That's what gets me. Why can't the pro-war side at least listen to the what the other side is saying. I think most in the anti-war side can list the reasons why some are in favor of this war, yet it seems like the Pro-war group is going to keep actling like we believe that Saddam doesn't have WMD, or that he's not a cruel dictator, or that we're happy to that Iraqis live under oppression. No matter how many times the anti-war side says differently nobody seems to listen. We know why they're pro-war, why can't they listen to the real reasons we are anti-war. If any want to start listening now, read Oski's post for a few of the reasons.
Get ready for some stream of conscienceness type stuff that I was thinking about while doing my laundry. Ok, I'm just going to say all the stuff that's been on my mind lately that I think I'm in a better frame of mind to get accross. First of all, I think both sides of the debate need to realize that they're not going to change eachothers' opinions. We are all adults, as far as I can tell, and we came to our beliefs on our own based on what we see, what we hear, and the beliefs and morals we've had for a long time. Understanding that, it doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about what's going on and share our opposite opinions, but if we debate knowing full well that we're not changing people's opinions, maybe we can be more civil about it. I know that things aren't exactly always civil anyways, but during a time of war, this COMMUNITY should be more civil, more examplary. Leave the violent protesters, the ones with banners supporting the soldier who attacked his own, and the people planning to sneak into military bases to disrupt things to the extremeist. At the same time, leave the liberal bashing, hippie calling, anti-tree hugger sentiment to the Rush's and the Hannity's. There is a future after this war and though the world may change because of it, this board won't change, all of us will still be here unless we get banned or something. As for everything that's going on, while I'm here, I may as well vent some more. Obviously, I'm not a fan of Bush. Sure the fact that I'm a Dem is a main reason, but I also personaly dislike the guy. I don't want to get into it, so I'll just throw out a term that explains the way I view Bush: Fortunate Son. I'm for this war though, because I want a free Iraq, but I do know that things won't go as smoothly as "flowers and music." I was watching Nightline, and a reporter who has Unilateralist status was talking about the difference between what he does and sees as opposed to reporters tagging along with our troops. Like the town where the US soldier tore down the Saddam poster. They all looked happy, but not long after, the people started crowding around the reporter, asking questions and getting angry. You kind of understand their mindset a little better. They know that the US will take out Saddam, but they feel that they are trading in one tyrant for another. They even asked if the Israeli army was gonna come rolling in next if you want to understand how these people veiw the world. They also showed people who were casaulties of collateral damage. A bus driver showed up with a bullet in his arm, he was in shock but his friend who brought him was clear of mind and quite angry saying that his friend, the bus driver, had lost his wife and daughters from this war already. This is the harsh reality of war. Of course more people would die in the long run, but try and tell that to the bus driver. I want Iraq to be free, since we are already in there, lets make sure the job gets done. People bring up our mistakes when we've tried bringing democracy to another country. I agree we haven't been succesful, but we have to start somewhere and here's our chance. I wish that the protesters would save their energy, their sanity, and their relevance by protesting what happens after the war. People need to turn the screws, the Dems hopefully, and make sure that Bush stays "on task" when it comes to rebuilding Iraq. This is the time that we have to show the world what we can do, show them the America that helped liberate Europe is back and better than ever. You want to stop anti-americanism, help make sure there really isn't any reason for people to hate us. It's probably an impossible task, but a worthy one none the less. Let's let our troops finish their job, then lets make sure the President does his. Even if you support Bush and believe in him, keep an eye out, be aware, and let your voice be heard if you feel things aren't going the way they are supposed to. I wasn't worried about Iraq in the sense of WMD being used on us, but now I am worried about what will happen after this war. If we are trying an experiment, let's make it a succesful one. If Iraq is free and prosperous, then maybe there will be a few less terrorist left to deal with. If we get this right, then maybe our biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East will be Israel and Palestine. I don't know if we can solve that problem, but if we actually get to work on it, we won't come off to the ME as only caring about Israel. I am out! obvious Jim Rome reference
Good post, Oski. I think the problem is that collectively we literally shift our attention towards rebuilding Iraq after the war is won, and by then, the Administration will have already thought out their plan without the input of the political opposition. The probable reason to this is that planning the aftermath to this war which is already unjust in their eyes is seen as some concession towards condoning this war. What's done is done, and if the original intent against war is in the interests of the Iraqi people, then I think the opposition should give more flexibility in their position so that they won't be outmaneuvered when their agenda could matter the most. But politics and partisan issue will muddy this up. Somehow it came to the point where war was a Republican issue and peace was a Democratic issue. A swift victory in Iraq will mostly be seen as a Bush victory, and pushing a reconstruction agenda will be looked as supporting Bush. If I'm wrong about this, then I don't know why the Democrats have been fractured into positions yet didn't promote a platform that addressed a humanitarian war through an increase emphasis on multilateral action before or their postwar agenda of the Iraqi people now.
This is by far the largest group represented domestically. Worldwide, it's these people coupled with those who just hate the US altogether.
http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox/03/242.html This is the message that needs to be sent... From our friend, Charlie Daniels...
Probably because they don't provide alternative solutions. They say "We want Iraq to be liberated, but we don't want a war." How else is Iraq supposed to be liberated? Is Saddam going to just get tired of having his own country? Some people said we should have waited for UN approval, but France and Germany both stated that no matter what evidence we provided, they would oppose us. Some have questioned the motivation. If the motivation is really just oil, does that change the fact that Iraq is being liberated, that a brutal tyrant is being removed, the a state sponsor of terrorism is being destroyed? Does not helping in some circumstances (Rwanda, a mistake I might add) mean we should never help in any circumstances? Even if we are only doing the right thing for our own self-interest, does that mean it is no longer the right thing? Some people are against the waqr because they don't think the Iraqi people should be killed. Many more Iraqis will die if we don't go to war. Some people don't want our soldiers to fight and be put in harms way. Guess what, this is a volunteer army. The soldiers have chosen to be in the military, to put themselves in harms way. Also, I would be interested in seeing a poll of the military and how many of them support the war. I bet it is a majority. That is all of the reasons I have seen for being anti-war (excepting the idiot, Michael Moore, Bush isn't really president perspective. That one I think does deserve the old ).
Let me start of by saying.....this post is hypocritical. You dog on dream-team for putting all anti war posters in one group then you turn around and do the same thing by acting like all "pro-war" posters agree with this his opinion. Can I have a . Why were at it. I support the elected leaders of our country on their decision to go to war. However I don't like being labeled pro-war. I believe and I'm sure most people you label pro-war believe (however I do not speak for them) that war is a horrible thing and should only be used as a last resort. Which is exactly what this war is, a last resort. This is another thing that irritates me about most of the protesting going on. It seems as though a lot of people are letting their political preference (Democrat/Republican) determine their stance on this war. That is f'd up. It’s as stupid and pathetic as saying this war is a conspiracy or we want to dominate the world or it’s all about Bush's personal agenda. You should be an American before you are a Dem/Rep. Yes Timming I’m talking about you. Now this is a very good post. If after this war things aren’t going the way they have been laid out by Bush, then it will be time for the American people to speak out. No matter what your stance is now.
I wasn't really calling out DT, all of my crap was aimed at Sino and you if you really must know. How many times have you used Tree Huggers since this war started. See where I'm headed. I also clearly said that I support the war, but I'm not going to forget my political beliefs. What if we're in another war during an election, am I supposed to forget and just vote for Bush?
You're an ignorant varmint and shouldn't pretend to know a thing about my voting tendencies. Keep trying to lecture people who disagree with you about being an American because that'll definitely help your argument, however incoherent and juvenile it might be.
I'm not commenting about the war. But let me get this straight. Are you trying to say that the guy with the drugs does not deserve to be punished because the cop who finds the drugs is dirty? And that the cop who illegally breaks into the drug dealer's home deserves more hatred and ridicule from the society than the drug dealer himself?
I wasn't referring to your voting tendencies. I was referring to your ignorant paranoid delusional conspiracy theories.
Sorry if I misinterpreted your post. No I don't see where you're heading. Whenever I use the term tree hugger it is aimed at individuals not all anti war people. I never suggested you should. I merely stated you shouldn’t let your political beliefs determine your stance on this war.
Oh yes the ignorant but factual, paranoid but factual, delusional but factual conspiracy theory hatched by the communists at PBS. Here is some more factual but factual but factual conspiracy theory stuff. Iraq rebuilding contracts awarded Halliburton, Stevedoring Services of America get government contracts for early relief work. March 25, 2003: 2:19 PM EST By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money Staff Writer http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The first contracts for rebuilding post-war Iraq have been awarded, and Vice President Dick Cheney's old employer, Halliburton Co., is one of the early winners. The Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) unit of Halliburton (HAL: up $0.66 to $20.78, Research, Estimates), of which Cheney was CEO from 1995 to 2000, said late Monday that it was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires and make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure. President Bush Tuesday asked Congress for $489.3 million to cover the cost of repairing damage to Iraq's oil facilities, much or all of which could go to Halliburton or its subcontractors under the terms of its contract with the Army. Cheney divested himself of all interest in Halliburton, the largest U.S. oilfield services company, after the 2000 election. Halliburton wouldn't speculate about the total monetary value or duration of its contract, under which it will put into action some of the firefighting and repair plans it detailed for the Army in a study it conducted in November. "KBR's ... contract is limited to task orders under the contract for only those services which are necessary to support the mission in the near term," Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said. The Army Corps of Engineers told CNN Tuesday that Halliburton would be paid on a "cost plus" basis, meaning it would be reimbursed for the costs of its work and would get a certain percentage of those costs as a fee. Since the amount of damage that has been or will be done to Iraqi oil fields in the war is still unknown, it's difficult to estimate the contract's eventual dollar value. But its biggest value could be that it puts Halliburton in a prime position to handle the complete refurbishment of Iraq's long-neglected oil infrastructure, which will be a plum job. Getting Iraq's oil fields to pre-1991 production levels will take at least 18 months and cost about $5 billion initially, with $3 billion more in annual operating expenses, according to a recent study by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, named for the first President Bush's secretary of state during the first Gulf War. "Certainly Halliburton would have the lead [in the competition for that job], even absent this contract, given the size and scope of their current operations," said Pierre Conner, an analyst with Hibernia Southcoast Capital. "But there's no question they'll start with some footprint there. It clearly puts them in the position where they will know more about the situation and have a bit of an operation there." Though none of the potential administrators of such a contract -- including the Defense Department, the State Department's U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Nations -- have claimed responsibility for handing out the job, Monday's award and Bush's request for funding seem to indicate the U.S. government will be in charge. Halliburton said it has subcontracted the firefighting portion of the Army contract to Houston-based companies Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc. (WEL: up $0.17 to $1.27, Research, Estimates) and Wild Well Control Inc., a private company. Hall of Halliburton said all oil fires should be put out within 240 days. Very few oil wells have been set ablaze by Iraqis so far, in contrast to the first Gulf War in 1991, when Iraqi troops retreating from Kuwait set fire to more than 700 Kuwaiti oil wells. Halliburton's KBR unit was involved in putting out the 1991 fires. Separately, USAID late Monday awarded a $4.8 million contract to Stevedoring Services of America (SSA), a private company based in Seattle, to manage the Umm Qasr ports in southern Iraq. Umm Qasr's ports, where U.S. and British troops have struggled for full control, are seen as critical to efforts to bring humanitarian relief to Iraqis. SSA will handle several tasks, including assessing the need for dredging and repairs to the ports, and unloading and warehousing cargo. USAID plans to issue seven other contracts, including one for $600 million for general construction work in post-war Iraq. Halliburton is among several companies
Aren't we fighting for the right to be pro or anti war? Then why try to convince each other otherwise. Is this conflict the precursor to civil war II?
Wow Timming you have totally convinced me. Bush is Dr Evil and the USA is striving for world domination.
