I suppose our aid to Iraq created Saddam and our aid to Iran created the ayatollahs too?

so glad you pay attention. my husband and i are both navy veterans, and my son is currently a sailor-he just re-enlisted. my other son is also probably going in-he wants to get an appointment to the naval academy. what branch of the military are/were you in?

ooops.

This thread alone leaves us, without a shred of doubt, that the print in bold is the case.

Who gives a $hit about the religious whacko's?? Let them be by themselves...Stop monitoring them, and let them give us their best shot. :rolleyes:

If you believe that germany or Japan was a bigger threat to the US than a Middle eastern country with a nuclear bomb you obviously have forgotten about 9/11.

And under your theory how did germany or Japan involve our interests more than the Middle east does?

I will gladly answer your question. We would do nothing. It is not our problem. We didn't have a problem watching millions in Africa kill each other. Why should we care about these two countries blowing each other up. The history of the world is full of things that this happening. It is natural selection. The crazy people perish eventually because they refuse to evolve. And countries based on religion are just that, crazy.

Now answer my question.

yes, we did help saddam. it probably kept iran-no, it did keep iran from becoming a threat all those years ago-the threat it's trying to become now. i disagree with what gb2 did-removing saddam strengthened iran, in that respect it was a huge mistake. hopefully oil prices will remain low-as without that resource, iran can't afford to back up their rhetoric.

Great. He can stay on his little ship while my brother fights the wars. My brother is technically part of the navy too, but he is part of the navy that fights the wars, they are called Marines.

people who join the Army become soldiers. A soldiers job is dangerous. I have yet to see a single idea from any of your ranting.

apparently an inexact science.

i appreciate your belittling of our service, sorry it doesn't fit your ideals. again, which branch are YOU in? and let your brother know i appreciate his service-i really do. i have a lot of respect for all our guys and gals in uniform. not very much for those who cheerlead from the sidelines, as tho being a relative of someone who is doing something means a damn thing.

Yeah tell that to the guys on the Uss Cole. If you aren't drunk you should probably kill yourself.

No middle east county is going to use a nuclear bomb on the US. A terrorist group from Pakistan might, but nobody in the Middle East. Last I checked Pakistan was in Asia, but maybe the map changed when I wasn't looking. :eek:

LOL....You all thought I was nuts?

tony and i were in mayport when the stark came in-not sure how many here remember that. our commander in chief, reagan, came down for the memorial service. chilling seeing that ship. it's a wonder we didn't lose more sailors on that ship than we did. not that it matters apparently-i guess navy sailors are a dime a dozen.

Listen ****** if any country uses a nuclear bomb it further wrecks the worlds economies which are already in poor shape. Why this is so is simply far beyond your understanding. And last i looked there were a whole lot more US civilians killed on September 11th, 2001 on American soil that were killed during either World War.

They were killed by a terrorist bomber, not in some war. Marines were killed in Lebanon by terrorists too. There is nothing you can do about it. But you can keep them from dying in pointless wars.

Everyone loves to say we should fight this war or our military should be protecting people in Africa, but for some reason they don't like to sign up and fight them. Leave that to the guys in the military.

i disagree with your first part. also, you're arguing semantics when you brush aside how one group of soldiers died, while saying only deaths on a true battlefield count. they all died while doing their duty.

again, when did you enlist? altho by now, with no answer, i figure you are not, and have never been, in the military. you'd have said so by now had you been. so, mr. judgemental, maybe you should take some of your bad advice and shut up about what the military should be doing.

They were religious whackos on a dinghy. They don't matter. We shouldnt worry about them :rolleyes:

Nearly 1 million members of the military were killed or wounded in world war II. And almost all were drafted. I don't care if they are civilians or military. An American death is an American death. This notion that a civilians life is more valuable than a member of the military is moronic.

Where exactly do terrorist come from? Those wacko countries. if they are killing our guys with us monitoring what d you think it would be like if we just let them do what they want?

I am Army ROTC.

oh, i see. so you're still in school right now?

Yep. MS III.

I don't think it was pointless to get rid of him, but I don't know if we should of been the ones doing it(especially the way it was sold to us.) I totally disagreed with us staying there, and trying to put bibs on people acting like savages. Now that was indeed a pointless waste of American lives. That's what happens when a guy is stupid enough to think everybody wants freedom. They don't. They want hardcore religion and/or hardcore ruthless leaders. That's why they can't wait for us to get the hell out. We don't satisfy their needs.

Well, QC, you wear your brothers courage to fight very well! Unfortunately, it's sagging a bit since you apparently aren't the man your brother is.
btw.....are you, like, 14yrs old or what?

My head hurts.

I've done enough

Just curious - am I the only one that knows about the weapons of mass destruction they found in Iraq.

:D :tro:

Early nom for 2009 post of the year:tro: :tro:

don't forget, he is in rotc. oh, wait...i shouldn't criticize, having only been on a little ship in the navy-that counts for nothing...

Okay, I'm going to take an unususal step here and actually defend Quiet Chris.....a little bit. I certainly don't agree with a lot of the stuff the guy has had to say in this thread, but I think the idea of isolationism has at least some merit, and I don't exactly understand why so many Americans today - particularly Conservatives - scoff at the idea. Does isolationism mean that the U.S. should have no state department, or defense department? Of course not, but in the decades after WWII the United States has generally operated under the assumption that "my enemy's enemy is always my friend," and that the U.S. is always best served by intervening. How has that worked out? While it could be argued either way, there are certainly a LOT of negatives that have come out of this approach for both Americans and people around the world. How much did the U.S. involvement in Guatemala, Turkey, Greece, Afghanistan, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, etc really have to do with "winning" the war against "Communism", or helping any American citizens? By most accounts, not much. How many people - both U.S. soldiers and civilians of those countries - died from those actions? By all accounts, a lot.

Before they were taken over by the neo-cons, the Republican Party used to be (and people like Ron Paul still are) a bastion of isolationism. Is the basic idea that the U.S. should NOT be the policemen of the world that insane? I don't think so.
Personally I'm not an isolationist or an old-school conservative, but perhaps people that are those things simply deserve a better spokesperson than Quiet Chris. I do think strict isolationism is a reasonable foreign policy that makes cogent points which thoughtful and intelligent people could believe in.

Chris could be Pat Buchanon's lil nephew or something. I just object to him considering Israelis and Arabs to be about the same. You're right though, the Isolationism is not that unique. The reasons he used (in describing it's benefits) are a bit unusual. If you look at the hi tech methods the Israelis have used in intelligence, then, I think it's odd to say they haven't evolved. If we had evolved a little more, then we may have listened to them when they told us(a month before it happened) that terrorists were planning that thing in 2001. Did you ever think it may be a situation of us needing them, too? For all we know, we haven't had any new attacks, because Israel has helped us stop a lot of those attacks. I think we get good value from the friendship. We may not see the value exposed in front of the public though. I think it's a good friendship. I don't doubt we are helping the right people. Not in this particular conflict. They appreciate the help. Do the Iraqis? I see a big difference.

altho it's true that we don't always need to intervene, and there are times we have not, chris' contention that we shouldn't be involved in middle eastern goings on would be incorrect. his argument that it has always been a certain way over there, and that they are whackos who only care about religion is overly simplistic. ignoring the realities of the situation is a mistake.

I certainly agree with you on all of these highlighted points.
However, I think the argument that the U.S. has involved itself too much in the region over the last thirty years might actually be quite correct. I see no reason why the United States needed to involve itself in the Iraq-Iran dispute, or then invade Iraq, or back - with military force - nearly every single move of the Saudi government....etc.

We could of avoided that. We couldn't stay away from them damn bushes. We hadn't evolved enough.

No, you're not alone!

Of course he isn't alone! A lot of people have heard about how the military discovered a bunch of WMDs in the lair of the Easter Bunny. It seems that terroist bastard was stockpiling the things and was planning a major assault on the Tooth Fairy.
Luckily that plan was thwarted.