (DEENA-ONLY) [#39]
8 Oct 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#38] 9 Oct 2006
I remember my parents saying back in the late 50s that they were wondering what the world was coming to and where it was going. I now wonder the same thing. I think my grandchildren will also wonder.
Dee
From: Dee (DEENA-ONLY) [#40]
8 Oct 2006
To: Jim (RETAIL74) [#37] 9 Oct 2006
Absolutely not be there if he could take it back. He is first and foremost a political animal. He would not be where he is if he wasn't.
Dee
From: jumbo (JIMCLOUGH) [#41]
8 Oct 2006
To: ALL
As I see it, the idea of invading Afghanistan was to get rid of the Taliban, yet remember the fuss when the Russians invaded Afghanistan to stop the Taliban from taking over in the first place.
Jim
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#42]
8 Oct 2006
To: Jim (RETAIL74) [#37] 9 Oct 2006
I think that the focus is still on freeing the poeple of iraq, and giving them the opportunity to lead themselves....but it's hard to take an oppressed population and put the load on their backs....with all the insurgents and forign fighters that have come into the theater to support them....The common Iraqi has a pretty dangerous existance right now....particularly in the hot spots such as Bagdad.
So to follow up....yes on all your points. One led to the other. War's are fluid. The reasons can change as conditions change.
I'm not sure we would be where we are with someone else in the white house. But I felt that he had done the right thing then.....and I feel that you have to overcome not cut and run. Cutting and running will teach other enemies of our country that we are cream puffs and don't have the will to succeed when the going gets tough. It will also let the Iraqi people down........With all they have been through...... they certainly deserve a chance to succeed.
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#43]
8 Oct 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#38] 9 Oct 2006
North Korea is another perfect example of where appeasment and pacifism gets you. It's where Iran is headed.......Every agreement we have had with North Korea has been ignored over time....Now we have a new game to play in that part of the world....A much more dangerous game because China (our allie) wouldn't use the power that they had to stop them........The future will probably include a nuclear Japan that will most likely change their constitution so that they can arm themselves for defense.
Gee looking back, I guess George was pretty smart about Syria, North Korea, and Iran when he called them the Axis of Evil....Funny no one has given him any credit for forseeing the future with these rogue nations, yet their actions have gone unchecked by the rest of the world while we deal with the mess that we are in.
I agree with Uncle Steve here....I think that the state of the world has changed substantially over the last two decades. Jihadists are the enemy, and they are all over the globe.....I'm not suggesting that N. Korea is harboring Jihadists, but they are clearly taking the opportunity because the rest of the world is continualy appeasing them and Iran. For an example, look at how the United Nations acted toward Isreal when they decided to fight to protect themselves from rockets raining from the sky....They went after Isreal but said little about the Hamas (which happens to be part of the government of Lebanon) that started it all in the first place. Some people think that Isreal over responded.....but if your not fighting to win.....your fighting to lose......They had every right to fight back the way they did, and probably should have gone further. Political correctness on a global scale made them stop.
Every concession that Isreal has given over the years has won them more Terrorist attacks, suffering and losses. Another example of what appeasment to jihadists gives you.....
What we needed when we entered this war was some global support from France, Germany, and China. Their lack of support after giving us a green light to enter Iraq then reacting with shock after we started an invasion has given rogue nations, terrorists, and insurgents reason to rally, and continue to test to see what the world reaction will be whenever they misbehave. Right now, I see the rest of the world where the left wing liberals are.....Giddy to see us mired down because it supposedly proves GWB, and the mighty USA wrong.
It's human nature...people like to see the little guy win, and the big dog taken down a notch.
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#44]
8 Oct 2006
To: Dee (DEENA-ONLY) [#39] 9 Oct 2006
From: UncleSteve [#45]
8 Oct 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#42] 8 Oct 2006
1. Iraq was in violation of 17 orders from the UN (a toothless dog in this fight).
2. Almost all countries believed there WERE wmd's
3. Inspectors were NOT allowed free reign to inspect the facilites
4. WMD's WERE found after the invasion.... just old ones (early 90's) that may not have been usable.... but no one knows if Saddam was aware of that.
5. Large trucks were observed leaving Iraq for Syria or Saudi Arabia (forget which) just prior to going into Iraq.
6. The Kurds were attacked with wmd's in the not too distant past
7. Many of the "freedom fighters" are NOT Iraqis but invaders from bordering countries.
8. The religious war within Iraq has been going on for centuries and nothing we or anyone else can do will end such fanaticism.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#46]
9 Oct 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#44] 9 Oct 2006
Well...maybe...assuming there will be following generations.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#47]
9 Oct 2006
To: UncleSteve [#45] 9 Oct 2006
Exactly...but that won't keep us from pouring money and lives into a bucket with a hole at the bottom.
From: oldtimer (BRUCE) [#48]
9 Oct 2006
To: ALL
After all is said and done, and you and I are the only ones left alive, I will, after time, most certainly find something I don't like about you! This is the way things are. Nothing will ever change. In the interim we are to be productive societal members abiding to the rules .......
Bruce
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#49]
9 Oct 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#47] 9 Oct 2006
From: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#50]
9 Oct 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#49] 9 Oct 2006
How about this: For centuries, before the British took over after WWI, what is known as Iraq was actually 3 seperate provinces of the Ottoman Empire. They were pretty much divided along religious lines. The north which is primarily sunni kurd (governed in Mosul), the middle which is mostly sunni arab (governed in Baghdad), and the southwest which is mostly shia arab (governed in Basrah).
So how about divide it back up into 3 countries. Roughly along the religious ethnic lines that are fighting each other. Let them each have their own government and their own country.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#51]
9 Oct 2006
To: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#50] 9 Oct 2006
Oddly enough, that's one of the suggestions being bandied about.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#52]
9 Oct 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#49] 9 Oct 2006
Putting blind faith in a failed strategy and the people who brought it forth, isn't one of them.
This country won't stand for a "long haul."
$300 billion would have been better-spent in technology for port security etc.
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#53]
9 Oct 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#52] 9 Oct 2006
Show messages: 1-13 14-33 34-53 54-66