Protest of War IS Putting Our Troops in Danger!

For 4 years, we have heard that protesting this war would be detrimental to our troops. You know what? They are right!

Due to the protesting of this war, and the election of a Democratic Congress to oppose and provide oversight over a corrupt Republican Executive, some truth to the cover-up of this war is now surfacing. When it becomes clear that the American government fabricated lies and information to legitimize the invasion of another foreign country; we are going to have "egg on our face" to the rest of the world.

Regardless of whether we are Democrat or Republican, pro-war or anti-war, hawk or dove, this is going to have ramifications for a long time in our relations with the rest of the world. Our troops, the tools that this administration has used to fight this illegitimate war, are going to feel the brunt of this. Tourists from America who go abroad; they will also feel it.

The defenders of this Administration are right! Protesting this war is bringing about truth; and this truth will become detrimental to the safety of our men and women in uniform. The Bush/Cheney/Rove/Wolfowitz coalition has put our troops' lives and respect in danger; and the protests of this war is bringing this to fruition.

God protect our troops; and God forgive America!

 

Baloney.

What truth to what coverup is now surfacing? Details please with data to back it up.

 

Like what? How 'bout instead of throwing out wild accusations without any examples, you attempt to substantiate these fallacious claims.

I don't intend to sound ignorant, but who cares what the rest of the world thinks? I don't elect my President to makes up popular to the rest of the world. I elect him to protect and preserve the interests of this country. Screw France, Russia, China, Germany, and the entire Middle East.

Please elaborate on why this war is "illegitimate" in your eyes. Let me provide you with some justification for this "illegal" war:

1.) Saddam was in violation of 17 UNSC resolutions and the cease-fire agreement.
2.) Bush believed Saddam had WMDs because international intel did.
3.) British Intel still stands behind the yellowcake story
4.) Saddam had working relationships with various terrorists (Abu Nidal) and terror groups (Palestinians). Ansar al Islam is an Al Qaeda branch that was allowed to operate in Iraq by Saddam for the purpose of suppressing the Kurds (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/abu-nidal/)
(http://www.husseinandterror.com/)
5.) Saddam at one time did have WMDs and retained the infrastructure necessary for creating his WMDs
6.) He had "training" facilities at Salman Pak for "counter terrorism"
7.) Iraq a former State Dept "Sponsor of Terrorism" sits between the two most active "sponsors of terrorism" Syria and Iran.
8. ) the invasion plan was brilliant and was accomplished in less than a month
9.) the post invasion plan has been successful in many areas(new schools, rebuilding infrastructure) but down right abysmal from a peace and security standpoint.

I could go on all day.

My opinion: I think they got caught looking ahead to Iran and dropped the ball... on the post invasion planning...I believe the plan was to already be in Tehran and have Syria expel the terrorist camped out in Damascus. One little hitch ...the terrorist joined forces with the Sunnis to create the insurgency...they should have seen it coming

...yes Bush is fighting a PC war, tied the hands of our military and made mistakes but SOME and the loudest of the democrats "voted for the war before they voted against it" and their obstruction since the day after the vote for the war has done nothing but embolden the enemy and European criticism. The criticism has hurt the position of some of our allies in Europe. Had the Dems kept some of this stuff behind closed doors where it belonged (because this is a war) and showed a unified front to the world then I believe Bush would have been bolder in the post war decision making, the French and Germans would have held their tongue, we may have had more support out of NATO and Europe, more troops from other countries, and would be further down the road to success not just in Iraq but N Korea, Iran , Lebanon, and Syria. Now that they have ascended to power lets see how they fare on defending the world which is necessary to maintaining the American way of life.

I don’t have my prayer rug yet, don’t care to grow a beard, don’t want to pray 5 times a day, and don’t want to learn Arabic but I am looking forward to having 4 or 5 women answering to my every beck and call, no nagging, no back talking, and *** when I WANT IT.

Our country is facing the most difficult choice in its history. Are we going to find the solution or just argue over the cause of the problem? Terrorist and terrorism are fatal for the entire planet.

 

*lol*

I know it isn't funny but I have to admit, you had me laughing with this one.

God Bless your heart USMC....

(I am still trying to figure out what the *** stands for though) I'm afraid to ask.

 

Thank you ma'am.

It starts with "s" and rhymes with "T-Rex".

 

No - sending your troops to get shot at for no particular reason is putting them in danger.

 

No particular cause? In addition to that 100 other reasons I've posted that justify going in to Iraq when we did, I'll give you the four overarching reasons:

(1) Bring freedom and democracy to people currently suffering under an oppressive regime.

(2) Sever ties between Saddam and the terrorists responsible for threatening and attacking our country (and yours).

(3) Alleviate threat posed by Saddam's WMD's.

(4) Bring stability to region torn by war through creating a functioning democracy as a City Upon a Hill.

 

(1) um... freedom? How many civillians have died since the invasion. Several 9/11s worth. But how many Amercans care if a few thousand innocent Iraqis get slaughtered?

(2) Even if this was a real threat, this was the stupidist, dumbest way to go about removing it.

(3) There weren't any - do you read the news?

(4) Stability! Ha (see previous irony comment)

 

Hey Monday Morning Quarterback, I said these were the reasons for initially going in to Iraq. Obviously things didn't turn out as planned but these were certainly just causes -- not only for humanitarian purposes but also American interests.

Anyhow, how many civilians were killed in Saddam's genocide of Iranians, Kurds, and Shi'ites? Way more than have been killed in Iraq (probably around 40-60k). More importantly however, is how you define a civilian. If it's anyone not enlisted in the military -- then the damn people shooting at us are civilians. You see Iraq is not like any other war where the enemy wears a uniform, has military bases, etc. Instead they bury their infrastructure in mosques, hospitals, civilian cities, etc. with the express intention of stirring up outrage over "civilian" casualties. They are using "useful idiots" (Lenin's term, not mine) like yourself for their own propaganda purposes.

And lastly, how many of these "civilians" were even killed by Americans? It's impossible to tell. Those who try to simply estimate from their plush hotels in the GZ.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/abu-nidal/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/631slkle.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

How would you suggest going about it?

Well we know he had WMD's because he used them. We just never found the nukes that we believed (and I still believe he transported to Syria).

In 2002, when the inspectors and possibly Americans were coming he took advantage of a natural disaster in Syria (dam broke) and he transported them by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft.

http://131.84.1.90/iraq/rebuilding.html

Making progress. Guerilla wars take an average of 8-11 years. Patience.

 

Saddam was in violation of 17 UNSC resolutions and the cease-fire agreement.

So? America, under this administration, has rejected several of its previous agreements and treaties. The one's affecting Global Warming could be even more of a threat to this world than any weapons resolutions on Iraq.

2.) Bush believed Saddam had WMDs because international intel did.

Correction! Bush believed Saddam had WMD's because fabricated intelligence, under the command of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, said he did.

3.) British Intel still stands behind the yellowcake story.

Oh, I'm sorry! I guess that makes it true.

4.) Saddam had working relationships with various terrorists (Abu Nidal) and terror groups (Palestinians). Ansar al Islam is an Al Qaeda branch that was allowed to operate in Iraq by Saddam for the purpose of suppressing the Kurds (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/cr...sts/abu-nidal/)
(http://www.husseinandterror.com/)

Reaching! Saddam Hussein had no tie with 9/11. That was the reason QUOTED for going after him.

5.) Saddam at one time did have WMDs and retained the infrastructure necessary for creating his WMDs

At one time? Amazing! That is like convicting someone of being a serial killer because they have bullets in the bedroom drawer.

6.) He had "training" facilities at Salman Pak for "counter terrorism"

So does Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia? Sorry, that excuse is lame.

7.) Iraq a former State Dept "Sponsor of Terrorism" sits between the two most active "sponsors of terrorism" Syria and Iran.

Oh, great! So why don't we just go to war with the whole Middle East?

8. ) the invasion plan was brilliant and was accomplished in less than a month

Are you serious? In this impoverished nation, what were they going to do? Throw rocks at us? Yea, great military planning!

9.) the post invasion plan has been successful in many areas(new schools, rebuilding infrastructure) but down right abysmal from a peace and security standpoint.

Yea, because we might as well build places for them to blow up BEFORE we establish peace.

(1) Bring freedom and democracy to people currently suffering under an oppressive regime.

This excuse is the WORST. Africa has been ravaged by oppressive regimes for decades, and Cuba, right on our doorstep, is in poverty. Yet, we choose Iraq to liberate? Give me a break. This excuse is absolutely asinine.

(2) Sever ties between Saddam and the terrorists responsible for threatening and attacking our country (and yours).

OK, to use THIS excuse, we need to start invasions of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, need I go on? Sorry, I am not falling for it.

(3) Alleviate threat posed by Saddam's WMD's.

Ummmm.....what WMD's? Oh, yeah! He had bullets in his bedroom drawer. Sorry, forgot!

(4) Bring stability to region torn by war through creating a functioning democracy as a City Upon a Hill.

This City on a Hill crap is so old it stinks. We are not a City on a Hill. We are the Bully on a Hill. We have directly and indirectly overthrown up to 20 democratic-leaning regimes in the last 100+ years because they were not sympathetic to the interests of American corporations. Our foreign policy is more of a threat to democracy than any terrorist. Don't believe me? Ask Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Honduras, Korea (both), Iran, Grenada, even Hawaii, to name just a few.

City on a Hill my ass!

Arch.

 

Hey Arch....

I'm sill waiting for the documentation to the "truth to the cover-up of this war is now surfacing" claim that you made in the initial post to this thread. How about it?

I'd also like to respond to a number of your most recent statements.

Never, not once has our government or the present Administration made the claim that Iraq was directly involved in what happened on 9/11. I challenge you to *show us all proof* of your claim that Iraq was ever linked to 9/11 by the present Administration. It does not exist. Please show us the quotes that you claim exist.

What the President did say was, "The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them. Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

He went onto say, and please pay particular attention to his words, "We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/

Bullets in the bedroom drawer? No, the proof that Saddam had WMD were found laying in mass graves scattered around Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of his victims. And.... we didn't convict him, the Iraqi's convicted him.

No we don't. The extremists have brought the fight right to us inside Iraq.

Now this comment made by you should be clasified as asinine. He had bullets in his bedroom drawer? That is the worst you feel that Saddam had or did? How can you decry anything about what is happening anyhere else in the world yet minimize what happened in Iraq for decades?

Right now Arch, ass is one word I would use loosely if I were you.

 

I was going to respond with an intelligent, well-thought out, well-substantiated post, but after reading this little gem, it's just easier to call you an idiot.

 

My apologies.