Post by GoudG99 on Jun 2, 2004 23:11:50 GMT -5
I for one was very supportive of military action in Afghanistan to kill and capture as many of those animals as we possibly could.
How many of you Pro-Bush people feel let down with what has occurred in Iraq, when the original pretense for overthrowing Saddam was positioned to us, the American public as an immediate need due to the potential of WMD's?
I'll answer. The one position that I liked when Bush ran in 2000 was his commitment to not over extending the military and to not use our highly trained troops as nation builders (I will find a quote if you would like). Then like only elected officials can do, the term "WMD's" is eliminated from their vocabulary and words like "liberation" and "sovereignty" are replaced.
I for one do not like the fact that 1) our boys and girls and 2) billions of dollars are being wasted on "freeing" a country of people who will be bastardized by their Arab/Muslim neighbors for having an association of any kind with the USA. Now, if we went there and had rid the world of 1,000 of chemical weapons that were ready to be deployed I could support is.
But who takes responsibility for the lives lost, the lives effected (American that is), and the billions spent getting rid of a guy we had in check anyways. Isn't it the guy who makes the decision? I don't support Kerry and I don't support Bush. I guess the electoral system we have makes it easier for me not to vote at all because let's be honest, our CT votes don't matter anyway. But we desperately need a viable 3rd Political Party in this country. We can not let these two lying, flip-flopping, pandering political groups to exist on as an the only two options in town. The system sucks. The results we get from our elected leaders our worse, and at the end of the day middle class get the short end of the stick.
How many of you Pro-Bush people feel let down with what has occurred in Iraq, when the original pretense for overthrowing Saddam was positioned to us, the American public as an immediate need due to the potential of WMD's?
I'll answer. The one position that I liked when Bush ran in 2000 was his commitment to not over extending the military and to not use our highly trained troops as nation builders (I will find a quote if you would like). Then like only elected officials can do, the term "WMD's" is eliminated from their vocabulary and words like "liberation" and "sovereignty" are replaced.
I for one do not like the fact that 1) our boys and girls and 2) billions of dollars are being wasted on "freeing" a country of people who will be bastardized by their Arab/Muslim neighbors for having an association of any kind with the USA. Now, if we went there and had rid the world of 1,000 of chemical weapons that were ready to be deployed I could support is.
But who takes responsibility for the lives lost, the lives effected (American that is), and the billions spent getting rid of a guy we had in check anyways. Isn't it the guy who makes the decision? I don't support Kerry and I don't support Bush. I guess the electoral system we have makes it easier for me not to vote at all because let's be honest, our CT votes don't matter anyway. But we desperately need a viable 3rd Political Party in this country. We can not let these two lying, flip-flopping, pandering political groups to exist on as an the only two options in town. The system sucks. The results we get from our elected leaders our worse, and at the end of the day middle class get the short end of the stick.