Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Mob mentality does not make something right or wrong. I still think the reasons given were valid and in fact have been proven to be true. Saddam Hussein would have gotten sabctions lifted as early as 2003 and no latter then 2004 as far as I can tell. He would have returned to chemical and biological weapons produsction and he would hve returned to searching for the means to make a nuke. He already was working on long range more accurate missiles and he would have continued to look for a group willing to do his dirty work.
We would now be faced with a rearmed, renewed Iraq under Saddam Hussein and with the real threat of attacks on us from him by terrorists or his own secret forces. Kuwait and the entire region would once again be threatened by Iraq.
All the terrorists and recruits they had in Iraq over the last 5 years would have been used else where, possibly in Afghanistan and more likely with bigger and more terror strikes else where around the world.
We made mistakes in the war in Iraq, but nothing critical. In fact every war we have ever had we made mistakes at first. One reason being we train to fight the last war and we never end up actually doing that.
Zactly.We made mistakes in the war in Iraq, but nothing critical. In fact every war we have ever had we made mistakes at first. One reason being we train to fight the last war and we never end up actually doing that.
I disagree with you pretty much across the board. I don't think Saddam would have ever amounted to anything more than a jumped up asshole.
But thanks for your response, at least I can understand where you are coming from.
I guess you haven't read today's news.
Why would we have ever lifted sanctions? We wouldn't have. The guy was contained. The terrorists were elsewhere. There was no reason to invade Iraq.
Waste of time, money and lives.
But we are waaay off topic.
So, you agree:But you are right, my post about Bush's military experience not benefiting the country had nothing to do with your post
So, you agree:
Military service matters if the Democrat that is running has some.
If he doesnlt then it doesn't.
I guess you haven't read today's news.
You shouldn't believe everything you read/see/hear in the news. It's all biased no matter what channel or paper you read.
Plain and simple, the world is a safer place without Saddam. No matter which way you argue it, the world is safer. I'm not saying that the war in Iraq was handled with the utmost intelligence, however, I believe that Bush was damned no matter what he did. The question boils down to preimptive strike. Do you attack someone before they attack? Or do you wait for someone to kill a few thousand of your own people before you attack? If Bush had not invaded Iraq, and in 10-15 years from now when Saddam did acquire what he was looking for, people would have said, that President Bush should have taken care of it when he had the chance. And since he did invade, people are saying, damn that president he didn't have to do it.
A main problem with people's discontent of the war is that we Americans have an extremley short attention span. We can't stand anything lasting longer than a few minutes. We constantly like change (not me). That's why everyone wants Obama for president "CHANGE." I'm not a hardcore Bush supporter, however, I did vote for him and I still do like him as a president. The reason people are so fed up with Bush, is because he's never "changed." He's the same person he was when he started. That's what makes a good president, the fact that his view didn't change when the (quick minded) public opinion changed. Anyone would agree that if you're going out for the baseball team, you give it %110, and you don't quit the team when it's losing, but think of another strategy, and if that doesn't work, you think up another one.
Nope. Military service doesn't matter period.
Look at the post again. I said that to the best of my recollection, Nixon was the only president I mentioned who DID serve.
Nope. Military service doesn't matter period.
...and we won't even get started on Juniors "service"...
Do you really think that? That first hand military experience gives a person no additional knowledge to draw upon? I'm not saying it should mean everything but dismissing it out of hand as "doesn't matter period" seems a bit, how can I put it, myopic.
Even if you think the general "experience under fire" and "leadership" etc. qualities are overrated, then presumably you would agree that the military could in theory provide a greater understanding in other fields. I'm thinking of logistics, diplomacy, engineering, communications, IT, aeronautics, to name the few that come to mind instantly.
In dismissing military experience out of hand, you give the impression that perhaps you dislike the military so much that you are prepared to ignore potential experience because you don't like how the experience was acquired.
Just an observation, and maybe I'm reading too much into your post (it wouldn't be the first time).
Wrong. Military service is not a litmus issue, but it does give insight into the character or job capablities of an individual. It does matter just being President of the Arabian Horse Association. It is not a requirement, nor should it be, but it does matter.
Any career gives the same insight to character or job capabilities.
Yes... because the McD drive-thru position has the same challenges as an infantry platoon leader.Any career gives the same insight to character or job capabilities.
Yes... because the McD drive-thru position has the same challenges as an infantry platoon leader.
Yes, really.Really?
