maybe they would feel a little better about it if the people who are helping them aren't the same people who just killed their friends and relatives and bombed the shit out of them in the first place.
We took those people (Saddam, Chemical Ali, the pig latin boys, etc.) out of the equation for them, now they just need some time and help to get things going down the road to peace and stability.
A friend of mine and his Engineer's Battalion have built 67 miles of new roads
ooooh, and how big is the country?
I forwarded your failing miserably post.
Maybe he'll actually be able to read it correctly unlike the people here.
Remember our news orginizations only focus on bad news.
And where are you guys getting your information that is so impartial and so superior, and yet seems to somehow always agree completely with your opinion?
"the reorganization of our press has truly been a success...divergencies of opinion between members of the government are no longer an occasion for public exhibition and are not the newspaper's business. We've eliminated that conception of political freedom which holds that everyone has the right to say whatever comes into his head."
If the war was inevitable, then one can be happy about whatever progress is being made. But this war was not inevitable. It was made by conscious choice. Therefore excuses don't count. If the conditions one must work under are too difficult to make satisfactory progress, then that's something that should have been considered before deciding to start this war. It all goes to show that Bush and his zeal to go it alone have only made things worse for America, not better. And it's questionable whether the average Iraqi is really any better off either. We need better leadership.
But this war was not inevitable. The war was already going on before we attacked Iraq. That is what you don't get.It all goes to show that Bush and his zeal to go it alone have only made things worse for America, not better. Pure fantasy.And it's questionable whether the average Iraqi is really any better off either. Extreme fantasy.We need better leadership. Maybe but where will it come from? The democraps don't have ANY leaders. They are poll followers each and everyone.
Oh I see, so he *wanted* to get us involved in a long, drawn out occupation that would cost us billions of dollars and would put our soldiers at risk in a hostile environment trying to do construction projects they weren't really trained to do.
The war was already going on before we attacked Iraq. That is what you don't get.
We weren't at war with Iraq. And there's every reason to believe that fighting Iraq was a pointless distraction on our part and a rallying point for the real enemy.
Pure fantasy.
Is it? $79 billion allocated already. Another $87 billion being requested. And what is that really buying us? The terror alert level has not gone down since we started this war. We've weakened our ability to fight terrorism elsewhere by making such a huge military committment to Iraq. Signs point to Al-Q getting stronger as anti-American sentiment amongst Arabs grows, thus serving as a recruitment campaign for the terrorists. So explain how we're better off because of all this?
Extreme fantasy.
The infrastructure has crumbled. The econonmy is in ruins. Crime is rampant. Terrorism has been brought to their own front door and they get caught in the crossfire between those who want to continue the war and nervous American soldiers with itchy trigger fingers. If they're not being killed, certainly their freedom is being as restricted by danger as much as it was by Saddam. And we haven't even caught Saddam so who knows what lingering effects that may have on the people?
The democraps don't have ANY leaders. They are poll followers each and everyone.
At least it's still a form of democracy as opposed to someone who does what he wants, shrouds it in secrecy, and then manipulates public opinion to go along with it.
Oh I see, so he *wanted* to get us involved in a long, drawn out occupation that would cost us billions of dollars and would put our soldiers at risk in a hostile environment trying to do construction projects they weren't really trained to do.
No he would have preferred to have Saddam ousted by his own people and he would prefer that the Iraq's pay their own cost of rebuilding. But anyone with have a brain in their head knew that we would face these costs since it has happened throughout history.
Yes we are at war and we are going to be maybe for the rest of our lives. That is the reality get with it.We've weakened our ability to fight terrorism elsewhere by making such a huge military committment to Iraq. We ARE fighting terrorism in Iraq.Signs point to Al-Q getting stronger as anti-American sentiment amongst Arabs grows, thus serving as a recruitment campaign for the terrorists. So explain how we're better off because of all this? Your alternative has been to bend over and offer your backside to the enemy. In the words of my very good friend, crabs, NO THANKS!
he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it? Yes let the tyrants run over everyone. The brave French turned away when Hitler occupied the Ruhr region in defiance of the peace agreement ending WWI. Maybe if they hadn't been such cowards WWII might not have happened. But the history lessen that must be recognized is that the defeated countries had to be rebuilt for the sake of U.S. security. That is why we helped rebuild Japan and Germany and that is why we are going to help rebuild Iraq.
sounds like you WANT to repeat it...over and over and over and over... It sounds like you need to learn some history.
When, in the history of warfare, has anyone (besides you) been able to predict post-conflict events?
Seems like a fair thing to ask from those who launch pre-emptive wars based on what they predict is going to happen. Besides, lots of people were predicting this sort of outcome. Bush chose to ignore those predictions. Was it hard to predict that it would be hot in the desert in the summer? Was it hard to predict that many Arabs would take the American presence as an insult to their honor and would continue to try and fight them? Was the intelligence that we used to go to war on so good that it could detect WMD that we still can't find, yet it could tell us nothing about the quality of the infrastructure? Did Bush really think we could defy the UN and insult our allies and then expect them to help us pay the bill?
I was saying the war was a bad idea well before it started. And I'm still trying to make that point to those who refuse to believe their party can do any wrong.
A pre-emptive war?...No...It is a continuing war on terrorism. I still can't believe how many liberals can't equate terrorism with what happened 2 years ago tomorrow.
War on terrorism absolutely HAS to be pre-emptive. Or would you prefer another slaughter of 3000 Americans on American soil before we do something about it?
And it's questionable whether the average Iraqi is really any better off either.
That's fine you were against going into Iraq to begin with but that statement is about the most obtuse, naieve and ridiculous statement I've seen posted here. If you can subjectively say or muse that the avrage Iraqi isn't really any better off says alot about your view of reality. I guess the Jews were better under Hitler, I guess the North Koreans are better off under Kim, I guess things turned out great for the South Vietnamese and Cambodians after we left. The Iraqi's in 91' who rose up didn't fair so well but I guess they were better off. The Kurds were better off under Sadamn as were those folks who were being torured and being buried enmasse not to mention those being shredded or raped at their wedding.
The infrastructure has crumbled. The econonmy is in ruins. Crime is rampant.
Wow, and you accuse others of only quoting news they want to fit their opinion. The infastructure was bad before. Electric and water were used by Sadamn as bargaining chips. Their economy has been in ruins for decades Allison, well unless you were one of Saddamns buddies of Saddamn himself. The average person lived on handouts and aid, most of the aid and money was stolen by Saddamn. Funny you mention crime, I guess being shredded and raped at your wedding or having your kids executed was no biggie, yep, having a museum looted is a real bitch compared to watching your kids get shot.
Terrorism has been brought to their own front door
Guess what, it was at their front door every day.
and they get caught in the crossfire between those who want to continue the war and nervous American soldiers with itchy trigger fingers.
Those troops are risking their lives to avoid at all costs civlian casualties and avoid cultural clashes like avoiding Mosques and not entering. Guess where the fucks are hiding their weapons and probably people. If we didn't care about the civilians we wouldn't be out amonsgst the people, we'd be garrisoned at a base.
If they're not being killed, certainly their freedom is being as restricted by danger as much as it was by Saddam.
Righto Allison, things must be ducky in Wonderland, say hello to the hookah smoking rabbit and share what you have.
War on terrorism. Another silly idea. Terrorism is just a tactic. It's like launching a war against flank attacks or depth charges. How can you ever win? Is it by presenting such an overwhelming force that you intimidate your enemies into not using it? Hardly as that's exactly the situation that drives people to use terrorism as a tactic in the first place. If you can't defeat your enemy by military means, then you launch a propaganda campaign of terrorism against the population to get your enemy to give up.
So the "war on terrorism" is fundamentally flawed on two fronts. One, it fails to properly recognize who the enemy is. You can't win a war just by killing whatever enemy soldiers you happen to come across. You have to know where your enemy is based, what they're after, and what it would take to get them to stop. There is no nation called "Terrorland". Terrorists are not an ethnic group. They're found not only in the Middle East, but also in Ireland, South America, and we've even had some of our own.
Secondly, it fights on the wrong front. Terrorists are not out to achieve military objectives. Generally they're not even capable of doing so. They can only attack that which is generally unprotected and an easy target. Thus they are fighting a war of propaganda. Their aim is not to defeat their enemy, but to demoralize them. Thus there are no front lines to look for. No amount of artillery cover can protect people from fear. Thus the most powerful weapon in underming the effort of terrorists is not a missle, but rather diplomacy. Some are already beyond hope and must be stopped. But there are many others who could go either way. They may help the terrorists if they believe in their cause or they may turn them in if they don't. Winning over those people is how you substantially weaken those on the extremes. And we're not doing that very well. Instead we're having trouble even maintaining our own allies much less winning over the hearts of the Arab world. If you want to fight a war on terror, you can expect to fight it forever. If you want peace and prosperity, then that's what you have to offer.
So was Stalin, so what ? I guess we shouldn't have helped him out in WW2. I guess we shouldn't have fought the cold war then since at one point we were allied with him. Great plan Crabs.
Besides, lots of people were predicting this sort of outcome. True. Bush chose to ignore those predictions. Not true.Was it hard to predict that it would be hot in the desert in the summer? Thanks to people like you and the French we went in April when we could have went in last November.Was the intelligence that we used to go to war on so good that it could detect WMD that we still can't find, yet it could tell us nothing about the quality of the infrastructure? Is it hard to believe that if you give Saddam six months he could hide them or move them out of the country?
I was saying the war was a bad idea well before it started. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.And I'm still trying to make that point to those who refuse to believe their party can do any wrong. It has nothing to do with party and has everything to do with surviving.
Attacking the WTC would seem to have undermined that goal instead of promoting its achievement.
I never claimed it was a good strategy. If the terrorists had message boards I'd be criticizing them too for doing things in such a way that they're hurting themselves more than they're helping themselves.
I think the goal of these terrorists is to get the US to stop meddling in their affairs, pushing them around and telling them what to do.
Attacking the WTC would seem to have undermined that goal instead of promoting its achievement.
I never claimed it was a good strategy. If the terrorists had message boards I'd be criticizing them too for doing things in such a way that they're hurting themselves more than they're helping themselves.
Maybe you are incorrect about their goal. I assume that these people aren't stupid. I think we all should.
Dear American Infidel, resistance is futile. Please convert to Islam or impale yourselves on the next shiny object you see. Thanks for the response. Love, Osama.
Terrorists don't give a rats ass what happens to them. They complete their missions and will commit self destruction to get it done. The Japanese did this in WWII. How do you handle an enemy like that? I can tell you what we did 60 years ago! We chicken-fried them and threatened to do it some more if they didn't knock it off. Sometimes the answer to a distasteful problem is distasteful itself, but that is the only way to reason with the unreasonable.
This WOT is quite passive compared to what we did back then. If I had a say in how to handle this problem, I believe a little more agression would be prudent. You can't make peace with a venomous snake or you will eventually get poisoned. You rid the problem by cutting off the head of the snake AND killing its offspring!
I was saying the war was a bad idea well before it started. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.And I'm still trying to make that point to those who refuse to believe their party can do any wrong. It has nothing to do with party and has everything to do with surviving.
How was he wrong in saying that the war is a bad idea?
I think he's damn straight on that fact.... war is a bad idea anytime, in my mind. I dont know if I have the same reasons for saying so, or not... but one of the main reasons I think so, is because... plain and simple, ninja.... when theres a war.... people get killed.
Look at what happened around christmas time.... remember all the coverage, the news stations were showing? It was right in the middle of all the super-fighting and shit.... then on X-mas eve, there was all this coverage, about how both sides just straight up took a break from the fighting, to be with their families...
That should show people something.... even the people IN the war, just wanted to fuckin go home.... forget all that shit, you know?
I think you assume wrong. An intelligent person isn't typically so easily manipulated into blind hatred. The majority of terrorists are probably not very bright, listen to what others say more than they think for themselves, and can't accomplish much without a lot of direction. Remember the terrorist from the 1993 WTC bombing who tried to get his deposit back on the truck they rented for the bombing? There are some intelligent, educated people at the top who have somehow fooled themselves that what they're doing is for the greater good, but most of the people working for them are probably people who can't take very good care of themselves and blame the U.S. for their problems. If they were all intelligent, then why can't they accomplish as much "terror" as the typical street gang.
maybe they would feel a little better about it if the people who are helping them aren't the same people who just killed their friends and relatives and bombed the shit out of them in the first place.
We took those people (Saddam, Chemical Ali, the pig latin boys, etc.) out of the equation for them, now they just need some time and help to get things going down the road to peace and stability.
A friend of mine and his Engineer's Battalion have built 67 miles of new roads
ooooh, and how big is the country?
I forwarded your failing miserably post.
Maybe he'll actually be able to read it correctly unlike the people here.
Remember our news orginizations only focus on bad news.
And where are you guys getting your information that is so impartial and so superior, and yet seems to somehow always agree completely with your opinion?
Whose quote is that?
Hitler
Man, screw that.... I got somethin on my mind, you'll hear about it, ninja.
Every time I turn to Fox, it's like they are cheerleaders for how great everything is.
Someone has to balance the lies and distortions of CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC.
The six most important lessons from Sept. 11
 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20030910.shtml
Typical response fron the little gurl Allison.
Did you ever think it might be just a little bit difficult building roads and schools in 130 degree heat while getting shot at...you fool!
Sure is easy to sit back and criticize from your Lazy Boy and air conditioned house...isn't it!
good article jethro.
Did you ever think it might be just a little bit difficult building roads and schools in 130 degree heat while getting shot at...you fool!
Did Bush think about that before he committed us to doing it? That's the real point.
No..The "point" is with YOUR comments.
Did Bush think about that before he committed us to doing it? Yes he did.That's the real point. And the point goes to GW. Game, set and match!
If the war was inevitable, then one can be happy about whatever progress is being made. But this war was not inevitable. It was made by conscious choice. Therefore excuses don't count. If the conditions one must work under are too difficult to make satisfactory progress, then that's something that should have been considered before deciding to start this war. It all goes to show that Bush and his zeal to go it alone have only made things worse for America, not better. And it's questionable whether the average Iraqi is really any better off either. We need better leadership.
But this war was not inevitable. The war was already going on before we attacked Iraq. That is what you don't get.It all goes to show that Bush and his zeal to go it alone have only made things worse for America, not better. Pure fantasy.And it's questionable whether the average Iraqi is really any better off either. Extreme fantasy.We need better leadership. Maybe but where will it come from? The democraps don't have ANY leaders. They are poll followers each and everyone.
And the point goes to GW. Game, set and match!
Oh I see, so he *wanted* to get us involved in a long, drawn out occupation that would cost us billions of dollars and would put our soldiers at risk in a hostile environment trying to do construction projects they weren't really trained to do.
The war was already going on before we attacked Iraq. That is what you don't get.
We weren't at war with Iraq. And there's every reason to believe that fighting Iraq was a pointless distraction on our part and a rallying point for the real enemy.
Pure fantasy.
Is it? $79 billion allocated already. Another $87 billion being requested. And what is that really buying us? The terror alert level has not gone down since we started this war. We've weakened our ability to fight terrorism elsewhere by making such a huge military committment to Iraq. Signs point to Al-Q getting stronger as anti-American sentiment amongst Arabs grows, thus serving as a recruitment campaign for the terrorists. So explain how we're better off because of all this?
Extreme fantasy.
The infrastructure has crumbled. The econonmy is in ruins. Crime is rampant. Terrorism has been brought to their own front door and they get caught in the crossfire between those who want to continue the war and nervous American soldiers with itchy trigger fingers. If they're not being killed, certainly their freedom is being as restricted by danger as much as it was by Saddam. And we haven't even caught Saddam so who knows what lingering effects that may have on the people?
The democraps don't have ANY leaders. They are poll followers each and everyone.
At least it's still a form of democracy as opposed to someone who does what he wants, shrouds it in secrecy, and then manipulates public opinion to go along with it.
Oh I see, so he *wanted* to get us involved in a long, drawn out occupation that would cost us billions of dollars and would put our soldiers at risk in a hostile environment trying to do construction projects they weren't really trained to do.
No he would have preferred to have Saddam ousted by his own people and he would prefer that the Iraq's pay their own cost of rebuilding. But anyone with have a brain in their head knew that we would face these costs since it has happened throughout history.
he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it?
sounds like you WANT to repeat it...over and over and over and over...
Yes we are at war and we are going to be maybe for the rest of our lives. That is the reality get with it.We've weakened our ability to fight terrorism elsewhere by making such a huge military committment to Iraq. We ARE fighting terrorism in Iraq.Signs point to Al-Q getting stronger as anti-American sentiment amongst Arabs grows, thus serving as a recruitment campaign for the terrorists. So explain how we're better off because of all this? Your alternative has been to bend over and offer your backside to the enemy. In the words of my very good friend, crabs, NO THANKS!
he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it? Yes let the tyrants run over everyone. The brave French turned away when Hitler occupied the Ruhr region in defiance of the peace agreement ending WWI. Maybe if they hadn't been such cowards WWII might not have happened. But the history lessen that must be recognized is that the defeated countries had to be rebuilt for the sake of U.S. security. That is why we helped rebuild Japan and Germany and that is why we are going to help rebuild Iraq.
sounds like you WANT to repeat it...over and over and over and over... It sounds like you need to learn some history.
Armchair General Allison,
When, in the history of warfare, has anyone (besides you) been able to predict post-conflict events?
You seem to have all the 20-20 hindsight answers.
When, in the history of warfare, has anyone (besides you) been able to predict post-conflict events?
Seems like a fair thing to ask from those who launch pre-emptive wars based on what they predict is going to happen. Besides, lots of people were predicting this sort of outcome. Bush chose to ignore those predictions. Was it hard to predict that it would be hot in the desert in the summer? Was it hard to predict that many Arabs would take the American presence as an insult to their honor and would continue to try and fight them? Was the intelligence that we used to go to war on so good that it could detect WMD that we still can't find, yet it could tell us nothing about the quality of the infrastructure? Did Bush really think we could defy the UN and insult our allies and then expect them to help us pay the bill?
You seem to have all the 20-20 hindsight answers.
I was saying the war was a bad idea well before it started. And I'm still trying to make that point to those who refuse to believe their party can do any wrong.
A pre-emptive war?...No...It is a continuing war on terrorism. I still can't believe how many liberals can't equate terrorism with what happened 2 years ago tomorrow.
War on terrorism absolutely HAS to be pre-emptive. Or would you prefer another slaughter of 3000 Americans on American soil before we do something about it?
Allison,
That's fine you were against going into Iraq to begin with but that statement is about the most obtuse, naieve and ridiculous statement I've seen posted here. If you can subjectively say or muse that the avrage Iraqi isn't really any better off says alot about your view of reality. I guess the Jews were better under Hitler, I guess the North Koreans are better off under Kim, I guess things turned out great for the South Vietnamese and Cambodians after we left. The Iraqi's in 91' who rose up didn't fair so well but I guess they were better off. The Kurds were better off under Sadamn as were those folks who were being torured and being buried enmasse not to mention those being shredded or raped at their wedding.
Wow, and you accuse others of only quoting news they want to fit their opinion. The infastructure was bad before. Electric and water were used by Sadamn as bargaining chips. Their economy has been in ruins for decades Allison, well unless you were one of Saddamns buddies of Saddamn himself. The average person lived on handouts and aid, most of the aid and money was stolen by Saddamn. Funny you mention crime, I guess being shredded and raped at your wedding or having your kids executed was no biggie, yep, having a museum looted is a real bitch compared to watching your kids get shot.
Guess what, it was at their front door every day.
Those troops are risking their lives to avoid at all costs civlian casualties and avoid cultural clashes like avoiding Mosques and not entering. Guess where the fucks are hiding their weapons and probably people. If we didn't care about the civilians we wouldn't be out amonsgst the people, we'd be garrisoned at a base.
Righto Allison, things must be ducky in Wonderland, say hello to the hookah smoking rabbit and share what you have.
War on terrorism. Another silly idea. Terrorism is just a tactic. It's like launching a war against flank attacks or depth charges. How can you ever win? Is it by presenting such an overwhelming force that you intimidate your enemies into not using it? Hardly as that's exactly the situation that drives people to use terrorism as a tactic in the first place. If you can't defeat your enemy by military means, then you launch a propaganda campaign of terrorism against the population to get your enemy to give up.
So the "war on terrorism" is fundamentally flawed on two fronts. One, it fails to properly recognize who the enemy is. You can't win a war just by killing whatever enemy soldiers you happen to come across. You have to know where your enemy is based, what they're after, and what it would take to get them to stop. There is no nation called "Terrorland". Terrorists are not an ethnic group. They're found not only in the Middle East, but also in Ireland, South America, and we've even had some of our own.
Secondly, it fights on the wrong front. Terrorists are not out to achieve military objectives. Generally they're not even capable of doing so. They can only attack that which is generally unprotected and an easy target. Thus they are fighting a war of propaganda. Their aim is not to defeat their enemy, but to demoralize them. Thus there are no front lines to look for. No amount of artillery cover can protect people from fear. Thus the most powerful weapon in underming the effort of terrorists is not a missle, but rather diplomacy. Some are already beyond hope and must be stopped. But there are many others who could go either way. They may help the terrorists if they believe in their cause or they may turn them in if they don't. Winning over those people is how you substantially weaken those on the extremes. And we're not doing that very well. Instead we're having trouble even maintaining our own allies much less winning over the hearts of the Arab world. If you want to fight a war on terror, you can expect to fight it forever. If you want peace and prosperity, then that's what you have to offer.
Saddam was ourterrorist
crabgrass 9/10/03 12:00pm
So was Stalin, so what ? I guess we shouldn't have helped him out in WW2. I guess we shouldn't have fought the cold war then since at one point we were allied with him. Great plan Crabs.
Besides, lots of people were predicting this sort of outcome. True. Bush chose to ignore those predictions.
Not true.Was it hard to predict that it would be hot in the desert in the summer? Thanks to people like you and the French we went in April when we could have went in last November.Was the intelligence that we used to go to war on so good that it could detect WMD that we still can't find, yet it could tell us nothing about the quality of the infrastructure? Is it hard to believe that if you give Saddam six months he could hide them or move them out of the country?
I was saying the war was a bad idea well before it started. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.And I'm still trying to make that point to those who refuse to believe their party can do any wrong. It has nothing to do with party and has everything to do with surviving.
How can you win by giving up?
That's the whole point in trying to demoralize them so they can defeat them.
I think the goal of these terrorists is to get the US to stop meddling in their affairs, pushing them around and telling them what to do.
crabgrass 9/10/03 12:52pm
Clarify that if you could. How are we pushing them around or meddiling, how are we doing that ?
I think the goal of these terrorists is to get the US to stop meddling in their affairs, pushing them around and telling them what to do.
Attacking the WTC would seem to have undermined that goal instead of promoting its achievement.
Saddam was ourterrorist
That's just nonsense.
Do you have any facts to back that up?
Have you ever looked at where Saddam got a majority of his weapons?
I've posted it here in the past if you were paying attention.
Attacking the WTC would seem to have undermined that goal instead of promoting its achievement.
I never claimed it was a good strategy. If the terrorists had message boards I'd be criticizing them too for doing things in such a way that they're hurting themselves more than they're helping themselves.
Where do you come up with that stuff Allison. Use propaganda to make them give up?...Your not serious.
I think the goal of these terrorists is to get the US to stop meddling in their affairs, pushing them around and telling them what to do.
Attacking the WTC would seem to have undermined that goal instead of promoting its achievement.
I never claimed it was a good strategy. If the terrorists had message boards I'd be criticizing them too for doing things in such a way that they're hurting themselves more than they're helping themselves.
Maybe you are incorrect about their goal. I assume that these people aren't stupid. I think we all should.
Dear American Infidel, resistance is futile. Please convert to Islam or impale yourselves on the next shiny object you see. Thanks for the response. Love, Osama.
Terrorists don't give a rats ass what happens to them. They complete their missions and will commit self destruction to get it done. The Japanese did this in WWII. How do you handle an enemy like that? I can tell you what we did 60 years ago! We chicken-fried them and threatened to do it some more if they didn't knock it off. Sometimes the answer to a distasteful problem is distasteful itself, but that is the only way to reason with the unreasonable.
This WOT is quite passive compared to what we did back then. If I had a say in how to handle this problem, I believe a little more agression would be prudent. You can't make peace with a venomous snake or you will eventually get poisoned. You rid the problem by cutting off the head of the snake AND killing its offspring!
is this the advice you would give Arabs who see us as the problem?
The arabs already see us this way.
What would you do ? Give them, A hug ?
BTW thanks for all the non anwers today, have a good one.
and so your advice is for them to cut off our heads and kill our offspring....I see.
quit meddling in their affairs.
That's twice today you've said that. Try answering it again. How exactly are we doing that ?
I was saying the war was a bad idea well before it started. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.And I'm still trying to make that point to those who refuse to believe their party can do any wrong. It has nothing to do with party and has everything to do with surviving.
How was he wrong in saying that the war is a bad idea?
I think he's damn straight on that fact.... war is a bad idea anytime, in my mind. I dont know if I have the same reasons for saying so, or not... but one of the main reasons I think so, is because... plain and simple, ninja.... when theres a war.... people get killed.
Look at what happened around christmas time.... remember all the coverage, the news stations were showing? It was right in the middle of all the super-fighting and shit.... then on X-mas eve, there was all this coverage, about how both sides just straight up took a break from the fighting, to be with their families...
That should show people something.... even the people IN the war, just wanted to fuckin go home.... forget all that shit, you know?
I assume that these people aren't stupid.
I think you assume wrong. An intelligent person isn't typically so easily manipulated into blind hatred. The majority of terrorists are probably not very bright, listen to what others say more than they think for themselves, and can't accomplish much without a lot of direction. Remember the terrorist from the 1993 WTC bombing who tried to get his deposit back on the truck they rented for the bombing? There are some intelligent, educated people at the top who have somehow fooled themselves that what they're doing is for the greater good, but most of the people working for them are probably people who can't take very good care of themselves and blame the U.S. for their problems. If they were all intelligent, then why can't they accomplish as much "terror" as the typical street gang.