Moron, Bush is Commander in Chief, he is in the military.
I am not suggesting that people not in the military should not support the war, but rather that I am annoyed by the ease in which they do so when it's not their life on the line.
"I tried to hit a 1,000-foot homer. I went down on the ground and wasn't the same after that."
- Henry Rodriguez
Moron, Bush is Commander in Chief, he is in the military.
Errr...no. The American military is under civilian leadership. The President is the Commander in Chief, and yet he is a civilian for all purposes.
Theoretically, at least, there are actually a number of civilians who are "above" the highest ranking officers in the miiltary. In addition to the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the various branches would also be above any general or admiral in the command structure.
Amnorix
----------------------------------
"You can observe a lot just by watching."
Nobody WANTS war, and you are stupid for implying that. The fact remains that war is the last resort. In this case, it is a necessary resort. I'm so sick of the anti-war people thinking that supporting a war means you like war. That's just not true. Sadly, in our world, war becomes the only option many times. And when you don't engage in war many times, many more deaths result from not addressing the problem.
so guest, its ok for you to make gross generalizations against the people who are against war. but its not ok for anyone else to make gross generalizations about the people who are for war?
you are the biggest kind of moron.
and benny, NO anti-war people are saying the saddam is cool.
what they are saying is that there is no reason to have a WAR because of him.
WAR under the BEST circumstances will still kill some of our soldiers and some civilians also. and many are afraid that this war will start MORE terrorist acts, not less.
and if you want to argue that most polls show that the US is split about 50-50 on whether or not war is a good idea... look at the rest of the world. the canadians BOOED the american national anthem. and the majority of civilians around the world are against the war.
many are now AFRAID of the US because they are afraid this is just the beginning of us flexing our muscles whenever we dont like something.
combine this with the fact that our last "election" was a complete joke and people are SCARED.
if you guys can't understand that, you need to start looking through other peoples eyes.
- I'm among those who found DGroundhog's remark on the first side of this thread very funny, although I thought it was an anti-war post (as in "war - what is it good for?").
- Benny, as soon as you're out of school, take a year off and travel the world. Take on a few jobs as you go, talk to people of different cultures and political systems. After you're back, return to this thread and re-read your last post. Let us know if you're still serious.
"Never argue with an idiot. People won't know who's who."
Iraq will be a free country after this. no more torture or any of that crap. they will be blessing the soldiers who fought to free them for the rest of their lives.
Guest wrote:Iraqi people are already celebrating in towns we have liberated by now.
Just for the reference: Iraq is not a "nation" (although President Bush has used this term over and over in his speeches - I wonder why?). It's a mixture of very different ethnic groups, and those Iraqis living in the far South belong to a Shi'a minority. I think some of us do remember that it was Bush sr. who encouraged them to take up arms against Saddam in 1991, but who then changed his mind, ceased to support them and left them to be slaughtered by Saddam's troups. They haven't seen much good coming from Baghdad ever since, so their reaction now isn't really a surprise. But "the" Iraqi "nation" rejoicing at their "liberation" - sorry, can't find that on my screen...
"Never argue with an idiot. People won't know who's who."
Bennyy22 wrote:Iraq will be a free country after this. no more torture or any of that crap. they will be blessing the soldiers who fought to free them for the rest of their lives.
Just for reference, take a look at other coutries the US has fought to "free". We have supported the current monarchys in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, have installed several South American dictatorships, and even helped Saddam to achieve power. In fact, the reason that Bush is so sure Saddam has chemical/biological weapons is becasue Reagan and Bush Sr. *gave* them to him. Remember the Iran Contra hearings? (well, you're too young to actually remember them, but have you ever heard of them?)
How much torture do you think is really going on in Iraq? The main thing that Iraqis have to complain about is the abject poverty among the poor in a country that is nominally so rich. This is because the rich continue to siphon off money from the sales of Iraq's assets. Basically the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Do you think this will change with a US occupation? Instead, the US and UK will siphon off money for "administrative costs". Meanwhile, the poor will still be poor, but under a different leader. Perhaps the leader will be less insane and power-hungry, but that doesn't make the people any more "free."
No, there may be some good reasons for going to war, but "freeing the people of Iraq" is just US propaganda. Don't believe any of it. Some Iraqis believe it and that's why they're happy to be "freed", but they aren't likely to be so happy when it's all over and nothing much changes. After all, did you know that the income differential in the US between the very-rich and the very-poor is among the highest in the world? Perhaps our own poor would like to be "freed" from this oppression?
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Danks81 » Sat Mar 22, 2003 2:18 am 
