POLITICAL JEDI
New member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 2
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
In my short membership to this website, I've noticed the mantra for all the opposition usually includes "Bush lied, thousands died" or "No blood for oil" to "No neocon war for Israel"!
These arguments are intellectually dishonest for a number of reasons besides the reason you don't turn your back on, and hang out to dry, some 150,000 brave americans on the battlefield while you in-fight on wheather they should've been sent there in the first place.
As to the claim Bush lied: Can't you get past Bush lied? Or at least say 77 senators lied. Former Presidents lied. Friendly and not-so-friendly heads of foreign governments lied. Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies lied. Iraqi exiles lied. ect. ect.
But what I really find shameful, borderline treasonist, is that you take sides against your president. A president that has done all he can through various programs, to thwart more terrorist attacks on U.S soil. In short, to kept you, your loved ones, and the rest of america safe for the last 5 years.
I feel it necessary to remind all of you that it was our politicians who voted for a war at a time of post 9/11 fury and fear. When al qaida swore of more attacks to come. When traces of anthrax evacuated our government buildings. In response, the Democrats beat their chest to prove that they could out-macho the "smoke-em-outta their holes" and "dead-or-alive" president in laying out the case against Saddam.
Much more importantly, our senate voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein for 22 reasons other than just his possession of dangerous weapons. We've seem to have forgotten that entirely.
If Bush "cherry picked" the dangers of WMD, our congress (the majority of democrats included) went well beyond George Bush to make a more far reaching case for war against Saddam. Genocide, violation of U.N. agreements, breaking of the 1991 armistice accords, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, and firing on American jets patrolling the U.N mandated no-fly zones.
I invite you to read the senators resolution for authorizing the war-- "whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region". Real concerns at the time about al Qaeda's ties to Saddam--"whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq." Legitimate fears of terrorism--"whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens."
Thus the honest and moral argument for the "flip flopping" senators would be something like: "I know now that Saddam did not try to kill a former president, did not commit genocide, did not attack his neighbors, did not support terrorists, did not ignore U.N. and 1991 peace accords, and did not attack Americans enforcing U.N.-mandated no-fly zones — and so I regret my vote."
Or if our Senators had character, they would be more honest still: "Yes, Saddam was guilty of those 22 infractions, but none of them justified the war that I voted for, and I should not have included them in the resolution."
I highly doubt any of our senators will ever say: "I voted to cover my as$. If the war proved fast and relatively low-cost like Bosnia or Afghanistan, I was on record for it. If it got bad like Mogadishu or Lebanon, then I wasn't the president who conducted it."
What then is our "big beef" with the war in Iraq? The answer is simple. It's our tragic loss of 2,670 dead and thousands more wounded or mamed. The "my perfect war" and your sloppy "occupation and reconstruction" crowd in huge and in rage. It involves not only the leftist who jumped on the bandwagon for fear of looking soft on terror (a legitimate worry! LOL), but also the sabre rattling republicans who either wrote letters, or spoke directly to Clinton and Bush demanding the removal of Saddam and now damn him for taking them at their word.
In the victory of seeing Milosevic go down without a single american death, the Taliban government destroyed at very little cost, and Saddam removed from power with little more than 100 fatalities, I think america as a whole was under the assumption that the United States could simply nod and dictators would fall and democracy would follow. I know I did!
But here's the chocolate boys and girls. . . Had we lost 100 in birthing democracy and not 2,670, or seen purple fingers only and not the carnage from IEDs on CNN's nightly broadcasts, today's critics would be arguing over who first thought up the idea of removing Saddam and implementing the new "neoconservative" foreign policy! We know this to be true because 3/4 of americans were in favor of the war once they saw the statue of saddam fall.
I for one go to bed at night knowing that the 2,670 brave souls who made the ultimate sacrifice didn't die in vain, regardless of what history will decide as the outcome. Our action in the M.E demands that the despots must think twice before they decide to murder their own, ruin their own societies, and then use terrorism to whip up the "arab street" and deflect their own self-induced miseries onto the United States.
I posted an article (Superpower America)here not long ago that got locked for god knows what. The author of the article was Dr. Charles Krauthammer. After reading what I thought was an impressive article, I looked for more pieces from him as I liked his style of writing and thought his arguments made sense. In my search, I came across a speech he had given. (Link is broken. Google "democratic realism" by Krauthammer if your interested) In his speech he defined our struggle with the enemy and our weapon of choice:
"Yes, as in Germany and Japan, the undertaking is enormous, ambitious and arrogant. It may yet fail. But we cannot afford not to try. There is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the monster behind 9/11. It’s not Osama bin Laden; it is the cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic world--oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism. It’s not one man; it is a condition. It will be nice to find that man and hang him, but that’s the cops-and-robbers law-enforcement model of fighting terrorism that we tried for twenty years and that gave us 9/11. This is war, and in war arresting murderers is nice. But you win by taking territory—and leaving something behind. And that something is democracy"
While we conduct a campaign to bring democratic reform that has had 3 successful elections ending with an Iraqi parliament, while there has been no repeat of the promised--trumped 9/11 attacks here at home, and while the entire dictatorial Middle East from Pakistan to Libya is in crisis, confused, furious, or impressed by a now idealistic United States pushing for something different and far better. . .All I hear out of most of you is the freedoms you imagine you've lost and WMD, WMD, WMD. IMO, it's shameful to say the least!
These arguments are intellectually dishonest for a number of reasons besides the reason you don't turn your back on, and hang out to dry, some 150,000 brave americans on the battlefield while you in-fight on wheather they should've been sent there in the first place.
As to the claim Bush lied: Can't you get past Bush lied? Or at least say 77 senators lied. Former Presidents lied. Friendly and not-so-friendly heads of foreign governments lied. Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies lied. Iraqi exiles lied. ect. ect.
But what I really find shameful, borderline treasonist, is that you take sides against your president. A president that has done all he can through various programs, to thwart more terrorist attacks on U.S soil. In short, to kept you, your loved ones, and the rest of america safe for the last 5 years.
I feel it necessary to remind all of you that it was our politicians who voted for a war at a time of post 9/11 fury and fear. When al qaida swore of more attacks to come. When traces of anthrax evacuated our government buildings. In response, the Democrats beat their chest to prove that they could out-macho the "smoke-em-outta their holes" and "dead-or-alive" president in laying out the case against Saddam.
Much more importantly, our senate voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein for 22 reasons other than just his possession of dangerous weapons. We've seem to have forgotten that entirely.
If Bush "cherry picked" the dangers of WMD, our congress (the majority of democrats included) went well beyond George Bush to make a more far reaching case for war against Saddam. Genocide, violation of U.N. agreements, breaking of the 1991 armistice accords, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, and firing on American jets patrolling the U.N mandated no-fly zones.
I invite you to read the senators resolution for authorizing the war-- "whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region". Real concerns at the time about al Qaeda's ties to Saddam--"whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq." Legitimate fears of terrorism--"whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens."
Thus the honest and moral argument for the "flip flopping" senators would be something like: "I know now that Saddam did not try to kill a former president, did not commit genocide, did not attack his neighbors, did not support terrorists, did not ignore U.N. and 1991 peace accords, and did not attack Americans enforcing U.N.-mandated no-fly zones — and so I regret my vote."
Or if our Senators had character, they would be more honest still: "Yes, Saddam was guilty of those 22 infractions, but none of them justified the war that I voted for, and I should not have included them in the resolution."
I highly doubt any of our senators will ever say: "I voted to cover my as$. If the war proved fast and relatively low-cost like Bosnia or Afghanistan, I was on record for it. If it got bad like Mogadishu or Lebanon, then I wasn't the president who conducted it."
What then is our "big beef" with the war in Iraq? The answer is simple. It's our tragic loss of 2,670 dead and thousands more wounded or mamed. The "my perfect war" and your sloppy "occupation and reconstruction" crowd in huge and in rage. It involves not only the leftist who jumped on the bandwagon for fear of looking soft on terror (a legitimate worry! LOL), but also the sabre rattling republicans who either wrote letters, or spoke directly to Clinton and Bush demanding the removal of Saddam and now damn him for taking them at their word.
In the victory of seeing Milosevic go down without a single american death, the Taliban government destroyed at very little cost, and Saddam removed from power with little more than 100 fatalities, I think america as a whole was under the assumption that the United States could simply nod and dictators would fall and democracy would follow. I know I did!
But here's the chocolate boys and girls. . . Had we lost 100 in birthing democracy and not 2,670, or seen purple fingers only and not the carnage from IEDs on CNN's nightly broadcasts, today's critics would be arguing over who first thought up the idea of removing Saddam and implementing the new "neoconservative" foreign policy! We know this to be true because 3/4 of americans were in favor of the war once they saw the statue of saddam fall.
I for one go to bed at night knowing that the 2,670 brave souls who made the ultimate sacrifice didn't die in vain, regardless of what history will decide as the outcome. Our action in the M.E demands that the despots must think twice before they decide to murder their own, ruin their own societies, and then use terrorism to whip up the "arab street" and deflect their own self-induced miseries onto the United States.
I posted an article (Superpower America)here not long ago that got locked for god knows what. The author of the article was Dr. Charles Krauthammer. After reading what I thought was an impressive article, I looked for more pieces from him as I liked his style of writing and thought his arguments made sense. In my search, I came across a speech he had given. (Link is broken. Google "democratic realism" by Krauthammer if your interested) In his speech he defined our struggle with the enemy and our weapon of choice:
"Yes, as in Germany and Japan, the undertaking is enormous, ambitious and arrogant. It may yet fail. But we cannot afford not to try. There is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the monster behind 9/11. It’s not Osama bin Laden; it is the cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic world--oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism. It’s not one man; it is a condition. It will be nice to find that man and hang him, but that’s the cops-and-robbers law-enforcement model of fighting terrorism that we tried for twenty years and that gave us 9/11. This is war, and in war arresting murderers is nice. But you win by taking territory—and leaving something behind. And that something is democracy"
While we conduct a campaign to bring democratic reform that has had 3 successful elections ending with an Iraqi parliament, while there has been no repeat of the promised--trumped 9/11 attacks here at home, and while the entire dictatorial Middle East from Pakistan to Libya is in crisis, confused, furious, or impressed by a now idealistic United States pushing for something different and far better. . .All I hear out of most of you is the freedoms you imagine you've lost and WMD, WMD, WMD. IMO, it's shameful to say the least!
