Here's the fifth anniversary poll...

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

out of curiosity: what should of been done about 9/11? Or does everyone see that as a separate issue?

 

curiosity killed the cat...I know, I know

 

Some say that our government should have issued a "letter of mark," which would have essentially been a bounty, on Osama Bin Laden and his cronies. They would probably have been disposed of (assassinated) swiftly and efficiently, and that would have left no doubt as to our country's position of strength. Our constitution allows us to do this.

 

I'm thinking it would have been far better than the mess we have created, but perhaps it wasn't spectacular enough. Or maybe war is more politically correct than assassination. Sometimes, when people are hurting and in shock, and being told lies, they do things they regret later.

[astrid]

out of curiosity: what should of been done about 9/11? Or does everyone see that as a separate issue?

 

curiosity killed the cat...I know, I know

 

 

Al Qua'ida did. So why are we not pursuing Osama Bin Laden with the same fervor and troop committment with which we overran Iraq?

[Twinmom]

and I'm not interested in getting too far into a hot topic discussion at this point. I'm just going to post my opinion on the subject and leave it completely at that, since it seems that not too many folks sharing my opinion have yet to post.

 

I'm one of the gals who answered that we should be there for as long as it takes. Why? Well, in large part because I've got a dear friend who served on the ground there. He came back with some amazing stories and pictures...stories of people crying in gratitude for the U.S. and coalition forces who were there to liberate them from Sadaam and his brutal dictatorship. These were people who'd lost family members to murder, who had daughters who'd been raped, who were starving, who were denied an education, the right to vote or the basic human right of living free from fear. These folks were cheering every time my friend and his unit would roll through town, helping them at every turn, letting them know where the roadside bombs were placed, etc. They were the ones standing in line when my friend would pass out clean water, basic necessities, etc. Their children were the ones playing stickball safely in the street because they were surrounded by coalition forces standing around to protect them, or making it to a voting place safely because our men and women were there to protect them. It happened...I've seen the pictures and video, and heard the first hand accounts.

 

No, we aren't perfect as a nation, and as imperfect humans our reasons for being there aren't completely pure. We could probably discuss that ad nauseum and likely all come to an agreement that mistakes were made even if we don't agree on what they were and who made them! However, ultimately I believe we've done a good thing in Iraq. We've helped the powerless, defended the weak and done what we could do to help the situation. There is evil in the world, and we stood up against some of it. Probably we can't/shouldn't do it everytime, but we did do it THIS time. We've also done some good work in Afganistan and Iraq to keep the terrorists at bay/away from American targets, and to defend Israel (as a Christian, I do believe that is my duty and by extension, my nation's duty!) In my book, we've done a pretty good thing.

 

I say stay put as long as it takes to finish the job right, or risk both looking like we don't have the stomach for finishing what we start as well as throwing away all the sacrifices our armed forces and their families have made. I say stay with the right motives (whether or not some think our original motives were right), and offer assistance in building their govt./infrastructure/etc. Not to make them "just like us" but to give them a real chance to be who they want to be (the real folks, not the pundits). If they don't take advantage of the chance, then shame on them. If we leave before the job is properly done, shame on us.

 

Just my opinion on the matter...I'd appreciate it if I receive no flaming arrows on the subject! ;)

[astrid]

Saddam Hussein did not invade neighboring countries. Democracy was never in peril in the area--- there was no democracy in Iraq.

 

This war was started because of a lie, and there are so many in congress and higher who are financially benefitting from the perpetuation, while our troops are without body armor and adequate medical care/therapy after they are injured. It's costing this country trillions of dollars, and leaving a debt that will take generations to recoup. Shameful.

[astrid]

I say stay put as long as it takes to finish the job right,

 

Hi Twinmom; welcome!

 

But this is my sincere question: what is "the job?" I don't want to sound ignorant-- I"m not, really. I watch the news programs daily and would hazard to say that I"m quite well-versed on this topic. But no one's ever been able to tell me what, exactly, we're "finishing."

Bringing democracy?

Making the area safe?

 

Those take generations. Should we stay that long?

[Sharon in SC]

I don't equate WWII and 9/11

Neither do I. That is the last thing I intended to imply in my post. I was only trying to say that' date=' in my mind, 9/11 is a catalyst like what Pearl Harbor was toward causing Americans to take a stand for their freedoms so horribly imposed upon by the actions of the offending party.

 

 

Democracy was never in peril in the area--- there was no democracy in Iraq.[/Quote]

 

I was not trying to contrast the issues of democracy (or anything else for that matter) between the two wars. Again, I was simply trying to say that, for me, the issue is American freedom and the ability to exist/thrive in our own land without fear of what those who desire to inflict pain upon us may try to do next to achieve their objectives. It was never my intent to say the wars themselves were anywhere near alike to one another. I only aimed to mention key triggering events.

 

For me, personally, bottomline is hindsight is always better than foresight. If we had all the intel then that we have now, other decisions might have been made. We have to live in the here and now and face today, and then tomorrow. I pray daily that the "powers that be" have all the wisdom and insight that they need to make good decisions on behalf of everyone involved. Meanwhile, I remain thankful and do not take it for granted that we, you and me, have the privilege and freedom to have this discussion. I'm also thankful for the growth and knowledge that is birthed through the process. :)

 

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the intent of my original post....

sharon

[nukeswife]

I agree with Twinmom. I was one that answered we should stay as long as it takes. To answer those that ask what is "it", "It" is helping the Iraqi people create the kind of nation they want. Many say we had no right to be there, they didn't ask for our help etc. This may be a bad analogy but many battered women don't ask for help either but if it shows up on their doorsteps I'm sure many would jump at the opportunity. I suppose I should also say that I'm a military spouse so I know what it's like to have my dh over there in that fight. I also think that many believe everything the news media hands them and it might not always be the full truth. They like to put their spin on things too, not just the govt. As for the WMD discussion many will say "they were never there, we didn't find any" Well that doesn't mean they were "never" there, after all the regime was aware that we were looking pretty closely at them, how does anyone know they didn't just dispose of things before we got there? Even if one feels we shouldn't be there we did go and we are there, we can't just up and leave completely. I've heard alot of talk in this election year that we need to set a date to pull out all the troops. You can't just set a date, you don't let the enemy know when you're going to just stop. If you do that they'll most likely just lay low until said date and then once that date has come they'll unleash all they have on you when you least expect it.

 

I don't know that I've answered any questions as to my views but there it is.

[Jenny in Atl]

Saddam Hussein did not invade neighboring countries.

 

Actually, he did, but I don't think we would have cared if it had not been Kuwait.

[Peek a Boo]

well, as far as I'm concerned, I don't feel strongly either way -- whether we stay there another "100 years" like McCain wants or never went in.

 

I do think that just taking out Saddam was worth it. I'm glad we at least accomplished *that*.

 

We know Saddam had WMD because, uh, we GAVE them to him. Did he have them at the time we invaded? who knows!?! they could be buried anywhere or been transported at anytime. We simply can't say for a fact that he *didn't*.

 

I tend to prefer the "letter of mark" /assassination route myself, and agree that we should not be [in general] policing the world.

 

As much as i like Ron Paul, I don't necessarily agree that this is an illegal war. The Constitution says Congress has the right to declare war, but that doesn't mean it can't declare the war however it sees fit via "authorization for use of military force". But then again i also disagree w/ RP that abortion is a state's rights issue.

 

I would prefer to see a conclusion to the engagement. not sure what that would look like tho.

My li'l bro served w/ the Marines in Afghanistan and Iraq as a Navy Corpsman, and is finishing up Marine Corps Officer Candidate School at the top of his class. He's been in almost eleven years now. He supports McCain :)

 

But whether we stay there or pull out now doesn't really concern me as much as domestic issues do. I'm more concerned w/ stuff like The Patriot Act, abortion, border security, etc. It's a hot button issue for dh tho- his eyes get boiling blue when I start commenting on what his right wing talk radio shows bring up for discussion about the war :D

 

...not that *I'm* one to push buttons.... :001_tt2:

 

mwahahahahaha.....

[astrid]

......it takes more than "wisdom and insight." It takes honesty and humility and the ability to recognize when change is necessary, and that's been a problem for this administration as far as this war is concerned, at least IMHO.

 

As to whether we have the "freedom" to have this discussion, that remains to be seen. Upholding the Constitution doesn't seem to be a strong suit, either! :001_smile: Who knows who is watching! :001_smile:

[astrid]

Actually, he did, but I don't think we would have cared if it had not been Kuwait.

 

Kuwait is not the reason we're there now, with the promise of at least 100 more years if John McCain is elected. :banghead:

[pixelroper]

no WWII isn't 9/11, but there are comparisons and recently I ran across info that claimed Pearl Harbor wasn't a surprise (as some claim for 9/11). Personally this reminds me of trying to figure out which 4yo out of 20 is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, after they staged a mob run on the cookie jar. No one wants to take the blame and no one will admit they didn't try to stop it for the obvious reasons. (Not the comments made here! just the general swirl of war 'info')

 

If I don't make sense, I apologize, it makes my brain rust and I'm having an overwhelming urge to read Material Logic for lubrication...

[RebeccaC]

Saddam Hussein did not invade neighboring countries.

 

 

Ummm I got a nice little visit to Saudi and the UAE in a covert manner in the early 90 because Saddam tried to make a permant visit or what some might call invasion of Kuwait. Maybe you forgot that bit of history tho :001_huh: I didn't still have sand in my boots from it :D

[astrid]

To answer those that ask what is "it", "It" is helping the Iraqi people create the kind of nation they want.

 

THEY want? From all that's been said for five years, I was under the distinct impression that we're trying to creat the kind of nation that WE want.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and thanks to your dh (and you, the military wife!) for your (collective) service.

[astrid]

I'm fully aware that Saddam Hussein ventured into Kuwait in the early 1990's.

But that's a separate conflict. We're talking about this 5-year-old war. Saddam was a jerk, yes. But he didn't have his walkin' shoes on in 2003. We just showed up.

[pixelroper]

I also think that many believe everything the news media hands them and it might not always be the full truth. They like to put their spin on things too, not just the govt. As for the WMD discussion many will say "they were never there, we didn't find any" Well that doesn't mean they were "never" there, after all the regime was aware that we were looking pretty closely at them, how does anyone know they didn't just dispose of things before we got there?

 

right, we really shouldn't assume anything- & in fact we (as a nation) have become so polarized over this (as the poll here shows) I'm hard pressed to pick which is more dangerous, terrorists or the internal division. And- 'no' I don't have an answer to this.

[RebeccaC]

I'm fully aware that Saddam Hussein ventured into Kuwait in the early 1990's.

But that's a separate conflict. We're talking about this 5-year-old war. Saddam was a jerk' date=' yes. But he didn't have his walkin' shoes on in 2003. We just showed up.[/quote']

 

 

Well he kept trying to put his walking shoes on by flying in the no fly zone and not letting inspectors do the stuff that was agreed on at the end of Desert Storm. I see it this way Desert Storm was part 1 and they should have let us finish the job then but........ and this Iraq war is part two and the folks who want us to leave yet again before the job is done really just want part 3 without knowing that is what they want. I really don't think we just showed up :w00t: there were more than a decades worth of resolutions saying if you don't let inspections happen and stop flying in the no fly zone were coming.

 

Oh and look I made it to 100 posts :D Oh Happy Day:party:

[nukeswife]

Well he kept trying to put his walking shoes on by flying in the no fly zone and not letting inspectors do the stuff that was agreed on at the end of Desert Storm. I see it this way Desert Storm was part 1 and they should have let us finish the job then but........ and this Iraq war is part two and the folks who want us to leave yet again before the job is done really just want part 3 without knowing that is what they want. I really don't think we just showed up :w00t: there were more than a decades worth of resolutions saying if you don't let inspections happen and stop flying in the no fly zone were coming.

 

:iagree: It's not like we just said "surprise" there was warning after warning that things weren't being complied with

 

On another topic: when did I become a nurse bee, I honestly didn't think I posted that many things:001_huh:

[RebeccaC]

On another topic: when did I become a nurse bee, I honestly didn't think I posted that many things:001_huh:

 

 

Ooooo nurse bee and you are only 23 ahead of me oooooooh where to post where to post ;)

[RebeccaC]

Accccckkkk 101 made nurse bee :grouphug: for all nurse bee's!!!

 

Ohhhh hapy hapy day :hurray:

[nukeswife]

Accccckkkk 101 made nurse bee :grouphug: for all nurse bee's!!!

 

Ohhhh hapy hapy day :hurray:

 

LOL, Congrats:grouphug:

[Tutor]

 

I tend to prefer the "letter of mark" /assassination route myself, and agree that we should not be [in general] policing the world...

 

*snip*

 

...The Constitution says Congress has the right to declare war, but that doesn't mean it can't declare the war however it sees fit via "authorization for use of military force".

 

I agree with you on the letters of marque. It was for situations like this, where we are not engaging a sovereign nation, that I think that power was invested to the Congress.

 

As to your second comment that I quoted above, I think that the War Powers Act of 1973 was put into effect, in part, to address this issue. The WPA states that the President may command military action without an "official declaration of war" for 60 days. There is also the option of a 30 day extention, thus bringing the total number of days to 90 before the President must seek an official declaration of war from Congress. I understand this to mean that an "authorization for use of military force" wouldn't fit the bill. It does not take much to pass a declaration of war. Our declaration of war against Japan was passed within 24 hours of the attack on Pearl Harbor and contains very basic language (less than what was necessary to authorize the use of military force). IMO, Congress was trying to cover its butt by not actually declaring war so they could pas the buck if things didn't go well... but that's just my opinion. :D Actually, in House Joint Resolution 114 of the 107th Congress ("Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002") specifically cites WPA Section 5(b) as the powers they are granting to the President:

 

"SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces."

 

It could also be seen as being unconstitutional from another standpoint as well. Many, including myself, also believe that the House Joint Resolution cite above gives the President powers for calling up the military not granted to his office in the Constitution. The power to call-up the army is held by Congress alone. Such a shift in power would require a Constitutional amendment.

[Peek a Boo]

Saddam was a jerk' date=' yes. [/quote']

 

ok, This gets "Biggest Understatement of the Century" award, lol.

 

making anyone's list of Top Ten Dictators in The World requires a bit more action than "being a jerk." ;)

[Peek a Boo]

I understand this to mean that an "authorization for use of military force" wouldn't fit the bill.

 

 

Why wouldn't it fit the bill? that's kinda what a war IS--The President is given permission to USE the military --as Commander in Chief, he calls upon the military w/ Congressional approval to execute the war. Congress has power to declare the war, not to wage it. Congress does hold the purse strings and can shut down the piggy bank real quick if they needed to.

 

i do have lotsa issues w/ the WPA- i think it DOES unConstitutionally shift power.

[Tutor]

Why wouldn't it fit the bill? that's kinda what a war IS--The President is given permission to USE the military --as Commander in Chief, he calls upon the military w/ Congressional approval to execute the war. Congress has power to declare the war, not to wage it. Congress does hold the purse strings and can shut down the piggy bank real quick if they needed to.

 

i do have lotsa issues w/ the WPA- i think it DOES unConstitutionally shift power.

 

I don't think it fits the bill in this case because HJR117 which authorized military action in Iraq invoked the specific section in the WPA which constrained military action without a declaration of war to 90 days max. Logic won't permit us to call the legislation which required a declaration of war to be the declaration of war itself.

 

Clear as mud? :D

[Peek a Boo]

I don't think it fits the bill in this case because HJR117 which authorized military action in Iraq invoked the specific section in the WPA which constrained military action without a declaration of war to 90 days max. Logic won't permit us to call the legislation which required a declaration of war to be the declaration of war itself.

 

Clear as mud? :D

 

but it doesn't limit it to a declaration of war: it says "or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces"-- so Congress hasn't approved any action since? It was my understanding that Bush continues to ask Congress for more money [and permission] to continue use of military force and they agree to give it to him.....

[GothicGyrl]

It was my understanding that Bush continues to ask Congress for more money [and permission] to continue use of military force and they agree to give it to him....

 

And this is where my problem is: Bush continues to ask for money (for an unjustified war), he continues to get permission(either by those who agree with him for whatever reason or by those that were duped in to believing he was telling the truth) and we continue to remain at war with a nation we have no business being at war with.

 

No one wants to see the correlation, or they just don't believe this correlation exists, but from my standpoint--this war is about oil. Pure and simple. There were NO WMD's and never were WMD's. What we gave Saddam do not count because those were taken back. And even if we did not take them back, that makes this war all the more stupid and unreasonable because that makes Bush an indian giver (here take these and then cry "war" when they do).

 

And yes, I am going to assume whatever I wish because I don't have my head in a hole thinking that this war is even remotely justified. We do not belong in this war at all. What about 9/11? I don't know, ask your government,IMHO. And don't even try to compare what happened with 9/11 to Pearl Harbor--they simply are not comparable at all and that is an insult to those who fought in Pearl Harbor. Two totally different things, two totally different reasons.

 

Now, I've said my peace as well. Some are going to nitpick it apart and that's fine. The one thing we all agree on is that this country is going to pot real quick. We just disagree on the why.

[RebeccaC]

Now, I've said my peace as well. Some are going to nitpick it apart and that's fine. The one thing we all agree on is that this country is going to pot real quick. We just disagree on the why.

 

Ummm sorry but I don't agree that this country is going to pot real quick. This is still the greatest country on the planet! And I have lived abroad both as a college student and serving this country. Traveled abroad quite a bit too and still think this is the best country on the planet :patriot:

[pixelroper]

feel better?:D- GothicGyrl that had a cathartic aura.

 

America is awesome.

[Peek a Boo]

And this is where my problem is: Bush continues to ask for money (for an unjustified war), he continues to get permission(either by those who agree with him for whatever reason or by those that were duped in to believing he was telling the truth) and we continue to remain at war with a nation we have no business being at war with.

 

No one wants to see the correlation, or they just don't believe this correlation exists, but from my standpoint--this war is about oil. Pure and simple. There were NO WMD's and never were WMD's. What we gave Saddam do not count because those were taken back. And even if we did not take them back, that makes this war all the more stupid and unreasonable because that makes Bush an indian giver (here take these and then cry "war" when they do).

 

And yes, I am going to assume whatever I wish because I don't have my head in a hole thinking that this war is even remotely justified. We do not belong in this war at all. What about 9/11? I don't know, ask your government,IMHO. And don't even try to compare what happened with 9/11 to Pearl Harbor--they simply are not comparable at all and that is an insult to those who fought in Pearl Harbor. Two totally different things, two totally different reasons.

 

Now, I've said my peace as well. Some are going to nitpick it apart and that's fine. The one thing we all agree on is that this country is going to pot real quick. We just disagree on the why.

 

LOL! The only thing I'm going to nitpick is your own statement:

 

"And yes, I am going to assume whatever I wish because I don't have my head in a hole thinking that this war is even remotely justified."

 

as long as we are going to make up our minds regardless of the facts, it makes it very difficult to carry on a real discussion :)

 

We know there WERE wmd.

 

Did we take back everything we gave them?? Documentation, anyone?

 

whether a war is "justifiable" is purely subjective. And that's fine when we are simply expressing an opinion.

 

Whether something is illegal depends on evidence.

Arbitrary assumptions won't cut it.

 

but yeah, i do think this country has some Very Real Problems w/ erosions of liberties.

[GothicGyrl]

Rebecca---That you've served, I salute you as well. For me, however, that does not translate into "greatest country"--so we will have to disagree on that one.

 

Pixel--I am not sure what you mean by "cathartic aura"?

 

Peek--I'd say bite me, but you would :D at least we both agree that we've got real problems here. I make my assumptions based on what I read, see, and hear. That you don't come to the same conclusions as I do, well--sharpen your claws (wait, who'm I kidding--you couldn't even catch a lowly mouse :D) .....that's fine too..

[Elaine]

I agree with Twinmom. I was one that answered we should stay as long as it takes. To answer those that ask what is "it", "It" is helping the Iraqi people create the kind of nation they want. Many say we had no right to be there, they didn't ask for our help etc. This may be a bad analogy but many battered women don't ask for help either but if it shows up on their doorsteps I'm sure many would jump at the opportunity. I suppose I should also say that I'm a military spouse so I know what it's like to have my dh over there in that fight. I also think that many believe everything the news media hands them and it might not always be the full truth. They like to put their spin on things too, not just the govt. As for the WMD discussion many will say "they were never there, we didn't find any" Well that doesn't mean they were "never" there, after all the regime was aware that we were looking pretty closely at them, how does anyone know they didn't just dispose of things before we got there? Even if one feels we shouldn't be there we did go and we are there, we can't just up and leave completely. I've heard alot of talk in this election year that we need to set a date to pull out all the troops. You can't just set a date, you don't let the enemy know when you're going to just stop. If you do that they'll most likely just lay low until said date and then once that date has come they'll unleash all they have on you when you least expect it.

 

I don't know that I've answered any questions as to my views but there it is.

 

:iagree: And I can't say anymore because of my foot in mouth disease. Since these new boards began I haven't had to apologize to anyone!:001_smile:

[Elaine]

THEY want? From all that's been said for five years' date=' I was under the distinct impression that we're trying to creat the kind of nation that WE want.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and thanks to your dh (and you, the military wife!) for your (collective) service.[/quote']

 

The nation that we want? No not at all.:001_smile:

 

I speak from my experience and information relayed to me from my SIL, who is there now with the Navy and my uncle, who just got back and is a Marine. The Iraqi people are happy to have them there. The military is establishing modern infrastructure and creating an atmosphere of safety. The Iraqi police are willing and happy to learn all that the U.S. military has to teach them. Make no mistake, the US news is biased.

[pixelroper]

cathartic(adj.)Inducing catharsis; purgative.cathartic

aura(n.)A distinctive but intangible quality that seems to surround a person or thing; atmosphere

[Elaine]

Ummm sorry but I don't agree that this country is going to pot real quick. This is still the greatest country on the planet! And I have lived abroad both as a college student and serving this country. Traveled abroad quite a bit too and still think this is the best country on the planet :patriot:

 

:iagree: It makes me sad, not angry to hear people speak so vehemently against the U.S. The whole world is going to pot if you want to split hairs. Which I don't.:D

[Peek a Boo]

Peek--I'd say bite me, but you would :D at least we both agree that we've got real problems here. I make my assumptions based on what I read, see, and hear. That you don't come to the same conclusions as I do, well--sharpen your claws (wait, who'm I kidding--you couldn't even catch a lowly mouse :D) .....that's fine too..

 

LOL! If i used my claws on you...... you'd enjoy it too much ;)

 

:D

[GothicGyrl]

cathartic(adj.)Inducing catharsis; purgative.cathartic(n.)An agent for purging the bowels, especially a laxative.

 

 

aura(n.)A distinctive but intangible quality that seems to surround a person or thing; atmosphere

Ahh so you were insulting my opinion, got it.

 

Glad you feel that way. I hope it makes you feel the better person.

[GothicGyrl]

LOL! If i used my claws on you...... you'd enjoy it too much ;)

 

:D

meh, not right now at least. Maybe another time. I'm dealing with a PMS moody 15 yr old.

[Sharon in SC]

Make no mistake' date=' the US news is biased.[/quote']

 

Yup. :iagree:

[RebeccaC]

Rebecca---That you've served, I salute you as well. For me, however, that does not translate into "greatest country"--so we will have to disagree on that one.

 

 

 

It is not because I served that I think this is the greatest country although that helped. When you sacrifice for something you hold a bit more precious than when you get it for free :001_smile: I think this is the greatest country because I have seen so more of this world than just this country. My parents were bush missionaries in Ethiopia, I went to school in Israel, and lived under Sharia law, seen slums in Mexico, ect......

 

 

While in school in Israel this non-Jew minored in political science and that plus the study of history through the field of archeology colors my view that this, with all its faults, is the greatest country on the planet :thumbup1:

[Elaine]

meh, not right now at least. Maybe another time. I'm dealing with a PMS moody 15 yr old.

 

Toni,

Right now, my biggest problem with you is that you have over 1,000 posts!!

 

STOP IT! :lol:

 

I'll never catch up.:crying:

[pixelroper]

your post has a "get it off your chest" tone, as in you feel strongly and you're making a stand, the content of your opinion was not addressed. I'm sorry to have made you defensive, NOT my intent.

[GothicGyrl]

It is not because I served that I think this is the greatest country although that helped. When you sacrifice for something you hold a bit more precious than when you get it for free :001_smile: I think this is the greatest country because I have seen so more of this world than just this country. My parents were bush missionaries in Ethiopia, I went to school in Israel, and lived under Sharia law, seen slums in Mexico, ect......

 

 

While in school in Israel this non-Jew minored in political science and that plus the study of history through the field of archeology colors my view that this with all its faults is the greatest country on the planet :thumbup1:

And I won't begrudge you that. I just disagree and I am allowed to. Your experiences certainly do color the way you feel just as mine do my feelings. And that's all well and good, we are allowed to feel/believe this way.

[RebeccaC]

And I won't begrudge you that. I just disagree and I am allowed to. Your experiences certainly do color the way you feel just as mine do my feelings. And that's all well and good, we are allowed to feel/believe this way.

 

:iagree:

[GothicGyrl]

your post has a "get it off your chest" tone, as in you feel strongly and you're making a stand, the content of your opinion was not addressed. I'm sorry to have made you defensive, NOT my intent.

then I apologize. It is a "get it off my chest" but not realy a "making a stand" thing--more of a resolution that my opinion is what it is, we agree to disagree and move on. :D

 

And Elaine--NO. :) I fought hard for those 1,000 posts. ;)

[Sharon in SC]

And don't even try to compare what happened with 9/11 to Pearl Harbor--they simply are not comparable at all and that is an insult to those who fought in Pearl Harbor.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :) I've done my best to communicate the message that I completely appreciate the fact that WWII and the current war are two different animals. I still maintain, however, that both were precipitated by triggering events. I have to respond with this - there is *nothing* in that premise that even remotely comes close to insulting anyone. :confused1:

[Mrs Mungo]

I want to address several things people have said (I took notes!) but I just sort want to address them in a general way rather than to anyone specific. GG's post where she told Peek "bite me" was the last post I read before I started to type. Not that I'm judging her for that, just a reference point ;)

 

WMDs. Yes, we (the American people) thought he had them. He acted like he had them. I even *think* *maybe* HE really did think he had them. Sort of an Emperor's New Clothes type of thing. It *is* possible they could be buried somewhere, the military has dug up MiGs out of the desert sands and missiles are a lot smaller than MiGs. Honestly though? I think he didn't and I think *we* (the US government) knew he didn't have them. I think it was an excuse, nothing more. I'll get to that in a minute.

 

Al-Queda-were they in Iraq before? Not really although it looks like they were recruiting there. Are they now? I guess it depends upon your definition. Some members of the administration seem to think everyone fighting us is AQ. I think the real reason for our invasion was so that we'd be fighting the terrorists somewhere other than on US soil. Bush has made *several* speeches in which he said as much. It's worked to some extent (not that I think it's right, necessarily) but it's put is in a tough spot as far as exiting.

 

Pakistan-yes, everyone thinks Osama is in Pakistan. Why don't we invade? They are a nuclear power. India and Pakistan hate each other as do Pakistan and Israel. All of those countries have nukes. If we were to *invade* Pakistan I think it would lead to all-out nuclear war. That's why we don't. So are these little countries and dictators *really* so crazy for wanting nukes? Not so much, IMO. It's worked for Pakistan. Saudi Arabia owns too much of the US and US companies, we have to keep them somewhat happy plus we're dependent on them for oil.

 

Some people say we shouldn't leave the entire Middle East and I would agree. However, I also agree we shouldn't be the world's policemen. As far as Darfur and similar countries go-there's not enough structure in that government for us to help, long-term from a military perspective.

 

I do think we were absolutely correct in invading Afghanistan. If we had as many soldiers in Afghanistan as we do in Iraq it would be a much different picture in Afghanistan now. However, that's hard to do from a logistics standpoint in a country like Afghanistan, they just don't have the infrastructure to support it. Osama does have a bounty on his head as do many of his subordinates.

 

I agree that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are democratic (or Republics for that matter) and I honestly don't think they ever will be. They both run on these sort of feudal systems. However, warlords with their own armies are pretty hard to control. You never know when one of them is going to try and take over. Capitalist democracies/republics are easier to stabilize, people are more reliant on each other and the government. They have more to lose when there is conflict than in these feudal systems. Iraq has a chance of succeeding with that. Afghanistan just doesn't. They don't have the resources to support that sort of government.

 

As far as peaceful resolutions to conflict-it's a wonderful thought but it's just not how the world works. And Canada *is* in the fight in Afghanistan if not Iraq.

 

As Iraqis being grateful-it's true, they were grateful at first. Understand, most everyone I know has served at least two combat tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. I've heard about the progress and the issues. The Iraqis are not grateful anymore. They want us out. We aren't doing them any favors by staying at this point, our presence is just continuing to draw terrorists their way. eta: One of the posters (with military family) says they're happy to have us there and I'd argue this really depends upon the region.

 

I disagree that it's about oil. It's about money, yes and who controls that many (we didn't want Saddam controlling it) but it wasn't to lay our hands on Iraq's oil. I don't think that's true at all.

 

Short answer-we can't pull out immediately. Anyone who is trying to sell you the idea of immediately pulling out of Iraq is selling you a pipe-dream. It will take *years* for us to get all of our people and equipment out of Iraq. It took us *over* ten years to get everything back from Desert Storm. However, I'd like us to start the draw-down as soon as possible.

 

edited a couple of places for clarity.

[Sharon in SC]

And don't even try to compare what happened with 9/11 to Pearl Harbor--they simply are not comparable at all and that is an insult to those who fought in Pearl Harbor.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :) I've done my best to communicate the message that I completely appreciate the fact that WWII and the current war are two different animals. I still maintain, however, that both were precipitated by triggering events. I have to respond with this - there is *nothing* in that premise that even remotely comes close to insulting anyone.

 

You may resume your originally scheduled programming.... :001_smile:

[Sharon in SC]

Your experiences certainly do color the way you feel just as mine do my feelings. And that's all well and good, we are allowed to feel/believe this way.

 

Yeah. You know what's been running through my mind as I've read the differeing viewpoints - the old adage, "perception is reality."

[GothicGyrl]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :) I've done my best to communicate the message that I completely appreciate the fact that WWII and the current war are two different animals. I still maintain, however, that both were precipitated by triggering events. I have to respond with this - there is *nothing* in that premise that even remotely comes close to insulting anyone.

 

You may resume your originally scheduled programming.... :001_smile:

You posted twice ;) It's ok though... (oh and Mrs. Mungo, I'm always telling that Cat to bite me. My fangs and her claws don't like each other :D)

 

Mrs. Mungo--I'll just address the last part--you said

Anyone who is trying to sell you the idea of immediately pulling out of Iraq is selling you a pipe-dream. It will take *years* for us to get all of our people and equipment out of Iraq

.. and I did admit it was a pipe dream early on. I know I'm not trying to sell anyone on this idea, I just wish we never went (which I know you were not singling me out, I'm just saying).

 

And Sharon-- all I can say is this, Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack on the US by the Japanese. Up until that attack, we were NOT going to get involved in WWII. We were prepared for it, but we had every intention of staying out. That's why they cannot be compared. What happened at 9/11, tragic as it was, was not a suprise attack (IMHO) and I fully believe the US KNEW it was coming (based on the previous bombing of the WTC a few years earlier) and the US did nothing to prevent it from happening. Pearl Harbor is not comparable because we have no intention of getting involved, we had no intention of fighting in the war, we simply had no intention. They made us have the intention. 9/11 was fully known by the US before it happened(which I understand some don't believe this, but I do).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

 

We just have to agree to disagree again. :D