who is the speaker?
While watching the inflammatory rhetoric of the speaker, remember that this is not a Jihadists from Iran but a professor from Kuwait - a country with every reason to be grateful to the USA for liberating it from the tyranny of Saddam Husseins invasion.
So , this is a "peaceful" religion.... right... Anyone wishing chemical weapons on civilians or anyone is scum, muslim or otherwise.
Sounds like a peaceful religion to me. . .
& we just killed 10's of thousands of them in a war against a country that never attacked us in the name of exporting democracy & freeing them from their brutal dictator.
Sounds like we are a country of peace, to me.
Remember - stones & glass houses don't mix.
Fair enough. But that is why there are the Geneva Conventions, and I believe chemical weapons would violate the laws of warfare. However, when you have an enemy that claims no country of origin (so there would be no country B). I guess I would want to know is why our country isn’t doing the necessary things to a) secure its borders b) make better incentives and benefits for those who would join our armed forces c) reduce dependencies on these countries that house these people. Instead Country A seems to a) have a president who is apologetic to the rest of the world and blames all the worlds problems on the USA and the previous administration, b) is more than willing to buddy up with long time dictators and tyrants and insult our traditional allies c) a media that is hell bent on promoting islam as a peaceful religion and anyone who is against illegal immigration as being racist d) a government that lables anyone to the right as a terrorist but will not use that term to describe our true enemies.. I could go on and on, sorry for the rant.So you are the leader of country A and are at war with Country B.
You have to options to continue the war.
Invade Country B via sea assult it will cost you about 20,000 troops (your advisors tell you)
or
Drop a chemcial bomb on City A of country B killing 50,000 cilivians to show Country B it is better to surrender.
What would you do?
Sounds like we are a country of peace, to me.
Remember - stones & glass houses don't mix.
Fair enough. But that is why there are the Geneva Conventions, and I believe chemical weapons would violate the laws of warfare. However, when you have an enemy that claims no country of origin (so there would be no country B). I guess I would want to know is why our country isn’t doing the necessary things to a) secure its borders b) make better incentives and benefits for those who would join our armed forces c) reduce dependencies on these countries that house these people. Instead Country A seems to a) have a president who is apologetic to the rest of the world and blames all the worlds problems on the USA and the previous administration, b) is more than willing to buddy up with long time dictators and tyrants and insult our traditional allies c) a media that is hell bent on promoting islam as a peaceful religion and anyone who is against illegal immigration as being racist d) a government that lables anyone to the right as a terrorist but will not use that term to describe our true enemies.. I could go on and on, sorry for the rant.
They would hate us anyway. It didn’t help much, no, but I’m pretty sure they will always hate the USA as long as we are not under Sharia (sp?) law and Israel is still on the map, no matter what we do to appease them otherwise.
The Hate America First crowd is out in force, I see. finity must be recruiting again.