There was not much of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Some went there once the U.S attacked because it's a good opportunity to fight Americans. Invading a whole country had nothing to do with fighting terrorists. Al-Qaeda is a group of fanatic people that needs to be destroyed by finding responsible people in a multinational effort. If there's a bank robbery you don't "nuke" the bank killing everyone inside, mostly innocent people and a few thieves alike. You send a SWAT team to assess the situation and take care of the issue with precision strikes against specific people.
you understand nothing They didnt wage a war to establish a democracy in Iraq and to help people over there but the only aim of this war has been economical and geostratical reasons
My guess is that very few American citizens would now agree that the legitimacy of the original invasion was not misconceived.
But now, that is an historical fact, or conjecture, whichever your point of view. Judgement will come at some later point.
In the meantime, let the man get on with the job, who else has the courage and conviction to do it? Whether you agree with his policies is now beyond your control. The die has been cast.
Do you really believe that Islamic fundamentalists will stop their campaign to destroy our way of life? I suggest not. It is their avowed intention to continue to disrupt and infiltrate western culture. They have no concept of the pen being mightier than the sword. For them, life is about the daily struggle to put bread on the table, they see us as a decadent wasteful society. The insults of the past remain to be repaid.
They have no fear of death and therein lies their strength. Truly a force to be reckoned with. Those of you who fondly imagine the future to be devoid of conflict following the withdrawal of troops in Iraq face a rude awakening.
What exactly were they trying to help with? The original idea what the opposite of helping them.
The SWAT thing was a symbolic picture since nobody seems to understand that terrorists are an independent group of people and not a country or government. But even that didn't help, I guess. I don't get the rest about bombs being innocent, but that's ok.
It's funny how the word "liberal" is being used by conservatives as an insult. Especially since they are the ones who always think they need to fight to keep their freedom which is just another word for liberal.
Yes, but it's special to conservatives who use "liberal" as insult. And yes, freedom and liberal is the same thing (I realize one is a noun and the other an adjective). Liberal comes from the Latin word "liber" which means nothing else but "free".
It is true, though, that the "war" on terrorism should really be about tracking down small groups of people; and invading countries has nothing to do with that.
Frankly, I don't see why people make such a big deal about terrorism NOW... It's not like it's some new invention of the past decade. The trouble is that Bush and his administration keep clinging to the 1984 idea that people must be kept in fear. Has anyone noticed that since 9/11 the national alert status has bounced back and forth from yellow to amber, but never fallen to blue or green? People must never forget the danger around the corner!
Another problem is Bush's nack for inventing paper jobs for people. The Department of Homeland Security? We had a perfectly good establishment before that god-awful waste of our budget: the National Security Branch of the FBI. Homeland Security is just a word to make us feel secure (and in the case of airports, make our lives hell).
On a friendlier note, I hope the condition in Iran gets better soon, all the threats of war ruined my vacation plans for the summer!
This an old chestnut, largely media led, and for the consumption of those who require politically inspired anti-establishment reasons for your government’s actions in taking the USA to war. Of course, no sensible person would deny that there was an economic element in the decision to enter Iraq. Oil being the prime example.
However, underlying religious fanaticism would be a far more cogent argument for the continuance of vigilance in the Middle East. Not a single conflict in recent history has not been the result of religious extremism of one kind or another, regardless of the coincidental acquisition of material assets for the victor.
Empires come and go, I believe we would be mistaken, if not naïve, if we do not recognise that the balance of power has shifted in favour of Middle Eastern and /or Asian economic dominance.
Other overwhelming global climatic influences will produce defining conflicts in the future which I believe will dwarf the present preoccupation with ever diminishing fuel resources.
Succinctly and off topic, the above refers, when you turn on your domestic water tap, you expect delivery, your life depends on it. I suggest that within the next century, your expectations of clean consumable water supplies will depend on the survival of the human species and of which, I have the gravest doubts.
I therefore, urge you to support your president in his endeavours to maintain the balance of power. Is there another choice? Pacifism, has never, but never, achieved anything other than abject subjugation and subservience.
I wonder if you have ever worked in a management position? This isn't meant as a jibe or an insult. Decisions to "hold the course", "now that we're in it" philosophy is never used in any (serious) business. When a leader, be it of a business or a country, realizes that he's put his enterprise on the path to disaster it's prudent to reconsider the course. Only a complete idiot would head down the rails to an oncoming train and say "my hearts in the right place."
And if you're fond of this war please lobby your government to replace American troops with British ones; and the same goes for the "true son of the north": send in some Canadians as well.
And please call me a liberal, lefty by all means. To me that's high praise.
If I am not mistaken, I make no mention of being fond of this war.
If we are going to make allegorical references to running the country as a business, then management decisions to hold course, also encompass and encourage strategic withdrawal tactics, where bankruptcy is not a viable alternative
Unless of course, your competitors are persuaded that the value of the fixtures and fittings exceed the receiver’s estimate.
So what decision would you take? Given that bankruptcy in this case equates to anarchy and the disablement of organised government.
Apologies, for the late response, I have to work in between answering these posts in my business time, which incidentally, just happens to be dealing with bankruptcy, debt counselling and domestic and /or business property re-possessions.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).