Bad things also happen when your military is spread so thin in foreign engagements that when a natural disaster like a Hurricane happens, we don't have enough military support to save the lives of our citizens and evacuate. Imagine if every soldier currently in Iraq was in New Orleans with all their helicopters and equipment when that happened. We'd have got people the heck out of there a whole lot faster and more efficiently, I believe.
The military's job is to fight and win wars, not save lives in a natural disaster. The Constitution requires the state to ASK for assistance before the Federal Government can intervene. Fault Louisiana for not taking proper action BEFORE the Hurricane, not the Feds. Now, granted the Federal responce was a mess too, but it is not their job to be first responders.
Iran is a problem. We aren't at war with them (yet). We are at war with a country known to have no nuclear program.
We are not at war WITH Iraq, we are at war IN Iraq.
Guess who else has Nukes? North Korea. Guess who denied an agreement (which had big support by Colin Powell before it was shot down) that would have controlled and limited N. Korea's nuclear power? The bush administration.
Guess who gave the nuclear plants that the DPRK uses to create the fissile material? The Clinton Administration.
It's an agreement many people in the N. Korean government still wish to see come to fruition.
I have not seen news on this. Source please? (Seriously, I would like to learn about that... If there is a NAMED DPRK official on record saying that....)
Do you think every country that has nukes is just itching to start a nuclear war with another country? We've had them for years, and the only people we've ever bombed with them are now our allies and providers of a good chunk of our entertainment and technology. Ending the war in Iraq doesn't mean that every country with an agenda against the united states is going to declare a free-for-all attack against us. They have their own countries' interests to consider. After looking at the way things are in Iraq, do you really think Iran wants to be in that boat next?
There is one very large difference between Iran and just about any other "nuclear" nation in the world. Iran does not care about the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). The President and more importantly, the religious leadership of Iran are on record stating that it is their goal to bring about their version of Armageddon. They WANT to die and take as many infidels with them as possible. HUGE difference.
See, this is a reason I think that people who lean left do not or cannot understand the true scope of this conflict. Generally speaking, left leaning people (Democrats) do not embrace or really understand religion. That does not allow them to think like a religious zealot does. They cannot understand a people who simply cannot be reasoned with.
Pro-Bush folks are fond of saying that our economy is the envy of the world. I wonder how it can be that, and yet be so fragile and vulnerable?
Ours is a oil based economy. Take away the oil and what happens? The reason it has been so strong in the past is because the leaders of Arab nations who have the oil are generally secular in their beliefs and believe in capitalism. They would never harm the hand thats feeds them. This is quite the opposite with Iran and the other Islamic Fundamentalist groups.
Our oil companies have already made more money than most of us could scarcely imagine. But it's more than the money and the oil. It's about human dignity and respect for human life. Not just for AMERICAN life. For the lives of women, children and innocent civillians in Iraq who also did not want this war, and have no interest in destroying the West. The problem with this sort of "let them have their dirt" attitude is that it just screams ignorance and bigotry.
So it is all our fault then? Or are you just a socialist? I am not ignorant nor a bigot. I simply deal in reality, using my knowledge of history and my experiences when I was in the military.
How would most of us feel if Saddam said "let America have its shopping malls and Wal-Mart?"
I would have said, "cool".
It's a downright insulting, sweeping generalization of an entire group of people, and if ANYONE should recognize and respect that, it's our government and the members of our military. This superior, kill-em-all-let-god-sort-em-out attitude is part of what infuriates the terrorists. How can we condemn them for wanting to end our way of life, when we endorse basically the same punishment for them?
The only people I condemn are the terrorists. It is THEY are purposely target civilians and civilian infrastructure. You talked about a number of civilians in Iraq that have been killed. Want to take a stab at what % of those people were killed by the enemy?
I condemn them because their way of life has ZERO respect for human dignity or freedom. You live exactly by their rules or you die.
Are you defending the enemy?
You were in Iraq, so let me ask you this... for every person who comes back from Iraq believing that this is the right course of action, that we should continue as we are in Iraq until terrorism and Islamist extremism is defeated, there is another person who comes back believing the opposite...that we SHOULDN'T be there, that our approach is only making things worse. So are you saying that all those soldiers who hold the opposite viewpoint to your own are traitors, that their service and sacrifice mean nothing, that they are allowing the terrorists to win?
First, I did not serve in Iraq. I have served in Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina (twice). I have had to deal with these types of people in both places however....
As for the second part... Absolutley not. However, Soldiers need to realize that they signed up to defend democracy, not practice it. They are entitled to their opinions, but they must still follow the oath we all took.
Also, we should only be in Iraq until Iraq can properly defend itself. If we use Bosnia as an example, that will take about 8 years. Democracy takes time.
Going back to your comment on saying that the next attack IS coming, we still haven't found the 'mastermind' behind the first attack, Osama Bin Laden, and the taliban are not eliminated by any means. At least four of the hijackers originally listed are now known to be alive and were falsely accused. It's 2006. That was 2001. Does that sound in any way like we are doing something right? We've had five years and we still can't get justice for the people who died on 9/11. When the next attack comes, how many years will it take to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice? Will we have even begun to have an idea of where Bin Laden is by then? Our president said himself, on television, in front of cameras, that he "doesn't think about it [Bin Laden] too much anymore". If that's not enough to show people that we are being fed lies, I don't know what is. The problem isn't that our government is stupid. The problem is that the government treats the American people like they are stupid.
I have to go now, but I read a fascinating article about this topic. Apparently, we HAD Bin Laden at Tora Bora. The commander on the ground requested support to finish him off, but good old Rummy denied it. By the time the 3/75 Rangers arrived, it was too late as he had escaped. Praise God Rummy is gone now.
*** I am throughly enjoying this discussion with you. However, I have to sign off for now and I rarely get time to be on here. So, if this is as far as it goes, thank you. I enjoy mental exercise like this.
you KNOW it is never anything personal to you my buddy. lol ((hugs))
