This is awesome! All of your work is 🙂
Yeah, and leaving the country before finishing the job would honor the troops!
By comparison our losses of troops in war have been less (at times) than in peace time. This war, like any war is distasteful but sacrifices have been made since our formation and as long as we wish to keep our way of life there is always a sacrifice to maintain that way of life.
“Our way of life” is not at stake in the Iraq war, you ignorant, unamerican piece of shit!!!
Chris calm the hell down. For christ’s sake, “Our way of life” is not strictly for American’s but for the whole world. Before the war Sadamm murdered his own people and now, Iraq has a future in the world as being a gem of the middle east.
We set up an Islamic Republic in Iraq and Afghanistan – how many more Americans should die for that?
Let’s see, we overthrew a bad dictator, whom the US had helped put in power in the first place, and who acted at his worst in the late 1980’s when he had the full support of the Reagan administration, and in the process we created so much death and destruction that the country became and remains torn apart in sectarian violence that makes it unlikely that the country will know peace and tranquility for at least a generation, and this is bringing “our way of life” to the world? Let’s see, Mike thinks that, at times, fewer troops are killed in wartime than in peace, so does that mean, Mike, that we should keep them at war to save lives? Mike’s and Carl’s reasoning makes perfect sense–if you are completely ignorant of the history. I’ll bet that neither of these gentlemen realized that in the 1960’s, the US helped engineer political coups in Iraq that ultimately put the Baathist party of Saddam in power. I’ll bet they also don’t know that the Reagan administration befriended Saddam in the 1980’s. And, I’ll bet that they don’t have the foggiest notion about the complex political realities and instability that US policy continues to create in Iraq.
Nobody gave a damn how many of his own people Saddam killed before Bush invaded Iraq except for the far left bleeding heart liberals.
It is not the “American way of life” to crusade all over the place in the name of such abstract a concept as freedom.
However, the logic of appealing to the safety of soldiers in avoiding or ending wars is idiotic. Soldiers are meant to kill and be killed. If you go to a recruiting office, sign up, and expect anything other than that your retarded, and you need to look-up the definition of “Army” in the dictionary. Dieing is what armies are for. Now maybe we shouldn’t have a standing army, but that is different argument altogether.
By the same token, the “honor” of fallen soldiers used as an excuse to lose more of them is equally retarded. No one can be honored dis-honored by the actions of anyone but themselves.
armies are not intended to die. they are intended to protect the populus of the armies nation from outside invaders. iraq never invaded america, never attacked, never even had the capability to attack after what america and other western countries have done in the last few centuries to disrupt the governing bodies in the middle east to the point where they cannot defend themselves. as for fewer american troops being killed in this war than in peace time..er… what about the 1million iraqi people killed. thats ok then is it? what about the children that have died due to medical supply sanctions on iraq since the gulf war. what of the millions that have died since the gulf war because of un exploded bombs, cluster bombs (landmines in all but name) and the pollution caused by the use of nuclear arms used in the gulf wars (depleted uranium shellsm etc). what did iraq do to deserve this? killed 5000 insurgents years ago. an event that had nothing to do with the west and was even given a thumbs up by some western governments at the time. propaganda is a rife political tool even today. pulling troops out of iraq would certainly destabalise the country more, but keeping them there for 5, 10 or even 100 years wont solve any issues. just protect an oil and income source. which is what the whole thing was about. for few men to decide to elimate many there is usually some kind of gain from it..generally financial, as thats what capitalism is all about. read up on how many times america has done this, a coup followed up by rebuilding the country after destroying it and taking control of ulitities such as water or oil to create profit. ffs they even did it with bananas…..
Grumble grumble grumble… There have been less than ten years in all of human history without some sort of war. The powers that be have always been manipulative war mongers, and now is no different. The question isn’t why are we in Iraq, it’s why are we so fucked up as a race?
Iraq never should have been one country to begin with. The British Empire created it through force, and the only thing that has ever held it together is dictatorial force. The different religions can’t live in peace under one rule. We have no right to be on the long list of outside forces dictating to them how to put together their country. The only ones who can possibly do this job right are the Iraqi’s themselves.
And besides that, sending the Army and especially the NATIONAL Guard off to police the world is a complete perversion of their oath to defend the United States. Honor the troops oath to defend and bring them home.
“It is not the “American way of life” to crusade all over the place in the name of such abstract a concept as freedom. ”
Hehe what about during Teddy Roosevelt’s presidency?
There was the Panama Canal (example of America crusading all over the place)
The negotiation of peace in the Russo-Japanese War (being all over the place in the name of such abstract a concept as freedom)
I also believe during that era we had alot of involvement in South America and the pacific.
Going to Iraq was not un-American or contrary to past American politics. Rather most of America has moved away from past American ideals for better or worst. I enjoyed both sides of the argument most people posted here, compared to posts that are usually made on the internet about the Iraq War
Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan knucklehead.
The American way of life is NOT sustainable, the only reason you can go to a store RIGHT now, and buy a 4 dollar radio is because 80% of the worlds way of life is so impoverished (comparatively).
And so YES, the American way of life IS at risk, and always will be as long as ANYONE, ANYWHERE tries to live like that outside of America, and the rest of the already OVERdeveloped world (Canada, Western Europe for example)
****different religions can live under one rule… its the people, not the faith.
hahaaha i wonder how many of these lefty surrender couch monkeys are
over 40 ….
they are a testament to the old sayin….if before you turn 40 you arent a little liberal you have no heart….but if after age 40 you arent conservative…you HAVE NO BRAIN…hahaaah
brainless couch monkeys of the surrender variety…..
i hear KENYA hasn’t started many wars….TAKE OFF PUTZES….
America is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. If we help liberate people and change their lives for the better, we’re invaders that should mind their own business.
If we don’t step in to help, “oh, why isn’t the US doing enough to help [place name of victim’s here].
Liberals are never happy!
What does this blustering have to do with my cartoon, Mr. Liberals are cry babies about everything?
Fuck the troops! They are there to die. Let them die.
It’s all about money,
The billions of dollars for the “reconstruction” of iraq go to american companies.
That money comes out of middleclass americans via taxes.
The volume of money being transfered is mindboggling.
Also, how about the civilian casualties in iraq? Anybody here give a fuck about that? I guess not.
when the united states went into iraq we went with logical reason and support at the time. Unfortunately due to some particular countries greed (France, Russia, Germany and China) kept them from following through with there Unanimous vote agreeing to UN resolution 1441. President Bush had just been attacked by a terrorist group less than two years before the invasion of iraq. 3 000 of his innocent people had been killed. after getting intel from france, spain, england and ourselves giving reason to believe that saddam had wmd’s. Saddam as we all know wether we put him in power or not was no stranger to murdering his own people and was obviously not right in the head. The un security counsel passed resolution 1441 saying that if saddam didnt comply with inspectors that after 30 days of no proof of dissarmement or proof of no weapons any member of the security counsel could remove saddam from power. This was agreed upon unanimously, we gave him 2 extra months and then when push came to shove the rest of the UN backed out, Bush was not about to risk attack on anybody while knowing saddam hadnt let us into a number of his palaces, Bush made a decision and followed through on what he thought had to be done. Of course oil was an incentive it runs our world so why would bush want to risk the loss of oil exports from iraq. And all of you know if he hadnt gone in and proved there were no weapons in iraq and saddam reached nuclear power and did something with that power, who would be blamed?
Oh man, ingenius!
Mail (will not be published) (required)