I'd say we fall safely into both definitions.
The US's actions in Iraq don't fall under either of those. We declared Saddam an enemy of the US and therefore we attacked. While it might not have been under the best intentions, we still followed the rules of war. If we hadn't the major players in the world would have said something.
Yes. A new president is not kept in the dark until they take office. Privy is given to them ahead of time so that they can competently take charge on day 1.
Right a new president isn't kept in the dark, a president elect is. There is no way they would reveal all of the nation's secrets and affairs to someone just elected. That's what the first weeks of presidency are for, basically a giant orientation to what makes America work.
Or maybe just drill here at home in the vast wildernesses of Alaska or offshore or wherever. The abundance of oil resources is by no means limited to the Middle East, despite our tendency to play it off as though it were.
Ya offshore drilling really works well, maybe you should talk to those who live on the Gulf Coast. But either way the oil infrastructure is already built in the Middle East and we still rely on them. Even if we were to build here at home it would still take several years to increase our production. We also have to abide by OPEC, so we have a major interest in the Middle East.
Whatever god it is doesn't concern me and if these people believe so strongly in the omnipotence of said god or gods than they have nothing to fear. Surely their savior can take care of their holy sites on his/her own.
OK it doesn't concern you, that doesn't mean it isn't a huge concern to the American people and politicians. The country, obviously, does not revolve around you or your beliefs.
I'm not religious myself but I still understand the importance of keeping religious interests safe.
This is a source, just as any interviewer will use the person interviewed as a source. If I need first hand information on something and I interview someone who was there firsthand, that becomes a source, and is citable in any college paper or news publication. If you were hoping for name, rank, and serial number, you are just out of luck.
Interviewers tend to document their source and get confirmation on facts, if you report the wrong thing you are ran through the wringer by other media outlets. It's important to fact check and fact check often, anyone who's ever had any teaching involving journalism knows this.
Your source is no more valid then if I just made something up off the top of my head. It just turns into a giant "he said" "she said" cluster and has no real bearing on whats going on as a whole. You need to interview hundreds if not thousands of soldiers to get something more accurate and to account for bias. Just as my handful of people I've talked to means nothing in the grand scheme of thing either.
Ya idk how to prove it any more without having to do tons of research just to prove my point. All my info came from the news and various reports etc over the years I'm never going to find all the videos and research I have read. I would have thought that years ago when Bush said it was all a lie about Iraq having bombs on the news you would have heard of by now and a video of an actual solider who was there and telling you the truth somehow isn't creditable enough, but whatever. Keep believing what the government tells you and never question anything. We all know the smartest people just listen and never think hey this seems strange ever.
IDK = I don't know, use it.
You made a point, you are expected to give sources. I'm sure you could spend 10 minutes on Google and find something to support your point, even if it's not the most compelling piece of evidence.
Oh, and I question the government all the time, I agree with very little that goes on in America and what it stands for. All you have to do is look at my other posts in the Opinion forum.
This is getting too much into a debate over nothing tho. Debates are always just people trying to win what there saying not listening to what is right from each side. The only thing I am saying is I think Obama should of pulled out all the troops within the first 6months. That gives him more than enough time to fix a tiny bit and slowly get everyone home without any major problems. I personally don't see literally one reason on why he didn't do this, but instead left them there for years later and worse continued to send more people over. Please tell me on why you think this was ok.
I've explained several times already why I believe he left them in for longer than 6 months after taking office. It's not that easy to move out of a war zone, especially a war zone the country created. Just the logistics of it would have taken more than 6 months. Do I think Obama could have been quicker about it? Yes, probably within two after taking office he could have had everything figured out to bring the troops home. Although this is only based on the information we know, we have know idea what else was going on that required military attention.
