What do you mean when you say you...

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 30 2005, 10:40 PM']Hypothetically speaking Bush could

end terrorism
bring gas to $1.00 a gallon
cut my taxes in half
Make it a federally mandated law that Sandra Bullock go out with me

And not put two prolife SCJs on the bench and I would consider his presidency a failure. 

Conversely

Gas could go up to $10 a gallon
we could lose  all our individual rights in the name of fighting terrorism
Send the deficit into the bazillions
devalue the US dollar to mere pennies
Make it a federally mandated law that no one ever go out with me ( that may be on the books already)

And put two two prolife SCJs on the bench and I would consider his presidency a success.
[right][snapback]742612[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
hot stuff, you crack me up!!! If I were President I'd make sure you got to go on a date with Sandra Bullock AND meet Katie Couric

[Snarf]

I know that you weren't saying that the war is fought over oil. It's just that it bothers me to hear morons say the war is just for oil, if only for the fact that other morons think they prove something by debasing them.

[let_go_let_God]

Being a military brat, I have always been taught it's alright to support the troops but not the cause that the troops are fighting. These men and women that are over seas are fighting to maintain a freedom that was "put in peril" after 9/11. Although yes, I do believe that around 9/11 there was a threat put on our country, and there is still a shadow of that left, there should also be a middle ground that we are allowed to meet at and try to make peace. I am not a hippie, and I am not pro-military. Simply put it, I have always been pro life and pro peace. Right now, our troops and president need our prayers, and that's what I feel that I am called to do, even if I do not support being in Iraq.

God bless-
LGLG

[StColette]

As Micah (Raphael) stated in an earlier post, I fully support our troops but I'm against the war, I have been and I always will be.

I'm proud of the service that my brother provides to this country along with many other members of my family. My sister was also in the Navy but recently got out and I also still have cousins in the military as well as many of my friends from High School. I love each and every one of them. I love all the soldiers that I see over there and around where I live. I feel for their families when they become seperated by war and orders. Because I know how it feels to be seperated from family members and I know the worry that goes through one's mind when you know someone that you love is really in harms way.

Yes, Terrorism is a horrible and cruel crime. But starting a war on that I find kind of a bad call. It's hard to pick out who the terrorist is in a group of people. Because well, of course they're not all going around with signs on their heads saying "Hi I'm a Terrorist" It's impossible to keep track of who is who and where someone is from. Each day more and more people are leaving or coming into Iraq. It's as if we're fighting a war that can't be won.

What I truly find offensive is when the News says "The War in Iraq has been over for months now" If the war were truly and completely over our boys wouldn't still be over there getting killed.

As my dad explains it "You can absolutely love a football team and like the coach but sometimes you just don't like the calls the coach makes"

So yes I love and support our Troops (the football team)
I love the Coach (Pres Bush)
I just don't like some of the calls the Coach makes

God Bless,
Jen

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Maybe the war wasnt just over Oil..and I'm no moron thank you, but it's awfully funny how Osama is gone, and were not looking, but Haliburton sure is bringing in millions of dollars a year, Saudi Arabia is still best friends with the Bush Family and they are raking in millions.

I dont think it was over Oil. I think it was just to give Haliburton something to do.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='Oct 3 2005, 03:35 PM']Maybe the war wasnt just over Oil..and I'm no moron thank you, but it's awfully funny how Osama is gone, and were not looking, but Haliburton sure is bringing in millions of dollars a year, Saudi Arabia is still best friends with the Bush Family and they are raking in millions.

I dont think it was over Oil. I think it was just to give Haliburton something to do.
[right][snapback]744721[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
you don't really think that. If you did, I would have to tell you to take a political science course and come back to this thread when you understand that the actions of a country are not dictated by any singular reason.

World politics is anything but simple. Halliburton gets the contracts because Halliburton has the capability to DO what needs to be done. The rebuilding needs such companies who can focus on that while the U.S. gov't is focused on other things.

Osama is unimportant as an individual. His actions are larger than he is. Think of the power of martyrdom. Peter and Paul were killed, but their teachings lived on. Their Cause was nourished by their deaths. Turning Osama into a martyr would be counterproductive. Let his kidneys kill him. Imprisonment would be no better, as we see Paul was able to keep teaching his counter-Roman ways while imprisoned. Living martyrs are sometimes worse than dead ones for their persecutors. No, let Osama rot as an outlaw if we want to keep his cause where it belongs.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[quote]Osama is unimportant as an individual. His actions are larger than he is. Think of the power of martyrdom. Peter and Paul were killed, but their teachings lived on. Their Cause was nourished by their deaths. Turning Osama into a martyr would be counterproductive. Let his kidneys kill him. Imprisonment would be no better, as we see Paul was able to keep teaching his counter-Roman ways while imprisoned. Living martyrs are sometimes worse than dead ones for their persecutors. No, let Osama rot as an outlaw if we want to keep his cause where it belongs.
[/quote]

so according to your theory a person that kills someone shouldnt be found, arrested and tried for their crimes rather fight crime as a whole while this person goes free?

I didnt lose anyone during 9/11, but I would bet dollars to donuts that those that did would whole heartidly disagree with you and would want justice.

Had Dubyah put more forces in Afganistan than in Iraq, and actually looked like he TRIED to find Osama, then that would be a different story. He only sent something like 11,000 troops there, at the same time sending four times as many to Iraq. Where do you think our focus was??

When we captured and found Saddam, I was happy. But then it struck me..why was we even looking for him instead of Osama? How could we of possibly found Saddam before Osama?

Just doesnt make sense to me. To say Osama is not a factor anymore is to spit on the lives that was lost on 9/11.

[White Knight]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='Oct 3 2005, 02:35 PM']Maybe the war wasnt just over Oil..and I'm no moron thank you, but it's awfully funny how Osama is gone, and were not looking, but Haliburton sure is bringing in millions of dollars a year, Saudi Arabia is still best friends with the Bush Family and they are raking in millions.

I dont think it was over Oil. I think it was just to give Haliburton something to do.
[right][snapback]744721[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Osama is ethier dead or still in hiding, most likely dead. when Bush said Terorrism he said all of them, not just Bin Lindin.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

I can handle that. But one word comes to mind: Priorities.

he was more than justified to blow the carp out of Afganistan where Osama was, the country would of supported it.

Instead he decided to turn left when he should of turned right and went for Iraq and blew the carp out of that. For what? Can you honestly give me a straight answer as to WHY we went there?
If you can, you are fortunate and must know the secret 'handshake' because ALOT of people, including the soldiers that are there, have no clue why were there.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='Oct 3 2005, 06:14 PM']I can handle that. But one word comes to mind: Priorities.

he was more than justified to blow the carp out of Afganistan where Osama was, the country would of supported it.

Instead he decided to turn left when he should of turned right and went for Iraq and blew the carp out of that. For what? Can you honestly give me a straight answer as to WHY we went there?
If you can, you are fortunate and must know the secret 'handshake' because ALOT of people, including the soldiers that are there, have no clue why were there.
[right][snapback]744936[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Do you know the history of Iraq under Saddam? Well, it's been an aggressor state in the region since...oh before I was born.
In 1972 Saddam comes to power as the leader of the Baath party.
In 1973 he sends 2 divisions to attack Israel .
In 1974 he launches a war against the Kurds to bring them back into the fold.
In 1979, he became president and really took off, seeing an opportunity to settle old scores with his neighbor, Iran..
1980 began a war with Iran in which many Iranians were killed so that Saddam could have unrestricted access to a waterway called Shatt-al-Arab. The Iranians turned the war on Saddam in 1982, taking their territory back and many Iraqis were also killed. Yay Saddam. This is when the U.S. actually backed him against...guess who, radical muslims.
1983 Saddam uses chemical weapons against Iran. Mustard gas!
1988 sees three incidents which completely erode support for Saddam in the West. a.) the USS Vincennes shoots down an Iranian airliner, and the US is forced to be less supportive of Iran's enemies. b.) Saddam attacks the Kurdish village of Halabja with Sarin nerve gas because there was a group of Kurds who wished to kill him. 5000 die immediately. c.) Saddam launches SCUD missiles at Tehran, depopulating the city. This causes Iran to give up. Saddam did not win, but desperately escaped his own destruction.
1990 Invades Kuwait. Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm commence.
throughout the 1990s Saddam was uncooperative with UN inspectors (my professor was involved with that effort) to the point where even if there were weapons there, nobody would have been able to find them.
[u]The object of this war is not to avenge Sept. 11th[/u]. It is to bring stability to the Middle East and to the world. This will only be achieved when there are no more destabilizing factors in the region and when the factors that spawn terrorism are minimized. The countries must learn to play peace, not war. That is why Saddam was taken out.



[quote]so according to your theory a person that kills someone shouldnt be found, arrested and tried for their crimes rather fight crime as a whole while this person goes free?[/quote]


Osama is not important as an individual, because in matters such as this the individual assumes less and less importance and the actions of states and other organizations assume more. Were we to take him out, it would have all the closure of watching Tim McVeigh executed. He'd make some grand final statement (and we'd let him instead of shooting him in the face) and he would rally all radical muslims to remember his noble example in the face of the Great Satan. The people who died on Sept. 11th are dead forever and no amount of death will bring them back. [i]Justice would be making Osama irrelevant[/i]. He should pay for his crimes, sure. And if we luck onto him then by all means he deserves death or imprisonment. Perhaps the punishments of Sharia. But...to attach to him the symbolic status as the object of the war on terror is not a realistic perspective. The organization he began will live after him, and it is not by taking [b]him[/b] out that his organization will be defeated. Al-Qaeda operates in cells, for goodness sake. Work to make his position defunct, then you will have won.

[zwergel88]

[quote name='MissScripture' date='Sep 30 2005, 12:30 AM']I am curious, and I really want people who say this to explain what they mean, because it really doesn't make sense to me, What do you mean when you say you support our troops but are agianst the war?
[right][snapback]741757[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


What I mean when I say that I support the troops but I am against the war, is that I do not support the mission of the troops but I support the people themselves. I want them to be safe and I dont' want any harm to come to them.

[philothea]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Oct 3 2005, 06:12 PM']Do you know the history of Iraq under Saddam?  Well, it's been an aggressor state in the region since...oh before I was born. 
In 1972 Saddam comes to power as the leader of the Baath party. 
In 1973 he sends 2 divisions to attack Israel . 
In 1974 he launches a war against the Kurds to bring them back into the fold. 
In 1979, he became president and really took off, seeing an opportunity to settle old scores with his neighbor, Iran.. 
1980 began a war with Iran in which many Iranians were killed so that Saddam could have unrestricted access to a waterway called Shatt-al-Arab.  The Iranians turned the war on Saddam in 1982, taking their territory back and many Iraqis were also killed.  Yay Saddam.  This is when the U.S. actually backed him against...guess who, radical muslims.
1983 Saddam uses chemical weapons against Iran.  Mustard gas!
1988 sees three incidents which completely erode support for Saddam in the West.  a.) the USS Vincennes shoots down an Iranian airliner, and the US is forced to be less supportive of Iran's enemies.  b.) Saddam attacks the Kurdish village of Halabja with Sarin nerve gas because there was a group of Kurds who wished to kill him.  5000 die immediately.  c.) Saddam launches SCUD missiles at Tehran, depopulating the city.  This causes Iran to give up.  Saddam did not win, but desperately escaped his own destruction. 
1990 Invades Kuwait.  Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm commence. 
throughout the 1990s Saddam was uncooperative with UN inspectors (my professor was involved with that effort) to the point where even if there were weapons there, nobody would have been able to find them. 
[u]The object of this war is not to avenge Sept. 11th[/u].  It is to bring stability to the Middle East and to the world.  This will only be achieved when there are no more destabilizing factors in the region and when the factors that spawn terrorism are minimized.  The countries must learn to play peace, not war.  That is why Saddam was taken out.
[right][snapback]744989[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Small detail often forgot is that the USA put Saddam in power, and supplied him with weapons...

[toledo_jesus]

[quote]Small detail often forgot is that the USA put Saddam in power, and supplied him with weapons...
[/quote]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Oct 3 2005, 07:12 PM']1980 began a war with Iran in which many Iranians were killed so that Saddam could have unrestricted access to a waterway called Shatt-al-Arab.  The Iranians turned the war on Saddam in 1982, taking their territory back and many Iraqis were also killed.  Yay Saddam.  [b]This is when the U.S. actually backed him against...guess who, radical muslims.[/b]
[right][snapback]744989[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


TA-DA!

A gov't will do what is politically expedient at the time. George Washington himself told us in his farewell address not to allow the sentiments of one time to blind us to reality. So, a nation can be a friend one decade and an enemy the next. It has to be so because otherwise it would be too easy to take advantage of the US. In order to combat the radical Islam rising in Iran, the US supplied weapons to Iraq as it was considered more Western and secular (which it is) than Iran. the situation changed.

[Jaime]

[quote]The object of this war is not to avenge Sept. 11th. It is to bring stability to the Middle East and to the world. This will only be achieved when there are no more destabilizing factors in the region and when the factors that spawn terrorism are minimized. The countries must learn to play peace, not war. That is why Saddam was taken out.
[/quote]

None of the reasons you listed are why we went to war.

Weapons of mass destruction. That's it. Pre emptive strikes against a country that was supposed to be a direct threat to the US.

They weren't. Bush was wrong.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 3 2005, 10:00 PM']None of the reasons you listed are why we went to war.

Weapons of mass destruction.  That's it.  Pre emptive strikes against a country that was supposed to be a direct threat to the US. 

They weren't.  Bush was wrong.
[right][snapback]745156[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
short term thinking. you think we can just lash out in retaliation against a country, and that's it? the only way to defeat terrorism is to defeat the concept. that's going to require prolonged engagement in the middle east. Afghanistan was good, fine. Iraq is more complicated because it's part of Grand Strategy. It doesn't immediately serve our sense of justice or security. In the long term, however, a democratic and free Iraq will be beneficial to the region and to our own country and will serve our greater goal of stopping terrorism.