Here's what 4 more years will sound like . . .

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Howiedoit, Jun 17, 2008.

  1. Tony Soprano

    Tony Soprano Moderator

    This so-called "war on terror" hasn't made me feel anymore safer than I did before 9/11, in fact it's made me kind of afraid. If this government can just take over any country they'd like and implent their own set of laws and standards, then what does that say about their feelings towards my civil rights and liberties as a U.S. citizen?

    Wake up people!!! :smt119
     
  2. pettyofficerj

    pettyofficerj New Member

    I'm not trying to take cheap jabs at you (you got enough madballs doing that lol). I'm just as curious as you are to see if there are non-lethal means of dealing with terrorism. The reasons for invading Iraq have changed over the past years. The government grabbed any reason they could to justify the invasion, and when it fell through a hole, they produced another one. Sadly, the average guy on the ground does not have a say in the matter. They're just as likely to die over a lie, as they would over a just and noble cause.

    As for world police, this is nothing new. We send troops to places like Kosovo, Somalia, and Korea, with the intention of doing something "right." We've been doing this since the 50s. Got a problem in your country? Dial U-S-A, and they'll send a carrier task force and hearty marines anywhere around the globe within 48 hours.

    As for the oil, you wouldn't be the first person to hint at that. Are we playing police, to really give people a better chance at life? Or are we (the people in power anyway - all we get are higher oil prices and a falling dollar - they get lucrative contracts and fatter wallets) simply looking for personal gain
     
  3. raocha

    raocha Active Member


    There have been dozens of major attacks worldwide in the past few years. Despite the canards about keeping the "extremists occupied in Iraq,"global terrorism has actually increased markedly since 9/11. And the notion that anyone honestly buys into the idea we have to essentially bankrupt our country by occupying another which was never a sponsor of international terrorism to begin with in order to keep us safe from a major attack is laughable to me.

    Sorry to hear about your ex, I hope he receives proper treatment.
     
  4. Sneakeedyck

    Sneakeedyck New Member




    Well there have always been terror attacks throughout Europe prior to 9/11. there other groups also like the eta in spain etc. As far as bankrupting our country in Iraq there are no easy answers we cannot just leave.
     
  5. pettyofficerj

    pettyofficerj New Member

    Many guys on the boards think that we should leave, and that Obama would be the one to vote for, for that to happen in an expediate fashion. However, I really have not seen anyone draw up any plan, or method, for such a withdrawl that would allow what we've established over there, to remain intact. Many men and women have died over these past years, for the belief that they were liberating the Iraqi people, and building them a better future. To leave now and let the strongest warlord with the biggest punch take over, and tear down everything those people died for; would be a tremendous spit in the face onto every Marine, Soldier, Sailor, and Airmen who has fought and died. Everything would be in vain.

    30,000 more troops are already scheduled for rotation into Iraq in 2009 (PA national guard is sending in a combat brigade, which means that I'll be seeing less coworkers at work), to replace troops that are due back here. I don't see anything changing when Obama takes office. He's still going to have the joint chiefs giving him their battleplans and what they need to make this work, along with what would happen if they withdrew forces.

    As I said earlier, if you do a phased withdrawal (where you steadily take out forces week by week, month by month), you're only going to put the troops left in country at a higher risk as that movement progresses. The insurgents would have to be completely stupid, not to try to capitalize on reduced US forces in their areas. They would also have to be completely stupid to not launch a major offensive ( think of the Tet Offensive from Vietnam), focused on key areas that are still housing US forces, to do as much damage as they could while the number of boots on the ground was low.
     
  6. LUCIFERMORNINGSTAR

    LUCIFERMORNINGSTAR New Member

Share This Page