happy to help. Someone needs to fill in the gaps that the British media can't cover, due to their extensive reportage of American war crimes. When friends of mine had surface-to-air missiles shots at them, and others had anti-aircraft fire target them, but were told they could not retaliate under the current ROE? Yes, I consider that stupid. Call me a warmonger if you like, but I'm of the school of thought that believes that when a country reneges on its instrument of surrender, the surrender is off and war is on. IMHO, we didn't do enough to "discourage" them from putting our airmen in harm's way. If Britain and France would've done that in 1935, there wouldn't have been a WWII that had Germany as its main protagonist. As for the "innocents" who just died because they were targeting a US plane with fire-control radar? I'd say there's a lesson to be learned from that, and it's not that you can tie our behavior in that arena to innocent muslim terrorists pushed past the breaking point of wanting to commit mass murder.
why did they attack us? military presence in the middle east, most notably saudi arabia us support of the pro-western regimes of some middle eastern countries us support of israel and the ongoing civilian deaths in iraq at the time next time they attack will be for the same reasons, plus continued civilian deaths in iraq, and afghanistan ... not on their side, but i see what they are fighting for
Pretty sure that our reasons for being in the Middle East aren't entirely understood/accepted worldwide. So maybe they see the situation differently than you do. The blame lies with them who done it. But it's not unreasonable to ask why it was that they did it. It wasn't just that. It was evil people attempting to harm Americans in particular. If they just wanted to kill people, they could have chosen an easier, more local target. And there were reasons for targeting Americans. They may not have been good reasons from your point of view, but we weren't randomly selected. barfo
Brian, In one of Bin Laden's rants, he gave his reason for the attack as US troops permanently stationed in Mecca (Saudi Arabia). I honestly don't think he cared about Israel. Or Saddam. I think it was a little more complicated, so we can't just take his word as the only reason. He was our ally, of sorts, when we helped him fight the USSR invasion. When the Russkies pulled out, he wanted/needed to continue fighting, and we are the big target. One of my biggest beefs with govt. is that it sells weapons. I also don't particularly like it that they hire private companies to design and build new ones. There may be no better way, so the least we could do is tie the govt. contracts to a rule that the company cannot sell the weapons to anyone else. It's a bit dicey because we're part of NATO and those allies maybe should be flying our planes, etc.
This happened in the skies of Iraq between our two wars with Iraq? Not according to the media. Every few days throughout those years, I'd read a little tiny article about how a radar station in the No-Fly Zone had flipped on its radar as an American flyer flew within a hundred miles or so, so the fighter locked onto the beam and destroyed the station. The reason was that it was possible that a weapon MIGHT be fired using the radar. You're saying that not just a beam, but actual weapons WERE fired at planes in the No-Fly Zone, yet rules of engagement precluded them defending themselves? This contradicts the permission to destroy the source of a POSSIBLE weapon firing, right? How do you reconcile a defense being allowed against a POSSIBLE offense, but not against an ACTUAL attack?
I missed the last Republican debate. I mean I didn't see it. But I thought I'd throw this out (it does not refer to just the last debate). Analysis of politifact results. See Nate's article for the caveats to these results, but the chart above corresponds to my gut feeling about who is full of shit and who is slightly less full of shit. barfo
Who cares, Paul is still better than Huntsman. Huntsman is a better version of Romney but he still wants to build a stupid border fence. That is completely unfeasible. Romney avoids talking about his past, instead of lying about it. If he were forced into a corner his record on healthcare and spending could easily be exposed. His economic plan is inferior to Huntsman's too, what a joke. Aside from the Libertarians (Johnson and Paul), Perry is the least xenophobic out of this whole group. He's not a coward like Romney in economic issues and won't start a trade war with China. His debate skills are not polished at all, but Romney has an ugly history of BSing the GOP. I would not mind voting for Perry or Huntsman.
There is one thing to remember when talking about building a boarder fence. If you build it, they won't come. American's won't be forced to learn Spanish in order to stay competitive in certain jobs. English should absolutely be made our official language. I should never have to hear.....Para el hablar español la gente presiona el número dos
You need to explain why your phobia of Spanish should impact a CEO who wants to hire efficient and cheap labor? Btw the price of products goes down, and economies are built on a GROWING labor force, not a shrinking one. Take a look at Japan one day. *Para hablar en español, por favor presione el número dos No problem.
In addition to that some states already have multiple official languages. New Mexico and Louisiana are two, I think.
Jlprk, you might want to expand your knowledge of the world a little bit, before you trash Mexicans. In Miami we don't have that many mexicans, that is a horrible guess. Nah fuck him, I understood his attempt to appease me. If he sucks me off I'll let it go.
