Right-Wing "Patriots"

[Calm2Chaos]

That's fine by me.



Wow, that is the most uninformed sentence I've ever read. Do you think a person who can barely feed his family can just pack up all his belongings and buy a brand new house?



You sick bastard. You are really starting to show a darker side here and it's very unpleasant.



The main reason I would never join the military is because of our leadership. I'm not the one who is choosing which conflicts to go into. That's the governments job. THe main reason I don't join up is because I don't support this conflict 100%. Maybe I would if we showed a little more compassion for the people living there by maybe developing an exit plan before going into a war! Also, it's hard to understand the clear motive of our goverment on the war. If were so just in spreading democracy why have we continually screwed over countless nations in the past 200 years?

An exit plan....... please tell me the last time a war had an "exit plan" ?

War is not a board game. You exit when you win.

If your not willing to fight for your freedoms, why do you deserve them?

 

[jennyb]

james...privacy

stinger...i did agree with clinton on kosovo, absolutely ..because he went there with no lies.. the war was to get rid of the regime..if you remember there were pictures of concentration camps and people looking like skeletons because of who they were..reminicint of camps in germany
i was also behind papa bush's war with iraq the first time because of the fact that saddam invaded kuwait....and they asked for our help...in fact i was extremely proud of both..kosovo..and iraq part one.....but this second iraq is like the bad sequel to gone with the wind it stinks, and its unneccesary.

and no i didnt join the military, i was over the age were it is really fesable...
but to be honest i wouldnt join because i'm just not military...how about you?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

What freedoms have you lost?Are you a drug dealer,terrorist or child molester?I know the goverment has made it harder for them,but what freedoms that you enjoy on a regular basis that have you yourself have lost?

What are your thoughts on this subject?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/7362-what-extent-you-support-1st-2nd-amendment.html

I can't think of a single freedom that has beeen taken from me.

 

[Sir_Alec]

An exit plan....... please tell me the last time a war had an "exit plan" ?

War is not a board game. You exit when you win.

If your not willing to fight for your freedoms, why do you deserve them?

So if I don't want to kill people for my country I can't be free? This war is not the standard war we've always dealt with. This war could have been more planned out. This war is hardly fighting for my freedoms. It's fighting for others freedoms! This is great and I would support it if it wasn't planned by a corrupt government.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

So if I don't want to kill people for my country I can't be free? This war is not the standard war we've always dealt with. This war could have been more planned out. This war is hardly fighting for my freedoms. It's fighting for others freedoms! This is great and I would support it if it wasn't planned by a corrupt government.

So exactly what war that we have ever fought (not counting the first two) has our "enemy" been an actual threat to our immediate freedoms and not fought more for others freedoms? Seems that we fight for others and our freedoms are the byproduct of those battles.

I think anyone that enjoys these freedoms should at least be willing to fight for them. Hell you don't have to actually kill anyone... just be willing to fight for them.

And you don't fight for them and yet you are free. And yes you have the right to not fight, and yes you have the right to be free. And yesthose rights were paid for by someone else who thought they should be fought for

 

[jennyb]

only the first two wars were fought for our own freedoms against an enemy who endangered us..that said..the war on the terrrorists...not the war in iraq, against radical islam is also a protection of our freedoms...i dont want to wear a burka, thank you.

 

[MSgt]

This thread seems to be glorifying complete ignorance.

You may whine (and that's exactly what it is) that the right wing is not patriotic. You may try to desperat;ley preach that the right wing sends off others to die for them. And you may bitch about real world events that you simply do not understand. But the real truth here is that none of you, especially our leftist politicians, offered no convincing alternative to a war to eliminate Saddam Hussein. No protester ever offers a serious solution to other people's suffering but to come together for a quick moment, shed some crocodile tears, and then go home to their insulated lives.

Protesters (and their politicians) are always lacking in intellectual integrity. Picket signs and well meant slogans do not prevent massacres, depose tyrants, or deter terrorists. And don't listen to that old time religion of "war doesn't solve anything" garbage. On the contrary, war solves a great deal. It's what occurs after wars that thses people confuse with war's outcomes (The American Civil War ended the institution of slavery within our borders. It was civil society, after the war, that failed black Americans).

Singers and actors are the worst of the lot, because they feed off of this like vultures, hoping it will jump start their careers back into life. Notable exceptions would be Bono or Angelina Jolie. People that make a "stand" against attrocity-the American war machine-by making music or showing up for camera time are strangely and predictably silent when Iraqis sufferred under Saddam or when black Africans in Sudan were being slaughtered. Pretty songs do not soften the killers heart.

Two questions posed:

1) Should we have simply turned our backs on the Iraqi people and allow Saddam to continue to torment and murder them as we have done for decades with every other dictator? Should we have allowed one of his homocidal sons to succeed him to turn an already horrible situation into something completely hellish for the Iraqi people? Don't the people in Iraq, who have been gassed, tortured, raped, shot, and starved (while Saddam built palaces for himself and hoarded the money given to him by the international community for the care of his people), deserve liberation? Or is freedom only for educated white people in America and the few minorities that creep in?

2) What would you do, in practical terms, to prevent the widespread of WMD and their eventual use by terrorists against us? No generalities and please refrain from using tools like the Patriot Act and our international spy network (that our media is desperately trying to expose to turn a buck). Also, please refrain from using a terrorist prison - we have all heard how these tools are no good for the "American" image. And spare us the insult of bringing up the UN. That organization of celebrated dictators and yesterdays nations had their chance - 12 years to be precise.

Until the antiwar critics, with their presumed monopoly on virtue, can answer these questions, they will remain wholly ignorant about what they preach against. It isn't enough to oppose, if you cannot offer convincing alternatives. There is nothing more tragically hypocritical than that of an individual who claims to stand for civil rights and freedom, yet turns his back on anything brown or black.

What did "Liberal" mean again?

 

[Sir_Alec]

****, why can't everyone post like you? You're very right, but I've been saying this for so long it's not even funny! Most of my problems are with the leaders and not the war itself. Fault can be sent both ways!

 

[Stinger]

That's fine by me.

So they aren't all just poor folk who can't get a job somewhere else inspite of your insult to the military.

Wow, that is the most uninformed sentence I've ever read. Do you think a person who can barely feed his family can just pack up all his belongings and buy a brand new house?

Where did you get the idea that the military would leave them in thier homes all safe a comfortable? And yes people move all the time when the job market requires it.

You sick bastard. You are really starting to show a darker side here and it's very unpleasant.

I see, you don't like it when the shoe is put on the other foot. You want to be protected but not willing to fight for it. It's just your logic turned against you, it if is sick, if it is dark, if it takes a bastard to say....................well look in the mirror.

The main reason I would never join the military is because of our leadership.

How self-serving of you.

I'm not the one who is choosing which conflicts to go into. That's the governments job.

Actually the country through our elected representitives.

THe main reason I don't join up is because I don't support this conflict 100%.

So if the terrorist want a hostage will you fill in? Why not go over and help the recovery effots?

Maybe I would if we showed a little more compassion for the people living there

You are perfectly free to get a civilian job helping recovery efforts.

by maybe developing an exit plan before going into a war!

We have one, you should pay more attention.

Also, it's hard to understand the clear motive of our goverment on the war.

It wouldn't be if you had paid attention.

If were so just in spreading democracy why have we continually screwed over countless nations in the past 200 years?

Spreading democracy was a result of the war not a cause of it.

 

[Loxd4]

You aren't a patriot unless you do everything possible to stop the terrorists and the war on terror (which has no true objective). This includes stripping America of everything it was supposed to be founded on.

The 4th amendment prohibits against illegal search and seizure, but if you've got nothing to hide, why worry? We might catch some terrorists!

Hey since all don't have noting to hide, why don't we get rid of the 4th amendment....let vote on this(say Nay or I to vote) I'ay

 

[Geekybrunette]

Hey since all don't have noting to hide, why don't we get rid of the 4th amendment....let vote on this(say Nay or I to vote) I'ay

Nay.

Protecting the innocent for the win. Police need to have good cause to search you, your house, or other property. Let's say that your roommate or family member happens to be a drug user (or has illegal weapons, child pornography, whatever else illegal or incriminating that you can think of). Let's say he/she sees police are coming and decides to put some of his/her stash in your bedroom. The police decide to search the whole house and arrest you for having drugs in your section of the house.

It's a long shot and very unlikely, but I would rather have a truly guilty person go free than have an innocent person go to jail for nonsense like this.

 

[Joby]

1) Should we have simply turned our backs on the Iraqi people and allow Saddam to continue to torment and murder them as we have done for decades with every other dictator? Should we have allowed one of his homocidal sons to succeed him to turn an already horrible situation into something completely hellish for the Iraqi people? Don't the people in Iraq, who have been gassed, tortured, raped, shot, and starved (while Saddam built palaces for himself and hoarded the money given to him by the international community for the care of his people), deserve liberation? Or is freedom only for educated white people in America and the few minorities that creep in?

I believe the politicians are somewhat hypocritical on this. Yes, we did remove Saddam, but only after al-qaeda attacked us. We should have provided the Shiite rebels, and Kurds, with missile and possibly air support in their 1991-92 rebellion. We should have ensured their freedom when they were fighting for it.

As for the current conflict, we should have targeted the Ansar al-Islam cells in Northern Iraq instead of rushing to Baghdad. May of the cells members moved into Iran before the war began, and we should have sent special forces to, ahem, search, locate, and completely remove any shred of their existence. It seems that the White House plan was so worried about the media believing Saddam was honestly a threat that they were determined to remove him. The media was bringing up "experts" who thought Saddam would hold baghdad for a month, and it appears W/Rummy were to tied up in this to attack the Islamists who they claim they were there to remove in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, Saddam was dangerous, but could hardly be called a threat. Instead, we should have rushed, via Turkey(covert), a significant amount of SF troops, combined, and under cover of, Kurdish Peshmergas who would reach the region before the invasion-Saddam had little control of this region-and removed the Islamists. The second we believe Saddams regime may move, Shock & Awe commences immediately. We state that Saddam was defending Islamist terrorists operating out of Iraq, which would be true. he is there harboring an al-Qaeda linked cell with intent to attack the US, though not sponsoring it, and that justifies our intervention.

2) What would you do, in practical terms, to prevent the widespread of WMD and their eventual use by terrorists against us? No generalities and please refrain from using tools like the Patriot Act and our international spy network (that our media is desperately trying to expose to turn a buck). Also, please refrain from using a terrorist prison - we have all heard how these tools are no good for the "American" image. And spare us the insult of bringing up the UN. That organization of celebrated dictators and yesterdays nations had their chance - 12 years to be precise.

WMD is certainly a huge threat. But we need to defend our ports and vulnerable points now. As I've stated elsewere, I believe our message to convicted al-qaeda members should be simple:You'll talk or we'll use you to grease the treads of our tanks.
American image is hurt by looking weak in Iraq, not supposedly beating up your beheading enemies. If your goal is to become teachers pet to Kofi Anan, maybe.

Singers and actors are the worst of the lot, because they feed off of this like vultures, hoping it will jump start their careers back into life. Notable exceptions would be Bono or Angelina Jolie. People that make a "stand" against attrocity-the American war machine-by making music or showing up for camera time are strangely and predictably silent when Iraqis sufferred under Saddam or when black Africans in Sudan were being slaughtered. Pretty songs do not soften the killers heart.

Excellent, excellent point. There are intelligent anti-war men out there that don't wear make-up. I wish the media would find them.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Seargent Peppers. American Idiot ain't Seargent Peppers.

Protesters (and their politicians) are always lacking in intellectual integrity. Picket signs and well meant slogans do not prevent massacres, depose tyrants, or deter terrorists. And don't listen to that old time religion of "war doesn't solve anything" garbage. On the contrary, war solves a great deal. It's what occurs after wars that thses people confuse with war's outcomes (The American Civil War ended the institution of slavery within our borders. It was civil society, after the war, that failed black Americans).

Not necessarily. Not being for the war because you didn't believe the evidence is not lacking integrity.

Being a Democrat and going along with it because it's popular at the moment is.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

When I said "This thread is silly" Gunny said what I ment. Great post.

 

[southern_liberal]

This thread seems to be glorifying complete ignorance.

You may whine (and that's exactly what it is) that the right wing is not patriotic. You may try to desperat;ley preach that the right wing sends off others to die for them. And you may bitch about real world events that you simply do not understand. But the real truth here is that none of you, especially our leftist politicians, offered no convincing alternative to a war to eliminate Saddam Hussein. No protester ever offers a serious solution to other people's suffering but to come together for a quick moment, shed some crocodile tears, and then go home to their insulated lives.

Protesters (and their politicians) are always lacking in intellectual integrity. Picket signs and well meant slogans do not prevent massacres, depose tyrants, or deter terrorists. And don't listen to that old time religion of "war doesn't solve anything" garbage. On the contrary, war solves a great deal. It's what occurs after wars that thses people confuse with war's outcomes (The American Civil War ended the institution of slavery within our borders. It was civil society, after the war, that failed black Americans).

Singers and actors are the worst of the lot, because they feed off of this like vultures, hoping it will jump start their careers back into life. Notable exceptions would be Bono or Angelina Jolie. People that make a "stand" against attrocity-the American war machine-by making music or showing up for camera time are strangely and predictably silent when Iraqis sufferred under Saddam or when black Africans in Sudan were being slaughtered. Pretty songs do not soften the killers heart.

Two questions posed:

1) Should we have simply turned our backs on the Iraqi people and allow Saddam to continue to torment and murder them as we have done for decades with every other dictator? Should we have allowed one of his homocidal sons to succeed him to turn an already horrible situation into something completely hellish for the Iraqi people? Don't the people in Iraq, who have been gassed, tortured, raped, shot, and starved (while Saddam built palaces for himself and hoarded the money given to him by the international community for the care of his people), deserve liberation? Or is freedom only for educated white people in America and the few minorities that creep in?

2) What would you do, in practical terms, to prevent the widespread of WMD and their eventual use by terrorists against us? No generalities and please refrain from using tools like the Patriot Act and our international spy network (that our media is desperately trying to expose to turn a buck). Also, please refrain from using a terrorist prison - we have all heard how these tools are no good for the "American" image. And spare us the insult of bringing up the UN. That organization of celebrated dictators and yesterdays nations had their chance - 12 years to be precise.

Until the antiwar critics, with their presumed monopoly on virtue, can answer these questions, they will remain wholly ignorant about what they preach against. It isn't enough to oppose, if you cannot offer convincing alternatives. There is nothing more tragically hypocritical than that of an individual who claims to stand for civil rights and freedom, yet turns his back on anything brown or black.

What did "Liberal" mean again?

First of all, your avatar shows a man in a military uniform, so if your in the service, I want to first say I respect your opinion and commend your bravery.

To answer your questions:

answer to question 1:

You are describing the U.S. military as an international police force. people in Sudan are being "tortured, raped, shot, and starved". Why haven't we sent an invasion force there? They deserve liberation, yes? Are they not being mistreated by their government?

The "CNN Presents" special that showed Americans the human suffering in N. Korea. Why haven't we sent some of our troops in the pacific to invade N. Korea and liberate those people from their evil dictator? Are they not being mistreated by their government?

Bottom line is, we are going way over our head in debt as a nation to fight a war of choice in Iraq, and our military is stretched thin. To free every oppressed nation on this planet is impossible. And what makes Iraq's oppression so unique from the Sudan and N. Korea? Pain is Pain no matter where you live on this planet. I don't think most Americans would have agreed with this war if it was simply a matter of freeing the Iraqis from Saddam. But that is what Bush would have us believe this war is about, and unfortunately, people are buying it.


Answer to question 2:

What would I have done to stop the spread of WMD's?

First, I would have made sure there were actually weapons of mass destruction that had the possibility of being used against us. By doing that, there would be no need for futher discussion about WMD's. But of course that fell to the republican controlled congress, who would not perform it's checks and balance duties on the president, instead they took his work for it, and so begins the problem.

Second, You infer that the U.N. is useless, but they are not bogged down in a quagmire; we are. They had to better judgement to not invade a nation unless all doubt was removed that said nation was a threat. They chose not to take one man's word when you are talking about starting a war that would have global implications which is good reasoning to anyone with logical thought. And it seems they were right.

Third, If I felt the need to invade Iraq for WMD's, and the U.N. wasn't willing to help, I would have went with a practical coalition of nations. Bush is really comical by calling the invasion force a coalition. Lithuania's 75 troops are really making a dent in the Iraq war And a nation the size of Australia really had to strain to spare the 800 people they sent to Iraq but they were able to come through for us.

Bottom Line, any rational person would have have invaded Iraq unilaterally. This had nothing to do with freeing the people of Iraq and nothing to do with WMD's. I doubt the most technological nation on the face of this planet did not know Saddam had no WMD's. We had unfettered access to 2/3 of Iraq and that part of the country we could not access had so many satelites baring down on it to the point where a rat couldn't move in the desert without us knowing it. This war was clearly started under false pretenses. Unfortunately we probably won't know the real reason for the war until quite some time from now.

So there are some answers from someone who is anti(Iraq)war, but never claimed to have a monopoly on virtue (I will leave that to the fundamentalists). I would ascribe "wholly ignorant" to those who blindly follow a leader without thinking and asking questions. Bush is a very short sighted person. He clearly had a plan for winning the war, but no plan to deal with the insurgency and sectarian strife that he had to know was going to happen. Unless he is really as academically challenged as he appears to be, basic world history should have told him a constitution isn't going to bridge a rift between people who have mistrusted one another for centuries. For that reason alone, red flags should have went up around the nation about Iraq.

If I have not sufficiently answered your question, please advise me. The beauty of discussion forms are the abundant of information that can be exchanged.

 

[MSgt]

Unfortunatley, you didn't answer them. These are excuses for inaction...not alternatives.

answer to question 1:

You are describing the U.S. military as an international police force. people in Sudan are being "tortured, raped, shot, and starved". Why haven't we sent an invasion force there? They deserve liberation, yes? Are they not being mistreated by their government?

The "CNN Presents" special that showed Americans the human suffering in N. Korea. Why haven't we sent some of our troops in the pacific to invade N. Korea and liberate those people from their evil dictator? Are they not being mistreated by their government?

Bottom line is, we are going way over our head in debt as a nation to fight a war of choice in Iraq, and our military is stretched thin. To free every oppressed nation on this planet is impossible. And what makes Iraq's oppression so unique from the Sudan and N. Korea? Pain is Pain no matter where you live on this planet. I don't think most Americans would have agreed with this war if it was simply a matter of freeing the Iraqis from Saddam. But that is what Bush would have us believe this war is about, and unfortunately, people are buying it.

This argument does not and will never work. The American military is not an international police force, nor could we be one if we wanted. This doesn't mean that we sit by and wait for nuclear bombs to start detonating on our soil (or an ally's) for us to protect ourselves. Was there not suffering elsewhere in the world during Hitler's reign? This is the typical answer for anti-war protestors every war. "Why don't we go here...why don't we go there." Unfortunatley, we do not have the manpower to send troops to every region of the earth to do what the rest of the world is too slothful to do (UN, EU, etc.) We can only go where our interests send us and unfortunately our interests is the Middle East and it's need for change to secure a safer future for Americans is great. This means that we liberate the oppressed and we give them the opportunity for change. If our interests free some people, so be it. Iraq was and is the only Arab country that stands to come through for us. The only individuals (Lib and Con) that buys into what a politician or a "news program" tells them is the individual that lacks the study for themselves. The need for change in the Middle East to make a safer world for everyone has been a long time study....not a Bush experiment. He just merely stumbled upon it thanks to the over zealous acts of an "apocalyptic" terrorist. Sad to say, but Osama's act finally woke our deliberately sleeping government from its slumber. America didn't need 9/11 to happen, all they had to do was listen to what has been screamed about since the Reagan era. Even Bush had his back turned until that day.

This is not to suggest the fabled "NeoCon" movement is the answer. Thios plan has holes in it (a major hole is the dismissal of the human soul and this culture). However, it is a part of it and has it's uses. The majority of the work that needs to be done (on the fringes of the Arab world) will take more of a liberal diplomacy and military strikes as needed. Islam needs help defining itself during this crisis. (Study early 16th century Christianity in Europe). And it does not need the kind of help that the Saudi elite is buying or the dictators and religious elite that so pervert their religion to gain and maintain control.

Answer to question 2:

What would I have done to stop the spread of WMD's?

First, I would have made sure there were actually weapons of mass destruction that had the possibility of being used against us. By doing that, there would be no need for futher discussion about WMD's. But of course that fell to the republican controlled congress, who would not perform it's checks and balance duties on the president, instead they took his work for it, and so begins the problem.

Second, You infer that the U.N. is useless, but they are not bogged down in a quagmire; we are. They had to better judgement to not invade a nation unless all doubt was removed that said nation was a threat. They chose not to take one man's word when you are talking about starting a war that would have global implications which is good reasoning to anyone with logical thought. And it seems they were right.

Third, If I felt the need to invade Iraq for WMD's, and the U.N. wasn't willing to help, I would have went with a practical coalition of nations. Bush is really comical by calling the invasion force a coalition. Lithuania's 75 troops are really making a dent in the Iraq war And a nation the size of Australia really had to strain to spare the 800 people they sent to Iraq but they were able to come through for us.

Bottom Line, any rational person would have have invaded Iraq unilaterally. This had nothing to do with freeing the people of Iraq and nothing to do with WMD's. I doubt the most technological nation on the face of this planet did not know Saddam had no WMD's. We had unfettered access to 2/3 of Iraq and that part of the country we could not access had so many satelites baring down on it to the point where a rat couldn't move in the desert without us knowing it. This war was clearly started under false pretenses. Unfortunately we probably won't know the real reason for the war until quite some time from now.

So there are some answers from someone who is anti(Iraq)war, but never claimed to have a monopoly on virtue (I will leave that to the fundamentalists). I would ascribe "wholly ignorant" to those who blindly follow a leader without thinking and asking questions. Bush is a very short sighted person. He clearly had a plan for winning the war, but no plan to deal with the insurgency and sectarian strife that he had to know was going to happen. Unless he is really as academically challenged as he appears to be, basic world history should have told him a constitution isn't going to bridge a rift between people who have mistrusted one another for centuries. For that reason alone, red flags should have went up around the nation about Iraq.

If I have not sufficiently answered your question, please advise me. The beauty of discussion forms are the abundant of information that can be exchanged.

This too is the typical sophomoric response. Very Michael Moore-ish. You speak of rationality and unilateralness in a world where none exists. Of course, if a dictator invaded an oil rich country that supplied all of Europe, the UN and the EU would have helped us right along (Gulf War). You speak of a coalition as being about countries like "Lithuania" while dismissing the presence of Spain, Japan, UK, Italy, Belgium, etc. You dismiss the internal spy network of Jordanians and Kuwaitis Muslims. You may wish to rely on the likes of France and Germany to protect you, but your government will not. No one will deal with the Middle East and the direction it is going as long as Radical Islam has it's eyes fixed on America. (I guess this is where we get to see the typical response about how America invites this? More ignorant rhetoric fed by opinionated columnists who know no more abou tthe Middle East than their readers do).

If you study the subject, you would not need to wait "for some time" to understand what is happening. This world is breaking apart in every region. It is split between those who face forward, those who cling to the past, and those who sit on the sideline and criticize. Everywhere we see a dictator or a religious controlled civilization, we will find violent activity, terrorism, ethnic cleansings, and outward blame. This is a product of the information age on crack. (If the mobile printing press contributed to the decline and civilizational destruction of 16th century European Christianity, imagine what the Internet is doing to the Muslim world.) Islam as a mudane controlling tool, is unravelling all over the place. It has been doing so steadily over the past few decades while ignorance has been focused solely on foreign policy, oil, and other such trivial nonesense. Such things are masques and mere words used by terrorists to wage their "god's" war upon infidels (and other Muslims that do not fit the definition of a true believer).

The threat of WMD is not country based. It is regional. It is in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the former Iraq. Sooner or later you can add Pakistan to that list. You didn't quite answer the question. You use Iraq as some sort of end all be all solution to WMD. It's not a matter of what you would have done. It is a matter of what you will do. We are generations away from security from WMD as a tool for "God's children in the Middle East." The ultimate weapon of choice for an "apocalyptic" terrorist is WMD. Shall we wait for one of these Islamic nations to get them and then lose them to a terorist organization? After one is detonated or used on us, shall we then endure the "Global Left's" whines about proof as every Islamic government sends their condolences and refuses knowledge?

Try to refrain from making this about Bush and see past the political BS. This is where everyone always loses insight.

 

[Typhoeus]

I am sooooo tired of the right-wing hypocrites that claim to be "patriotic" and "supportive of the troops".

True....they are supportive and quick to send off others to shed their blood fighting their presidents war, but probably not so quick to do it themselves.

There was a time in this country when the saying went:
"Give me liberty or give me death"

Now the right-wingers saying seems to be "Take my liberty, just don't kill me!".

I fail to understand how you can claim to be supportive of the troops when you support efforts by the administration to take away freedoms and liberties.

People who support this administration's ill guided "patriot" act, domestic spying, activist court officer's seeking to take away reproductive freedoms, putting less liberty in the hands of the people and more in the hands of the government, supporting big business at the expense of the workers, etc etc etc, spit on the grave of the many who died fighting for our freedom and is a slap in the face to our military today.

During this month of July in recognition of our Independence and Freedom I think its important that we recognize what a great country this has been, but also what the right-wing and the current administration is trying to do to this country.

Patriotism is not a concept in name only. It doesn't mean passing laws to protect a piece of fabric. It means standing up and supporting the principles and the freedoms that this country is built on, not cowardly feigning your "support" for the troops while gladly handing over your liberty.

Here is the pathetic thing about people like you: They claim that an operation that tracks down the enemy, and doesnt actually hurt YOU physically or socialy, is a violation of civil liberties. Let me tell you this GET OVER IT. I have no idea how you people could make it if we were occupied by a dictator.I telll you what, so that I dont get my head cut off on live television, and so that I dont get blown up on my way to work, your damn right I will let them moniter my bank transactions, and my phone calls. Ive got nothing to hide im not a Terrorist I dont want to kill anyone. I've got absolutely nothing to hide. Its not hypocritical to support the troops while you assume that civil liberties are being taken away. My country calls me to arms, I will return the call. Unlike you Im willing to serve my country, under WHATEVER administration. If a president is willing to commit his stress, and other people I am willing to help the man out. You remind me of those pathetic losers that fled to Canada to avoid the draft in Vietnam. It's treason and they should be ashamed of themselves. Dont let them tell you its because they didnt believe in the war, they are just lying, they are just to scared. However dont get me wrong everyone is scared when they go into war, but when your country needs you you should be brave enough to commit to it. If I go to a veterans reunion,I dont care if they are American, German. Japanese, Vietnamese, or Italian (I have an exception for Terrorists) I respect that they put themselves in harms way.

 

[southern_liberal]

Unfortunatley, you didn't answer them. These are excuses for inaction...not alternatives.



This argument does not and will never work. The American military is not an international police force, nor could we be one if we wanted. This doesn't mean that we sit by and wait for nuclear bombs to start detonating on our soil (or an ally's) for us to protect ourselves. Was there not suffering elsewhere in the world during Hitler's reign? This is the typical answer for anti-war protestors every war. "Why don't we go here...why don't we go there." Unfortunatley, we do not have the manpower to send troops to every region of the earth to do what the rest of the world is too slothful to do (UN, EU, etc.) We can only go where our interests send us and unfortunately our interests is the Middle East and it's need for change to secure a safer future for Americans is great. This means that we liberate the oppressed and we give them the opportunity for change. If our interests free some people, so be it. Iraq was and is the only Arab country that stands to come through for us. The only individuals (Lib and Con) that buys into what a politician or a "news program" tells them is the individual that lacks the study for themselves. The need for change in the Middle East to make a safer world for everyone has been a long time study....not a Bush experiment. He just merely stumbled upon it thanks to the over zealous acts of an "apocalyptic" terrorist. Sad to say, but Osama's act finally woke our deliberately sleeping government from its slumber. America didn't need 9/11 to happen, all they had to do was listen to what has been screamed about since the Reagan era. Even Bush had his back turned until that day.

This is not to suggest the fabled "NeoCon" movement is the answer. Thios plan has holes in it (a major hole is the dismissal of the human soul and this culture). However, it is a part of it and has it's uses. The majority of the work that needs to be done (on the fringes of the Arab world) will take more of a liberal diplomacy and military strikes as needed. Islam needs help defining itself during this crisis. (Study early 16th century Christianity in Europe). And it does not need the kind of help that the Saudi elite is buying or the dictators and religious elite that so pervert their religion to gain and maintain control.



This too is the typical sophomoric response. Very Michael Moore-ish. You speak of rationality and unilateralness in a world where none exists. Of course, if a dictator invaded an oil rich country that supplied all of Europe, the UN and the EU would have helped us right along (Gulf War). You speak of a coalition as being about countries like "Lithuania" while dismissing the presence of Spain, Japan, UK, Italy, Belgium, etc. You dismiss the internal spy network of Jordanians and Kuwaitis Muslims. You may wish to rely on the likes of France and Germany to protect you, but your government will not. No one will deal with the Middle East and the direction it is going as long as Radical Islam has it's eyes fixed on America. (I guess this is where we get to see the typical response about how America invites this? More ignorant rhetoric fed by opinionated columnists who know no more abou tthe Middle East than their readers do).

If you study the subject, you would not need to wait "for some time" to understand what is happening. This world is breaking apart in every region. It is split between those who face forward, those who cling to the past, and those who sit on the sideline and criticize. Everywhere we see a dictator or a religious controlled civilization, we will find violent activity, terrorism, ethnic cleansings, and outward blame. This is a product of the information age on crack. (If the mobile printing press contributed to the decline and civilizational destruction of 16th century European Christianity, imagine what the Internet is doing to the Muslim world.) Islam as a mudane controlling tool, is unravelling all over the place. It has been doing so steadily over the past few decades while ignorance has been focused solely on foreign policy, oil, and other such trivial nonesense. Such things are masques and mere words used by terrorists to wage their "god's" war upon infidels (and other Muslims that do not fit the definition of a true believer).

The threat of WMD is not country based. It is regional. It is in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the former Iraq. Sooner or later you can add Pakistan to that list. You didn't quite answer the question. You use Iraq as some sort of end all be all solution to WMD. It's not a matter of what you would have done. It is a matter of what you will do. We are generations away from security from WMD as a tool for "God's children in the Middle East." The ultimate weapon of choice for an "apocalyptic" terrorist is WMD. Shall we wait for one of these Islamic nations to get them and then lose them to a terorist organization? After one is detonated or used on us, shall we then endure the "Global Left's" whines about proof as every Islamic government sends their condolences and refuses knowledge?

Try to refrain from making this about Bush and see past the political BS. This is where everyone always loses insight.

If there was a threat of "bombs detonating on our soil (or an ally)" then we would have every right to invade. But was that the case? after 2500 deaths and 25000 injuries, we know it is not. You are supporting a man who thought It was not necessary to check, check and check his intelligence before plunging us into war.

Remember, your the one who implied it was right to invade Iraq to free the Iraqi people; I was just pointing out how flawed that assertion was. We can't free every oppressed group of people on this planet. And again I ask, why was it so urgent to free the Iraqis and not the N. Koreans or Sudanese? What was going on in Iraq that's not currently going on in the other countries? If you really think about it, not much at all. Furthermore, when you say "This means that we liberate the oppressed and we give them the opportunity for change. If our interests free some people, so be it. Iraq was and is the only Arab country that stands to come through for us," it sounds to me that you think Bush invaded a sovereign nation, not to free the people, but to get the Iraqi people to think like us, act like us and look up to us for our benefit, which sounds dangerously like colonialism. By the way, remind me again what our interests were that Iraq was threatening?

As far as Hitler is concerned, the moment he declared war on us, he was a legitimate target. Not to mention the fact he had German U-boats just off our coast in international waters and U-boats sinking our ships.

Maybe, just maybe, my response is sophomoric because this situation should be so easy to see. You are supporting a man who thought like a child and then acted like one. Personally, I feel if my nation is at war for WMD's there had better be WMD's there. If not, my government failed me.

And please quit trying to make this coalition something it's not. America have 130,000 or so troops in Iraq. the rest of the nations combined have somewhere around 10,000. For all intents and purposes, we are alone in Iraq. And again I say, Germany and France aren't stuck in a quagmire; we are. Apparently they knew something we didn't.

Now help me understand this. You say the threat of WMD's is not country based but regional. Yet, we invaded on one country that did not have WMD's. Now does that make a lot of sense? Why not invade one of the countries that had WMD's? Please clarify.

To me, you are sounding a little paranoid or gullable to think that Saddam was a threat to us. This is very much about Bush and his incompetence and about the people who take what he has to say as gold and not stop for a minute to think for themselves. Fortunately, alot of American's are waking up but it's to late.

Lastly, I did answer your questions. You ask me what I would have done differently. Basically I was saying if it was me, we wouldn't be in this mess so this discussion would not be happening. Maybe I didn't make that clear. I would not dream of plunging a nation into war over oil and family feuds. To me, that is the only logical thing that separates Iraq from N.Korea and Sudan, and that's why you and your president can talk until your blue in the face about how we went over there to free the Iraqi people; That won't make it so (the ever evolving reasons for ousting Saddam. I wonder what the next reason will be.) Your right, we do have interests in the Middle East. Those interests have helped turn Iraq into a proving ground for terrorist that wish to attack us. Don't let Bush use you as a tool to spread fear. That tactic is old and tired. Give me a logical reason why invading Iraq was necessary. If WMD's were a regional problem in the middle east, why not first take care of the threat instead of getting bogged down in a nation that was no threat? Why was the U.N. wrong and we are the nation that is in a quagmire? Why is the number of US troops to "coalition troops" nearly 13:1 since this is sopposed to be a true coalition?

Please quite taking whatever Bush feeds you. It's not healthy. War is politics continued by other means. Surely you knew that. So this is political. My insight is fine. It appears my forsight is working well also. As someone who participated in all my history classes, I knew the insurgency was comming, I knew a nation comprised of 3 distinct groups of people who share not much in common other than the name Iraq would splinter once chaos ensued. I knew that for the people of the middle east, their kin, clan and family is priority number one, not some nation Britain through together with spit and a prayer. It sounds to me, you need a lot more insight.

 

[MSgt]

You are supporting a man who thought It was not necessary to check, check and check his intelligence before plunging us into war.

I support a plan. Not a man. This could have easily been Clinton, Bush Sr, or Reagan had they chose to face the facts and not ignore the growing danger of the Middle East for oil. Again....try to refrain from clinging to political BS.

As for plunging us into war, blame every President, your need for oil, and the Islamic Radical and his failing civilization for it. President Bush was merely the individual that sat in the White House when it all finally (and predicted) came crashing down around us.

What would you know about our intellegencia? I could give you a lesson on how it is inadequate to face today's threats if you want.

Remember, your the one who implied it was right to invade Iraq to free the Iraqi people; I was just pointing out how flawed ......... By the way, remind me again what our interests were that Iraq was threatening?

I don't even know where to start with this....

What exactly do we have to fear from Sudanese or North Koreans? Do they hail from a region that kills in the name of God? You seem to be missing the complete point on why the Middle East needs to change.

How exactly are we trying to free every person on earth? Is your argue point simply to type that since we can't free all people on earth we should free no person on earth? Or is it to say that "you" choose who gets to be free on earth? Once again, the failing civilization in the Middle East is the threat. The failing civilization in the Middle East have been the culprits of most every single terrorist attack upon the western world for the last three decades.

Colonialism? Are we raping the landscape of it's natural resources? Do we plant our flags on foreign soil? Do we force the word of God down people's throats and convert them? Check your definitions. Our culture is the history's first real people's culture. Another reason we are hated by every failing government and every dictator. Our very existence is a threat to all who need to cling to the past for control and power. Our enemies are those that are not free. The world - much to the horror of our enemies - is changing to reflect the American machine. Free enterprise, free trade, democracy...these are all fundamental basics of progress that will not be denied. If forcing a change upon our most determined governments that are determined to keep their people in the past and in oppression so that the world's conflicts are lessened then that is our duty as the world's superpower and as the world's defining moral compass. In the mean time, Americans are threatened by a region's failures and a religion that is falling a part in every corner of the globe. This should be our focus...not some people in North Korea or some people in Sudan. They can be next. However, they don't have to wait at all. The UN can......oh, never mind.

Our interests is the safety of every American and their lifestyle. You can preach all day that oil isn't a reason for war, but how much oil and oil products do you require every month? Every American that has been kidnapped, ransomed, tortured, or murdered and every American that will be be kidnapped, tortured, ransomed, or murdered in the future. The threat isn't Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. It is the entire failing region that breeds the individuals that would murder in the name of "God" out of desperation for their lost futures.

As far as Hitler is concerned, the moment he declared war on us,......

Oh....so I guess since Castro declared war on the U.S. (twice) then we should have invaded Cuba out of legitimacy?

Maybe, just maybe, my response is sophomoric because this situation should be so easy to see. You are supporting a man ........my government failed me.

Once again, get over the poltical BS. I support a grand plan..not a man that stumbled upon it. Again...I invite you to do your own studies and stop waiting for a politician or an opinionated commentary to give you your opinions. Your opinions and replies are sophomoric because you simply do not understand this world.

You failed yourself. Study the civilization and the region in which we are at war with. We are not at war with a country. We are at war with a civilization. Perhaps you think the President should have stood on national TV and stated that "the civilization in the Middle East is wracked with failure (restricted free flow of informatrion, subjugated women, not one world class university, no infrastructure, full of futureless youth who hang on every word that would goive them a scapegoat for their failures, dominated by a single dogmnatic religion, etc.) and it's by product and it's symptom is terrorism against t6he west, especially America, and therefore we are going to try to introduce some freedom for their oppressed masses by getting rid of a thorn in our side (Saddam) and sparking some kind of change that they would otherwise not get without our help? I don't think the international community and the American left would have been so inclined to do the right thing. Of course, tell the Global Left that they are in danger and they are all about sending us off to kill for them.

People die in war. Get over it and accept it. We don't just die in wars you agree with.

And please quit trying to make this coalition something it's not. America have 130,000 or so troops in Iraq. the rest of the nations combined have somewhere around 10,000. For all intents and purposes, we are alone in Iraq. And again I say, Germany and France aren't stuck in a quagmire; we are. Apparently they knew something we didn't.

When exactly are we ever not alone? Where have you been? We were alone in Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti. We are alone in Indonesia. We are alone in Chad and Ethiopia. What exactly do you think a coalition ever is? Once again...make yourself aware of how this world works.

France and Germany? The core countries of Europe that perfected genocide? The core countries that between them bare the guilt of tens of millions of corpses? The core countries that were benifitting from oil during UN sanctions? The core countries that cling to anti-semitism today as they did in 1943? The core countries that liked Saddam because he was a dictator with a mustache? These two countries have a history of hating us behind closed doors. We denied Germany it's chance to rule the world and daily it is rubbed in the Frenchies faces that they fail at everything. These core countries of "old Europe" who believe in the sham that a dictator is protected no matter how many corpses fall under his might behind his "soveriegn" borders knows better than us? These two countries that will not lift a finger to do anything that America will do for them? You state "quagmire," and I again I tell you check your definitions and study the world and the Iraq event you have formed such misguided opinions on.

Now help me understand this. You say the threat of WMD's is not country based but regional. Yet, we invaded on one country that did not have WMD's. Now does that make a lot of sense? Why not invade one of the countries that had WMD's? Please clarify.

I doubt you'll get it, because you do not know this civilization, but here's a brief summary....

The threat is Radical Islam. Not necessarily existing WMD...not past WMD...it is future WMD and allowing it to fall into the wrong hands. NK has nukes - too late. There is no way to stop an Islamic nation from eventually getting WMD. The ultimate goal is to curb Islamic terrorism and lessen the oppression (if not vanquish it eventually) in the Middle East, where Islam is mostly at it's broken stage. This means that we protect our civilization and peopple by changing the landscape and social structures that breed terrorism on such a grand scale. Iran wants nukes. They want nukes for one reason - Protection against the west for their continued terror endeavors. (If an Islamic terrorist recevies the grace of "God" and virgins in heaven upon his slaughter of non-believers...how much reward will there be for the terrorist that detonates a nuclear bomb in New York or Israel or the U.K. or Spain?

One of my biggest hangups is President Bush's inability to speak on this threat clearly and more precisely. Of course, it doesn't help when we conduct business with the true lords of terror themselves (The House of Saud).

 

[MSgt]

To me, you are sounding a little paranoid or gullable to think that Saddam was a threat to us. This is very much about Bush and his incompetence and about the people who take what he has to say as gold and not stop for a minute to think for themselves. Fortunately, alot of American's are waking up but it's to late.

Wrong and very Amercanly typically obtuse. This is about a country full of people who lack any sort of study or insight into the civilization that threatens them and instead rely upon a government to explain to them what is so painfully obvious to many of us.

Even President Clinton knew of the dangers in the Middle East and getting rid of Saddam as a start. He just chose to ignore it and to make it the next guy's problem. Instead we embarked on cosmetic "safe" wars where we did no good at all. All we did was make Bosnia safe for black marketers to conduct business and in Somalia we showed our enemies that we lack a back bone to face them. In the mean time, the Middle East continued to churn out future terrorists who saw the acts of Al-Queda go un avenged by the "Great Satan." Bin Ladden was made into a hero to every futureless youth in the oppressed Middle East who needs to believe in a scapegoat to explain way their own failures.

over oil and family feuds. To me, that is the only logical thing that separates Iraq from N.Korea and Sudan, and that's why you and your president can talk until your blue in the face about how we went over there to free the Iraqi people;

....and this is exactly why you will never get it. You are partisan enslaved (southern_"liberal") and lack the freedom to explore this world. As I said.....this problem existed long before Bush...and it is going to get worse. The weaker the President the worse it will get. Or perhaps you think Islamic Radicalism was OK as long as it only murdered American troops in barracks, ships, and embassies? The truth is, Americans could care less until 9/11 and even after that they remain ignorant.

Bin Ladden is a symptom of a much larger disease. If you are angry that you were fooled by your government than shame on your own ignorance to this world.

Also you still have not offerred any solution. You merely produce excuses to do nothing. Words like "France" and Germany" and "soveriegnty" do not go very far as people suffer and are being murdered. You offer the same avoidances to the issues that I have become slogans for the party line.

Merely stating that Iraq will not be whole because they are seperated between three sects is irresponsible. It is yet another excuse to do nothing as Radical Islam continues to progress and strengthen within this region. We should have learned the lessons of Pakistan as they clearly have lessons for us to learn about new decmocracies and how easily they can fail if the people's loyalties to sect trump national interests. This is why Americans must be patient and not insist that Iraq ride a hArley before they can even get the training wheels off of their bicycle. It is horribly cowardly to condemn a people under a dictator out of a forcasted failure. If Iraq falls into civil war, so be it. It will be their choice and largely encouraged by our enemies throughout the Middle East that need Irasq to fail. The sad truth is that it is doubtful that the region will recover from a failed Iraq. Iraq is the best chance Iranians and Sauds have at freedom and the best chance we have at our future securites against Radical Islam's terrorists.

Save your preaching to me about insight. I assure you that I know what I'm talking about. I don't just sit in "history class."

I'll assist you into understanding what is going on and some ways to fix it with the next post.....

 

[MSgt]

Here is a better understanding for you about the current situation in the Islamic world and the Middle East. Try to restrain yourself from clinging to the anti-Bush grand standing and the declaration that I support a man. :roll: I can gaurantee you that you will never hear President Bush saying any of this to you on your TV....

1) Root Cause - The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al Banna and the vast majority of terrorists are members, however most Radicals are not. The majority of Islamic Radicals are "the sea from which the terrorists swim" and are revered. The cancer of Radical Islam grows where socio-economic conditions are poor; governments are repressive and unable to provide essential social services, such as providing adequate oversight of their educational system….or have allowed / sanctioned Radical Islamic curricula. Islamic fundamentalism has given an aim and form to the otherwise aimless and formless resentment and anger of the Muslim masses at the forces that have devalued their traditional values and loyalties and, in the final analysis, robbed them of their beliefs, their aspirations, their dignity, and to an increasing extent even their livelihood. Frustrated by the complete inability to exert any discernible degree of control over their immediate circumstances, frustrated adherents of Radical Islam, goaded by Radical Islamic Clerics, will resort to terrorism as the only avenue to effect religious, social, political, and economic change.

2) Short Term Solution - Radical Islam is a precursor to terrorism. It lays the ideological and religious foundation for Islamic-inspired violence and, as such, represents a long-term threat to the national security of the United States of America. The ongoing Global War on Terrorism targets the current generation of terrorists; however, unless the ideology that spawned them is also countered the long-term threat to the U.S. will exponentially grow with time.

3) Long Term Solution - Thus, when dealing with a culture in which only faith and family matter to our enemies, we insist on making war on governments and negotiating with political organizations that are no more than mobs with diplomatic representation. When doing this, we are punching thin air. Note...Some of these are active operations and some are general sentiments of the intel community. This is what is called "offering a solution to the problem" and not offering exonerations and excuses not to act....

a - Acknowledge the threat posed by Radical Islam.

b - We are not targeting Islam, just the Radical Islamists – we better say so.

c - Support the moderate voices (indirectly).

d - Focus our efforts on the long term enemy = the creation of more Radical Islamists.

e - Garner worldwide support for this effort…..and at least engage in the IO war more aggressively. Counter Al Jazeera and like Radical Islamic media….without appearing to do so.

f - Designate DOS (Department of State) as lead agency against countering Radical Islam.

g - Following recognition of the threat – fund the programs necessary to counter it.

h - Reorganize foreign assistance funding and efforts creating DOS “Regional Directors” that actually control assets = Reorganize DOS along Geographical vice Functional Lines (much like DoD Combatant CDRs).

i - Review Current Foreign Policy Focusing on Taking the Political Ammunition Away From the Radical Extremists.

j - Resolve Israeli / Palestinian and Indian / Pakistani disputes.

k - We must succeed in both Afghanistan and Iraq….and ensure these are perceived as successes in the Muslim world.

l - Counter Radical Islamic Media = Counter Al Jazeera and like Radical Islamic media….without appearing to do so.

m - Reestablish funding for cultural outreach programs cut following end of “Cold War.”

n - Give voice to moderate Islamic leaders (indirectly).

o - Support Programs Dedicated to Providing Educational Reform in Threatened Countries. (The official Saudi newspaper, Ain Al-Yaqeen, described royal expenditures on “education” as “astronomical.” (Mar 2002) They built 1500 mosques, 202 colleges, and 2000 Muslim schools. These were established throughout non-Islamic countries in Europe, North and South America, Australia, and Asia. None in the Middle East.)

p - Governments with strong governmental oversight over the education of their young must be rewarded; likewise those that do not provide such oversight must be punished.

q - AT HOME = Constitutional / Legal Review of activities surrounding fundamentalist religions that pose a domestic threat, – we face a new threat and our legal system is ill equipped to handle it. (Many Americans would rather recognize their freedom to preach hate a spit venom above protecting their own asses from the repercussions of it.)


More problems in the MENA Region....

- The populations within the next 25 years…
Egypt’s population will increase by 38%
Jordan’s by 67%
Syria’s by 58%
Saudi Arabia’s by 94%
Pakistan’s by 69%, and
Israel’s by 39%

- Decreasing Fresh Water Supplies: MENA region faces precipitous decrease in per capita fresh water supply.

- Economic doldrums / disaster: Regional unemployment for ages 15-35 = 40%…and growing. ….mostly males….who can’t afford to get married……...

- No known solutions to these problems, save one = Jihad.

Only democracies have shown agility to deal with such problems. In the absence of answers victims will look for scapegoats. Radical Islamic clerics provide the scapegoat for the problems facing the Arab/Islamic world. "Their problems are the fault of the West, specifically the US." (How many of you out there feed into their blame game?) Either we find a way to support the affected countries in finding their own solutions to these problems or our sons and daughters will be fighting another, protracted fight.

Does the left offer any solutions to this problem facing us? No. They only offer criticisms and exonerations by refusing to admit the reality.

 

[disneydude]

your damn right I will let them moniter my bank transactions, and my phone calls. Ive got nothing to hide im not a Terrorist I dont want to kill anyone. I've got absolutely nothing to hide. Its not hypocritical to support the troops while you assume that civil liberties are being taken away.

Its a good thing that the majority of the people in America don't think the way that you do. Because if they did then the terrorists have won. If the terrorists are successful in convincing people like you to give up your American way of life then we have lost the very thing that we are supposedly fighting for. As the saying goes.....people who are so willing to give up their freedom for security deserve neither.

As with the original post, I prefer the American value "Give me liberty or give me death". Its sad that so many have succombed to the politics of fear.

 

[MSgt]

Its a good thing that the majority of the people in America don't think the way that you do.

Oh come now. The general American doesn't think at all and is completely cluless to this world and merely tip their fickle opinions to what ever politician or reporter they rely upon for information. Most want their cheap gas and their snuggly little lives protected without a care about what it takes to ensure it as they fashionably complain about the means that do provide them. Of course, they don't complain at all as American troops are being murdered without retaliation. Nor do they complain as brown and black people are suffering as a result of their lifestyle. But get involved in a war that actually addresses today's threats and frees brown or black people in the process, and the campus veterans (who claim to be marching for civil rights and freedom) come out in droves to protest and declare how much they care about the troop in the field.

That's America.

 

[southern_liberal]

:spin:


GySgt,

You have really just repeated Dubya's talking points.

Futhermore, I'm not enslaved to any ideology. That's what happens when you assume. I'm a liberal, but I part ways with the Democratic party on several key issues:

-I am pro death penalty

-I am pro welfare reform that makes people get jobs

-I believe abortion should be regulated (but not completely done away with becuase there are always exceptions to be considered.)

So now you know a little bit more about me.

Now let me take your points one at a time.

IRAQ

It still escapes me why you think it was okay to attack a soverign nation because you disagree with their ideology. That kind of arrogance is part of the reason they hate us in the first place. So, we proved to them that we were a treat to them(the Iraqis) by an unprovoked invasion. Yeah, they are really going to like us now:mrgreen: Once again. IRAQ POSED NO THREAT TO US. no matter how much you want to justify invading a country simply based on what its neighbors are doing, is logically flawed. I hope Canada don't piss someone off, because then that country can invade us.......

OIL

Their is no need for me or anyone else to be dependent on foriegn oil. We have the technology to create energy from the munch abundant corn growing in the midwest. But, we won't get that energy why? becuase Dubya is in the back pocket of oil companies. So to in any way try and justify going over there for our oil interests is yet again flawed. There is no reason or need for us to be energy dependent on another countries oil resources for our automobiles. And by the way, I drive a fuel efficient car.

Intelegence

Please, no lesson in intelegence agencies, The results speak for themselves. Either they are totally inept or W really did cherry pick information to decieve those who wished to be disceived. Logic should have told the American people we had nothing to fear from Saddam; that if he had WMD's we would know about it becuase of our close proximity to Iraq (as in being in Iraq), so people chose to be decieved by a fearmoner and a warmonger.

FEEDOM

Again, you implied that freeing a people from an evil dictator was a legitimate reason for invading a country. But it appears you do seem to at least acknowledge that invadiing Iraq was not a humanitarian mission.

Radical Islam

I wonder if we stop interfering in their internal affairs if they will stop hating us. hmmmm. Just a thought. I mean, You can't honestly believe a group of people got together and decided they hate the way we live and that is good enough to attack us. I wonder if they feel we are trying to force our culture on them, like invading one of their soverign nations, to make them think and govern themselves the way we do, is really the big issue why they hate our way of life?? And this leads into:

Colonialism

Now, Please tell me, you honestly don't think we went in their for Iraq's oil. Please tell me your not that naive. That's all I have to say on that point.

Any time you invade a nation for your own self interest, which is what you implied, and occupy that same nation until they set up a goverment to your liking, try and make the populace agree with you values and beliefs, that is dangerously close to colonialism.

Coalition.

Yet again, you pointed out the nations that are apart of this "coalition." I was just pointing out there is no meaningful coalition and we are alone. And speaking of Hitler, it was a real coalition of US, Brittian and it's commonwealth, France and Russia that fought World War II and got rid of a real true threat to American interests.

Cuba vs. Germany

Now, do you honestly think Cuba had the means to carry out their threats?? They were grandstanding, nothing more. Germany had a standing army of over 1 million troops and a very active submarine fleet that could have brought ruin to our international trade. Now THAT is a threat to our national interest. I hope this helps.

Finally, I'm a history major. I have suffiecnt working knowledge on the middle east to know that Bush does not. And if I needed a history brush up, I would not seek you out. I still have the e-mail address of my old professor and I have more books than I know what to do with. You are so blided by Bush you can't see the deeper implications of what he has done. Bush, and it seems you, should have studied the middle eastern culture before thinking this war was the correct course of action.

 

[MSgt]

GySgt,

You have really just repeated Dubya's talking points.

"Dubya" is merely hinting on two decades of study and getting it mostly wrong. The problems with Americans are that they were completely ignorant of the Middle East and this rising threat until "Dubya" said something and now they believe it was all his invention.

Well, you threw up the "spin" icon, which is the sign for me to move on. The user of that icon is usually completely closed minded and rhetorically set. Besides that, I haven't much interest in repeating the same insights to the same sophomoric questions and "nu-uhs" with every new member that simply does not understand his/her world. Good luck with your understandings of the Middle Eastern culture, our intelligencia short falls, and Radical Islam. Good luck getting yourself past the obtuse belief that Iraq is the end all be all of this endeavor while remaining completely ignorant of the going ons in Bosnia, Chad, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Phillipines, and India. Good luck with the ignorant notion that Islam is not the problem today and they are merely mad at us because we have a base in Saudi Arabia. And finally, good luck with gaining insight from a text book and your professor (who also probably never set foot in the Middle East) and your college degree (I too am majoring in History - though I haven't learned too much about the Middle Eastern culture through it yet).

Maybe "Dubya" or another politician will explain it for you on TV one day. Don't count on it.

 

[southern_liberal]

"Dubya" is merely hinting on two decades of study and getting it mostly wrong. The problems with Americans are that they were completely ignorant of the Middle East and this rising threat until "Dubya" said something and now they believe it was all his invention.

Well, you threw up the "spin" icon, which is the sign for me to move on. The user of that icon is usually completely closed minded and rhetorically set. Besides that, I haven't much interest in repeating the same insights to the same sophomoric questions and "nu-uhs" with every new member that simply does not understand his/her world. Good luck with your understandings of the Middle Eastern culture, our intelligencia short falls, and Radical Islam. Good luck getting yourself past the obtuse belief that Iraq is the end all be all of this endeavor while remaining completely ignorant of the going ons in Bosnia, Chad, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Phillipines, and India. Good luck with the ignorant notion that Islam is not the problem today and they are merely mad at us because we have a base in Saudi Arabia. And finally, good luck with gaining insight from a text book and your professor (who also probably never set foot in the Middle East) and your college degree (I too am majoring in History - though I haven't learned too much about the Middle Eastern culture through it yet).

Maybe "Dubya" or another politician will explain it for you on TV one day. Don't count on it.

It's unfortunate a emoticon is the reason your not continuing our conversation. But so be it. But I would like to clarify one thing;I never said the fact we have a base in Saudi Arabia is not the reason they hate us.

also, the teacher I will call upon is working on his second masters degree which is in Middle Eastern studies. Wheather or not he went to the middle east? I don't know. But remember, a book can take you to a lot of fantastic places. My book collection is not just text books. Since you are a history major then Surely you have heard of the great historians such as Shelby Foote and the like. I read books by the great historians, and then I do my own research.

Finally, the reason we are in this quagmire, and if the neocons have their way deeper in this quagmire, is all that needs to be said on Bush's knowledge on the middle east and the accuracy of our intelligent agencies.

Peace