You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bush most unpopular president in history
- Thread starter Buzzcook
- Start date
I think all your questions about Al Qaeda are irrelevant. Al Qaeda was not present in Iraq to a significant degree until after we arrived. I believe our continued presence there likely is a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.
Hence the fight them there not here mindset. Our military is equipped to win there, our civilians are not here. They are (were) in one place in mass there, they mix in with few numbers here.
And what right did we have to draw them to Iraq?
I still can't tell how one is supposed to tell the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter who is just trying to repel a foreign invader (that would be us.) Obviously the ones blowing up marketplaces and schools and pipelines are terrorists, but the ones shooting at our soldiers could be either.
Well if that's hard for you to understand then rewind and ask if you think we are taking away, or providing for, freedom for Iraqis. If we are providing for freedom then freedom fighters would be on the same side and not shooting at us. If you believe we are their to take away the freedom they were enjoying under Saddam then you may have a misconception about whats going on over there.
And what right did we have to draw them to Iraq?
Let's see....maybe the UN? All Saddam had to do is allow inspectors back in Iraq and the war would never had started.
Unregistered
Moderator
I think we are generating terrorists in Iraq by our continued presence. I think some of these people now labeled as "Al qaeda" and "foreign fighters" would never have been a problem if we weren't there, and if we left, i don't think many of them would try to attack us here. They attack us there simply because they its easy to attack us there.
I think reinvading if we need to should be an option. I would rather not have to, but if a group comes to power that we don't like, we should invade.
I don't believe we care one whit about freedom in Iraq. We are there to create a friendly puppet state. If that happens to be a democracy, thats fine as long as the Iraqis don't get uppity and elect an anti-western government. If we really cared about spreading democracy in the Mid East, we would be trying to overthrow the Saudi Arabian king.
The French were an outstanding ally of the US during the Revolutionary War. They promptly left after the British were defeated. What if they had stayed? What if they had said that they didnt think we were stable enough for them to leave us, and thought they might need to stay for the next 100 years or so? How long would it have taken us to decide to go to war with France?
I think reinvading if we need to should be an option. I would rather not have to, but if a group comes to power that we don't like, we should invade.
Well if that's hard for you to understand then rewind and ask if you think we are taking away, or providing for, freedom for Iraqis.
I don't believe we care one whit about freedom in Iraq. We are there to create a friendly puppet state. If that happens to be a democracy, thats fine as long as the Iraqis don't get uppity and elect an anti-western government. If we really cared about spreading democracy in the Mid East, we would be trying to overthrow the Saudi Arabian king.
The French were an outstanding ally of the US during the Revolutionary War. They promptly left after the British were defeated. What if they had stayed? What if they had said that they didnt think we were stable enough for them to leave us, and thought they might need to stay for the next 100 years or so? How long would it have taken us to decide to go to war with France?
UM, they did stay. French Quebec, Louisiana, etc. And remain allies to this day........that is just the kind of ally we want and need in Iraq in the middle east. A long term reliable ally based on the mutal interests of the other.
You have every right to your opinions. You obviously have a firm position that is not likely to change given new information. ALOT has changed since the talking points your still using came around and when they came around there was little rebuttal to them because of the glaring lack of progress going on in Iraq so they settled in to peoples psyche and that was that as far as they were concerned.
The questions I asked go to the core of the situation. If you really believe they are irrelevant then I can understand your perspective the re-invading later idea excepted. But you would be challenged to answer the questions and hold on to the old talking points. They don't fit together.
There will always be people that once they feel they have something tagged down won't accept new information. It's unfortunate but true. In the last 8 months Iraq has become a very very different situation. It would be just as naive today to think it isn't to our advantage that the situation is what is is today as it was a year ago to say it WAS to our advantage that things were the way they were.
You have every right to your opinions. You obviously have a firm position that is not likely to change given new information. ALOT has changed since the talking points your still using came around and when they came around there was little rebuttal to them because of the glaring lack of progress going on in Iraq so they settled in to peoples psyche and that was that as far as they were concerned.
The questions I asked go to the core of the situation. If you really believe they are irrelevant then I can understand your perspective the re-invading later idea excepted. But you would be challenged to answer the questions and hold on to the old talking points. They don't fit together.
There will always be people that once they feel they have something tagged down won't accept new information. It's unfortunate but true. In the last 8 months Iraq has become a very very different situation. It would be just as naive today to think it isn't to our advantage that the situation is what is is today as it was a year ago to say it WAS to our advantage that things were the way they were.
Forwardassist
New member
UM, they did stay. French Quebec, Louisiana, etc.
Well not to get to far of the discussion but the French where the first to colonize North America in the 1600s. They controlled most of Eastern Canada into Vermont, and NYS. The British kicked out the French from much of Canada in the 1750s. Only Quebec and New Orleans remained French.
Unregistered
Moderator
UM, they did stay. French Quebec, Louisiana, etc
Certainly you do realize that Quebec and Louisiana were not part of the US at that time. They were in fact part of the French empire, so it sort of makes sense that they would not abandon their holdings. So I must say that example makes absolutely no sense and is in no way analagous to our situation in Iraq.
There will always be people that once they feel they have something tagged down won't accept new information. It's unfortunate but true. In the last 8 months Iraq has become a very very different situation.
I agree with you. But I think you are the one that won't accept reality. At the beginning of the War, I was a firm supporter of it, and Bush (I voted for him twice). But then the information about no WMD came out, yet we didnt leave. Then we captured Saddam, and we still didnt leave. Now we are building a nation, something that Bush specifically campaigned against in 2000. Our mission has been in a complete state of flux, with no end in sight. Now the nebulous endpoint du jour seems to be a "stable democracy", but no one will define what criteria have to be met. We have John McCain stating we might be in Iraq in 100 years.
We're still in Japan, Germany and Korea so I guess we are still nation building over there too. If Obama wins I have a feeling he's going to get a crash course in Reality 101. His supporters will be shocked and claim he was bought by the military industrial complex and vow to vote Raul Castro.
Unregistered
Moderator
We're still in Japan, Germany and Korea so I guess we are still nation building over there too.
I am curious, why do you support staying in those countries? They are all financially independent and able to provide for their own military. Why do you want the US taxpayer to foot the bill for their defense? Why is it a good thing in your mind for our military to give them free protection?
Marko Kloos
New member
Well, the bases in Germany are handy right now, because it's a much longer flight from Baghdad to Walter Reed than it is from Baghdad to Ramstein Air Base and Landstuhl Medical Center.
Unregistered
Moderator
Yea, I guess I hadn't thought about it from that angle, Marko. If we are going to build an empire, we are going to need a way to get our wounded soldiers back home.
Unregistered
Moderator
I am curious, what part of my statement did you find negative?
The wounded soldiers? or the empire building?
The wounded soldiers? or the empire building?
We have over 700 military bases throughout the world ,we continue to eliminate bases here therefore we pour/bleed money into other countries vs ours, whats the point, we live in a much different world then post WW2. Much of our terrorist threat would be eliminated with better immigration policies, protecting borders/ports, build an manufacturing industrial base once again and rebuilding the best country in the world rather then nation building elsewhere so wealthy American corporations can maintain a slave labor force and push cheap, junk products on an uninformed American public.
If you have to ask, we would be wasting our time.I am curious, what part of my statement did you find negative?
The wounded soldiers? or the empire building?
Unregistered
Moderator
Well, I do have to ask... but I don't see wounded soldiers or empire building as wastes of time.
If you don't want to answer, just say so. But to blow the issue off as unimportant is distinctly unpatriotic.
If you don't want to answer, just say so. But to blow the issue off as unimportant is distinctly unpatriotic.
BoringAccountant
New member
I am curious, what part of my statement did you find negative?
Gee, prolly the same one I did.
If we are going to build an empire
Use of the word empire coupled with the fact you think we are "build"ing one is very negative, sort of distasteful too.
If you want to get back to the original thought, Jimmy Carter was by far the worst President in my lifetime, and I've seen quite a few. When the hostages were taken in Iran, he decided to make a point and refuse any oil from there, thereby causing the gas raitioning. You could only get gas if your plates ended with an even or odd number. From there, we went on to double digit inflation. I can guarentee, if you gave this survey now, George W. would come out smelling like a rose. 18 year olds weren't even thought of when Carter was in office, so don't go beating up on someone like George when you can't compare him to reality.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2021.html
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2021.html