dunt know about moores movie but micheal mooores book states all the facts where he got them from in the back. if i were u i would read both sides and then make ure decision.
But then again name one good thing our president did?
He went to Iraq and now million of our boys are dying for no reason reminds me of vietnam.
He ruined our economy and
lost jobs, yea 9/11 had an impact but we never lost jobs when we were attacked on pearl harbor. why? because we can make good out of bad.
he still hanst gotten Osama. COME ON MAN. this guy sends out tapes, threatens us, and we still dont fucking kill him. FIND HIM. send more troops do watever u need get HIM DEAD OR ALIVE!!!!.
to tell u the truth i dont like kerry i just really hate bush I think if edwards ran he would have beat bush. i also liked Dean and Lieberman from democratic side but Kerry was my last choice but he had to win democractic nomination.
I am just hoping Jeb Bush doesnt run for president in 08 and continue family legacy, he probably wont but its a possibilty but i am hoping Hilary runs and wins 08 seat
Im not gonna get into this argument, I think you'll can guess were im a coming from.
But I would like to shoot down some silly statements here.
There are is no million casualties. On the US side, there are about a thousand and on the other side perhaps 10,000 but there is no way to confirm and sources are unreliable.
As a person that studies military history, I can state that this is one of, if not the most, bloodless major wars ever fought. This is, of course, relative to scale.
This is not to say dying of any one person is good, but as far as wars go, this wouldnt even be a footnote.
Now, for finding Bin Laden. The "just find him" statement is the most armchair quarterback comment I have ever heard. He is literally a needle in a haystack. Look how long it took to find Sadam in a country were he wasnt well liked and everybody knew his face because he has it painted on every building.
This guy is a folk hero hiding out in barely mapped territory on the boarder of a country that can only help us with one hand tied behind its back. A couple hundred thousand square miles of mountains.
What do you suggest, that nobody check the phone book? Do you think that Bush and anyone involved in the search from the White House to the Pentagon to the troops on the ground troops doesnt realize what it would mean to the nation to catch him. This guy is living in a cave and he caused such a grave injury to the US it was unthinkable. A world power cannot allow itself, politically (internally and externally), to be embarassed like that.
Now if Bush was the most evil person ever, he would stil throw every resource at getting him. And if Bush were an OK guy, he would then too. There is just not "lets soft peddle this" possibility. And what technology do you suppose we are not using? What phone directory? Did anybody see if Magnum and Rambo are on the case?
Now, on the war and the reasons for it:
The power of any human government in any time period is based on its ability to protect its people and to display military strength to its peer nations to discourage attack at its most basic core. The idea of government is very simple the population gives power to the ruler in exchange for protection. Then as a culture progresses, it begins to demand human rights, well managed economic growth, a legal system (in place of justice, which is not available), laws, public works and utilities. But the core of goverment is the military.
But thats just any government. A superpower is a world leader. Rome, Carthage, the USSR, Nazi Germany, the British Empire these are all superpowers. Superpowers have alot to loose, but they have reached a point where they are at the top of the food chain and must now stave off the inevitable decline of their power. That power is most quickly destroyed by warfare and, if not by losing a war, by the immense cost of the war.
Now superpowers cannot afford to have others question their military powers. Because others who do can eventually lead to wars in which our interests are threatened. It's like the domino theory of communism, if you allow a minor government or war to go unchecked when it messes with a valuable interest it will grow into a threat of a more vital national interest.
Now, for a small nation to threaten a superpower cannot be allowed. This is not a humanistic world view, this is geo-political fact. A superpower cannot allow a small nation to show disrespect. In Rome, it meant that the city would be leveled. Now it means we send bombers.
But for a single, 3rd world group of mountain boys to embarass a superpower. This is an unprecendented event in human history. Unprecedented. Nothing like it has ever happened. Why? Because the technology exists were a small group can take into their hands tools capable of damage without having to organically have developed that weapon. I English; in the past only governments can develop weapons, not individuals. But these individuals didnt develop a weapon, they can buy them, hijack them, scrounge them.
So now you have a secret group of people, whose MO we now know, but for the sake of political correctness we cant profile them overtly. Even though there is one clear common trait among all of them, form the Philipines to the Morocco.
Now, on the geo-political scale, a super power must retaliate for any attack on its people. This is an unwritten law that is a basic part of government. And the attack must strike those that sent the attack.
But who do we attack. Well, one idea is to show that such attacks will not drive away the superpower, but bring him down on you. If a target for a reckonning cannot be found, then we should strike the best possible target.
This is what this is all about, this is the kind of thing civil society cannot express publicly, yet cannot escape from.
To attack a superpower and not receive massive retaliation is impossible. The superpower cannot avoid it, the people demand a reckonning and if one doesnt come, others will become encouraged by the show of weakness.
The US had to show strength against the Muslim world that attacked us. That is not to say this is right or that the Muslims or Iraq was responsible, but the US had no choice but to retaliate from our attack.
This affects Chinese policy, North Korean policy, European policy, Al Qaeda policy.
Im not saying this is right or wrong, but lions do what lions must by their nature and the same is true for any superpower.
A demonstration of power was required by unwritten laws that govern human nature.
And one would have come from any president in power at the time. Afghanistan was not enough of a reckoning.
Oh, and Bush didnt mess up the economy. That went bad when the dot-com bubble burst, I was there, you were, what 12 then?
Now on the subject of occupation, well, this is a major problem. This is why, when everyone said we should have invaded Iraq in the 90s, I was glad we didnt.
Occupation is an extremely difficult military maneuver. Soldiers are not policeman, and an occupying force is a sitting duck.
I hope we pull out soon, but I know we cant. We are locked in now, we cannot leave for the same reasons retaliation was unavoidable.
But make no mistake, we have been entangled in the middle east for a long time, since the cold war. It just finally gotten to the stage were troops are there.
Was there a way to retaliate without occupation? I dont know, I cant think of way. And retaliation was unavoidable.
The UN would say sanctions, that that is a laughable, impotent joke.