This war is not going well, is it? These soldiers were heading out for R&R when their helicopter was shot down.
$87 billion? I say let’s just put a $1 billion price on Bin Laden’s head - I find it hard to imagine that we’d be in Iraq if not for the horror of 9/11.
Here’s the story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101948,00.html
Peace to those we’ve lost and their families.
Indeed. Rest in Peace, you fine men and women.
And I hope that one day, all of us on this globe on which we live, might one day realise that tribalism, corruption of power, inequity of wealth, and religious fanatacism (in any guise or shape) will be the ruin of us all, sooner or later.
“I say let’s just put a $1 billion price on Bin Laden’s head - I find it hard to imagine that we’d be in Iraq if not for the horror of 9/11.”
That’s fine with me. The asshole needs to die.
However, I’m not at all sure that Bin Laden had anything whatsoever to do with the war in Iraq or specifically with the shooting down of the helicopter today.
What I DO think is that it’s about time we got serious about this war. You can’t fight a compassionate war. The way to limit (our) casualties is to cream the opposition. We’re pretending to be such fair-minded, generous victors. There was footage on TV today of Iraqis celebrating the shooting down of the helicopter. That’s disgusting.
I say, give the opposition a choice. Shut up and adjust, or die. This is a war, after all, not a high-school debate. Kids (on both sides) are being killed out there.
Palewriter, but, but… you´re supposed to be there to liberate them… 
What gives?
As much as I condemn such killings as the one descrived in the OP, the hard fact is that the USA and it´s coallition are an invading force in Iraq; sadly then, this things are to be expected.
That’s the point I was trying to get across - shouldn’t we be going for the hoodlum who took our towers down? Oh, I don’t doubt for one minute that Saddam was a brutal dictator who deserves to experience the pain he bestowed upon his people, to the tenth degree.
But, why does the U.S.A. have to save the world? It’s not as if Iraq is the only country with an evil dictator in charge. We simply don’t have the resources to fight every evil - we do have a few expenses of our own (the homeless, victims of the CA fires).
Didn’t we/aren’t we? Not arguing with your other points, but there’s only so much one can do in some situations. If Bin Laden is sitting in a cave or a hut in a swamp (eating rice and growing stronger…), surrounded by followers who are 100% loyal and will not betray him, it may be some time before someone makes a mistake and he is caught (such as him ordering something from Amazon, not tipping the pizza boy enough, or calling in to Boy George’s radio show to request the latest track by “Chrome Koran”…)
The problem for you Americans (and bear in mind this is an Aussie friend speaking here) is that nowadays, you’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t.
If the tragedy of the Balkans and Kosovo had been allowed to continue without the leadership of the USA to force a workable solution, then the USA would have been lambasted the world over for her inaction.
Indeed, I’ve heard Bill Clinton say on many occasion that the genocide of Rwanda was the single greatest black mark on his presidency - which I think accurately reflects the pressures with being able to call The President the “most influential person in the world”.
But there’s another aspect to all of this as well - and it’s a subtle point I’d like to make… for many years now a certain, small but somewhat vocal minority of American commentators have made a few remarks on the world stage which, with hindsight, could have been phrased with greater magnanimity if you know what I mean. Stuff like being “the most powerful nation on earth”, “the world’s only remaining superpower etc”.
My point here is that it’s a hard act to juggle - that is, when comments are made which trumpet America’s greatness - and then, when the going gets tough, if she chooses not to display it.
I know that my last sentence there is pretty vague and amorphous - but it’s the best I can do regarding trying to explain how you’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t. It’s also part of the reason why the major asshole cunts of this world like to target America first and foremost for nasty terrorist acts instead of other nations.
Right - it’s got to appear impossible to other nations that the U.S.A. has poverty - those of us here can see it every day, though. It’s nothing like the despair other nations face, of course - in most cases, there are homeless havens available here. But, still: if we have to pay the bill to exile every evil dictator and repair every ill in the world, we’ve a long road ahead.
That whole “most powerful nation on earth” bit is not only elitist, it is working against us; 9/11 certainly proved that point.
Bear in mind that all we have now are witnesses who are saying they saw missile trails when the chopper went down. It’s possible it was a simple mechanical failure or some other sort of random thing that brought it down. Small consolation, I know, but it would change the complexion of the day’s events just a little.
Then you need to do your homework. Wolfy, et al, had the invasion as a done deal before their stooge was elected.
I get so tired of you people bringing up the negatives about how the war is going. Focus on the positive things. 
My brother is with the First Armored Division in Baghdad. It’s driving me crazy waiting to hear if he’s ok or not. I can’t even begin to imagine what he and the others are going through. I want this over with so much.
Okay, I’m positive we did not need to invade Iraq. I’m positive there are and were no WMD. I’m positive Sadam did not pose a clear and present danger to the USA. I’m positive we were led into this war by lies told to us by our president. I’m positive that we will be faced with huge budget deficits for years to come and I’m positive that we will foot the bill for repairing damage in Iraq and I’m positive that that damage wouldn’t need to be repaired if we hadn’t caused it. Is that positive enough for you? How about adding that I am positive more and more of our troops will die in a place they shouldn’t have been sent to, to fight a war that wasn’t necessary.
I’m positive that pulling out now will get hundreds of thousands if not millions of people killed – starting with 95% of Iraqi officials in the nation right now. Every cop or soldier trained by the US would be a dead man. All the terrorists in the world would simultaneously say “I told you so.” Doing things for logical reasons not involving immediate gratification means we have to drag some of you along.
First an foremost, my thoughts are with the fallen and their families. May they rest in peace.
Well, in this case it could be argued that the US was at least partially responsible for Saddam’s rise to power. It certainly was responsible for providing him with tons of weaponry, enabling him to become a lot more dangerous than he truly might have been under his own power (which is not to say he wasn’t a madman in his own right: he was).
I’ve always been of two minds on this issue. The reactionary in me thinks “Hey, you guys got the wrong puppet in place, you take him down again, too”. On the other hand, there’s never been a more dangerous time for the US to go to war than now: anti-American sentiments are rampant, and invading Iraq is only going to fuel the flames. Who needs that? As much as I might dislike the current administration, the US is still a country I love, and many of its citizens I consider my friends. That, and they’re an ally - and they’re liberators, and always will be, to my nation.
So, with that in mind, I thought a UN mission was preferable. Obviously, history has shown that GWB et al didn’t have the same amount of patience. We’ll never know whether they made the right call, here. The cynic in me thinks Iraq was an easy target in order to divert media attention away from that other war: the war on terror. Where’s Bin Laden? Where’s the man that brought down the Twin Towers?
If I had a son in Iraq, I’d be marching in front of the White House demanding that GWB pulls out of Iraq in favour of a UN task force, and focus on the real issues the US faces.
Of course, GWB won’t do this. Not until the pie called Iraq has been sliced up and divided among various American companies.
Liberation, my ass.
Anyways. As for the US going after every dictator in the world, I’d have to agree with Boo Boo Foo here. Screwed if you do, screwed if you don’t. With great power comes great responsibility, and showing that responsibility is quite a task. It’s obviously too much of a task for the current administration.
Even with an army as big as the US, taking on all dictatorships simultaneously, or even in rapid succession, is impossible. One could argue whether the US should focus on real threats, like North Korea with its nuclear weapons aspirations, rather than an already crippled desert country with little defense.
I’m not suggesting the US should have attacked North Korea: that may indeed have been too dangerous, and not just for the US. But the fact remains that the threat Iraq poses was vastly exaggerated (either intentionally or not), and as a result, many young men and women are dying in a war that should not have taken place, at least not like this.
I always thought that a cash price on OBL’s head is kind of ineffective. Would be better to have an award of say 100 sheep, tools and a good radio, something the people who might be able to tattle could relate to.
Yeah. Fucking jerks who want immediate gratification. Would’ve been a real fucking shame to have to wait a few weeks for the weapons inspectors to report again. :rolleyes:
For the benefit of Blonde and anyone else who may not be aware of this still, let me repeat the intentions of the current administration towards Iraq (my emphases throughout):
“Clear and present danger”, “war of liberation” and “world policeman” my arse.
Thanks for seeing it my way finally: pro war when the troops are committed, but in no hurry to get to the war. Feel free to kill the hamsters to prove me wrong.
I was really worried about stupid crap like border security with Syria and Iran.
I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass about what you might have said six months ago. It’s what you’re posting right now that comes across as bullshit:
“Doing things for logical reasons not involving immediate gratification means we have to drag some of you along.” (my emphasis)
Who’s the “we”? The pro-war faction? Are you backing away from that now, and saying you were “in no hurry to get to war”? Are you now claiming to part of the “you” group?
Honestly, if you’re going to go for the “we” and “you”, or “us” and “them” rhetoric, you should sort out beforehand which group you think you might belong to.
Some of “you” are senators that cast votes for an authorization of force resolution but not funding for the use of force.
Sure, congress controls the pursestrings. I’m not arguing constitutionality or treason, just rank hypocrisy.
Moreover, based on your history of seizing the conclusion without dealing with the arguments, I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think ever.