You know, a preemptive strike against some country for some weapons they don't have where they change the reason for invasion afterwards to concern for human rights.
2007-12-25 08:00:42 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Neocons don't care about either of those things. If they did care about the War on Terror, they would be doing something more effective than keeping our military pinned down, with their combat capability degrading, in a country whose insane leader was no threat to the West and who was doing a far better job of killing off the terrorists than we ever could--he had to just to stay in power.
The ugly and inescapable truth is that 5 years ago, everyone who is killing Americans in Iraq right now was trembling in fear for their lives under the brutal regime of Sadam Hussein. Bush freed those people to kill our soldiers.
The only things Neocons care about are short term profits and grabbing more power for themselves at America's expense.
2007-12-25 08:22:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
If we don't win this war against islamofascists we will have no future. Your lies are sickening. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and John kerry said Saddam had WMD. Did they lie about that?
2007-12-26 03:48:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The next war IS the future.
2007-12-25 08:04:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
The future, of course, and to do whatever is necessary to secure that future of liberty.
In 1785, future Secretary of State for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, in conjunction with John Quincy Adams sent a letter of inquiry to an Ambassador from the Barbary States; state sponsors of terror, asking why they felt the USA should accede to their demands for paying “tribute”.
On March 28, 1786 Jefferson and Adams detailed what they saw as the main issue:
“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Yet, the payments to those States and the terror sponsored by those States continued for two more decades against the USA. In the late 1700s, America paid significant blackmail for peace -- shelling out $990,000 to the Algerians alone at a time when national revenues totaled just $7 million. Europeans continued payments until the 1830’s.
When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."
You can be so naïve as you wish, to believe the crux of the current conflict is as simple as who may or may not have WMD and what the desires for such weapons may be: but for me the crux of the matter is enslavement in the name of peace.
Paying tribute to the modern “Barbary State” of Iran would be no guarantee against future hostilities. Under an Iranian Caliphate, one would have three choices; conversion, death or paying tribute for the right to live as a subservient people.
In this regard I will adhere to the words of Patrick Henry.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
2007-12-25 09:37:17 · answer #4 · answered by crunch 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I say we prefer to prepare children for the future, and teach them that by burying your head in the ground and hope the bad things in the world don't hurt us is not very realistic.
2007-12-25 08:09:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
I can only speak for myself... as an Independant Conservative...
I think winning wars against our enemies are very important... however, eliminating Libs and their ilk from the Public Education system and restoring a system that PROPERLY educates our young people... instead of attempting to INDOCTRINATE them... is vital to our future.
2007-12-25 08:09:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
A secure nation is sometimes attained through war. However, indoctrinating children in the liberal public education system only teaches them to ignore problems and become cowards..
2007-12-25 08:17:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
they are more concered with having children learn just enought to pass the entery exam for the military, and for those that qualify to go directly to college they make sure it is totally unaffordable so they have to join the military
2007-12-25 08:07:24 · answer #8 · answered by luis s 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋