Simply because you don't agree with the reasons that many of us have
given for starting or continuing the war doesn't mean that no one can
articulate them.
I've done this ad nauseam, but wtf, let's do it again.
Reasons for starting the war:
1. Multiple cease fire violations
2. Refusal to allow inspectors to do their job
3. A continued effort to convince the rest of the world that he (sadaam)
had WMD
4. Ongoing sponsorship and exporter of terrorism (somehow AQ and Islamic
Jihad are different groups?)
Reasons for continuing the war
1. Humanitarian issues, you know and I know things will get much much
worse if we leave now.
2. You broke it you bought it, we destroyed much of their infrastructure
during the invasion, until they are stable and have
electricity water and so forth we shouldn't be leaving.
3. International opinion, this is something you've used to say why we
should leave, but I believe the opposite. The escalation of violence
that would occur should we abandon Iraq would surely put us in a worse
light with the international community.
4. National and regional security, should we leave Iran will move in in
large numbers. The resulting power shift in the middle east will cause
major waves through out the region. This chaos will be a prime ground
for breeding and training new terrorists who will be attacking western
targets in larger and larger numbers.
5. Finally one you probably don't understand. Americans have died
there. Even if all the others weren't true this one alone would be
enough for me. Once American blood has been spilled would should stay
until we have broken the will of the enemy, at any cost.
Dana wrote:
> so your problem with the man is that he is not willing to prolong a
> war? Even though nobody can articulate a reason for waging it?
>
> On 3/23/08, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In case you missed it, that was sarcasm. My point is that any candidate
>> should not be judged on one singular issue. As Gruss pointed out all of
>> the candidates have their pros and cons. I am not judging Obama on just
>> the religious issue. My concern is he has no experience, and although
>> there are times when a less experienced person could be a welcome change
>> in certain instances, I am not willing to gamble that idea on the future
>> leader of this country. In this instance, I am going to have to go with
>> who is more experienced. Yes Obama is a good speaker and as Michael
>> pointed out he has a way of inspiring the masses, but charm and charisma
>> can only take you so far. In my opinion, Obama does not have enough
>> experience in politics to take on such a monumental task, especially
>> when we are still at war. I would prefer a candidate that not only has
>> military experience, but has actually been to combat. Someone like that
>> knows what is at stake, and that person knows that regardless of the
>> circumstances of why we are at war, we are at war none the less and they
>> will want to see it through. Surrendering to me is an affront to the men
>> and women who have bravely volunteered to not only serve, but to serve
>> knowing that they are going to war.
>>
>> Dana wrote:
>>> .....
>>>
>>> your post speaks for itself.
>>>
>>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:257256
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
