|
Planetfurry BBS Forums for Planetfurry Site Members and more
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Jai_taigas Site Owner
Joined: 08 Jul 2001 Posts: 107 Location: Anywhere Lone
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dude did you watch the news with the Iraq war Part 2 was starting up? On a near weekly basis Bush would come up with a new and different reason that he wanted to attack Iraq! Plus the fact, that even now, at this point in time, today, at 2:16 pm, here is no proof behind any of Bush's claims about Iraq. The only proof of anything that we have, is that terrorism within Iraq got worse after the war.
Plus I'll mention again, that there is a huge movement to try and impeach both the VP and the President! The only reason that it's not gotten further is because Pelosi is blocking them both.
As for a plan to fix the country's economy? That's not my job Mike, that's not what I'm paid to do. I'm paid to stock shelves, that's it. My duty is to voice my opinion and the problems I see to the people I have elected so that they can get together and fix the problems. I can say any form of stuff that comes to mind that sounds great to me, but when you place it to actual economics it could be the direct opposite of what needs to be done.
I'm just a regular guy that understands that Bush lied to us, that the economy is not in a good place, and that we don't need a war with Iran. Oh yah, did I mention the war crimes that Bush is in trouble for?
and if you don't want to buy the war crimes, watch this clip from cnn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc _________________ Murph, this is my signature, read it with awe and admiration while you wish you had one like this. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rabbit Registered User
Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 345 Location: Middle Tennessee
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My biggest problem with Bill Clinton (I _despised_ the man and resented every minute of his presidency) was that he failed to resume the Gulf War when it was so clearly and unmistakably called for. OTOH, when Mr. Bush tried to "simplify" the issue by linking the need to attack to Iraqi WMD, I knew he was making a terrible mistake. At the time, I wrote a letter to a local paper (they printed it, too) forecasting what an idiot our President was about to make of himself when no WMD material was found. (I predicted it would simply be relocated to Syria.) I've not much trusted the basic abilities of the Administration since, though I found the single offered alternative far worse.
None of this that I can see pertains much to the original thread-topic of war with Iran. All I can say is that, as I read the tea leaves, if Iran is allowed to get nukes there is a very large chance of nuclear war in the mid-east, and perhaps elsewhere. My studies of the issue indicate to me that truly deep bunkers cannot be reliably killed with non-nuclear weapons. Therefore, I do not support any _non-nuclear_ pre-emptive strike against Iran-- that much I can say for certain. All it will do, very likely, is provoke a war without defanging the enemy, the worst of all possible outcomes. And, on the side of peace, I am very encouraged by the fact that there is considerable internal resentment against the regime.
If a pre-emptive strike is made by Israel, particularly a nuclear one, then all hell will break out in the world. If we do it, all hell will still break out, but perhaps not actual fighting. Who should do it, if and when? I'm really not sure. It's far more their fight than ours, but do we owe the world the removal a new Hitler? Perhaps.
So, as you can see, I remain very much undecided and, as usual, unrepresented politically. (No one in Washington seems to hold an opinion anywhere close to mine, on pretty much anything.) Of all the options, right now I suspect that a non-nuclear pre-emptive strike by either us or Israel is the worst. It carries almost all the negatives, with a large risk of accomplishing nothing.
(To those of you about to send me high-tech geewhiz articles on the latest conventional bunker-buster bombs-- thanks, I've read those already. Have _you_ read the Air Force's requests, turned down by the Clinton Administration, for a nuclear bunker buster? They asked for this because convincing data said that conventional weapons could not be improved enough to meet emerging defensive techniques...) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|