Where do you think the WOT should be fought?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by kurtsprincess, Sep 23, 2005.

  1. kurtsprincess
    Offline

    kurtsprincess Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Messages:
    683
    Thanks Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    in my hammock
    Ratings:
    +112
    A lot of people keep saying "bring our troops home from Iraq" and while this sounds like support for our troops, and I guess it could feel that way to those who are saying it, I would ask them...........

    do you have a better place in mind to fight the WOT?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. trobinett
    Offline

    trobinett Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arkansas, The Ozarks
    Ratings:
    +162
    kurtsprincess ask`s the question:

    Those that think bringing the troops home is the correct course for our country, have absoluting NO IDEA what the war on terror is even about, let a lone, would be able to come up with a better place to fignt it. :rolleyes:
     
  3. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    It's all about liberalism, and liberalism is about control. While liberals claims they're for all these compassionate and humanitarian things, what they really have is a fantasy land where they can control everything by being nice. They live under the delusion that they can control nature and never get hit by her wrath if only they stop polluting. They think they can control the foolishness shown by much of the lower class if they give them the right type of welfare program. They think they can control the prejudiced feelings of any populace if they only change the language. They think they can control the religious beliefs of the world if they can just let everyone know how evil their religion is. Last, but not least, they think they can control the actions of terrorists by being nice to them. They think that if we leave Iraq, stop supporting Israel, and just let the Middle East run its course, then the terrorists will leave us alone.

    What they don't understand is that we have no control over many things, so we have to either deal with disaster or attack the source, because, once again, we have NO control.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. ProudDem
    Online

    ProudDem Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    LOL

    So when did Saddam Hussein attack us again? Or threaten us?

    To me, the war in Iraq is not the war on terrorism, at least not by the definition Bush used after 9/11.
     
  5. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    They violated the cease fire agreement each time they fired on our planes. This is a violation of international law and according to international law it is the same thing as declaring war. Therefore we brought war to a nation that had declared war on us. This is not illegal action according to international law.
     
  6. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Saddam paid people who attacked us. He gave sanctuary to the only 1992 WTC bomber we never caught. He paid families of suicide bombers to encourage people to attack us and Israel. You've been told this several times, yet pretend it isn't true. Claiming Saddam wasn't part of the war on terror is like claiming that attacking mobsters isn't a way to fight murder rates because they only hire people to commite murders instead of doing it themselves.
     
  7. ProudDem
    Online

    ProudDem Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Here is the speech that Bush gave as to why we should invade Iraq. I don't see the reasons you list as one of them. This is from the horse's mouth.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
     
  8. ProudDem
    Online

    ProudDem Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    When did they fire on our planes? See link in my prior post. I don't see Bush using that as a basis to go to war in Iraq.
     
  9. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    It doesn't matter what was in ONE speech. Bush had dozens of reasons, he just listed the ones that gave the best PR response, probably on the advice of Karl Rove. There were also multitudes of reasons for going to war in Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Japan, and the Confederacy, but just because a presidential speech doesn't contain them all doesn't mean they aren't there.
     
  10. ProudDem
    Online

    ProudDem Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Okay.

    Was that too easy? ;)
     

Share This Page