The Most Unbiased Article on Obama I've Ever Read
11-08-2008 08:31 PM
There was no evidence that he was going to use it against us, but the fact that he attacked an ally 12 years prior, was forced out by a multinational coalition, and then refused the mandated inspections gave us plenty of justification. Not saying that invasion was the right course of action, but there was justification.
Originally Posted by rolandajoint
We wouldn't fight Saudi because theres no reason. North Korea would be somewhat tempting, but in my eyes doesn't help the US strategically, as we already have a strong presence in South Korea. Iran is not a country that is feasible for invasion. The terrain is horrible. Its like afghanistan with a real army.
and that buyout thread was ridiculous. dood sounded like a tool. but i do agree with one of the posts. why not north korea, saudia arabia, iran?
If that stuff happened it was during the initial invasion. I haven't heard or read any stories about such collateral damage. Americans are not running around bombing schools.
and regardless of media and news being "dishonest". thousands have died probably not because soldiers are just killing people for fun. i know thats not the case. however, bombs are not bullets. bombs destroy other things than the target, such as surrounding houses, schools, etc.
I don't have an answer about the whys. The bottom line is we're there for whatever reason. We have to build our plan from that reality. Given a couple more years, we'll be leaving Iraq a better place with more liberties and freedoms for the citizens. Thats a good thing.
so are those deaths part of our freedom? i cant argue the genocide that took place under saddam. that would be wrong, and a straight up lie. i dont need to read an article to know that. but again, why save iraq? what about genocides happening in africa? conflicts in india and pakatistan?
Again, I'm not justifying us going in there, but we have to move forward from the reality that we ARE there and make our decisions accordingly.
i honestly view the war as part of a personal agenda. as richard clarke said in his book, after 9/11 bush came to him and asked, "what do we have on iraq?". to me, that does not sound like concern for protecting americas freedoms.
11-08-2008 08:33 PM
And Sadam was the only douchebag in that area that we could attack without having to worry about any reprecussions from any of the other middle eastern nations, as they hated him too.
Recall that he had blown off UN mandates for 10 years. Exactly how long is long enough for the UN to actually do anything about it? An infinite time, as Russia + China have veto power on the security council, so force is never authorized for anything
11-08-2008 10:34 PM
good post to end the discussion
Originally Posted by RobInKuwait
off topic, but kinda on topic: im going to see "W" in a bit. ive heard good things about it. and, regardless of views on bush, his story is definitely an interesting one.
11-09-2008 07:47 AM
For sure, I'll likely see it too. For what its worth, I think viewed thru the buffer of 40 years from now, Bush will be looked at as a solid president, as he was hit by many challenges not previously faced by a president, and yet still accomplished many good things just our news media prefers to not mention them.
Originally Posted by rolandajoint
11-09-2008 02:11 PM
i hate to agree, but i do. im quite anxious for a book about these 8 years to come out. hopefully from an unbiased author.
Originally Posted by EasyEJL
Similar Forum Threads
By diegone in forum Bulking
Last Post: 06-09-2011, 10:20 PM
By youngandfree in forum Politics
Last Post: 09-15-2010, 03:51 PM
By Guest in forum Supplements
Last Post: 06-20-2006, 03:03 PM
By Big H in forum Exercise Science
Last Post: 12-13-2002, 02:38 PM
By raybravo in forum Anabolics
Last Post: 11-05-2002, 09:24 PM