Kelly the Dog Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Nor would I expect them to. However, I don't buy the rhetoric that says that US action isn't justified because certain allies don't support it, when those allies' self interest is diametrically opposite of the USA's. 91570[/snapback] There is a difference between wise and justified. I don't think the war was justified, but that is my opinion, and I fully understand the side and argument that says it was justified. But that really wasn't the main problem for me. I don't think it was wise at the time the way it was done. The war as it was reasoned and fought was not a good idea at the time because and only because it was going to create a bigger problem than it was likely to fix. And one of the major reasons I believed that then and now was because we didnt have world's governments, monies, troops, or opinion on our side. It looked bad. Virtually no one was going to help us except GB. We would be made to look like the bad guys. Our soldiers were going to get killed. We were going to pay for it all. And more terrorists would join the fray that wouldn't have if we didnt attack because it would look like we Americans were attacking a sovereign nation unprovoked, on our own, because we wanted to when they did nothing to us. And that's what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 29, 2004 Author Share Posted October 29, 2004 No, you are wrong. The talking box keeps telling me that Cheney is making oodles of money due to the connections to Haliburton and the reconstruction contracts. Please get your facts straight before posting. 91590[/snapback] I guess those controller folks over in the big building in Reston haven't watched the news lately. They seem awfully unhappy. That will, I'm sure, cheer them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 That was offered. They didn't want any part of the war effort, but wanted to be included on reconstruction. We basically said you play, you get payed. You don't, you don't. KBR is losing money hand over fist over there right now. There's no big windfall to anyone. 91576[/snapback] KBR is losing money over there hand over fist because it is such a problem and a mess. They would be making money hand over fist there right now if the war went as planned. And there wouldn't be such an insurgency as there is right now if there was a coalition like Gulf War I, and if this war was planned and carried out better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 But the vast majority of the world does not hate us enough to kill us, they are just jealous. This may not be a popular thing to say, but I'm not sure how this is our problem. I subscribe to the "everything changed after 9/11" position. They didn't fly planes into the Eiffel Tower. They hit us. They killed us. And then they laughed and danced about it. As far as I'm concerned, the rules changed after that, and we shouldn't need the world's permission to start going after these people. The other problem here is that aside from how we got into Iraq, it was just simply something that needed to be done sooner than later, and with the country still reeling from 9/11, it was the best opportunity to start going after the terrorists. Like I said...not a very popular position with the left, but I believe this country has to be able to go it alone in times like these because it has been proven time and again that the UN is worthless at these moments. I would also say this regardless of who is president. I don't want to live in a pussified America. I want to live in a strong America that isn't afraid to throw some punches on a global scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts