Some honesty is required don't you think?
Where does this leave those who want to give carte blanc to Bush?????
2006-09-29 05:29:07 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We aren't!!
You mean Iraq ?" I asked. "That isn't gonna be for nothing. Saddam is dangerous, he has to be stopped."
The man could barely conceal his contempt. "Give me a break. A danger to who? Us here in the U.S. of A.? Is his navy off our coast? Is his air force flying over our cities? The only danger he poses is to his neighbors, maybe, and they're so worried about it that they're willing to let us die for them, but won't fight him themselves. And they want us to pay them for the privilege. With friends like that...." His voice trailed off. "Maybe you're right," he finally said, "this isn't for nothing. It's for oil."
My raised eyebrows made him shake his head, and he went on: "I don't know what's worse. Killing people over political philosophy, like in my time, or for oil. Hey, at least this time we might get something for our blood. Like ol' Tecumseh Sherman said, 'Nations go to war when there is something to be got by it'. Now oil can be got by it. After a great start, we're gonna be no different than any other empire that came down the historical pike.
"And I know what you're gonna say next. 'He sponsors terrorism'. Where's the proof? I thought we were going after bin Laden for that. But wait, Afghanistan ain't got any oil. So we need another monster, who's got something worth taking. And Saddam is so damn convenient. Yeah, he's an evil sonovabitch who deserves to be taken out, but are we the ones who should do it? Are our kids the ones who should die for it? Is he worth another Wall like this?
"And what the hell is terrorism, anyway? It's not a thing; it's not a place; it's not a person. It is a political and military strategy, that's all. Having a 'War On Terrorism' is as ridiculous as having a 'War on Flanking Maneuvers'. You'll end terrorism when there's no longer anything for anybody to get pissed off about."
"As for now, maybe if we looked at why people are pissed at us, we'd begin to understand. Hell, it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong; it's what they perceive that motivates them. What you have to address is why they perceive things as they do. Only then will you start to get a clue. And spare me the bullshit about them hating us because of our freedom. We haven't been truly free in a long time. And now we're letting all this demagoguery convince us to give up what little liberty we have left. Big Brother Lives!" Col Hackworth, 3 DSC's, 6 Silver Stars, 5 Purple Hearts! Nominated for the Medal of Honor 3 times!
2006-09-29 05:33:53 · answer #1 · answered by cantcu 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No rational person, even Bush et al., believes that crime or terrorism can be stopped. Human nature cannot be stopped; and both crime and terrorism are ingrained in human nature.
The rational person, untainted by personal agendas, understands the best we can do is to try to protect ourselves from crime and terrorism. That, history tells us over and over, will be an imperfect protection...crime and terrorism will still have some victims. The rational person hopes to minimize the number and extent of crime and terrorism; that's the best one can really expect.
2006-09-29 12:37:51 · answer #2 · answered by oldprof 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Amazing....
You want to discuss eliminating crime? This coming from an individual that supports the idealogy that believes it is more important to represent the interests of criminals instead of those who the crime was perpetrated against.
This coming from an individual who believes we should embrace people who illegally cross our borders?
This coming from an individual who has had absolutely nothing positive to offer in regards to solutions to the War on Terror.
Perhaps some honest self reflection is needed by you.
2006-09-29 12:36:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Money, talks and bullshi^t walks. The money would be better spent here but try to convince the president that it is wrong to send it over seas while people suffer here at home. We have accomplished nothing in Iraq other then taking Saddam out of power and in so doing we have created chaos
2006-09-29 12:38:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
the powers that be dont want to stop terrorism.
that would be bad for business.
gas prices would fall.
money would stop flowing to the military industrial complex
people might actually stop being fearful.
why would they want to stop terrorism
its not in their best interest.
2006-09-29 12:35:58 · answer #5 · answered by Thoughts Like Mine 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They don't want to stop the war in Iraq. It's all about killing off the black breeding stock.
How many healthy young black men have died in Iraq.
Go big Red Go
2006-09-29 12:59:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
What would our crime rate be if we took the $100B and put it into law enforcement and crime prevention (educational system)?
Right on Brother!
2006-09-29 12:33:42 · answer #7 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
We can't. We won't. It is to soon in this planets history. But, if you have war interests (Halliburton) you would just love an ENDLESS WAR!
2006-09-29 12:35:05 · answer #8 · answered by pointingdevices 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
We're not. We won't stop terrorism here either.President Bush is at least trying and hopefully will slow them down.
2006-09-29 12:35:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
We will never stop crime. Does that mean that we should fire all the cops? NO! Just because we cant stop it doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it.
2006-09-29 12:36:19 · answer #10 · answered by only p 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋