Yes
No
Originally Posted by DrivenMind
im not really involved in this thread, and i wish to remain neutral between all the arguments here. but i just want to point out a quick thing.
"who don't ask to be liberated"
truth is that they would go to prision if they asked to be liberated. 10 years ago you just couldnt go to the middle of Baghdad Square holding a sign saying "Please liberate us" and not expect a stick of dynamite to be shoved up your ass and then exploded.
Our horrible school system, especially in the south, is a definate problem. I wish we could goto a voucher system to bring up the quality of education, but there are those, teachers unions, that like to keep their jobs secure and allowing private schools to compete fairly with govt schools would be the end of their jobs. Several counties have lower per student budgets than the US. They also have higher student to teach ratios so both of the "solutions" that people have come up with are proven not to be the case. Maybe our real problem is that this country has too many crutches for the lazy. Where in other industrialized countries you starve if you are too lazy to get a job, this country rewards you with a paycheck. Maybe a drastic cut in those crutch programs will enduce more people to become self sufficient.
To take this a bit further though. Those people that are in horrible schools have oppertunities to make good wages. It may take a bit longer to do, but in time those lower class people could move into the middle class in 1 generation. The next generation would then be able to send their kids to better schools which will allow them unlimited growth.
By stating this you are automatically implying we are always "right" and we always know what is best for every one else. There are people in this country that don't like our own current administration, 78% last time I checked, and no one is "liberating" us, Bush is still in power. America should not fight other people's war unless we are done with our own. Just because YOU agree with the fact that some one wants to be liberated does not mean that a sovereign nation should be overthrown.The fact that there are people that think like this reflects just how vain some Americans are and goes to show why most of "the rest of the world" hates the United States. It is so sad to see that American's foreign policy the exact opposite of the way the founding fathers envisioned it. We need need to start abbiding by the Monroe Doctrine again...
it worked well for us in the late 1930's and into the early 40's didnt it.
Hell hea
so I ask again: where the hell are they? We have been there for years and sent countless troops there. Chemical I can believe since they gassed the Kurds same with biological. I like war as much as the next guy i just want a reason and now that oil contracts are popping up Bush has lost MORE of his argument considering that a few of the oil fields up for long term bids are heavily considered by major us companies.
If we were justified in going there Im still looking for evidence. If we found that Saddam in a damn hole in the middle of nowhere Im sure we could have been found at least one sliver of evidence of wmd.
My other concern is this how did it go from Al **** heads to liberating Iraq? I stronlgy believe that no matter what if a country's citizens do not like a government that much for that long then they will eigther leave or revolt and raise hell. It's all about US interests it has been and it will be. Im not saying diplomacy always works or will work but we cant go bomb every country with a nuclear program like it seems like we are doing.
I still say if we are goin to go after any country for terrorism hit syria, they always go there or somehow bring pressure on the Saudi's since alot of terrorist we have found have been from there ( correct me if im wrong)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alq...dam/index.html
Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon Says
March 13, 2008
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon.
art.soldier.jpg
The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.
The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.
The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."
Although other groups, like the September 11 commission, have concluded that there was no link between Hussein and al Qaeda, the Pentagon was able to analyze much more information.
The documents cited in the report do reveal that Hussein supported a number of terrorists and terrorist activities inside and outside Iraq.
"The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq," according to the report.
Most of the terrorism was aimed at keeping Hussein and his Baath party in power, according to Pentagon officials.
"State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability in the recruiting, training and resourcing of terrorists," according to the report.
The report cited such examples as training for car bombs and suicide bombings in 1999 and 2000, both of which U.S. and Iraqi forces have struggled to contain since the rise of the insurgency in summer 2003.
whoa....
highspeed, thanks for that good chunk of info and I appreciate your service. Reps for you.
Mine's the red one.
Yeah, Reagan sold Saddam the chemical weapons he used on the Kurds back in the '80's when he was our buddy fighting Iran.Since we have the largest stockpile of WMD's in the world, the whole WMD issue seems to me like a case of the pot calling the kettle black
Al Qaeda might have been in Iraq at some point in time but they were probably not wanted there or officially harbored there by Saddam's gov't. Al Qaeda were here too, and you see what happened to us. Saddam was actually liberal compared to other Arab dictators in that part of the world. So Saddam might have seen Iraq as a potential target for an AQ attack. I read an article that said that AQ and the Baath party were from rival Islam groups as well. They are both Sunni so it must be a different Sunni factions.
personally, i dont believe that al-qaeda was in iraq with the iraqi government hosting them. Saddam was a strictly secular type of ruler and was paranoid up the ass. He would have viewed any terrorist organization in his country as a serious threat to his power.
HA my friend has a grandfather over there that has been waiting on a heart splint for 2 yrs finally had a heart attack due to the wait........ and at 56 yrs old he needed a bypass surgery they told him he was to old and they needed to ration the money in case a younger candidate needed one.... well he died 2 weeks later...... if the health care is more superior over there and in canada why are they coming here to get treatment? and why would anybody want the government running our health care when they have bankrupted the social security program and f*cked up all other programs that are in place? sorry yall can get back on subject that comment made me chuckle
examples
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/wo...21britain.html
http://blogs.jsonline.com/mcilheran/...alth-care.aspx
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006785
Last edited by 93ludew/h22a; 07-11-2008 at 02:40 AM.
NO NWS
Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the US invasion. Iraq did horbor, finance, and train hezbollah, islamic jihad, and a few other groups whose purpose was the destruction of Israel.
This is a question I have been asking Liberals for quite some time. I cannot think of a single govt run program that has been run without gross overcosts, billions in yearly losses due to fraud, and was actually beneficial to the masses.
I MIGHT get on board with a socialized healthcare plan just as soon as the fed govt can get medicare and medicaid udner control. Medicaid's website even says that they lose ~ $30 bil a year due to fraud. How much do you hink that number will go up when you quadruple the number of recipients and have 10x the number of claims and dollars?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
