Quote:
Originally Posted by silent_jay
Sorry mate, that was/is Bush's war, it hasn't spanned two different administrations, it went through most of Bush's, and well if you think you can pull troops out of a country in 10 months, whicch is all it has lasted in Obama's term.
|
Yes, you can withdraw the troops in 10 months or less. Or, you can say the war was wrong and put plans in place to remove the troops by a date certain. But, back to the point, Congress authorized the use of military force, they funded the war, Bush was re-elected by the American people - remember "stay the course". So to sum it all up:
Congress had the opportunity to say no, not yes.
Congress had the opportunity to give a conditional yes, not a "blank check".
Congress had the opportunity to re-visit the yes and make it no.
Congress had the opportunity to set conditions.
Congress had the opportunity to not fund the invasion.
Congress had the opportunity to set conditions for the continued funding.
Congress had the opportunity to impeach.
The American people had an opportunity to not re-elect Bush.
The American people had multiple opportunities to vote for people who would end the war.
The new administration had an opportunity to end the war or set a time frame for its end.
A Congress with a super majority and a President of the same party had an opportunity to do whatever they want.
And, you call it Bush's war???????????
Quote:
|
War zone or not, you do know there are different roles to play in a war zone don't you? Combat, logistical, and yes even construction, which is often done by civilians, so saying occupation is just a cop out, or you really have no idea what diffetrent roles there are in a war zone.
|
I understand that, what I don't understand is why do it? Why take the risk?
Quote:
|
Wait, wait, are you trying to say that because the Canadian government sent troops to Afghanistan, that equals supporting the invasion of Iraq? If you can tie the two together, you'll be able to do something Bush never could, so I'd like to see your reasoning for that one.
|
It goes to a broader issue raised in an earlier post regarding the inferred US predisposition to war. I assume people follow the flow of the posts. Some here seem to assume a comment taken out of context illustrates ignorance. If you ever have a question about what I am trying to say, just ask. I know that I have a problem communicating with people because I often have multiple trains of thought running at the same time.
This train:
If in principle a nation takes a stance that war is not a solution, preemptive or not, why engage in war? What was the "thing" that made making war in Afghanistan o.k., (the Afghan people were not involved in 9/11, nor was 9/11 an attack against Canada)? Then what is the "thing" that made making war in Afghanistan o.k. but making preemptive war in Iran wrong? If preemptive war in Iran is wrong, what is the "thing" that make any involvement in that war o.k.? If preemptive war is wrong why not take issue with the nation involved in initiating the preemptive war? Why pretend to be neutral? given these questions and others, what influence did Bush have and why?
Quote:
|
I don't know, I haven't read said report, care to share if with the rest of the class? What's the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan? If you don't know this by now, there is no use explaining it, it's the proverbial dead horse.
|
True, but not for the reasons you state.