Dan- Did you know there are those out there that want to kill us? We know there can be no peace with these people. Therefore, we prefer to kill them and especially their leaders.

- Skip

oh BS.

Skip, how dare you speak the hard cold truth like that! :eek: :)
You need to be more sensitive... War protesters, W haters, US haters, women and children may be reading this!

Whether you like it not, Mul is spot on with that one.:p

Killing terrorist/murderers has nothing to do with being a war monger or peace lover.

It is the degree to which we apply military power and to whom which is always the issue.

Some of you just don't seem to get that.

Seems to me to have everything to do with it.

Peace lovers will use military force differently than war mongers. Going after Osama was the goal and backed by nearly everyone, even the war protesting peace lover that I am. Iraq went over the line.


Now you brought up premeptive killing against people you "just know" want to kill us. That's over the line too.

Osama? Getting Osama certainly will be a feelgood moment, but he's but a single man. What I get from your post is:

Military use for revenge = good
Military use for lasting change = bad

???:confused:
Here is an easier hypothetical situation to chew on: If Bill Clinton was president right now and the Iraq situation was the same, 75-95% of the protesters would be in support of the war right now instead of against it. (I have no proof, but it IS a much easier concept to understand)

Basically... the war is prolonged due to a bunch of W haters who cannot temper their disdain for Bush, which in all actuality means a higher price tag in lives and money. (read: D R A W N O U T C O N F L I C T)

The Cindy Sheehan supporters/defenders are the ones full of BS, they must be too brainwashed or stupid to realize it.

Otherwise known as

Military use for self defense-good
Military use for specious goals-bad

So only Osama is a threat, you believe this was the isolated act of one man.......???

Ok, we'll never be able to comunicate on this then.

Hypothetically, Clinton probably would have stopped with Afghanistan and made sure we got the perps of 911.

If he had tried to push for Iraq invasion, I would protest that to.

Maybe you have not noticed that most Americans are against the Iraq war.

We are digressing back to reason for Iraq for which we will never agree.

The Taliban govt of Afganistan allowed AQ training camps to exist in their country, so the left says we can smoke em (which I agree with wholeheartedly).

SH harbored a terrorist (himself at the least) and snubbed his nose at 10 years of UN resolutions, took pot shots at US planes, along with a bunch of other humanitarian abominations and was thought to have WMD (probably still has some buried in the sand somewhere).

I see plenty of reasons in each of the above mentioned cases.

That's the difference. I agree with the first only. I agreed with the first Pres Bush and his reasons for not continuing after SH.

I think I get it. While it may never be 1968 again, that old refrain from the time period still seems to be applicable..."Kill'em all and let God (or Allah) sort'em out."

Still, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But, I think the fact that Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves making it the third largest in the world is very significant for obvious reasons. So, you guys certainly had your way in this case.

Afghanistan should have been attacked and that war should have been prosecuted to the fullest. They harbored and trained those criminals. Iraq was a lie and detracted from our mission in Afghanistan. Where's Osama? Oh yea, Bush's "allies" in the war on terror from Pakistan can't seem to help find him over there. And we can't seem to catch him when we try (Tora Bora). I can't help but wonder if Bush really wants him caught. I think he feels he has better population control with a "boogie man" running around. Just one more thing to keep you all scared into supporting his lies.

Bush simply used 9/11 as an excuse to invade. I know you've all heard this before. But that doesn't make it any less true.

And now, the Taliban are sending people to Iraq for training to import the tactics and IED's into Afghanistan. We are seeing an increase in the number of US Soldiers killed there as a direct result.

Just how successful can the campaign in Iraq be if there are now training camps operating out of a country we supposedly control? If the Afghanistan situation spins out of control, then what? More troops? More dead Americans? How long are you willing to blindly follow the lies and deceit before realizing this is a huge mess that you support? How much is too much for you?

I've already had it with Bush and his minion's lies. I saw "Brownie" testifying today. Sure wasn't his fault things were hammered up in NO. Just ask him. It is the same throughout the Bush administration. So it sure won't be his fault when the Iraq mess falls apart.

Who knows, maybe we'll have another "Peace with honor" type pullout. It might not have been in 1968, but it wasn't long after that either.

Dan

Maybe you have not noticed that most Americans are against the Iraq war. [/B][/QUOTE]

Most people I know (other than a few union workers at a plant my company does business with) are strongly supportive of staying the course in Iraq.

Of course I live in normal America, not in the big overcrowded cities.

Smoke another one, Tim.

I would still stand against the Iraq war. And if Clinton had done the same thing as W, I'd admit I was seriously disappointed in my choice.

Dan

You mean the normal America where people shoot other people on the Interstate for target practice?

Exactly, odd that those that are considered "enlightened" are the ones whos lives most closely resemble that of cattle.

Tim, please tell me you're headed to the Vegas meet in March, I'm gonna need backup to stay sane:)?