0
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

 
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 10:38 am
How about our military who aren't coming back because they are dead? Our friends and our families. Do not assume I pay or have paid no price, please.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 10:47 am
Yes, there are those here in America which have friends and family who won't be coming back. I never meant that they wouldn't be paying a price as well; just was focusing on the Iraqis who not only have dead friends and relatives, but who have had their whole lives destroyed by the conflict.

Quote:

Again, some Liberals seem incapable of distinguishing the acts of terrorists from the acts of the good guys. But hey, they're Liberals. They probably really can't help it.


Um, it doesn't matter who kills someone, they are still dead.

The situation exists through a combination of our arrogance and stupidity. We screwed up the occupation of Iraq royally and in no small part this is due to incompetence and a lack of caring how taxpayer monies got spent by the Bush crew whom you all respect so much. We created this situation, and now you want to not take responsiblity for the outcome?

Every person who is killed by a terrorist in Iraq, hurts America, even if we had nothing to do with the attack. It hurts our presence and force in the area. Of course the terrorists know this, that's why you see headlines such as

Quote:
Bombs kill 65 at Baghdad university


http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/16/iraq.main/index.html

That one's just today. I know, I know, if the damn media would just stop reporting the things that went wrong over there and just focus on the preschools we've rebuilt... things would get better lickety split, right?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 10:55 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The situation exists through a combination of our arrogance and stupidity. We screwed up the occupation of Iraq royally and in no small part this is due to incompetence and a lack of caring how taxpayer monies got spent by the Bush crew whom you all respect so much. We created this situation, and now you want to not take responsiblity for the outcome?

Cycloptichorn


This is a good example of one of the many divides between the left and the right in America. The left looks at the situation in Iraq and blames America for creating the many problems Iraq has had to deal with while never offering any sort of solution or alternative. Well, except for the tired "We never should have been there to begin with!"

The right looks at the situation in Iraq and lays the blame on the situation on those perpetrating the acts of violence. The warlords vying for power, the Imams preying on the weak, the terrorists killing whoever they can, the shiites aiming for revenge, the sunnis wanting to get power back. All this happening while the US military tries to maintain some semblance of control while juggling all those balls in the air and taking heat from home from the misguided left laying the blame for all that directly at the feet of their leaders.

Keep blaming America first cyc. You have lots of people on A2K cheering you on. But, sadly, they are just as wrong as you are.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 10:55 am
Sad part is no one really wins in war. We all lose something.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 11:01 am
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The situation exists through a combination of our arrogance and stupidity. We screwed up the occupation of Iraq royally and in no small part this is due to incompetence and a lack of caring how taxpayer monies got spent by the Bush crew whom you all respect so much. We created this situation, and now you want to not take responsiblity for the outcome?

Cycloptichorn


This is a good example of one of the many divides between the left and the right in America. The left looks at the situation in Iraq and blames America for creating the many problems Iraq has had to deal with while never offering any sort of solution or alternative. Well, except for the tired "We never should have been there to begin with!"

The right looks at the situation in Iraq and lays the blame on the situation on those perpetrating the acts of violence. The warlords vying for power, the Imams preying on the weak, the terrorists killing whoever they can, the shiites aiming for revenge, the sunnis wanting to get power back. All this happening while the US military tries to maintain some semblance of control while juggling all those balls in the air and taking heat from home from the misguided left laying the blame for all that directly at the feet of their leaders.

Keep blaming America first cyc. You have lots of people on A2K cheering you on. But, sadly, they are just as wrong as you are.


You look at extreme examples of either argument and then decide that these are the two 'sides' in this case. A foolish move, for you know the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

We screwed up the occupation. Can anyone disagree with this? From a military standpoint we never really got on top of critical things such as securing the borders or baghdad. I believe this is because we basically rolled into the country, and then for the first six months there simply wasn't anyone to fight; we were lulled into a sense of complacency, into not doing the things that should have been done. Whether this was cracking down on shiite militias, securing baghdad, securing water and power facilities (as well as oil), whatever, it wasn't done.

From an economic point of view, we have lost billions of dollars due to corruption in Iraq. The president doesn't even care. The Republican-controlled congress certainly didn't. This matters, because the money to rebuild things/make the lives of Iraqis better is critical to our cause, and every dollar that was lost to corruption is a school that didn't get built, or police station that doesn't have running electricty or water. It directly affects our military situation when the infrastructure of the place is screwed to the point it is.

You say that I'm 'blaming America first.' Well, we aren't in our situation that we are today because of what the enemy did, we're there because of what WE did and didn't do. You want me to blame the enemy for taking advantage of our mis-steps? <outraged> How dare they!

What happened to you Republicans? The party of 'personal responsibility?' Does it not count when it comes to the big stuff?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 11:02 am
Quote:
Sad part is no one really wins in war. We all lose something.


You're right about that.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 11:07 am
tryingtohelp wrote: Sad part is no one really wins in war. We all lose something.

An important lesson never learned by our esteemed president. He now thinks exposing more of our loved ones will turn things around. The fact is more people are going to get killed and maimed.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 11:19 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Sad part is no one really wins in war. We all lose something.


You're right about that.

Cycloptichorn


All the members of this Administration who were most enthusiastic about the invasion, were those who had no experience of war.
And precious little of military service either.
Except Colin Powell, and he was quickly sidelined and shunted.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 11:24 am
The current conflict in Iraq has as much or more to do with the historical internal divisions in that country than the presence of American forces. Iraq was the artificial creation of the British after they and the French destroyed the Ottoman Empire through invasion and inciting revolution among disaffected Arabs, Armenians and others. Iraq was the artificial assemblage of the Ottoman provinces of Mosul, Bagdad and Basra - each with its own religious and cultural background. The Baathist Revolution and Saddam held it together through force and terror. They now have the opportunity to do something better. It remains to be seen whether they will be able to do so. There was plenty of murder and destruction of lives in Iraq under Saddam, and whioth him in place there was no hope for a better outcome.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 11:32 am
Quote:
They now have the opportunity to do something better. It remains to be seen whether they will be able to do so.


Well, or choose to do so.

It is a little western-centric that we believe that, given the opportunity, people will just fall right into Democracy and Freedom right away. I figure there must be quite a few over there who are looking for the tribal, authoritarian way of life to come back; and we're not just talking about terrorists and insurgents, either, but everyday people.

I would say it will be interesting to see how it turns out if it wasn't so f*cking sad and disgusting a situation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 11:51 am
No one suggested the change would be instantaneous or trouble free. Under Saddam Iraq endured years of bloody warfare with Iran (a war that Saddam started) and ruthless internal repression by a murderous despot. Bad a s the situation is today, it offers far more promise than the previous one.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 11:57 am
It's a gamble - a roll of the dice, no big deal except for the Iraqis the deed to the house and the kids' college fund are already on the table.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 12:03 pm
tryingtohelp wrote:
Sad part is no one really wins in war. We all lose something.

I don't sing the praises of war, except that war is unfortunately sometimes necessary, better than the alternative, which is enslavement and tyranny. This is just reality because of human nature. So I will disagree that although we all may lose something, we also may gain something, that although there are losses in war, there can be positives come out of war. I happen to believe the Civil War did something to America that nothing else could have done, in terms of galvanizing the forces for good and unity for the 150 years following. There are many other examples, but I also firmly believe the effects of WWII are far better than the alternative.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 12:10 pm
The only time war in necessary is when we are attacked on our own soil. We are not the world's police, or the purveyor of American-style democracy outside of our own country.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 01:40 pm
In case you haven't heard, we were attacked. Have you ever heard of the "Bush Doctrine?"
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 01:47 pm
What, someone attacks us and that gives us the right to attack whoever we want in return? Sorry, not so much.

It doesn't matter what justifications we use to attack; having the most guns and bombs pretty much determines that we won't be held responsible by other nations (so far); what matters is whether or not something is a good idea. Attacking Iraq wasn't a good idea at the very least; at most it was a strategic disaster...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 01:54 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Well, since I'm neither from Scandinavia nor from England ...


Every rule has an exception, Walter.


Walter Hinteler wrote:
I take your nomination for being a troll as a highly regarded compliment, Tico.

(Though I could imagine as well that you only use the term 'troll' as killer phrase ...)


I didn't nominate you as a troll, Walter. I merely pointed out that every rule has an exception.

Surely you, of all people, can see how innocent I am of the charge you have leveled against me.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 01:59 pm
I always consider you being a male Virgin Mary, Tico.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 02:19 pm
okie, Yes, we were attacked. Now identify for us who attacked us? CLUE: It wasn't Iraq.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2007 02:47 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie, Yes, we were attacked. Now identify for us who attacked us? CLUE: It wasn't Iraq.


Okie, I don't think he's heard of it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 09:17:43