What Did They Die For?

[Snee]

Thus proving the old adage that "just because you are paranoid it doesn't mean that they are not out to get you".

Whether the wars were the most appropriate or indeed most sensible response is another matter altogether.

Edit: Feck Snny can type fast

It's an optical illusion, brought on by my cunning usage of a larger font.

Really, it's just a sentence or two, maybe three, maybe four, maybe...uhm, I'm lost.

[j2k4]

What your government fails to understand is that not everyone wants a democracy. Your government is not alone in this misconception

Some people actually like just being told what to do, so long as their is food on their table, clean water in their taps, and electricity in their TV. Unfortunately, these seem to have got AWOL for alot of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I feel this is a fair-minded but unrealistic formulation, Barbie.

The mob is, first of all, most comfortable with what is most familiar.

We know this to be true from self-experience.

I guess the most apropos answer I have for your view is that Mussolini was greatly admired for making the trains run on time.

Democracy is so much more than that:

The predilection for anything less is what leads to the Shahs and Saddams of prior years, and I think we have had enough of that, at least according to those who criticize America for poking it's big nose (and military) about the globe.

True elective government weeds out Saddams and Shahs just about everywhere it is tried.

Left to themselves, these caliphate wannabees will yield to the strongest of the would-be strong-men, and the situation doesn't change at all.

If the U.S. does as it has in the past, the situation doesn't change, either.

We are in uncharted territory, as international opinion sits on the sidelines in judgement of they know not what.

In WWII, Germany and Japan, while suffering the same pains as Iraq, were resigned to their fates nonetheless by the fact they were so utterly defeated they had no choice.

Modern "opinion" no longer allows one nation to thoroughly subjugate another for that ultimate end, and disallows any consideration of the terrorist thought-process for reason of incorporation into a comprehensive strategy to fight it.

It's a tough go all 'round.

An interpreter is standing by, Busyman.

[Busyman™]

What your government fails to understand is that not everyone wants a democracy. Your government is not alone in this misconception

Some people actually like just being told what to do, so long as their is food on their table, clean water in their taps, and electricity in their TV. Unfortunately, these seem to have got AWOL for alot of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I feel this is a fair-minded but unrealistic formulation, Barbie.

The mob is, first of all, most comfortable with what is most familiar.

We know this to be true from self-experience.

I guess the most apropos answer I have for your view is that Mussolini was greatly admired for making the trains run on time.

Democracy is so much more than that:

The predilection for anything less is what leads to the Shahs and Saddams of prior years, and I think we have had enough of that, at least according to those who criticize America for poking it's big nose (and military) about the globe.

True elective government weeds out Saddams and Shahs just about everywhere it is tried.

Left to themselves, these caliphate wannabees will yield to the strongest of the would-be strong-men, and the situation doesn't change at all.

If the U.S. does as it has in the past, the situation doesn't change, either.

We are in uncharted territory, as international opinion sits on the sidelines in judgement of they know not what.

In WWII, Germany and Japan, while suffering the same pains as Iraq, were resigned to their fates nonetheless by the fact they were so utterly defeated they had no choice.

Modern "opinion" no longer allows one nation to thoroughly subjugate another for that ultimate end, and disallows any consideration of the terrorist thought-process for reason of incorporation into a comprehensive strategy to fight it.

It's a tough go all 'round.

An interpreter is standing by, Busyman.

Where and what for??

[j2k4]

I feel this is a fair-minded but unrealistic formulation, Barbie.

The mob is, first of all, most comfortable with what is most familiar.

We know this to be true from self-experience.

I guess the most apropos answer I have for your view is that Mussolini was greatly admired for making the trains run on time.

Democracy is so much more than that:

The predilection for anything less is what leads to the Shahs and Saddams of prior years, and I think we have had enough of that, at least according to those who criticize America for poking it's big nose (and military) about the globe.

True elective government weeds out Saddams and Shahs just about everywhere it is tried.

Left to themselves, these caliphate wannabees will yield to the strongest of the would-be strong-men, and the situation doesn't change at all.

If the U.S. does as it has in the past, the situation doesn't change, either.

We are in uncharted territory, as international opinion sits on the sidelines in judgement of they know not what.

In WWII, Germany and Japan, while suffering the same pains as Iraq, were resigned to their fates nonetheless by the fact they were so utterly defeated they had no choice.

Modern "opinion" no longer allows one nation to thoroughly subjugate another for that ultimate end, and disallows any consideration of the terrorist thought-process for reason of incorporation into a comprehensive strategy to fight it.

It's a tough go all 'round.

An interpreter is standing by, Busyman.

Where and what for??

In case you choose not to understand.

[Busyman™]

Where and what for??

In case you choose not to understand.

I think most people understand you. You just talk in a roundaboutwayindirectlywithspinadded. Sometimes I can bother to trudge through the muck and sometimes I can't.

[matt526]

The original question was, what have our troops died for?
Although Iran may have been a better country to attack to fight terrorism,
Attacking Iraq is still not all bad. I don’t know the exact figures but I do know that our troops have killed way more terrorist then 3,000. American troops have greatly disrupted most if not all of the known terrorist organizations, helping to keep America and other countries safe. Sure Iraq is a mess, but how is Bush supposed to finish the Job when he has so many enemies in his own Government, enemies that sometimes seem to be on the side of the terrorist and not the United States Of America.
I can’t believe there are actually elected officials in our government that would fight for the rights of known terrorist that we have in custody.

[Snee]

They've killed over 3000 terrorists...in Iraq?

Were these terrorists actually terrorists before Iraq was invaded? Were they bombing the US and that, I mean?

[Barbarossa]

By "terrorists" I think he meant "potential terrorists", which of course translates to "Foreigners".

[matt526]

They've killed over 3000 terrorists...in Iraq?

Were these terrorists actually terrorists before Iraq was invaded? Were they bombing the US and that, I mean?

With this logic we should wait and let them attack us first, then we can attack them.
Wow that’s smart. As much we don’t want to be in Iraq being there is a preemptive move that is doing a lot to keep the USA and other countries safe.
Also I don’t care when or where the terrorist came from; a terrorist is a terrorist and deserves to die.

[Snee]

So there weren't actually 3000 terrorists killed in Iraq then. You just pulled that number out of your arse.

'k, I was just checking.