- Joined
- Sep 25, 2005
- Messages
- 15,675
- Reaction score
- 2,979
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:(1) I said "EVERY" soldier. So as much as you might like to think this country and your rightsand freedoms were just handed to you, this is not the case. Men and woman have died for this country it's rights it freedoms it's safety. There is no arguing this point. Saddam and Iraq help fund bombers ad there families. He allowed safe passage and safe haven to terrorist and there training camps. Terrorist are a threat so are the people and countries that aide and assist them. Is iraq the only one ...NO. We should be kicking the shitt out of syria if you ask me. So yes the assistance to terror organizations threatend the safety of this country not to mention other countries throughout the world.
Well, I don't believe that Iraq was a threat to us. Why were we obssessing about Iraq when it was Al Qaeda who attacked us on Sept. 11th? Afghanistan deserved to be invaded, and I fully supported that. We're so busy fighting insurgents in Iraq who were not even there at the time of our invasion that we have no soldiers to send to Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has killed thousands of our people. Why have we taken our eye off the ball?
(2) There has not been a single terrorist attack on this country since the war started. I have no doubt there will be at some time since we are not allowed to perform meaningful security or border/imigration checks. But I feel safe as can be expected, specially knowing you have a large number of animals with C4 straped to their chest looking for innocent children and civilians to kill.
We have not been attacked by terrorists because they have chosen not to attack us. Studies show that the screening they do in airports is just for appearance's sake. Look at what happened after Katrina. Yes, I know it was a natural disaster, but it is indicative of the lack of concern by Bush to appoint people who can actually do the job and have experience. The majority of Americans feel that we are less safe now, and we are. After all, we have lost almost 2000 soldiers and 14,000 soldiers have been injured.
Let me try understand the meaning of this question. What it seems to me your implying is that unless it comes right to our borders it's not a threat? **i'm just trying to read between the lines** (Pearl Harbor). That the take over of Europe by hitler wouldn't have been a threat to our security? It would seem that your definition of threat is very very limited. Threat to our allies also constitute threats to us.
We were not going to get involved in WWII except for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Sorry, but again, when did Iraq threaten us? Did they tell us that they were going to use WMDs on us or on their neighbors? I certainly do not recall ever hearing that kind of news.
Bush's whole reason for invading Iraq was that it was a threat to us and it had WMDs that could come in the form of a "mushroom cloud" *rolling eyes* Yeah right. Where were those alleged capabilities, George?
Don't think I ever claimed that she did say she speaks for her son. It's pretty obvious that she doesn't, at least now it is anyway. She is the polar oppisite it would seem to her son now. She didn't seem to feel that way in the begining when she met with the president the first time. Or was it moveon.org, MM and those guys that got the puppet mad? She is an embarassment to this country in my opinion. I have no problem with her protesting the war. Hell it's easier to complain about something then to stand up to something. But thats the right's afforded her in this country. But to get on TV and make statement internationally that the president is terrorist and the terroist that killed her very son are just freedom fighter. She's giving moral aid, and fodder to people that target woman and children for murder.
You nor I have any idea how her son felt. I have two friends, one who was in Iraq for one year and one who is going there in the very near future. Both of them do not support this war. So, it's not implausible that her son could have not supported the war. And don't tell me that if he did not support it, he could have refused to go. That's not the way it works. You can obey orders and not believe in them. It's like conservative judges having to uphold Roe v. Wade. They don't want to do it, but they have to.
So are people allowed to change their minds once they receive additional facts? Or once we make a decision, we have to abide by that decision no matter what? Ridiculous. At the time she saw Bush, she didn't know how bogus this war is. So she changed her mind. And I believe that Moore and Moveon did not get involved until after she started her grandstanding. I am disappointed in some of the things she has said and the fact that she has become affliated with Moore and Moveon, but I do appreciate her promoting awareness about this war, since we did not need to go there in the first place.