Back again with just a few things. I'm tired, and I don't really feel like we're getting anywhere. I give my points, you return with your own version of things. I think you're wrong but can't definitively prove it. There are conflicting reports and different takes on the same thing and ultimately... I'm going to go on thinking what I think and you're going to go on thinking what you think.
It has been nice getting some stuff off my chest, and I'm glad that at least some people are enjoying it. What's really cool is that despite strong disagreements, this thread has remained civil. I've said it before, but I love that about these boards. I know, in the past, that I've had to back away from threads because I've become too upset to post rationally. I'm glad it hasn't come to that here. Like I said... I'm tired, but not angry.
Is the world better off with Saddam out of power? For the most part, yes. I mean, he was a ruthless dictator killing his own people. On the other hand, we've thrown the country into such chaos that the people are now doing a much more effective job of killing each other. And, more importantly... we didn't really have the right to go in and seize power. We can't go invading every country whose government we don't like. We're supposed to be the good guys.
Wasn't I the one complaining about how bad the government was at spending?
Right. You don't like government spending. But you're happy about the ridiculously bloated Republican defense budgets.
First you complain about no body armor because it was too expensive, now you complain about them spending too much on the war. Which one is it?
Both.
I don't think we should have been in the war in the first place. I don't think we should stay in Iraq now. So I can complain about the expense on those grounds. And I can point out that it'd be more expensive to stay in Iraq than it would be to fund major programs at home.
On the other side of things... If we're going to be there, then let's take a look at how we're spending all that money. For the cost of one fighter jet, we could have bought body armor for everyone. (Something like that, anyway. I'm not going to run through the exact numbers.) Body armor shouldn't have been too expensive to provide, especially if we could have slashed some of the wastage. And then there's the whole issue of hiring expensive mercs instead of doing better by our own troops. And the lack of armored vehicles. And the whole situation with health care. And the programs for vets... In short, if you're going to go to war,
support the troops! I am not a McCain fan and never said I was. This is the guy who tried to beat Bush in 2000 by relying on Democrats and Independents in the open primary states like Michigan.
Yeah, it's kind of funny that way. He's the Republican nominee. The only viable alternative to Clinton or Obama. Let's face it, third parties don't have a chance this year. Best they can hope for is to gain attention and momentum for the next election. And yet... most core Republicans I hear from hate the guy. His Straight Talk Express drove him straight off a cliff last time, and he was a fringe candidate at best at the beginning this time. I honestly don't understand how he got where he is today.
I'm sorry that you and so many others are left without an option you like. I mean, you're completely wrong about a lot of major issues (
), but you should at least have a decent choice come election time.
Some have recommended covert operations. Those are completely useless against state sponsors of terrorism. In Iran alone there are potentially dozens of nuclear enrichment facilities close to being able to produce weapons grade fuel.
Actually, Mossad has a pretty good history in that department...
The US is THE target of terrorists.
I think Israel might disagree with you on that point.
Actually, given our history, I think a lot of countries would disagree on that point. That's one of the major things about 9/11. Before that, attacks had been so scarce that we didn't really take the idea seriously. We felt safe over here on our side of the world, when so many other countries had to deal with bombings as just another fact of life. Then, they were the ones telling us, "When you are sitting in the bull's eye, perhaps you'll have a different opinion."
I ask again, why is it Europeans don't care what Americans think of them?
Could it have something to do with the way we constantly declare that we're the best, ignore what they have to say, and just go ahead and do what we want because we're America and we have the power? If you make it clear that you don't care what they think, why should they have any reason to care what you think?
As for WWII... Take another look at your history books. We stayed out of it. The Nazis were invading one country after another, bombing our longstanding allies, and killing people by the millions. (Big difference between making threats to attack/invade or building weapons/military within your own borders and actually attacking.) But after WWI, most Americans didn't want to get involved in another war across the ocean. Especially not with the Depression.There was a movement to pretty much close our borders and ignore the rest of the world. It wasn't until we were directly attacked at Pearl Harbor that we really got involved.
We feel Europeans (collectively, not individually) are cowardly do-nothings who hide under our nuclear umbrella and won't lift a finger to help us when we're in danger...
No,
we don't. Some of us do. But plenty of us don't. As one of the latter, I'd like to ask you to please refrain from making such offensive statements on my behalf.
... And that's a lot more than I thought I was going to say. But at least it passed the time.
