I have read a lot of bulletin boards with commentary on the conflict in Iraq and I have to say that this BB has the most thoughtful analysis of the situation that I have seen anywhere. It makes me proud to be from Houston and a Rockets fan. (I left the city long ago.) That said, here's a few of my thoughts- The Bush administration waged this war under false pretenses. They lied and exaggerated about Iraq's WMD and links to terrorism to drum up support for the war. Therefore sending U.S. soldiers into harms way (and killing Iraqis) under these circumstances is reprehensible. It is dishonorable. To see it happening and not speak up is not "supporting the troops." It only makes it more likely to happen again, because there is no consequence for the politicians who have gotten us in this mess. My brother is a Marine. He has two little boys. He was almost sent to Iraq. When I think that he might have been killed, and his boys left without a father, based on lies and hubris, it makes my blood boil. Finally, let's not forget- We Were Not Attacked By Iraq!!! There Were No Iraqis Among The 9/11 Terrorists!!
Well said. For all his blathering rhetoric about "sedition" and "traitors" and "cowards", he utterly and completely worships a lying, gutless, traitorous, deserting coward. He follows like a bleating sheep an administration who, when called on to defend their country, "had other priorities", who hold the servicemen and women of this country in utter contempt viewing them as pawns to be used to further their personal agendas or as props for future campaign commercials. A bloody nose. Sixteen dead American soldiers are nothing but a bloody nose. My, what a patriot. In his America "leaders" and cowardly turn their backs on their duties and obligations, lie about it and then send men and women, the boots of whom they aren't fit to shine, to die for their pleasure; all but daring them to be killed. They love death and killing. As long as their yellow bellies are safe from harm, of course. And they hate peace and freedom for anybody but those that march in lockstep with their beliefs.
I love the way followers like you believe that everything you think and say is true simply because you desperately want/need it to be. And with the everpresent and utterly vile comparison of dead soldiers to a bloody nose. Yet again. So, your spin on it is that their deaths are numerically insignificant. So, how do you characterize the 3,000+ deaths on 9/11? Taking into account the size of the US population and the percentage of our effectiveness, etc. what does the Unconscienable Bamaslammer Dead Soldier/Bloody Nose Formula spit out? Paper cut? Hangnail? Oh, wait your cowardly hero's administration's already done that for you. It was "an opportunity". Be a sheep, but admit what you really are: a hypocritical lover of death and killing. Better yet, stick to playing "Lord of the Rings" for the neighborhood kiddies and the wife. Since it apparently makes you feel better about yourself and your contempt for American servicemembers, wank away with your accusations of "sedition" and "cowardice", I've made my point. A bloody nose. What appalling disregard for their lives you have.
Settle down. It's going to be ok. We'll get through this together. Do you really fail to understand bama's point? A bloody nose sucks. Nobody wants a bloody nose, but when you're engaged in a fight, you have to keep going. That was teh basic premise. So, you can stop trying to spin this into something it is not. Next issue. With Bush's plummeting poll numbers, do you really think he is just holding the military there to support his own cause for reelection? He's doing it because he believes it to be the right thing to do... The end of your response is just a little bit too ludicrous to respond too. "They love death and killing" Come on man, this sort of statement is just ignorant. Everybody is playing after the fact quarter back. Clinton was for us going to war, ousting Saddam, as well as others. If one faulty British Intelligence report (which by the way hasn't been proven to be lies-- yet) was enough to "lead" you people into war, then the problem might just be with you...? "And they hate peace and freedom for anybody but those that march in lockstep with their beliefs" I mean, I don't think there is anyway to respond to this except by shrugging it off and saying wow, I hope thats not what you really believe...
Originally posted by gifford1967 Finally, let's not forget- We Were Not Attacked By Iraq!!! There Were No Iraqis Among The 9/11 Terrorists!! How did you read my post as support for attacking Saudi Arabia? Thanks for the insight. I wasn't aware of that.
if Dennis Kucinich and Dean and their Democratic ilk had their way, we'd have already run away like cowards. OK, you may disagree with the war, but isn't it a bit late to continue with this almost seditious dissent? This is the type of statement that makes one wonder how you have manged not to be infected with America's tradition of freedom and independence of spirit. 50% of us don't support this war. This is because we think it was unecessary and therefore wrong. This does not make us cowardly. In fact it is not courageous to go along with the flow and not voice dissent when you don't believe in the war, just because guys like you get frustrated and resort to calling anyone who disagrees with you a coward.
Why is a war wrong if it is "unneccessary"? Isn't it possible that the world will be a better place following the war than it was before? It is a good bet that Iraq will be. Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Or America could start slaughtering innocent civilians until there are no people left. Then we can use Iraq as a dumping ground for nuclear waste, and as a big prison, and for oil.
..and then Bush can set up a comedy act wherein he tells people to go do things, like say, meet him down in Bagdhad Square, and then he totally doesn't show up!!! What a liar!!! He's the liarest...! ....meanwhile back at CBS headquarters, writers work on a script about George W. Bush's evacuation from one of the planes flying into the world trade center...because he was flying it...because he hates gays!!!!
Since you criticized the US, in part, for attacking Iraq when there were no Iraqis involved as Murdering Suicidal Terrorists, isn't it logical that you are implying we should attack the nation which gave birth to those same Murdering Suicidal Terrorists? Or are you proposing to do nothing about it? You say that you understand that terrorism can be extra-national but nationality of terrorists is the premise of one of your criticisms of the US. How are we supposed to take this?
You've made no point that any rational human being can detect. I imagine the spittle was flying as you feverishly responded to my post, so offended at the so-called callousness of my words without even stopping to think about what I really said. You spoke of an equation of mine, I speak of an equation of yours. I guess you mean to say that if we lose X amount of lives in any war, we must bring the boys home regardless of whether or not the mission is completed. That is moral cowardice. What does that say to the rest of the world? Kill a few (it doesn't have to be many) Americans and they run away. It is gives our enemies comfort that they know we slink away after absorbing precious little punishment. It hurts to lose people. I mourn for those troops more than you because: I've been in those boots. I once wore the uniform of my country, more than I can say for you. I've lost friends of mine, but Christ, you move on! You adapt and overcome instead of sitting and whining. I don't love killing or death and nor does GWB. No sane person does. But we exist in a dangerous world and war is part of it. I can't and won't believe that GWB is some kind of ghoulish "cowboy" who wanted to prove his manhood and/or enrich his corporate buddies by starting a war. Those who think that seriously need to have their heads examined. Your belief that 9/11 was nothing more than an opportunity for GWB shows what a sick, demented person you are. Talk about callousness for human life. Oh, and by using your own rationale, I guess you are a sheep for Howard Dean, Kucinich or any of the other weasels running on the lefthand side of the dial for Prez. You blindly follow their anti-war bleatings and lap it up like the weak lap dog you are. So keep talking, Peashooter 22, because I always could use a good laugh.
Okay let me break it down for you. I think it wrong, illogical, not helpful, harmful, to attack a country (Iraq) as a response to an attack that they had nothing to do with. Even Bush has said there is no evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. Are the only options attacking Iraq or doing nothing about it? There are many ways we can deal with the terrorist threat to the U.S. Unfortunately, they are difficult and complex. So let's start with baby steps- I propose we not attack countries not involved in attacking us.
That we did invade Saddam's Iraq is an indication of how complex the situation is. Many, no most, Iraqis are glad that we came to rid them of the pestilence that Saddam's regime was. We are not vanquishing Iraq; we are liberating it.
Hey, to prepare for the war on terror, nee Iraq Part 2, get ready for the draft. http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sss092203.html If we decide to get a hold of the security situation in Iraq, it's gonna take a much bigger mobilization than what we've got with the all volunteer army, especially considering almost no one else in the world is stupid enough to volunteer their own children.
Let me get this straight - the situation in the Middle East post-9/11 is so complex that the US was compelled to invade a nation that had no demonstrable ties to Al Qaeda? The complexity mandates that the US invade because their leader is (apparently unique in the world today) mean to his own people? That's pretty good! Keep the analysis coming. Sure! Look how hospitable the Iraqis are being! Liberating it for whom? The Iraqis? ExxonMobil? The Carlyle Group?
I thought this was more than interesting: Iowa Republican Rep. Leach Questions Iraq Policy Tue November 04, 2003 03:48 PM ET DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - Iowa Republican Rep. Jim Leach, once an aide to now-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said on Tuesday White House policy-makers had made one of the most misguided assumptions ever in U.S. strategy by not planning for a decisive withdrawal from Iraq. "The current (administration) thinking is that we'll be there six or seven years, people will realize that we're saviors and they'll want us to have many (military) bases and that this will be a bulwark in the Middle East for an American presence," said Leach, a 13-term House of Representatives veteran. "I think that is one of the most misguided assumptions in the history of United States' strategic thinking," he added. In a conference call with Iowa reporters, Leach said his views on Iraq were not the "majority sentiment" inside the White House. He said the administration of President Bush was on a "slow slog" in Iraq, instead of announcing a "decisive" withdrawal of U.S. military forces by the end of next year. "If we stay longer, we are going to have more, not fewer, problems in Iraq, and ... consequently more problems around the world and potentially in the United States as well," Leach said. Faced with a mounting military and civilian death toll and stiffening guerrilla resistance, Bush vowed on Monday the United States would not run from its "vital" mission in Iraq. Leach worked for Rumsfeld, then an Illinois Republican representative in 1965 and 1966, and as a special assistant to Rumsfeld when Rumsfeld was director of the Nixon administration's Office of Economic Opportunity a few years later. During his stint on the White House staff, Leach shared an office with Dick Cheney, now vice president. Leach, a member of the House International Relations Committee, said positive things were happening in the north and south of Iraq, but in Baghdad and areas in which the Sunni Muslims dominate, "it clearly isn't working" and "with each passing moment, it appears we're causing ... more problems than we're solving." Leach said very few citizens of Iraq or the Muslim world wanted to see a permanent American presence in Iraq and that having American soldiers in Iraq inflamed insurgents. "The longer we are there, the more we are going to be targets for their actions and we're setting ourselves up for a rationalization for anarchy and for terrorism against American interests around the world," he added. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3754180
Maybe they plan on resurrecting the draft *after* the election. It's the only way we are going to get enough boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Too bad they don't have the balls to do it when it could save lives now. http://www.datelinealabama.com/article/2003/11/04/4927_opinions_art.php3 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/03/draft/index_np.html Oiling up the draft machine? The Pentagon is quietly moving to fill draft board vacancies nationwide. While officials say there's no cause to worry, some experts aren't so sure. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Dave Lindorff Nov. 3, 2003 | The community draft boards that became notorious for sending reluctant young men off to Vietnam have languished sinced the early 1970s, their membership ebbing and their purpose all but lost when the draft was ended. But a few weeks ago, on an obscure federal Web site devoted to the war on terrorism, the Bush administration quietly began a public campaign to bring the draft boards back to life. Especially for those who were of age to fight in the Vietnam, it is an ominous flashback of a message. Even floating the idea of a draft in the months before an election would be politically explosive, and the Pentagon last week was adamant that the push to staff up the draft boards is not a portent of things to come. Increasingly, however, military experts and even some influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to consider a draft to fully staff the nation's military in a time of global instability. - - - - - - - - - - - - Want to read the whole article? You have two options: Subscribe now, or watch a brief ad and get a free day pass. If you're already a subscriber log in here.
The Dateline Alabama piece was one of the most shabbiest written pieces on the subject, full of more holes than the Disney flop of the same name. I know those folks. That is the internet news organ run by the UA journalism dept, thus its left-ward tilt and staffed by those not good enough to write for the Crimson White, the real student newspaper at UA. How do I know this? I'm a journalism grad from Alabama and once worked for the CW. Those few "influential" members of Congress are a bunch of libs trying to find an issue to get themselves in the papers by raising a ruckus and attacking GWB at the same time. As for the draft coming back, it isn't. Our military as a bunch of draftees was a mess. No professionalism. It was like prison for those folks. And since we let women in the military now, shouldn't they be eligible for the draft, in the sense of fairness? Hmmmmmmmmm..........
