LoneStarMadam wrote:When our country is at war, you think it's ok to NOT stand with our president?
When said war is unnecessary and immoral, it is the duty of citizens who believe as much to say so, publicly.
Quote:I was not for us going to Iraq anymore than I was for bombing Bosnia back to the stone age, however, as we are in Bosnia & we are in Iraq, I stood with BC (& I absolutely deplore him) & our troops, & I stand with GB & our troops.
We didn't "bomb Bosnia back to the stone age," you do your point of view no favors by making **** up. We went into Bosnia only after tens of thousands of Bosnians had been murdered in cold blood by the Bosnian Serbs, sustained by the Serbian government. United States Air Forces did attack Bosnian Serb military targets, and later, United States Army forces took positions as peace keepers.
The United States did not launch a "shock and awe" campaign against Serbia, followed by an open-ended occupation with the goal of establishing military bases. You're comparing apples to oranges. Additionally, the operations, first in Bosnia, and then against Serbia and in Kosovo, were NATO operations in which other NATO members participated, by consent. Our invasion of Iraq was a bi-lateral operation by the United States and England, in which, only later, a hodge-podge of nations participated, in the hope of gaining cash or political capital. The two operations don't even remotely resemble one another. I understand, of course, the need rightwingnuts have to being Clinton into any discussion of the Shrub--it's the "oh yeah, well look how bad
your guy was" technique. Too bad it doesn't work because the two situations are not even remotely similar.
Quote:I truly believe politics stop at the waters edge in time of war
You swim against the tide of American history, in that case. The people of New England, upon whose behalf, largely, the War of 1812 was prosecuted, called it "Mr. Madison's War," condemned the war and the President, and got busy trading with the enemy. The Mexican War was equally opposed--once again, largely in New England, and hence, Thoreau's
Civil Disobediance--and Polk was roundly condemned. Ulysses Grant, who fought in that war, and was later President, wrote (after serving two terms as President):
For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.
These are the two most striking examples, although men and women of good conscience have opposed every war in which the United States has been involved. It is reasonable for Americans to object to and oppose wars they consider unjust, and i can think of few things more stupid than to claim that we should "support" (translation: don't question) a President just because the idiot has involved us in a war.
As another President wrote, and a Republican President who proportionally polled more votes than any other President except Washington (who ran unopposed):
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.,
The Kansas City Star, May, 1918.
