The reasons for going to war have been the same since we went to war in Afghanistan. Those reasons are STILL true. We are in war to prevent further terrorism to the Iraqi people which goes along with freeing the Iraqi people and protecting ourselves. We destroy the weapons of mass destruction while going through. If liberation was not the plan then a lot more people could be dead.
If you really think your strategy is the best one why don't you join the army? If you really think your plan has no faults then I say you are full of yourself. I'm not saying the Coalition's plan was perfect, no plan is perfect.
And you have not only called the government murderers, scandals, and liars, but you have called every war supporter out there those names! You have called them ignorant, careless, and selfless. And what further makes me angry is this:
Quote:
Originally posted by BlackThornn
I don't want everybody to be safe. I'm not naieve enough to believe that is possible, or believe anyone who really knows the situation and has demonstrated as much thinks it's possible.. *coughs*.. I just know that there were better ways to handle this situation after Dumbya threw it out of control, and I know that it was unnecessary before he did so.
|
You are nothing more then hypocrite! You don't want everybody to be safe? You totally go against this war and now you have your own plan of attack. I for one want everybody to be safe, though I know it can not happen. What makes it different if you give them 90 more days? If people are really that stupid that they need leaflets to tell them to run then that I am shocked. How do you know the deserters would not have been shot in the back? It's happened and there were no leaflets. You said yourself Saddam would not change. And what is this about let Blair do the talking? You hate him too, am I not right?
And if you think Bush came up with the battle strategy then you are giving him a HUGE complement. I, for one, think that it was a good strategy. You are crazy to think that other countries should have fought in the war. It would just send people who do not have the training or the equipment to fight and die. It would just slow down the Coalition forces. What the hell is the point in having all this technology for the single purpose of war if you are not going to use it when you go to war?
I think that there are worse strategies to go about this war. I read a number of strategies before the war started and after. Some predicted a lot of Coalition troops being killed in combat. Some went as far as using nukes if a chemical attack happened. As far as I know there have not been a substantial amount of Coalition troops killed. I think blazing through was the right strategy. It was clearly not looked for and it has saved Iraq by keeping most of their oil fields in tact. I think oil is more important to the rebuilding of Iraq then some artifacts. Oil, after all, is from the dawn of civilization.