Q said:
It's amazing to me that someone says something like "Fact: blah blah blah" and it's all his own opinion. If your going to preface something with the word "fact" at least try to put some in there.
It's obvious that "John" has no clue to any of these topics, has no concept of "budget" and the government, has no idea what world peace is all about and can't seem to seperate his far-off opinions from fact. We understand you have an opinion, but just imagine for one minute that you or even a little part of your opinion is wrong....can you imagine how many people you put down...for nothing?
Take this random quote from your blathering: "I am against spending BILLIONS of dollars to invade another country for NO reason, with NO plan, and with NO chance of changing anything "
Well, let's see. It is a fact that Iraq had no proven link to 9/11. It is a fact that the "weapons of mass destruction" incentive to invade Iraq was fiction, created by the administration as an excuse. If you have evidence that 1) there was a proven link between Iraq and 9/11 and/or 2) there actually were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, please post links and cites to the evidence. Reputable parties, please.
Second, it is a fact that we have spent over $250 billion dollars with zero demonstrable results. We are no closer to a solution in Iraq or the Mid-East now than we were 5 years ago. We have made things worse...we have destabilized the region, we have over-extended our military, and we have killed innocent civilians. Bombings continue, the insurgency is still very active. Are you saying none of these are facts? What, exactly, do you call a "demonstrable result" of an invasion? Tell me...tell me anything positive that has happened as a result of our attack on Iraq. Yes, Saddam is no longer in power. So what? Is anything better? Really, truly better? Kidnappings, bombings, beheadings, you name it, are still going on. So how are things better?
I work in project management...I can tell you first hand that if any of my projects (multi-million dollar budgets) had no demonstrable results after 3 years they would be killed and the people in charge fired. Maybe where you work things are different, that's cool. The goal, if I remember correctly, was to bring democracy to Iraq, and it was supposed to be quick. Right? Neither one has happened. You can rant all you like about "a plan" and me not being on the Joint Chiefs of Staff (DUH!!), that isn't the point and you know it.
Third, I quoted the source (BusinessWeek) for my comments about private oil production capacity. Where are your independent sources?
So, fact one: yep, fact. No proven link to 9/11, no weapons of mass destruction. Post cites to evidence proving me wrong. Fact two: yep, fact. Mission in Iraq not accomplished, original budget blown out, timeline blown out, democracy not created, civilian population still under attck, insurgents still active. Please post cites showing any of these things are not happening, or that anything originally planned for Iraq has actually occured. So, either the plan was very very bad in the first place (doesn't say much for our esteemed leaders and generals, does it?) or there was no plan. Fact three: yep, fact, with source posted. You're welcome to debate if you like.
Can I imagine how many people I put down? Sure can. It is obvious you blindly accept whatever the government tells you as truth. I do not. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. I respect everyone in military service...I am not putting them down, I just wish they weren't fighting for something useless. If you honestly think that screwing with Iraq and Afghanistan will stop terrorism, you are sadly mistaken. I absolutely do understand the concepts of budgets...I am a professional and I manage projects with large budgets and multi-year timelines and teams as large as a couple
