| The Ghost of RubangB said: I'd like to know how many Americans are in America and how many Americans are in Iraq. I'm sure I could have just as much fun with these numbers as Ann Coulter's crazy ass. But I'm pretty sure an armed U.S. soldier would be safer in Chicago than in Iraq. I'm also sure an unarmed U.S. civilian would be safer in Chicago than in Iraq. If she's arguing that armed U.S. soldiers are safer than unarmed U.S. civilians in Chicago, maybe she's right, but that is the stupidest argument I've ever heard of. @Kasz, if Ann Coulter ever argued that that was the reason we invaded Iraq, I'd understand her argument, but nobody ever argued that before the war. There's this huge logical gap between 9/11 and the invasion that I refuse to leap across. They don't get to change their justifications each time the last one gets disproved. Of course Iraq was never a threat, but I also don't see how terrorism was even a threat after 9/11. Didn't they take over 5 years or so to plan 9/11? Iraq War or no Iraq War, I don't think 7 years without another attack is a sign of success. People have been more afraid than usual recently, which is a sign that the terror tactics are working... but I can't think of a way to prove you're beating terrorists. How can we prove we're winning? No new attacks? Doesn't that mean we were winning on September 10th, 2001? Or do we just count the days since the last attack and come up with an arbitrary number that represents safety and freedom? This is one of the major problems with wars against vague ideologies instead of against actual people in actual countries. |
"We're going to invade iraq and put our troops (your kids) at harm so a bunch of people in NY won't get attacked. Probably wouldn't play well with other states."
Whatever real reasons they had... the justifications they used at the time were the reasons they actually did it. Like how a senator claims he wants more ethanol subsides to help the enviroment, when in reality it's going to hurt the enviroment and he wants them for farmland.
As for the war on terror. Well yeah, there is no winning that. It's like the War on drugs... a pointless "war" that you can't win that is going to sinkhole your budget that is one of a few cases that's better to treat on the end results. Like... just stopping terrorism before it happens rather then take out some root group. Doesn't make sense the way terrorist orginzations are built.
All you can do is claim your winning when things get a little better, and don't say anything when your losing.
Of course... the problem is... the war on terrorism won't end. Obama isn't any better then McCain in that regard... with his plan to use Iraq as a base of operations to send unilateral forces into pakistan to attack terrorists. Why should he be any better anyway. I mean "Fighting terror" that's like "Helping Happiness"!
My hope is the War on Terror is code for "Osama Bin Laden" in most Americans minds, and the country as well as the government loses focus once he's dead. What with his kidneys he's gotta have what... 20 years at most?
