The War? The War? WHAT WAR?!?!

I'm sicking of hearing about "wartime powers" and supporting our "president during a time of war" and all this crap.

What war?

War in Iraq:

No war has been declared by the U.S. since WW2, the invasion was yet another police action on behalf of the U.N.

Besides, wars are fought between 2 armies, the U.S. lead U.N. army destroyed the Iraqi army and dispersed the government and armed forces. If that was a war, then we won, the U.S. is no longer at war with iraq, we are now either occupying the country or policing the streets of an ally, pick one.

War in Afghanistan:

see above.

War on Terror:

The term war is not appropriate in this context, since there is no tangible enemy, and that it is unlikely terrorism can be brought to an end by means of war. "terrorism" is not an enemy, but a tactic; calling it a "war on terror," obscures differences between conflicts. For example, anti-occupation insurgents and international jihadists.

It's all a scam.

I'll support winning the "War" when we have a war to win.

To me this is no different than using the violence of mexican drug cartels to justify invading and occupying mexico, cuba and colombia. Fight the dealers there so we don't have to fight them on our streets, right? That's how some would like to fight the "war on drugs" anyway.

 

So true, so true.

 

I'm really sick of Americans voting for presidential candidates that are clearly corrupt.

The majority of candidates take money from lobbyists and special interests groups, that aim to profit from wars.

I believe it, but I still can't get my head around how people are actually supporting nutjobs like Hillary and Giuliani. I mean... Jesus Christ... I'm sick and tired off all this bullshit. When is this crap going to end?

Vote for Gravel/Ron Paul/Kucinich.... maybe even Edwards... but damn if I see someone like Mitt Romney, Hillary, Giuliani, McCain (He has a nice man's personality/demeanor, but don't be fooled. He has pretty much the same stance as any freak out there), and pretty much everyone but Paul from the Republican side. Obama? He is a little iffy because of his voting record and where his campaign money is coming from.

"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" is the attitude that I have, right now.

 

HERE, HERE! I even agree with your list of credible candidates.

 

theres no war?

damn, why are all the us soldiers dying in iraq?

stop being a fuckin dickhead.

kill yourself please.

 

Because they volunteered to invade and occupy a sovereign nation that was already crippled and the people there don't like it and have never had a reason to like it or accept it. The terrorists based in our "allies" nations jumped at the opportunity to bleed us dry by making the occupation as difficult and costly as possible.

If anyone did that shit to my country i'd be sniping at them too, And judging by this you would too: If USA was attacked......

and you better believe that if we needed to, me and whtever remnants of our armed forces would be left would hit them often and hard and i'd look at our neighbors to the north and south to help.

you stop being a fucking dickhead. This isn't a fucking war anymore than the "war on drugs" is a war. It's just a police action that as usual causes more death and misery than it pretends to allieviate.

Haven't you seen "Red Dawn"? People don't like foreign occupiers. Especially if they can't even speak the fucking language.

You like it so much then you go kick in people's doors and get your face shot off for it, like you would deserve. fucker.

 

agreed.

 

the war against terror is simply a media propuganda slogan that sounds good to say on CNN and helps fat wankers sleep better at night on their huge piles of oil money secure in the knowledge that they were tottaly justified in their decisions to consign many young lives to a premature death.

when a relative dies an incredibly painful death of blood loss and hypothermia in a strange land, you are told that he is "missing in action" and not choking to death on his own blood and shock-induced vomit. its just a euphamism, as this bloody crusade conitnues, expect to hear a lot more of them.

 

Then why, when polled, do Iraqis say they supported the removal of Saddam Hussein?

 

When polled... lol. Yeah, I am sure those polls aren't fabricated or skewed in some way. What motive would the media have to lie, right?

But they might have supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. (That is, the ones they decided to selectively include in the poll.) They don't, however, support their country being occupied, their infrastructure destroyed, not having access to electricity and clean water, and being out of work. I am sure they also do not appreciate massive and permanent military bases being built on their land.

 

The hypnotic splattered mist was slowly lifting........

 

The media is not a monolith, despite what your conspiracy websites (home to numerous pathological liars) tell you to think. Think about it - do you think most Iraqis want Saddam Hussein back? I doubt it, you are just denying it for the sake of denying it.

 

They don't want foreign troops occupying their land, either. Actually, I think most Iraqis would rather have Saddam back than face the current situation. At least under Saddam there was order in the country and people had jobs. Now the entire country is in shambles.

 

Ah so you prefer orderly mass murder to disorderly killings. Somehow I always figured that.

 

i'm sure a lot of them are happy without saddam, but that doesn't mean anything. A lot of folks all over the world would be happy without their dictators, that doesn't justify us removing them and filling the spot. that's their issue to deal with internally, it's called a revolution or coup or uprising or rebellion or any number of names you can think of for what happens when a dedicated part of a populace decides to get rid of it's leadership. shit a lot of folks in the u.s.a. would be happy without Bush, that doesn't mean they would support China and Russia bombing our cities, patrolling our streets, and deciding which militia groups get to say what over civillian matters. This is our country and any internal problems we have we'll fix. I don't remember being told we had to invade Iraq because it was ran by a bad guy. most americans could care less, we were told WMDs because if it's a threats to us then it is our baggage, otherwise it's the iraqi people with the problem and it's their problem to fix or not. Saddam gassing the Kurds and having rape rooms? who cared about that leading into the occupation? no one, because disagreeing with the way a people have set up their government or have allowed their government to treat them isn't any threat to us, they don't bother us about how we treat our people and we don't bother them about how they treat their people. i always find it amazing that the people who ask "what about saddam, wasnt he a bad guy", don't seem to realize that by committing to that logic we should be invading every country who has a political or social issue we don't agree with or has a person in charge we don't like. it's almost as amazing as hearing a conservative who opposed the kosovo and gulf wars defend the iraq war and it's subsequent occupation.

 

But by your logic, unless we can save everyone we should save no one. Therefore Rwanda was a foreign policy success because we did nothing and 800,000 people died but had we saved them that would have been unfair to people who died in Liberia.

 

The thing you're missing, Shane, is that the US funded most of these people. The US gave Saddam his chemical weapons. The US was willing to do business with Saddam, until their plans changed and it came time to get rid of him for their own agenda. Saddam was never a good guy when we were providing him aid, both in money and materials, and the US had no problem doing business with this oppressive dictator then. However, when it came time for the US to go in there and take Saddam out (which they could have done in '91 if they wanted to), everything changed and we needed to get rid of him to liberate the Iraqi people from this oppressive regime (while in the process murdering 100,000 of them).

 

yes, sir.

Rwanda is the concern of Rwandans, America should be the concern of Americans. There is nothing in our constitution about "saving" foreign nationals from their own countrymen. It's especially upsetting when the act of "saving" brings more danger to ourselves. Not a smart idea to pick sides in another country's civil war or insurrection.

 

so youre an isolationist? hows about in the case of genocide- do you think you should never step in, or do some circumstances force america's hands

 

No i'm not an isolationist, i'm a non-interventionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism

If it's not our nation, then it's not our nation's government's authority to handle.

Do some circumstances force america's hands? Yes, those circumstances that directly affect the U.S.A. and U.S. citizens.