Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sea Demon
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Quote:
|
Yes, it's difficult isn't it? But I find it interesting that those who critisize the Bush administration have no answers themselves. They do nothing but critisize and offer no alternatives short of full surrender. No Thanks.
|
Funny that you didn't answer the questions. So whats it worth?
Because one doesn't have the answer doesn't make one blind, dumb or stupid. What isn't working isn't working.
News Flash:
It was just on the news that the NATO commander is asking for more troops and quickly for Afganistan. They are loosing towns to the Taliban. The candle is burning on both ends. Whats the answer? |
Hmmm. OK I'll go back to your original post and answer your questions.
.......
OK, back
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Are we dumba$$es or what?
|
Well, I usually don't like to resort to name calling as that is the lowest common denominator of debate. But I will say that it is very stupid to hamper your own nation in a time of war....since you and your kids have to live there. I think it's stupid to ignore threats and give terrorists time to flourish. I believe it's stupid to put politics ahead of the national security of your country.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
While Bush in Crawford grilling steaks with his good ole boy's our guys will still be dying. Isn't that swell.
|
No, it's not swell that our guys are dying. But I thank them for their service and sacrifices. And I refuse to spit on their service. The thing is, I don't look at what they're doing as trivial as what you do.
On your last statement on this most recent of your posts (see above), The answer is to give them the resources to do the job. But I'm sure you would prefer unconditional surrender, eh? |
And I think it's "stupid" that people actually think that the US is capable of abolishing ALL terrorism from the world. Are we not going to leave Iraq until all forms of terrorism have been completely eradicated? There's even cyber terrorism...Does this mean that all website owners are "harboring" terrorist? Should G.W. send troops to Neals server to blow it up? Perhaps G.W. and his wasteful spending would rather do it with a $1,000,000.00 Tomahawk cruise missle instead just for the extra fireworks display that it would cause? Does this mean that Bill Gates is the head honcho since his operating systems tend to make up the bulk of the worlds Internet servers? Is there proof enough that Bill Gates means to take over the world with his operating systems just in the same manner that Osama Bin Laden means to do it with his bombs and guns?
The fact is terrorism comes in all different shapes and forms, and for Bush to say that he aint gonna leave Iraq until it's been completely destroyed means that the US is gonna be in Iraq for a pretty long damn while apparently. I like how someone else mentioned earlier that the Iraqis' didn't become terrorist until AFTER they had been invaded by American forces. That is the absolute truth!
This whole war is nothing more than another Whitehouse scandal pent up on nothing more than sheer rage against Iraqi people and Sadaam for disrespecting G.W. Bush's dad and threatening his life. Bush knew exactly what to do once Al Queda struck New York (and there's proof that Bush knew that the 9/11 attack was going to happen, yet he did nothing to try and stop it:hmm: ).
I'll bet Bush was thankful about 9/11. This was his BIG chance, his BIG break, to finish off Iraq once and for all. It was time for him to show daddy that he was now a man.
Just the fact that Bush new that 9/11 was or could happen and did nothing about it means that he commited a major derelicition of duty which in some cases is punishable by death. I know all those times that if I had fallen asleep on watch or did nothing to make my shipmates aware that the ship and their lives were in danger from an enemy I could be sentenced to death. It's in the UCMJ, and if the president is the "Commander and Chief" of the military he needs to be tried like every other service member that has done the same thing (dereliction of duty).
Why does the Captain of the USS Cole have to suffer for an enemy attack that happened on his watch, but not Bush? What a double standard in it's purest form. The Cole Captain lost 17 crewmen, Bush lost thousands. The leader of any platform is ALWAYS suppose to be the one to take the blame, ALWAYS! A Captain is suppose to go down with his crew. Bush let those people die on 9/11 and he had the power to try and prevent it, and didn't. He didn't even have an extra cop on duty that day just for minimal extra protection. That is why I can't ever believe a thing the man says, that is why I won't ever believe what the mans says. That is why I don't support him, and that is why I will never support him.
I hope and pray for a Democratic government once again in office. Hillary Clinton would be who I'd vote for! She's got more ballz than Bush and her husband combined!
