When the US does the right thing I take the side of the US,its just that under the last administration we havent done that very often.
I prefer my country to be on the right side of history not the wrong side.
I have no problem with Hiroshima,who knows how many more innocent people would have died if the war had continued,and the Japanese were refusing to surrender. Its a shame it had to come to that.
But you cant call the Japanese terrorists,they were a fully formed military,and we knew there was a possibility they could attack.
Its a language thing
Was Napolean a terrorist? Was Alexander the Great?
I dont think they exactly sent written invitations saying,"Please come to our invasion of your country, for battle and bloodshed. RSVP"
Kirkland, the Democrat Majority US Congress deemed it was ok for the US to take Grenada.
You bitches blame America for everything....look at your own God damn countries and their longer, more violent, and more unjust histories. Oh England you (and your posters on this very board) are too modest about your own dark history. You love to point the finger at us, but you guys are the start to most of the world's problems and not America.
Trainer, you are the EPITOME of the "blame America first" liberal.....I have a news flash for you, it's not always our fault, and even when it is our fault we do try and make it up.....we COULD have left Iraq in anarchy but no, not us, we have tried to help them rebuild AND our "enemies" in Iran should be happy as we put their boys (the Shi'ia) in charge instead of the Sunni's who had been in charge.
I think the Welsh have been the worst .... oppressing all those sheep for years, taking them away from their families, selling them like property, reducing them to sexual slavery.
Just wait for the day - and it won't be long now O my brothers - when we have our first sheep Prime Minister .... when little human children walk hand in hand with little ungulate children ........ now I may not be there to see it with you ........ but I have seen the promised land.
If God wanted us to be vegetarians, why are animals made of meat ?
It wasnt about "leaving Iraq in anarchy"
We left it that way for quite some time,and then got surprised that they werent happy with their anarchy. The whole reason we went in was to prove we could do it,and then we found out we had bitten off more then we can chew.
The whole reason we did it,was to prove that we could do it,it wasnt until we were there that we figured out that that dog bites.
We've had plenty of succesful and well thought out military campaigns,this wasnt even close to being one of them. We'd be out of Afghanistan allready if we hadnt been keeping troops in reserve to invade Iraq.
PNAC and other Neo-cons had been begging for us to invade for years before we actually did.
Nobody except the actual people who lived there begged us to invade Kosovo,and it was widely derided by the far right,even though it was a success on allmost every level.
If you ask for something,and then you get it,and its a complete and utter cluster fuck,dont come crying around saying,"Well you blame America first"because the great and glorious victory didnt happen. I thought it was a stupid idea before we did it,and I still think its a stupid idea. And the facts on the ground,bear that out.
The war with Iraq was going to happen 9/11 or no 9/11 that's the 100% truth. Clinton was taking a harder stand against Saddam before he left office....the execution of the war was FUBAR and that was the responsibility of Bush and his Cabinet but once Rumsfeld was out the door things got a lot better....Obama had better close out the show in a good way or else he's going to be branded as "owning defeat" and even though he is the President and he doesn't like the war he doesn't want to have a negative effect on Iraq and Afghanistan as his legacy.
Part of me thinks there is a certain element of US's enemies that is happy to see the US forces in Iraq, and are in no big hurry to see them leave. A group like A.Q. for example is perfectly happy to have a place to engage US in guerilla warfare, keep them busy, and the welfare of the Iraq people is not their primary concern. Ergo A.Q. would have preferred Bush stay in power longer, or that a guy like McCain get elected. Just a hunch, I can't exactly prove it.
The war in Iraq is a discrace to America and Britian.
We had the terroists on the run in Afghanistan and we left them off the hook and created a whole new country for them to wage there war in.
If you beleve in taking the fight to the terroists as I do,by starting the war in Iraq all we have done is made our world a more dangerous place for our children to live in.
Balls
And I can never forgive Blair for joining in like a poodle.
Do not let success go to your head and do not let failure get to your heart.
I would say that the terrorists we're fighting in these countries aren't really the terrorists we need to worry about. I think they're more like Afghans/Iraqis who are pissed off that we're occupying their countries so are fighting us. There are a bunch of people from other countries there but these guys are just muslim good ol' boys who want to physically fight the infidel. Basically guys with guns in their hands are no problem at all outside the countries they live in and no problem in the countries they live in provided we're not there too.
The people we need to worry about are guys like mohammed Atta, the 9/11 ringleader. Atta was an engineering graduate who spoke five languages, not one of the head-chopping yahoos you get going to physically fight in Iraq etc. He decided to become a terrorist watching the Sabra/Shatila massacres and the world's indifferent response/complicity to/with them. Somebody somewhere just watched the Israelis having fun in Gaza and decided the same thing, and we'll see the results of that in a decade or so.
Fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is self-defeating in terms of reducing terrorism. Every available American serviceman was in Iraq and couldn't stop it becoming the world centre of terrorism. I come from a part of the world where a lot of people go into the military. A lot of my friends did and one is still in although he transferred to the ASustralian army a couple of years ago. I went to bury my auntie last March and there were four headstones in the row already in the cemetery. One was the son of a guy I grew up with who'd just died in Afghanistan. The ages on the headstones were 82, 63, 67 and 18. And he died for no good reason, just for the vanity of politicians. They already know they've lost in Afghanistan and are privately planning to hand it over to a benevolent dicattor-type in a few years, but until they do young men will keep being killed on both sides for no reason, and the young men killed on the other side will create generations of new terrorists.
So we need to take the fight to them in other ways. Stopping the injustices in that part of the world that are easily in our power would be a good start, but that would take strong leadership. much easier to send in the military, watch your approval ratings soar and leave a bigger problem to the next leader.
Maybe they did, it still doesn't alter how dumb the whole thing was. Reagan only did it to give US forces a victory after he'd been forced to pull them out of Lebanon. Yes Britain has hundreds of years of colonialism and kicking the shit out of other countries, but it's the US doing a more sophisticated version of what we used to do these days. Which is why everybody blames you for a lot of the problems today.
And the US had no choice to put the Iranian-backed guys in charge in Iraq. Bush did everything he could to avoid it but got outsmarted by the Ayatollahs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks