Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:06:55 -0400, DSK wrote: two wheels wrote: Over 100 US lives will be lost today in traffic accidents. And this makes it OK that US soldiers are being killed in Iraq, and that US citizens at home and abroad are at greater risk of terrorist attack? The best logic the Bushies can come up with... "Oh well, you'd probably die in a traffic accident anyway, what are you complaining about..." That's not the measure. The measure should be, is there progress being made? Yes. Where? On what grounds? No progress visible to anybody with their eyes & ears open. The average incident in which an American soldier (in Iraq) is killed or injured in gunfire, lasts about three minutes. In most all cases, the terrorist shooters will never be able to shoot anyone ever again. So, in your opinion we are trading American soldiers lives for terrorist lives? That logic might have won World War 2, but it won't win this. Especially when the Bushies makes it increasingly easy to recruit new terrorists. And increasingly, the terrorists are being killed or arrested first, because more and more Iraqis are providing information about where they can be found. Maybe so, if you actually believe the propaganda. Of course, Iraqi terrorists have NO connection or correlation to Al Queda and the Sept 11th terrorists. So 'progress' in Iraq whether fallacious or factual is not going to help the overall situation one bit. Of course, to the Bush propagandists, facts are totally irrelevant... sort of like facts are irrelevant to the North Korean regime... spooky, huh? DSK Who do I believe? I believe people that have ACTUALLY BEEN IN Iraq, and have seen with their own eyes that most Iraqis don't want us to leave YET. They don't want us to stay forever, but they sure want American troops providing their security till they can provide their own. I don't believe lunatic Bush-haters, who never wanted us to go to Iraq in the first place. I don't see any "human shields" racing to Iraq now to surround UN headquarters. They were there for Saddam, but now, they're not interested. As Iraqis face the future, they do have ONE big advantage--they're not defeatist liberal thumbsuckers. No undertaking, this large, goes exactly as planned. But on the whole, given the kind of sabotage that Saddam could've done, I think history will report that the war was prosecuted about as well as the situation allowed--no better, no worse. Bush's plan (from the start) was to turn Iraq over to Iraqis as fast as humanly possible. If the UN takes over, militarily, those corrupt paperpushers will be there forever--like homeless inlaws. The only thing the UN does well is the humanitarian stuff. And, we're not asking the UN for more "boots on ground." Any UN-sanctioned troops (that might come) are not there to increase the overall number, but to provide replacements so that American reservists can go home. Americans need to be rotated out. That's what the UN-sanctioned troops would be for. two wheels -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQE/YNO00IEDbd7J/jkRAuvlAJ909V/1O8NUxjjuztfUY7LNDEirDgCeIipS s7Y/G3y6PxdOjwOzpE+pq2k= =ba7b -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Harry reveals his true colors! | General | |||
Sailing Cuba | Cruising | |||
OT - FLIP-FLOPPING MAY HAVE INJURED KERRY’S SHOULDER | General | |||
OT--Not again! More Chinese money buying our politicians. | General |