"because the federal government doesn't hire construction crews."
Well that makes sense. You would think that if the responsibility for hiring construction crews, of which were uh, working on the bridge on signs, at the time of the collapse, wasn't happening, that the Fed's would do something.
I guess if they are responsible for miles of highway they should be doing the hiring for the construction.
"the navy deteremined that they needed 12 carriers to fight two wars at the same time. that way they could have two on station, two in port, two returning to port and two going to station. and i guess the other two for back up."
Yup, and it's a great idea if we are fighting two wars, but we are occupying two countries both of which we have land bases already in. So the need for operating all 12 carriers is not there. I'm not saying we should scrap them. I'm saying we could do with reducing the operating costs, mothballing a few. Do you see two wars being fought and by two wars, I mean major operational conflicts against conventional forces. No of course not, because we are fighting an insurgency in Iraq, and another in Afghanistan.
As somebody stated, AQ is not a government fighting force, nor do they have heavy conventional forces. They employ light infantry and suicide bombers. Not something that is effectively attacked or defeated by 12 nuclear carriers. One could conceive the necessity of having one carrier always on station, able to execute attacks on terror targets of opportunity of course, one carrier in the shop at home, and one out at sea en route to the forward station and on training. Rotating the three of them to provide the attack force capable of shutting down an enemy threat. What do you do with the other 9? Look big and scary to potential threats at a huge financial cost.
It didn't deter AQ in 1993, or 2001, and it wont in 2007...08 etc.
"North Korea is not messing with us they are playing games. Iran is just flexing some muscle but keeping their distance."
Iran is slipping IED's, into Iraq killing American troops, funneling foreign fighters as well, and threatening to develop nuclear weapons and nuke Israel. They also held captive British troops who were supposedly in their waters. Creating a world wide fiasco. You clearly have no frame of reference regarding Iran and what they are trying to accomplish. Should they develop a nuclear weapon, they may use it.
Meanwhile we were in Iraq chasing down WMD that wasn't there! What did the fucking North Koreans build and detonate? That's right a nuclear weapon. So the games they are playing, involve nuclear weapons. Last time they wanted our help to build power plants and we helped with the assurance that they would not build a nuke. Well they built it, and set it off to prove they can and did it. With all their neighbors pissed at them, they now have agreed to not build more, and allow inspectors, and disarm, but that's a lay low tactic, and in the future it's possible they may try to reunify SK and NK in a war that will involve us. So where will the troops come to stop that from happening? Iraq?
There clearly are other areas we need to be able to respond to but we cannot do that if we remain in Iraq, sapping our manpower, recruiting, and financial resources trying to setup a country that will thrive of fail of it's free will and choosing.
"But 2 wrongs don't make a right and we started this dilemma and we need to finish it."
I agree, we need to finish it by getting out of the way of the Iraqis and letting them fix their country without our meddling.
"Otherwise all the laziness and lack of motivation on the part of the Iraqi people will never cover the dishonor, disrespect and distrust we will place upon ourselves."
You are telling us, that by leaving we would disrespect ourselves, or dishonor ourselves, or lead the world to distrust us? How about when we decided to go in alone against the combined will of the world, to chase after a threat which the intelligence was not firm about, and non-existent WMD capability? How about after establishing that fact, we did't set up the Iraqi's with a government and then, leave?
We dishonored ourselves by mistreating detainees in the Iraq prisons, by allowing our soldiers to make revenge killings on civilians in their country. We also gave the world a huge lack of respect when we decided to do this on our own. It's not like in Gulf war I when we had two UN resolutions supported by the world calling for a specific mission of removing Iraq's military from Kuwait. It's not like when we had a million man coalition army able to deal with any contingency. We did this expecting to be greeted as liberators, and crossing our fingers that Iraqis would just love us and trust us like France did in WW2. Well that didn't happen and we didn't have a plan B. We didn't have any back up plans as evidenced by the gouging of the government by Haliburton, and we certainly don't have a fucking eject plan either. LOL Can't you see any of that or are you blinded by it all?
"But then what do you expect from a mostly Liberal leaning Media?"
Oh stop that, progress does not mean that the car bombs blowing up killing hundreds is not happening and that the country is not ready politically to compromise. The media is numb to the situation because we unfortunately we comfortable and safe civilians largely all are.
"Wooaaa, hold on a sec. Are you saying there is progress in Iraq? And how exactly do you know what the Iraqi people want? You just accepted my idea that they lack motivation. Now you say they don't want someone like Osama? You're making me feel like Flubber bouncing off of 2 walla going back and forth here."
You are unbelievable ignorant if you think they want AQ running the show, the guys blowing up the cars over there. Duh! They are sophisticated people in Iraq. The lack of motivation is with the political leaders, you don't see people on the street, civilians not hauling ass to help their friends and strangers when a bomb goes off. If we leave, things may get worse, that will force the compromises and alliances in the government that need to happen for this to be a war of Iraqis against chaos and AQ rather than Iraqis taking a back seat to occupation forces cleaning up after the carnage.
"You're saying that the majority of Muslims think we did 9/11 to ourselves?"
A majority at one time did, I'm not sure what the consensus is now with AQ admitting to it. As for 9/11 being cowardly, of course it was. So is sending Juniors to their death, while UBL and all these guys at the top live. That's hypocrisy but it is what it is. If they had the ability to engage us with a nuke in a city they would have. This was the best they could do, and it worked, they exploited our free society to attack us and kill people, destroy economic infrastructure, attack a military center, tarnish the symbol of strength of America, the plan was also to attack our leadership at the capitol or white house. At one time it was for as many as 10 planes. AQ likes a big news attack when they do strike and thats what they got.
There is no bigger news story than a nuclear bomb going off in a city because of a terror attack.
Thats what they would do if given the opportunity. The reason is not Islamic it's insanity.
