Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Films, TV, Music, Books, Etc.' started by midgit_puncher, May 30, 2006.
do you support the war against terror and or bush?
If not why?
Assuming you're talking about America, I do not.
It was based on lies. It did not get permission from the U.N. either.
Fighting terrorism creates more terrorism.
Anyone with any common sense (or knowledge of physics) will tell you that meeting force with force requires both sides to maintain equal pressure in order for things to remain stable. Peace at gunpoint, so to speak.
However, working with the opposing force to eventually curb it to rest requires much less use of force on both sides and, once achieved, requires no force to maintain. True peace.
i support the war on terror, i support the fight against the taliban i do not support the unsanctioned invasion of iraq and the forced democracy (apparently americas way is the only way, go try that shit on china now)
and what a discussion, a poll with two options and a two lined sentance
get firewall and sad going against each other on a topic, theres a discussion, this is more like a gap filler at recess between the lines of "math sucks" and "i'll trade you my muffin for your grinolla bar"
war is a terrible thing, so no, i do not support. if you want to so call 'liberate' the improvrished people, go to sudan or africa, focus attention there where it is needed
Although I don't condone the means, eventually Iraq will become better. Hence my distaste towards people who rant about pulling out now and basically screwing over the country. If you've invaded the country at least have the decency to put things right.
Wouldn't us "pulling out" mean we were done "screwing over the country"
Its a sex joke!
Yes it will get better, but only when there is a shift in politics.
I guess the US and UK should go help out other countries? Don't worry, Stephen Harper has Bush's back and now Canada will follow behind you guys like a dog following his master.
Who should we help out next? Iran, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Korea, Thailand, China, Ethopia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Vietnam... oh wait, we did Vietnam already.
Iraq was a mistake by the bush administration, and I personally hate them for that. They should of concentrated on a bigger threat, like Afghanistan. Or if we were really smart, use our "pre-emptive strike" power on Korea and Iran. Oh wait, we can't, because we don't have a standing military anymore. We are putting to much resources in a country that was no threat to us in the first place, and is now becoming a bigger concern thanks to us not leaving it alone.
Whats worse, the admininstration is trying to save face now, saying that Iran/Korea, etc are tricky situations, and we want peace. It's funny, because 3 weeks ago, the president of Iran (I can't say his name, its like Hamasanibibad or something...) sent Bush a letter, looking for common ground to discuss issues. It mentioned a lot of religious doctrine in it, but it was at least a opening. And they refused to send something back, essentially saying fuck you to Iran...
Some leadership we have huh?
No for reasons previously stated.
We've been trying to do that for what, 2 years? It doesn't seem to be making much progress.
Did anyone else find this a fascinating question? I certainly did. Surely the stance of not supporting a war needs less justification than supporting it, but you've asked for justification pending the circumstance of not supporting it. It would be like asking normal joe why they dont fly a helicopter, as opposed to asking why a pilot does. Silly, really.
So what? Return home and make the deaths meaningless? Good plan. At least stability will eventually come.
They already are meaningless.
Not so if Iraq actually benefits from this which is only achievable via a continued push from troops, not skeedadling back to their own countries with their tails between their legs and letting Iraq sort itself out, aka enter another rut with another tin pot despot.