Not supporting the war BUT supporting our troops

[Annie]

WMD may not have been the only terms of the ceasefire agreement, but they were the only terms of the invasion. We knew then and we know now that those terms were bogus.

The Bush admin's definition of "diplomacy" was give an impossible ultimatum they could never meet and then invade. I fail to see the "give and take" in that.

US Demanding An "Occupation Agreement?"

I'm really sorry, I've tried to take into consideration your being a j-student at one of the 'biggies' by your own call-in GA no less, whatever. In any case, you are a student. But nevertheless, with this thread you have also proven that you are an asshat.

Really I'm sorry about that. See in the normal turn of events, you being a j-student and all, you would get that after less than 10 months in office, GW hadn't really dealt with foreign affairs. Actually, he had shown a marked indifference to such, easily enough discerned by an aware j-student-with a political bent. Easy to find out that many of his supporters were pretty upset with him, considering in the spring of the year before, al Queda had hit the USS Cole, an act of war that all discerning folks were dismayed that Clinton had brushed off. Then there was the Chinese taking our disabled plane. Again, people were dismayed that it was allowed to ride.

Now it took the magnitude of 9/11, a bit of overkill, pardon the real bad taste pun, to get his attention. That did do it though. Even with that, while Afghanistan came in October; Iraq waited until 3/03 to commence. Why? To try and deal with diplomacy. We shouldn't have bothered, would have been quicker to hit in 12/01.

 

[Gunny]

Blind allegiance to a failing policy doesn't make you patriotic, it makes you stubborn. I support the idea of bringing our troops home so that they can actually enjoy their American freedoms and live in a place where they can see their families and keep the use of all their limbs. How's that for supporting our troops?

Yeah, just ignore AQ and like-minded terrorist organizations who would LOVE for you to get your way so they can operate with impunity and get back to planning and/or carrying out more attacks against us.

Just how much "freedom" do you think there is going to be if we get attacked a coupel of times? You lefties can whine and cry all you want, but a couple more attacks and you can kiss your precious civil liberties goodbye.

Survival will trump your petty, selfish desires.

 

[no1tovote4]

WMD may not have been the only terms of the ceasefire agreement, but they were the only terms of the invasion. We knew then and we know now that those terms were bogus.

The Bush admin's definition of "diplomacy" was give an impossible ultimatum they could never meet and then invade. I fail to see the "give and take" in that.

US Demanding An "Occupation Agreement?"

[/quote]

The only way you can believe this is if you think the only speech ever made on why we were invading was the SOTU Address and the only reason ever given was in the letter to Congress. There are more than one person in any administration. I remember hearing Colin Powell talk about the cease fire agreements as well as WMD during the UN. I remember hearing about the violation of Cease Fire agreements from other members of the administration as well. It is easy to ignore reality and other evidence that you don't want to hear when you are falling into schadenfreude and the harm created will actually make you feel good, but it isn't historically accurate by any means.