Al Re..That's what I thought. You are unplugged from the real cost of a war.
Surely you don't think those 58000 dead were the only cost of the cold war. And don't think that if you don't fight, that there aren't any costs. The actual costs must be balanced with the costs of doing nothing. For instance, if we hadn't stop the expansion of communism in all of those places you detest, it is quite possible that we would be communist, or at least, as isolated as Russia is today. Just because most of us don't understand the geopolitical reasons for a war, doesn't mean they don't exist. So before you can convince me those lives were wasted in vain, you must convince me that I or anybody else, or any nation would be better off communist.
So why don't we invade Saudi Arabia, which is where the attackers came from. Don't tell me...I know...they are next.
I have given you explanations many times, complete with links. Why don't you give me links, showing why SA would be a better place to start our counterattack on terrorism than Iraq. If you can do that,and they overwhelm my reasons for Iraq, then, what the heck, SA it is.
Are you suggesting that there is a link between the Balkans and US goals to penetrate Europe?
Of course, DUH
Nato put a stop to Kosovo. and then only after years of tragic conflict in Croatia, Bosnia and then Kosovo.
That is the whole point. Nato only did so when they started to get nervous the killing , and or the refugee problem would expand into NATO countries; and then the US had to do the heavy work. Your humanitarism was just a defense reflex, to stop the ethnic cleansing before the rest of Europe joined in.
thought you were making a case for a war in Iraq on humanitarian terms.
Bullsh$$. I have always argued that the main reason for the war on Iraq; was the central role both Iraq and Saddam play; Iraq for its natural wealth, powerful army, mostly educated, somewhat diversified population, and Saddam, because he is as an evil dictator, as there exists in any other country. The reasons for the war are many, not just humanitarian. You just seem to want to believe that Bosnia was just a humanitarian war, which it wasn't, while wanting to believe the Iraq, is just for the resources, which it isn't. Both wars were, and or will be for both. Iraq also is a continuation of our involvement in an existing war, whereas Bosnia was the initiation of our involvement in that war.
Oops...that doesn't work either. Iraq has never attacked the US.
Bull, Iraq has attacked us, as Iraq was involved in the 93 bombing of the WTC. Irag has attacked our allies, Kuwait, SA and Israel. Just two days ago, Saddam paid out $50,000 to the families of the terrorist who killed Israeli citizens. Either defend that ridiculous statement, or drop it.
but much of the misery in Iraq is caused by UN sanctions
Yeah right, and its idiotic statements like that, which has made the dems into the minority they are today. Speaking of minority, it was on Fox, that Donahue has been cancelled again. Sounds like MSNBC is preparing the ground work to raise ratings, and bring in Rush. Maybe Phil can join his buddies on Hollywood squares. |
