Originally posted by lonewolf37
I concede that it is most likely 'not over' and I have little doubt that Iran is in the radar for military action. Every day seems to be some new
transgression made by the Iranians.
If you agree then I guess that means you will support the next war as well? The way I see it is that to continue to support the Bush administration is
to support more war. Is that what you want?
I don't agree that no other president would have went into Iraq, especially if (based on your reasoning) it is over oil supplies and military
expansion. On the contrary this would seem to go along with my point that all the politicians in DC have the same agenda whether Demo or Repub.
I don’t subscribe the puppet master theory that has control over both parties. If that were true, we would have gone to war with Iraq during the
Clinton Administration, because that is when
PNAC first asked him to go to war.
www.newamericancentury.org...
Furthermore, Clinton would not have been impeached, and Bush would not be receiving the static from the dems on the war now. Both parties are at each
other’s throat, which is by no means appeasing the American people.
I believe the war in Iraq was a conspiracy hatched by PNAC, which I’m sure you know were all Neocons whom are the far right of the Republican Party.
The agenda of PNAC is to increase the power of America in the future and one of the means was to gain a form of control of oil resources in the ME and
build military bases in the area. When GB won the election in 2000, they were already planning on how to sell it to the American public long before
9/11. Some believe that 9/11 was an inside job that paved the way for the war, but I don’t think it was, but they did take advantage of it.
The trick is keeping the politicians out of the war efforts so the real soldiers can do there job.
I agree, but before we go to war, it is the politician’s job to avoid it, and not conspire to start one.
These types of military tactics that would be necessary to actually win in Iraq will never be employed as long as the politicians are calling the
shots. It wouldn't be media friendly to do what is necessary to win a war in today’s times.
I agree the war has also been mismanaged, and would require more troops to stay a long time in order to keep the inevitable from happening, but I
think to start the healing we should hold those accountable that got us into the war and have mismanaged it. We now need other people running things
instead of the ones that started this mess.
I agree this is the wrong place for a full scale debate of the Iraq war or 9/11 conspiracies. There are other threads for that.
Well I don’t see anyone else complaining about our rants, and its been a good discussion so I don’t see the harm.
But as was seen in '98, Clinton was not above military action for even lesser reasons that 9/11 and I am certain that our current situation is part
of a larger scheme of events that we have not seen the end of.
Yes but not to the same degree as the war in Iraq. I don’t see how you can compare the two. As I showed earlier, there were people that tried to get
him to go to war with Iraq, and he refused. I think this shows that if lets say Clinton was still president after 9/11, we would not have invaded
Iraq. I would go further to say that we would not have invaded if a democrat were president.
I will say that the agenda of PNAC in the future may pay off in the long run, but that is only if you want America to gain more power over other
countries. I think it is better to cooperate with other countries instead of forcing our will over them. With a continued presence you will also have
to accept that terrorist will see this as a threat and will continue to fight us to get us to leave. It will be a never ending battle.
So with respect, I ask again. Is this what you want for the future of this country?
