The Myths of Iraq

I really don't think that one can say that "the more troops that die, the more we are winning". That would be a cruel distortion of the president's outlook. As a moderate, I do think he has made some missteps but I do not think he is vicious.

0 Replies

Yes, I do agree with Blatham. One must speak out when there are governmental actions that are dishonorable. But one must also be ready to accept the consequences. The soldier who refused to return to Iraq will be tried by court martial. He may get prison time. He is acting according to his principles--one hopes. He is also violating the law.

0 Replies

Suzy may be correct. We may truly be less safe now. However, the American voting public will tell us on November 2nd whether they feel more safe or less safe. If Senator Kerry becomes President, he may be able to change our policy in Iraq. If President Bush is re-elected it will be a sign that most of the country feels it is more safe. In that instance, Suzy will have to comply in whatever way the law requires or face the consequences. Dissent is quite necessary in a civilized society, however, the laws must be obeyed until revised or negated.

0 Replies

I'm sure other posts go deeply into this, but those of us that strongly disagree have seen an astounding amount of statements and actions that seem to me to speak in nearly one voice. This president has consistently ignored evidence and considered opinion in his single-minded pursuit of war. I'm sensitive to over-the-top rhetoric which was the thickest I've seen from a president. I don't just me partisan political spin. I mean evangelical demonization of vague evil forces that hate freedom and similar nonsense.

Numerous soldiers, active and retired, especially from the highest ranks such as retired four star General Zinni who was in charge of the Middle East arena at the end of the century, or retired for star General McPeak are realizing how badly the military is being misused. They both voted for Bush and are/were republicans. Intelligence gatherers and insiders all the way up to former cabinet members are stepping forth with unified stories about not if we go to war in Iraq, but when.

I've rehashed too much, but my point is Bush has more than took a few missteps and to oppose this war is to oppose misusing our military. The later and weaker significant portions of population speak out, the more empowered Bush is and the more outrageous.
.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

It is NOT proper citizenship to support or be quiet when a war is being waged by one country when one feels that that war is dishonorable. So many of us do speak out.

Let me once again point out that Operation Iraqi Freedom is being conducted by a coalition of 49 countries, not by the United States acting unilaterally.

Wild Bill wrote:

This president has consistently ignored evidence and considered opinion in his single-minded pursuit of war.

This is quite an extreme accusation. What evidence and opinion did he ignore? The majority of intelligence services agreed that Saddam had WMD, and so did the United Nations. And it's not really a "single-minded pursuit of war" when it has been authorized by Congress, now is it?

Wild Bill wrote:

Numerous soldiers, active and retired, especially from the highest ranks such as retired four star General Zinni who was in charge of the Middle East arena at the end of the century, or retired for star General McPeak are realizing how badly the military is being misused. They both voted for Bush and are/were republicans. Intelligence gatherers and insiders all the way up to former cabinet members are stepping forth with unified stories about not if we go to war in Iraq, but when.

I'm not sure this makes sense, because we already are at war in Iraq. Maybe it was copied from a pre-war website somewhere. But any of the interviews I've seen with soldiers or any of the soldier's weblogs all say that the vast majority of the Iraqi people appreciate what the Coalition is doing, and none of the US soldiers has any doubt that the military is being misused.

Wild Bill wrote:

The later and weaker significant portions of population speak out, the more empowered Bush is and the more outrageous.

Certainly if the President lacks criticism, he gains support. But how does a lack of criticism make him "more outrageous?"

0 Replies

Learing
"I honestly doubt there is anyone with minimal capability of using his or her own brain that actually needs this link."

Reading articles about Iraq isn't needed to form views?

A few million people protested in the USA and in other nations this illegal invasion on Iraq. Bush called those millions a focus group in his snide, smirk-ass, sarcasm. Not only is he a shallow, mentally lazy, incompetent dolt but he is arrogant, as well.

0 Replies

The troops are following orders and doing what they signed up to do. They don't make the decisions of where they are going to fight. So when people voice their objections of the decision to go to invade Iraq they are not saying anything negative about the troops but are saying something negative about the decision makers who sent them there. That would seem to me to be so obvious that it does not need to be repeated again, but as the accusations of equating not supporting the invasion of Iraq with supporting the troops keep coming up, we have to keep responding so we have to keep repeating ourselves. It gets a bit wearisome.

Even if the reconstruction is just booming along, which I don't believe it is based on things I have read from other people that are there, it does not negate the fact that we had no real reason to invade Iraq in the first place. To me that is the bottom line.

(IMO) If Bush gets reelected (elected) for president it does not mean that the Iraq war was justified or anything else that he does. It just means that those of us who are against Bush and the current policies have not done a good enough job to convince people of the reasons why we feel that way.

0 Replies

Re: Learing

pistoff wrote:

"I honestly doubt there is anyone with minimal capability of using his or her own brain that actually needs this link."

Reading articles about Iraq isn't needed to form views?

A few million people protested in the USA and in other nations this illegal invasion on Iraq. Bush called those millions a focus group in his snide, smirk-ass, sarcasm. Not only is he a shallow, mentally lazy, incompetent dolt but he is arrogant, as well.

sure it is. it was more ironic post saying that everybody with brain knows that EVEN without this link

0 Replies

"Yes, I do agree with Blatham. One must speak out when there are governmental actions that are dishonorable. But one must also be ready to accept the consequences. The soldier who refused to return to Iraq will be tried by court martial. He may get prison time. He is acting according to his principles--one hopes. He is also violating the law."

Bush got to end his tour of duty early. Too bad others, who are in actual danger, can't do the same!

0 Replies

Wild Bill wrote:

I personally know one soldier. She joined the N. Guard signing a contract that stipulated that she would not see combat. She's a diesel mechanic.

Fourth Generation Military here, my father was a full time Guardsman and I can tell you that there is no such thing as a NG contract that stipulates that you will not see combat. When you sign a contract with the military it is to be a SOLDIER ... Your friend may have misinterpreted that she wouldn't be in the 'combat arms' (infantry, Armor, Artillery or Aviation) but that is NOT the same as saying that you won't be in combat.

Rear echelon troops (or REMFs) as we used to call them have much less chance of seeing combat, but that does NOT mean that no one will ever shoot at them. Part of being a soldier is the risk that someone from the other side is going to try to kill you. The enemy doesn't say to himself "Hmmmm I want to kill an American, but I wont shoot at THAT one, her because she is a mechanic"

0 Replies

revel writes:

Quote:

(IMO) If Bush gets reelected (elected) for president it does not mean that the Iraq war was justified or anything else that he does. It just means that those of us who are against Bush and the current policies have not done a good enough job to convince people of the reasons why we feel that way.

Or, if Bush wins in November maybe it will be because those who vote for him have honestly looked at both sides of the argument and found the side he is on to be the most compelling.

0 Replies

which is how Clinton got re-elected, right?

0 Replies

No, Clinton got re-elected because the GOP was stupid enough to put Bob Dole against him. Dole is a great guy and was impeccably qualified to be president, but lacked charisma of any kind. He was great with quips and one-liners, but boring as dust when giving a speech.

And, since 1/3 of the voters don't have a clue about substance or issues and don't watch the kinds of programs where they would see the quips and one liners and vote purely on the person they like the best, it was a slam dunk for the much more photogenic and charismatic Clinton.

Don't forget though that Clinton nevertheless won with less than 50% of the popular vote. I'm hoping GWB will do better than that in November.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

No, Clinton got re-elected because the GOP was stupid enough to put Bob Dole against him. Dole is a great guy and was impeccably qualified to be president, but lacked charisma of any kind. He was great with quips and one-liners, but boring as dust when giving a speech.

And, since 1/3 of the voters don't have a clue about substance or issues and don't watch the kinds of programs where they would see the quips and one liners and vote purely on the person they like the best, it was a slam dunk for the much more photogenic and charismatic Clinton.

Do you really not see how you contradict yourself here? If Dole were boring when giving speeches, but great at quips and one-liners--would it not be appropriate to suggest that the "sound bites" which are the pap of television news--the "quips and one-liners"--are precisely the sorts of things they are looking for to appeal to an intellectually lazy electorate? This is the most breathtakingly specious reasoning i've seen you advance in a while, which is saying a great deal.

0 Replies

Had Dole done SNL before the election, he would have been a shoe in.

0 Replies

Agreed McG

0 Replies

"if Bush wins in November maybe it will be because those who vote for him have honestly looked at both sides of the argument and found the side he is on to be the most compelling."

Judging by these posts, I don't see much "honest looking into" going on. Just lots of denial. Depends on what you consider "compelling" of course.

0 Replies

so foxfyre as I understand your post if Bush gets re-elected it's because the voters rationally looked at the issues and found Bush compelling but when Clinton got re-elected it was because the voters "don't have a clue about substance or issues"
very interesting.

0 Replies

Poster
Foxfire should be the poster girl for the "Dumbing Down of the USA.

0 Replies

I posted this on another thread, but will do so again here...of course, all of these folks (diplomats and ambassadors) don't really know what they are speaking of...partisan Bush haters, without doubt.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/international/europe/26CND-BLAI.html?hp

0 Replies

The Myths of Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know