I don't think it's a matter of the soldiers being sent against their will. I think it's a matter of did they NEED to go. They were sent because the President sent them. They didn't take a vacation. I understand it's a volunteer force, but it's still the president's to command, and send where he decides they should go. In this case he decided wrong.
If these liberals were around during WWII, there never would have been a Normandy invasion. The liberals' strategy of emphasizing the negative plays right into the terrorists hands. The terrorists can never beat us on our terms. Instead they have to sway the opinions of the weak. The liberals are vital cogs in their strategy. Look, the debate over whether to go to war ended the day we moved in. What people should be doing is supporting our troops and their leaders, as this helps boost morale and give comfort to our troops abroad. When the war is over, feel free to whine and moan all you want -- just don't do it at the expense of our troops in battle. In terms of historical precedent, losing only 1,000 troops in a war of this length is nothing short of amazing. As I stated earlier, this is 2% of people who die in car crashes every year. While we mourn every loss, you have to put this in perspective.
Actually many of the liberals would have supported the U.S. cause in WW2 just like they supported the U.S. military action in Afghanistan. These liberals seem to understand the difference between being attacked, entering into a war because the president wants to. I am glad that you mentioned the car crash statistic. It kind of makes Cheney's fear tactics seem silly. We are all at a far greater risk of injured in a car accident than we are from a terrorist attack.
There have been several liberals on this board that didn't agree with invading Afghanistan. Heck, John Kerry voted against Iraq I. There are some irrational people that just like to protest anything, especially war. Are you seriously minimizing the terrorist threat? Unbelievable. A new low.
It is very sad that you can even think this. Most Left people do not want war because the DO NOT want people dying. So how in the world can they be happy about this???? Why do you think people protest against a war?? because they like walking in the streets? Willis25 most people have givin up on debating with T_J, atleast about this kind of subjects
funny you should say that .... Franklin Roosevelt (the President during WWII) was a big government, liberal, Democrat (from New York!) - He was hated by business leaders and banks for his New Deal policies - but is credited with leading the country out of the Great Depression and building the infrastructure to help us win WWII.
I know that members the whitehouse did in fact want to go to war, and were hoping for a war all along. They didn't want a peaceful outcome. That is what Lawrence Eagleburger who is a Republican supporter of the Iraq war, and knows the people involved said. He said point blank that they did not want a peaceful solution and wanted there to be war with Iraq. He said that prior to the start of military action in Iraq. I assume that the President wanted it, because he CHOSE it. It's obvious that Iraq wasn't a threat to us from either WMD or terrorist connections, that there were other options still available, and yet somehow we ended up going to war. We now have more a thousand dead troops, and thousands more gravely wounded as a result.
will ppl here pls stop quoting the trolls in their posts...you guys are usurping the power vested in the ignore feature!
For those that missed it the first time, here's the evidence that folks in the Bush administration wanted diplomacy to fail, and actually wanted to go to war. This is from a supporter of the Iraq war is a Republican and knows the people involved.
Personally, I don't view this as 1,000 dead troops. I see 11,000 dead people, American and Iraqi, men, women and children. I see this war as a cause of future violence, started by a president who went looking for it, instead of it being the last option.
Not me. I hereby challenge t_j to a series of debates. We will cover 5-10 topics and the stakes will be whatever he will agree to. I suggest a year off the board. We can each choose a judge from the board with a third judge that we can agree on like one of the admins, Jeff and BrianKagy would be the two I would nominate. In a real debate, I will win because all t_j has is slogans, invective, and opprobrium. Bring it on.
1,000 hard working Americans die and the people that sent them to die live lavishly and eat 5 course meals every day. They ride in nothing but fully loaded automobiles. Drink the finest wines etc. But how are the wives and kids of the ones that have died in Iraq living? I know if I was a child and I found out my father was never coming home I don't think I would want steaks and wine. I would be distraught and not want to eat for days. Wanting to sacrifice anything just to hug him one more time. That’s the way I feel now about my father that passed away and he didn't die because of a war. The Iraqi government was not sending troops or bombs over here to invade the U.S. so why did we go invade them?
looking forward to this too but only if Kagy moderates. That should be worth a couple of threads in the feedback forum.
just make sure he responds to my Normandy invasion post in the debate - I want to hear his answer to how the biggest government spending liberal of the last centry can win WWII - when T-J clearly said if liberals were around in WWII we wouldn't have invaded German-controlled Europe
