Now if you don't support Obama you are accused of being a racist bigot.
This an extreme accusation. Most Democrats support opposition as it breeds improvement brought on by competition.
A country needs to be united in a time of war.
Who told you that? When Bush was president all of the Republicans demanded that we United for war, despite many disagreeing with Bushes decisions, and now that Obama has made war decisions many republicans are protesting. What happened to being United for war? And are we supposed to blindly agree when someone hands us a rifle and tells us to run out into a field? I'm glad that there are people who think and disagree with others.
I suppose that shows which kind of Americans I seem to come into contact with.
I was going to say that most likely you are in contact with Americans who travel and/or are more versed in how the rest of the world works and what other countries think of the United States. The Americans who have never stepped foot outside the country, or even care to read about the other parts of our globe are the worst. (generalization, but i hope you get my point) They are usually pretty ignorant and think the rest of the world is a bunch of savages.
If you didn't support Bush you were accused of being 'un-American'. What the hell's up with that? That's the kind of rhetoric the Nazis used.
Wow, very well put!
My biggest complaint about anything, not just the United States, is the people who don't think. I don't want to say this, but people should be tested to see if they know whats really going on in the world before they are allowed to vote. I don't want to force people to vote my way or anything. I think all positions and parties have their good and bad points. But I think people's decisions would be much different if they studied whats going on. People often don't have any facts to back up why they are voting a certain way. It's usually "they said it was the christian thing to do in church" or "Obama's not even a citizen".
This leads to my next point. We NEEED to focus on education, not war. Although, I'm fine being one of the few Electrical Engineers as I will have a job. I don't want some of the rest of the people to make uneducated decisions that will ruin our country.
This synthess between the state and being patriotic is a very dangerous thing. If you apply that logic to the fullest extent, then you wouldn't be living in a democracy.
Now if you don't support Obama you are accused of being a racist bigot.
I wonder if that is actually true, or views put forward but right leaning media institutions and politicians?
I was going to say that most likely you are in contact with Americans who travel and/or are more versed in how the rest of the world works and what other countries think of the United States.
And in that I believe I have been very fortunate.
I think all positions and parties have their good and bad points. But I think people's decisions would be much different if they studied whats going on. People often don't have any facts to back up why they are voting a certain way.
This is a contentious issue, however I will say that there does seem to be an inherent contradiction within the Republican psyche. Republicans believe that behaviour is dictated by emotions, not rational thought, which is why they believe strong government - because people aren't capable of ruling themselves. However, if this is so, how can they justify using emotional appeals to gain votes which they so often employ, much less champion universal suffrage?
[quote] The Taliban is the invader. Our troops' job is to drive out the invader.
Why is it OUR job to drive them out? Did we receive any call for help? We have no business overseas in ANY of those regions. What the entire world needs to start understanding is world peace, that way we don't have to kill to protect our homeland, and we don't have to kill to invade.
Or you could slowly up troop numbers and bombings,artillery strikes,etc and beat them. Slower and the pussy peoples in the 1st world countries wouldn't like it, but it'd work.
Or you could slowly up troop numbers and bombings,artillery strikes,etc and beat them. Slower and the ***** peoples in the 1st world countries wouldn't like it, but it'd work.[quote]
it probably wouldnt. unless you are willing to accept massive civilian casualties, like in Vitnam, you probably wouldnt be able to defeat the Taliban, many of whom have cave systems in the Hindu Kush mountain range. You'd also need to get permission to bomb Pakistan, as if ISAF adopted this tactic, likely the Taliban would withdraw accross the border into insurgent held Pakistan.
Really I just can't see this working. You have to be much more patient when fighting guerilla insurgencies.
We have acccepted massive civilian casualties, the Dutch a few months ago cornered off apart of a city and made it a "Free Fire" zone it was bombarded for hours all it acomplised was 78 civilan dead...
I guess so, but then everyone b!tches about how long it takes.
I think the public would be far more likely to support a war which took a long time but had fewer casualties than a war which was over faster at the cost of way more civlian and military deaths.
