Does the war machine here, the right wing Skybox community completely back it's party's agenda in Iraq still? No matter what, or how many Americans or how many Iraqis die will all of you W lovers still wholeheartedly back our invasion of Iraq? Even the word "invasion" sounds wrong to me. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/26/time.iraq/index.html
MCG wrote: So now, if you are a Skybox Republican, you are the war machine :?: MCG, If you expect someone to listen to your point, you might want to curb the insults and innuendo so that the readers will even get to the point you are trying to make. :idea:
For me you have to ask 2 seperate questions. 1. Do you think it was the right thing to do to invade Iraq and take out Saddam? Ans is still Yes. 2. Do you think it has gone well since the fall of Saddam, and the answer is increasingly No. In my wildest dreams I had no idea that the idiotic Iraqis rather than take the ring of freedom that we gave them and run with it, would fight amongst themselves, be ungratefull for giving the majority Shites back their religous freedom, kill as many of us as they can. If I had to do it over again, I'd let those bastards have Saddam and let him continue to kill the citizens at a rate of thousands every year. Let him continue to steal the Oil for Food money from the children of Iraq to build more palaces and buy more pornography. But I didn't have future vision and neither did those who were against the war. I still can see Sean Penn and Dan Rather cavorting with Saddam and painting him as a misunderstood man who would never harm his citizens. I do not support getting up and leaving today, but I want to get out of their as soon as possible. I also do not believe that Americans can ever again put troops on the ground in such a fashion, democrats like Kerry thought more troops were the soln, others thought it was just better armored Humvees'. But more troops would have meant more targets, and the better armormed Humvees meant the insurgents build better bombs. Americans can tolerate a few casualites but not very many, even though the casualty rate in Iraq is low compared to other wars it is still more than the public can stand to see. I believe that in the future we will only be able to fight war from the air, where backwards 3rd world countries can not challenge us, anything that gets into thier space will be robotic. Also I am continually surprised that there is no "bring home the troops from Afghanistan" soldiers are dying there as well. We are never going to catch Osama Bin Laden, and the Taliban have regrouped and continue to fight us and cause casualties. I would think we should get out of Afghanistan as well, besides other than giving Bin Laden a sanctuary there were no Afghanistanis in the 9/11 group. They were mostly Saudi's. Terry Terry
I wholeheartedly agree with the reasoning for the Iraq invasion. I am not pleased with things as they are now. I think we should impose our deadline for the Iraqi government and military to take full control. Say Dec. 31, 2006. That's the day we start our pullout. In the future, I don't want to see any actions with the goal of nation building or bringing democracy to freedom loving people. That's a load of crap. Muslims hate our guts. The only thing we should import to them is destruction.
From George: "In the future, I don't want to see any actions with the goal of nation building or bringing democracy to freedom loving people. That's a load of crap. Muslims hate our guts. The only thing we should import to them is destruction." I couldn't agree more George. Looking back into U.S. History was there ever a time in our history when America so blatantly invaded two independent countries as Afghanistan and Iraq in such a short period of time when there was no overt global actions by those countries such as Hitler's invasion of Poland and the rest of Europe? I still say that without question there was complete provocation and justification for blowing the Taliban to smitherines because they refused to hand over the perpetrator of 9-11.....Bin Laden. Regarding Iraq all reasonings and justifications have always been the subject of much debate on both sides and despite the one sided rhetoric that some on this board espouse Iraq will always be in debate. Terry, I do apologize for the inflamatory beginning on this subject but read this forum and you will see many, many posts from the other side that usually I just ignore that are just as disparaging to differing viewpoints as the majority here. Just because it is a majority opinion on this board doesn't make it the right opinion.
From Terry: So now, if you are a Skybox Republican, you are the war machine?" I think some are pro-war no matter what but some are just blind loyalist lemmings that would follow their pied piper off the cliffs because otheriwse it would be admitting that someone else just may have a differing point about a few things that may at times make sense. For these people the horror of all horrors is that the other side could sometimes have a decent argument to make.
MCG you are getting Tom and I mixed up. But as to the Loyal Opposition, I always like to listen to the other side. I actually listen to Jesse Jackson's "Keep Hope Alive" Radio show. I listen to Ed Schultz in the evenings sometimes. I sometimes agree with some of wha they say, I can identify with moderate Democrats at times as well. I don't think everything that Bush does is the right thing.
A couple of things: MCG, My son Scott was over there. I am not a war monger. Every father would trade places with his son in a heartbeat when his youngster gets the call. Afterall, my best is probably behind me and his best is yet to come. But there comes a time when a nation must stand up. That's what we did. With al Qaeda in Afghanistan and with Sadaam in Iraq. Yes, sadaam had no direct coneection with 9.11 but he practiced genocide and undoubtedlty helped fund all kinds of chaos. And I'm convinced the wmd is in Syria or at the bottom of the sea. We're fighting a war with national security and energy implications; the Muslims are fighting a holy war. They are fighting us in Iraq just like we fought the British in our war of independence. The one advantage we have over our foes is a huge techological advantage. We should use that and forget the occupation and re-building.
Terry, sorry about that. You do make moderate comments at times. George, I agree with most of what you are syaing except that not for one moment in the last three years would I have tolerated my sons joing the conflict in Iraq because I have never been convinced from the very start that we belonged there and that it was simply a noble cause to be there without behind the scenes political and personal agendas at work. In the case of Afghanistan if they said someone from my family had to participate and I could qualify myself I would have locked my sons in a closet and done it myself but if somehow they would have been the ones to topple the Taliban instead of me I would have supported it 110%. I have just never bought into invading Iraq as being essential to our well-being and that of the world. It's asinine to me that we are supposed to buy that about Iraq and yet patience and understanding is required of us for N. Korea and Iran. Something else was going on with regard to all of our sabre rattling and hubris with regard to invading Iraq and it was not just about 9-11 either.
MCG, I'm with Tom, you seem to be incapable of expressing a point without insults. Typical Liberal bulls#$$, if you don't agree with them then you are a war monger or something similar. Yes I support staying the course in Iraq, but discussing it with you is impossible. Gator Bill
MCG: My son was a 22 year old MAN when he got his orders. Whether I tolerated it or not was not a factor.
Understood George. My oldest was 17 at the time of the invasion of Iraq and I wouldn't have tolerated him joining the army to go over to Iraq at the time. I understand that if he was 20 at the time of 9-11 and became convinced he needed to aid his country and so joined the army in 2001 and ultimately Iraq was the assignment then not much you can do as a father at that point except support him.
Typical way of carrying on a conversation from you MCG, insult whoever doesn't agree with you. Gator Bill
Typical way of carrying on a conversation from you MCG, insult whoever doesn't agree with you. Gator Bill
Bill, I have offered a lot of discussion and a link to a CNN article in this subject and you can only focus and comment on the perceived insult as the most significant statement I have made.
No one needs to misconstrue this link as a personal insult but however it illustrates that personal agendas are sometimes behind political actions in the arena of national defense: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/24/congressman.bribery.ap/index.html
Those same agendas are behind a lot of stuff. You don't think road builders weren't behind the Interstate system, and you don't think that they bribed Congressmen to get contracts to build them. There are all sorts of examples of industries where bribery of public officals is used to further the personal fortunes of a few or maybe one person. I understand that road builders don't put kids lives on the line. But your point was that people have agendas and that in many cases they will bribe to get that agenda accomplished. And don't forget that after they get the contract they build shitty roads or buildings with substandard materials and screw the taxpayer even more. Terry
MCG wrote: I didn't take the first link as an insult. I simply stated that your opening comment places people on the defensive and your message is lost. I think that you make some valid points. If you would discuss them without painting yourself as a saint and all those who disagree as Lucifer, you might get better results. :wink:
"I think that you make some valid points. If you would discuss them without painting yourself as a saint and all those who disagree as Lucifer, you might get better results" Tom, I don't see where this is the clear message that I am putting forth. I think the fact that because I usually am in the 5% minority on this board that I tend to be on the defensive perhaps. You know....come out of the box roaring before you get drowned out by the crowd.