WMDS = not there

[GT40FIED]

Originally posted by highlander
Steve, point out where I said I agree with the way things are in the world and I'll FedEx you a sugar cookie. Don't attack me for speaking the truth; I am not in control of it, nor do I support it or agree with it. I am stating facts, not agreeing or disagreeing with them, so don't try to put me on the defensive, for I have not said anything that would put me on a side to defend.

And yes, people are gonna hate us. But the "live and let live" policy will only work if everyone agrees to it; they have not, are not, and will not ever agree to it. They want a fight. If someone has resources and support, they can create a fight with the US. Would you like to have troops fighting for you in desert wastelands, or would you rather have to keep a rifle nearby in case the Taliban kicks down your door...

Truth? You mean all of that subjective material and conjecture that anyone can twist to mean whatever they want? Yeah...that truth kicks ass. Look...there's no such thing as truth. There's only opinion and viewpoint. I don't support a "liveand let live" policy either, but we've got a REALLY shitty track record of picking our battles. Korea...Vietnam...Iraq #1. All overwhelming successes, to be certain. So who gets to decide which side is picking a fight? I'm sure to many in the Arab world we're the ones picking the fight and they'd be right. To us their terrorist bullshit alone is picking a fight. Again, we'd be right. So if everyone's right, why go to war? What benefit do we have of invading Iraq? Iraqis could have gotten freedom on their own if they had wanted to. My gas prices are still pretty high, so I'm assuming oil wasn't a big part of it. OPEC controls all of that anyway. Then you're just left with Saddam. A whole war to get one guy. But now Iraq is a breeding ground for people who didn't hate us before, but sure as fuck hate us now. Who did the risk/reward analysis on this plan? Fire that asshole. As for the options you gave me, I choose neither. If I feel that my own life or the lives of others are in real danger I'll pick up a gun and fight for myself. I don't need someone else doing it for me. But there aren't really any countries that pose a credible threat to us...save maybe the one nobody is paying attention to, North Korea. Why haven't we invaded Pyongyang? I'm sick of people saying that others are fighting for my freedoms. Last I checked, Saddam wasn't in any way gearing up to take away my freedom of speech. More than anything, I fear that from our own government. So with all of this legislature running around trying to control what people can say, why doesn't the military invade Washington DC? I mean, if anyone is screwing with my freedoms, they're in DC. The bottom line is that being like a drunk in a bar swinging a bottle...taking on all comers is not an effective option or, given the size of our military, even a possible one.