Quote from Maverick74:
Wait a minute. Are you saying that you want us to be attacked? Because that is how I just read your post, like you can't wait for it to happen. I hope you just maybe mistyped or something. I know liberals have no heart and 9/11 probably means nothing to you but an old date on the calendar, but some of us DO NOT want to be attacked here ever again!
dude, you are totally insane. i stand by what i said earlier about not wanting to meet you the face-to-face.
i was making the point that dumya said a few months ago (rumsfelon, too) that syria and north korea were immediate threats that also needed to be dealt with ASAP. it seems rather odd to me that almost overnight (a few months later) those threats from bush's supposed bastions of evil, anti-american hostility are like, gone from the dumya master plan. **my point is** that i find it a bit inconsistent with bush's (ashcroft's) argument that these nations were a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to our people three months ago, but now they are not?? this is an administration who paid a marketing firm thousands of dollars to study how to best sell the war to the american people! if the war in iraq was going well, we'd be on our way to north korea - NOT because they are a threat, but just because it's what our administration WANTS TO DO, right or wrong, for whatever reason they deem necessary,
Quote from Maverick74:
As for the WMD's. My guess is it will be 3 to 5 years before we find them. There is just too much chaos over there right now to dedicate any kind of real effort...Until things settle down over there we simply can't waste time searching an area the size of California. It will be years before we find the WMD. I think you know that too.[/B]
with satellites than can photograph a 3ft sqare piece of land at sea level with newspaper resolution, i'd think we'd have more of a clue about where the WMDs were. and colin powell wasn't exactly adlai stevenson at the UN when he showed those photos of what now has been shown to be a milk truck. i'd think that the republican party would've preferred to refund $87bil to the tax payers to stimulate spending, but again the whole "small government" thing is just a clever part of the republican whisper campaign.
Quote from Maverick74:...We need to dedicate as many troops as possible to security detail so we minimize the body bags getting sent home. You don't have a problem with us protecting our soldiers do you?...[/B]
no, actually i think our soldiers are the finest the world has ever seen, with the single exception of the athenians who beat the hell out of the persian army at marathon. in fact, my opposition to the war was on 2 things: 1)soldiers are not for making money; 2)fiscally, this war is insane (and yes, 9/11 was extremely expensive, however, i think it is most appropriate to
prevent another 9/11 rather than encourage it by attacking our immediate threats first, and dealing with saddam, who was NOT an immediate threat, later. the way to oust saddam was to support the locals to overthrow him and fight it out with each other and then deal with them).
and it's not that anyone is sorry that saddam is gone, either. i am glad to see him out and many of his supporters dead (
http://moneycentral.communities.msn...message&mview=0&ID_Message=47873&all_topics=1). that is not the issue. the issue is the fact that the US acts like it's OK for us to break the rules when we unilaterally deem it's necessary. its assinine that the UN is on our own goddamn soil and we ignore it.
this sets a bad precedent for unprovoked war and we are the cause of it.
