ViperPilot

We defend this country so everyone, including YOU, can live how they want. It is only because of the military (past, present, and future) that this country has even survived, just like Bill said. The only reason you're sitting at your computer right now reading my post is because the US government and military made it possible. Thousands of men and women have died so that you can take that late night drive to Taco Bell, so that you can go skydiving on the weekends, so that you can breath the free air that you do. The oath I took means a lot to me. I take it very seriously. We are here to defend this country, and it seems that you haven't realized from multitudes of examples in history that this defense can only be accomplished by going abroad. We DO NOT want to fight the enemy at home, we want to fight them far away from home. It would be a huge mistake to just sit in the US and wait for the attack; we must bring the attack to the enemy. This will only help defend the US by not allowing war to take place on our soil. War has happened here; it destroyed a lot. We do not want that destruction to happen again.

Well at the time, communism was as scary as terrorism is today. So, as we look back, we may think communism wasn't such a big deal, but during that time period, it was a very big deal. I don't think Korea was a mistake because we helped millions of people. What I mean is that through our military action, we allowed the people of South Korea to be a free society. I don't consider that a mistake. The mission of Vietnam was the same, but the way it was done was horribly wrong (IMO). Vietnam was a total failure, but not because of what the mission was, but because of how it was attempted. So, I can somewhat see your point on Vietnam, but I do think we did well to the people of S Korea during the Korean War. The primary mission was to oust Saddam, thus making the country and the world safer. The secondary mission was to recover his weapons. So, we failed at the secondary in my opinion. Don't worry, they won't ever use that real world experience because they'll be dead far before they're given another chance in history to use it. So in that regards, us being there is not helping worldwide terrorism. This is where I agree more. We need to change how things are done. What's really frustrating is that we spend a million bucks to build an electric plant, but then those damn insurgents just blow it up right as we finish. Then we do it all over again, and the same thing happens. We are wasting money in that regards. I think things need to be done differently so we're not wasting so much money. We have wisely spent money that is helping Iraq, just that we should at least do something to prevent sabotage on sites before we pump millions into them. How exactly did the US give Saddam a "go-ahead" for Kuwait? Well, you say he would have kept killing citizens, so why is that ok? It's not ok in my book. And once again, civilians are killed in war, it happens. But we DO NOT just kill civilians all the time like the media wants you to believe. Very few are killed by us. And secondly, how does the few that we've killed compare to the almost 1 million that Saddam had killed? While us being there may cause some civilian death, it is certainly worth it vs having Saddam continuously killing his own people, which would amount to thousands of more deaths than anything caused by us.

That sucks. I just like to have discussions. I realize before I post that some will agree with me and others will not. But, it's always good fun to discuss issues and just see where the thread goes. I'm not here to piss people off, just to have intellectually based discussion; and no discussion would be fun unless it had some controversy. Thanks for the support bill.

Haha, ok. I was just confused, because I know I didn't send any PMs.

Either way, I wouldn't mind putting one between that guy's eyes. Average bastard.

Wait, you got a PM from me?

First of all, who's Tunaplanet, and secondly, why do you liken me to him? Calling opinions polarized is ridiculous. Based on that assesment, all of you are polarized because your opinion might differ from mine. Just because someone's ideas/opinions differ from yours does not make them a radical right/left winger. I agree with Democrats on some issues, I agree with Republicans on some issues. However, you should not judge my opinion as ludicrous simply because it differs from yours. P.S. This applies to everyone, not specifically base, just he was at the top so that's where I clicked reply.

Diver makes a good point here. What if we hadn't invaded, would the number of innocent civlians murdered under Saddam risen past 1 million, would it have risen to 6 million perhaps? Maybe, maybe not. However, had much of the thinking related to Iraq been used back in 1939, how many Jews would have died? Afterall, Germany wasn't our business, shouldn't we have just stayed out? Some would still argue isolationism for that period, however is our own isolationism really worth 6 million people, 8 million people, 20 million people? When do we all draw the line on a tyrant who needs to be stopped. That line was drawn on Germany, and now that line has been drawn on Saddam. Before we got him out of power, he had already exterminated almost a million of his own people. While 1 million does not compare to the Holocaust or the Gulag, it's still well on its way. Don't you think it's prudent that we stop such a tyrant from achieving such devastation as the aformentioned? By stopping a terrible person like this, we are fighting terrorism. He terrorized his own people and he gave support to terrorist networks. So, who thinks that we should have just left the Iraqi people to continue to be slaughtered and do nothing? Who thinks we should have kept letting Saddam funnel money to terrorists?

So it was fabricated/bad, but the point I've tried to make is that EVERYONE went by this fabricated intel. I argue that if people are going to place blame on a sole entity, let it be the intel folks, i.e. the CIA, NSA, etc. They're the ones who created a BS intel brief. I just don't think it's fair to say Bush is an idiot for believing and thus making decisions based on faulty intel. Because in reality, he was not the one who created those intel briefs and he was NOT the only one who believed them. That's all I've tried to point out here. However, some people just don't want to hear it and for those of you who don't, that's your choice.

I realize there are canadians on here. So seeing that you haven't voted in a US election, then what makes you such the self-appointed expert on the topic?

I'd say were very close to the 250,000 mark for insurgents' deaths. Secondly, our death tole will not increase more than 10,000 in only 2.5 years. Let's use gross estimates here...we've been in Iraq 2 years. Lets say the death toll of American soldiers is 2000. So, that's 1000/yr, 83.3/mo, 2.6-2.7 soldiers/day. Now I wish that number was 0, I don't want that number to include me, my friends, or any other American. However, based on that rate, you could argue we're safer in Iraq then driving a car on a highway in the states. So as morbid as it is, we are not doing that badly. And this is coming from a guy who has lost friends. So it's our fault that these insurgents have weapons stored all over the place...houses, mosques, hospitals, ambulances? If a person is killed by an exploding RPG, it is the enemy's weapon that killed the person, not ours. I do realize innocent people can die. But because we drop a bomb and some damn IED goes off killing a child is not our fault. It's a terrible thing, but maybe the insurgent bastard who made that IED shouldn't have done it in the first place. So, isn't his fault?

I'd say were very close to the 250,000 mark for insurgents' deaths. Secondly, our death tole will not increase more than 10,000 in only 2.5 years. Let's use gross estimates here...we've been in Iraq 2 years. Lets say the death toll of American soldiers is 2000. So, that's 1000/yr, 83.3/mo, 2.6-2.7 soldiers/day. Now I wish that number was 0, I don't want that number to include me, my friends, or any other American. However, based on that rate, you could argue we're safer in Iraq then driving a car on a highway in the states. So as morbid as it is, we are not doing that badly. And this is coming from a guy who has lost friends.

When has an elector not voted the way of the state's voters? Think of it this way - The electors of a state vote for the candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, thus giving those electoral points to the candidate. Therefore, the people of the state have indeed voted for their candidate of choosing. So again, how is it that the people do not vote for their candidate? Now, if your argument of the eletor going against the state voters actually happened all the time, then I would be much more apt to agree with you.

Gotcha, sorry about that guys, didn't mean to offend anyone with a personal attack.

Well, going back to the actual topic of this thread, then in your case you're calling all of those politicians, including Kerry, the Clintons, Kennedy, etc. all liars. Which is fine if you want to. Plus, the intel Bush went off of was only proven to be wrong after the invasion, so where was the distortion of facts to make a case to go to war? Seems to me everyone took those intel reports as undistorted, unhyped fact...the point is that Bush should not be condemned for going to war that many politicians supported initially using the same intel Bush did.

I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between kroats, muslims, and serbs. They all looked the same to someone who wasn't from the region. So there was not a clear distinction between them, except for maybe military uniform, but that was not always the case. Well, I think we did help in Kosovo. So why do you think we're not helping in Iraq? Oil production is up quite a lot. Iraq has now grossed over $30 billion in oil revenue since we began occupation and helped the economy get back on line. Electrical output is up considerably, phone subscribers has reached almost 1 million and cellphone subscribers had reached over 2.3 million. In addition to that, over 600 schools have been built/rebuilt/refinished. So, is the US occupation not helping at all and making Iraq worse? You tell me.

QuoteNow look at that ballot and tell me what the line is between brackets....that line clearly states you are not voting for the candidate... What lines between the brackets? I think I'm confused about which lines you are talking about.

My one warning? I don't understand. Honestly...I don't want to break rules, just tell me what was wrong and I'll rectify it.

The voter information packet says that you are casting a vote for the candidate of your choosing. I guess it should also say to not complain if the canidate you voted for doesn't win. By the way, have you EVER voted in a US election, presidential or congressional? Because if you have, do us all a favor and don't vote; you've made it clear that you do not understand the system. That's ok, just don't vote unless you actually understand the system and how it works.

By the way, here's a picture of a presidential ballot. Gee, what a surprise, you punch the hole of the candidate YOU want. This little stint of this topic is laughable. I mean, who thought somone would try to argue that ballots don't exist. But, I guess there's always someone out there ignorant enough to do it. Sorry, I usually refrain from such accusations, but this time, it's so bad I just have to. http://www.newyorkslime.com/florida-ballot.jpg

Ummm, lets see, it was...oh yeah, last November. At every single polling station in America. Seriously, did you even read what you wrote? You're obviously incredibly ignorant of the election process if you think ballots with candidates on them don't exist.

What lie did Bush "apparently" tell us? Is it the WMD intel, because if that's it, then I suggest you go all the way to beginning of this post and click on the link.

Yeah, but when was the last time a member of the EC voted against what the state voters did? Secondly, the amount of times a president has been elected by the EC, but not by popular vote is very few. I think 2 or 3 times. And the reason he won in that situation is because he won some bigger states. That's how the system works, too bad. Otherwise, the president has been elected by popular vote as well (if you want to look at it that way). Thus, how is the president not elected by the people?

Kind of a side topic, but still pretty related. Why is it that some of you think going into Iraq was such a horrible idea, but think it was fine to go into Bosnia or Somalia? I realize I may be speaking in somewhat general terms, but I have seen many people hate Iraq, but were totally fine with Bosnia/Somalia (until it went bad). Guess what, in all three we tried or are trying to help people. That was the mission and that is the mission. So, what's the problem with this one? Are the Iraqi people simply not worth it? Or is it that the previous two campaigns were under the Clinton Administration? Or is there another reason? Enlighten me...

How does stating that Iraq had the technological capability to launch a missile 45 min after decision equate to Bush playing word games to cover incompetance. Consider rewriting your post so it actually makes sense.