Terry.....just exactly that. Brave, trusting young Americans aren't dying when the corruption, lies and deceit involve the road project funding.
How do you propose 1) that the influence of the "military industrial complex" is muted? 2) that only worthy wars are fought? We already have an all volunteer Armed Forces, so that nobody who is in the armed forces is there under anything other than their own free will. You can't have an all volunteer army/navy/airforce/marine corps with an out, that if a war or other action that would put them in harms way, comes up that they don't have to go unless they believe it is a good cause. Terry
One other thing though. It is a strength of our country that those opposed to this war or any war can protest that war openly. It means that the pols have to at least think about it before the do it. When there were Kings they didn't have to care what the people thought (to a certain extent). Terry
"We already have an all volunteer Armed Forces, so that nobody who is in the armed forces is there under anything other than their own free will. You can't have an all volunteer army/navy/airforce/marine corps with an out, that if a war or other action that would put them in harms way, comes up that they don't have to go unless they believe it is a good cause." I think there's more than a few in Iraq now serving in the military who privately doubt that it's a good idea we went in there and are still there. As you say though, when they sign up for whatever reason they must buy into the latest cause no matter what. Questioning superiors is poison in the military and the MOST superior military man in America along with the #2 guy deemed an invasion of Iraq as a worthy cause....for whatever reason.
For those who didn't want to go into Iraq, this is where their representatives failed them. They voted almost unamimously for it, I'm sure many if not all democrats who voted for it did so out of fear that if they didn't that they would suffer political reprecussions from the voters back home. They couldn't see either that it would turn out like it did, they most likely beleived it would be short and sweet and that the Iraqi people would welcome us. If they were truly in their hearts anti-war they should have stood up for their beliefs then and taken the risks. Instead they checked the wind and did the convenient thing, then when it turned ugly claimed all sorts of skull dudergy. Even those democrats who had the same access to all the intelligence as the President, claim they were lied to by the President. How convenient. Terry
No here's the most significant statement you made and why I find it very difficult to discuss things with you. War machine? Right wing Skybox Community? W lovers? You certainly know how to set up an intelligent conversation. God Bless Tom and Terry for having the patience to continue to try and explain there is not only one side to the issue, yours. I don't have the patience to carry on a conversation with someone who proves their mind is closed with an opening statement like yours. Like it or not, tell me it's typical of me or not, you do not carry on dialogue. Gator Bill
Absolutely Terry the Dems who did not do their due diligence and those who did who did not voice their concerns are just as to blame for what could be a strategic disaster as the #1 guy who led us in there. Read this article about Colin Powell's Nov. 15th, 2004 resignation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50926-2004Nov15.html This article refers to the fact that Powell, who I believe to be a respected military mind, had serious disagreements with Bush/Cheney over Iraq policy to the point where he felt it necessary to get out of the Bush administration. I suspect when the Iraqi conflict is finally over (someday) and our troops are all home and out of harms way, then and only then will we hear the real truth from Powell on his opinion about the Bush administration and it's war policy in Iraq. Until then Powell's comments about why he left must be taken in the rhetorical context of our continued occupation in Iraq.
Isn't that true of pretty much all wars? We don't really know the true story till years afterwards. I personally am convinced that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to happen and let it happen because he knew that is what it would take to shake Americans out of our neutrality. And somebody please give me a reason why we joined in WWI? If the Kaiser had won, maybe we wouldn't have had Hitler. There are those who don't believe that Spain blew up the Maine. Terry
Actually Bill I do intend that paragraph to describe some...but certainly not all here on this board. They can get PO'd at me if they want but that type of mentality promotes that one-sided thinking that you infer that I have. I of course disagree that I am one-sided. However, I am stubbornly onesided absolutely that I refuse to adopt blindly what others may want me to believe and go with the majority of group opinion on this board because it would be easier. People do make good points at times and I do acknowledge those opinions or statements that conflict with my earlier stated views if they make sense.....make a good case. I won't agree to agree however just because it makes some here more comfortable.
On the other hand Bill....what do you find wrong with someone described as a right-wing Skyboxer who loves George W. Bush and his war policies in Iraq?
It would be nice if we had some alternative policies to choose from, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, the lib/Dems have never offered any. All we heard was silly, playground prattle about "Bush lied- kids died" and "He did it for his daddy." and "He did it to increase the value of Haliburton stock." and so on and so on... Where's the beef? What are we supposed to vote for? Here's a good one for you. The lib/Dems are currently demanding that the UAE not put any accountants or managers into our port terminals. Fair enough. But if the British company that was running those terminals doesn't sell out to the UAE, do you know of any OTHER company that can do that same work? I believe that the only other corporation that has expressed an interest was...Haliburton. If civil war breaks out in Iraq, what do we do then? Peace is not an option. May we defend ourselves? If so, how? Where are the ideas from the other side? We never hear them say, "Our country should do this." If they don't propose any, then we should continue to elect those who do. Right or wrong: at least they're trying.
Good points Phantom if the Dems do not offer good alternatives or at least strong objections to policies they deem unfit or unwise. With regard to the cloudy Middle East a clear direction may be an impossibility. I do suspect that before the next Presidential election you will see the Dems offer up a direct strategy on terrorism and the Middle East or they will not win the election.
I have understood that the people killing Iraqi citizens since the invasion are mostly former Bathists party loyalists/Sunni's all of which were in power when Saddam was in power. So it's just a continuation. The Insurgents/Foreign fighters concentrate on killing american soldiers. I think Saddam probably killed annually more than 10,000 people. They have found any number of mass graves larger than that. Terry
I believe the Shiites as of late have retaliated pretty fiercely. It was their Golden Mosque in Baquaba that was destroyed and they are the more extremist of the two groups if not the most bloodthirsty.
Well I've been trying to catch up with the posts on this thread. I see that the anti-war, anti-administration, anti-American voice once again cares more about somehow being "right" about the current situation that offering any constructive thoughts on the conflict between western culture and the religious fanatics who seek to end it. The conflict in Iraq has become a war of wills. It's the same strategy that was used in Beirut and Somalia. Hang in there, kill some American soldiers and wait for the allies of terror, the anti-war contingent in America to win the conflict for you. They don't look at the big picture, they have no plan of action, they think that if the US once again cuts and runs it proves that THEY were right. It's long past the should we or shouldn't we have gone into Iraq debate. It's time for the are we the US or are we France debate.
Gipper, I am anti-war when it is not well-planned and not supported by the majority of Americans in the way it is being conducted and the reasons are cloudy for going to war in first place. Maybe you would have a suggestion as to how end this quicker? Maybe we should enact a draft and beef up the military and send over 800,000 troops to root out and squash every last remnant of insurgency and/or terrorist in Iraq and then lay a 35% claim on Iraqi oil profits to finance such a venture. How's that for a plan?