Rockie wrote:Just to be clear. I do not in any way criticize or think less of Nark for his commitment to his country. His dedication to duty is something every person should aspire to. However his political masters have a responsibility to ensure that when Nark is called upon to defend his country, he is actually defending his country. Not being a foot soldier in support of their own personal agenda which has clearly happened in Iraq. It is the responsibility of the citizens to ensure that their military is not used for dishonourable purposes. It is the responsibility of the citizens to protect their servicemen and women and say what Nark cannot say...whatever his personal opinions might be.
Defending a war and perpetuating a false justification because not doing so is deemed disrespectful to the soldiers fighting it guarantees it will continue and more people will be unjustifiably killed. Nark can think what he wants about me. To me it is absolutely criminal that he is risking his life to fight an unjust war based on lies. That doesn't mean he is the criminal, his political masters are. Can anybody tell me why the United States invaded Iraq? Was Iraq a threat to the United States? Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?
Give me a valid reason for the Iraq war.
I guess the first gulf war, the invasion Grenada, Panama, Vietnam & all else were falsely justified and engaged for personal profit eh? When was the last time America fought to defend her own soil? 1898? Rockie you're drifting off into outer space, come back down to earth.
Possible reasons for the Iraq war, off the top of my head, both wrong and right.
1) The plight of the Kurds.
2) The WMD problem, which is not lies, but a mistake unless you actually believe a collection of governments got together and created a story to justify a war.
3) Stability in the Gulf, which affects world oil prices.
4) Strategy, place Iran between friendly Iraq & Saudi Arabia.
5) Creating free markets generates profits for America, trade makes money and America has traditionally held an advantage over everyone.
6) You act like the 2nd gulf war is not in anyway connected to the first gulf war, the troops never left.
Which president is this wrote:Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.
But how could Clinton be planning measures against Iraq if Bush invaded Iraq for personal profits? Are they in on it together? That would be some conspiracy.
Rockie wrote:
Topspin.
Your opinion on why the United States fought in the Pacific during World War II is...interesting. There's no other way to say it. Pick up a history book and read it.
Rockie I'm very familiar with the history of the second world war. That was my point. That argument that people sprouted about Japan is the same argument that is being thrown at this Iraq war. It's ridiculous.
I'm neither for nor against the war, without traveling there and seeing it with my own eyes I will never hold an opinion. I do hold some bitterness towards it as it has taken some friends lives, but they died doing what they wanted to be doing.
Think Occam's Razor........
