DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote:
ORIGINAL: ElizabethAnne Ohhh....ok; so you're saying we shouldn't have gone after Al Queda; We should have kept our tails between our legs, and done nothing. Got it; Now that's showing real strength. We shouldnt have armed, funded, and created it in the first place. But we should have went after al-queda where the 9/11 guys were from, rather than where al-queda wasn't. Um al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. Not sure why we'd go into Saudi Arabia when they were in Afghanistan. But, I'm sure you have a brilliant thesis for that. The big problem with the "War on Terror," is that there is no specific "Country" or anything. Hezbollah and Hamas have been labelled terrorist organizations. Where are they? The are all over the place. We can't go into one nation and and end them because they aren't one nation's. That was one of the complaints of the Democrats in early/mid 00's, I believe. And, they were right. But, continuing down that same path isn't smart either. The Democrats have hated the wars since we started them. When the Democrats took over the Legislature, did they stop the wars? Did they pass any bills that stated that funding was going to be drawn down, so we'd better draw down our troops and gtfo? Nope. They kept things going. They kept the money flowing. Why? Political pressures. They didn't want to look like they weren't supporting our troops. You can even claim that they knew Bush would veto it, but then you could always take a over-rule vote. But, they didn't. And, when they had their glorious super majorities, did they then end the wars? Nope. They did not. It was simply more of the same.
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|