Not having any of the reasons pan out would a good one.
WMD: Nope
AQ buddy-buddy with Saddam: Nope
Bring Democracy to Iraq: Still working on it
So the question is, who do I believe: Bush or my own eyes? I know the answer to that, though I suspect it’s different then yours.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Soldiers have died then and now to protect our version of democracy, you are ignoring that that also means that they died to protect the right to investigate the President, to impeach him, or to criticize him even in a time of war.
And for that, I salute them regardless of their opinions:
We agree. But just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean that doing it is the wisest course of action. To a large degree, it has to do with your priorities, what is most important.
I can only try to imagine how much it must suck to be stuck in that sweltering sand hell and never know if the next car or guy coming down the street is going to blow you up. I can only imagine the toll it takes to see innocent men, women and children blown up, killed an maimed, with their loved ones crying over them—day in and day out. And what does it feel like to form a strong bond with someone, each puttiing your life in the others hand, and have him killed a few feet from you. I can’t imagine how I’d sleep. Never mind the hard ground, the hard reality of me being in that fucking shithole dessert and not hanging out with my friends or family in the backyard would weigh on me constantly. And then, I have to aim my gun at some guy and kill him before he kills me.
So with all this being carried on the back of every one of our soldiers over there, I feel I owe them my suport. Or, for me, maybe I just want to give it to them. I want them, and me, to know that the thought of home is a source of solace and strength, not one of anxiety and doubt.
How can anyone not want to give them that? I just don’t get it. Really. Damn, it makes me sad.
Bill Maher and others have pointed out that nothing has been asked of us during this war. I don’t agree. I think that the one think that has been asked of us is the same thing that is asked of all people who send young people off to fight, and die, in wars: Respect. If not respect for the cause itself, respect for the situation we (through the representatives we elected) put them in. So, send them care packages. Write them letters. (Write your congressman, too, if you want.) But don’t add to their worries. Let them devote their facultties to staying alive as they do what we sent them there to do. Don’t—even inadvertently—encourage the people who are trying to kill them.
Everyone claims to support the troops. And maybe they do. But then we all have the responsibility to consider the effects of our actions. It’s a little thing, sure. Just like recycling an old tire or walking to church instead of driving was a small thing sixty years ago. But it’s something.
I’m sorry. I was unclear. I meant as it pertained to the war. If there is an unrelated crime, as with Nixon, go for it.
Your statement only makes sense if the other side isn’t nuts ( and I think Bush and friends are ), and if they are willing to listen ( which they aren’t ).
If it creates political pressure on the saner portions of the Republicans, yes.
Why would it make any difference ? They aren’t any worse off militarily, and they still can kill Americans; a victory in itself, from their viewpoint. In fact, I think it would make things worse; a jihad of the Islamic against the combined forces of Christian crusaders, with even the moderate ME groups knowing that they have nothing but enemies, and might as well fight before they are overrun.
Bring them back, of course.
No we don’t. They are fighting for an evil cause, and deserve no sympathy or support.
Now try to imagine how the Iraqis feel, being raped and tortured and killed by invaders.
When I read about this speech, which was hours and hours before this thread came around (a surprising delay!), the only part of my reply I planned was this: “You fell for it too!” is not an acceptable rejoinder from the President of the United States. Period. Especially not when the issue is war. It’s as if “the buck stops here” has become “you didn’t stop the buck either!”
I support my partner in her chosen career path. If her boss were to take some decisions that led to her being placed in danger for no good reason, I’d be pretty angry. I wouldn’t consider articulating this anger to constitute a withdrawal of my support for her.
Perhaps magellan01 could give an explanation of how that would be the case?
Do you believe any soldier is made safer by just letting a President do whatever the hell he wants because Criticism would “embolden terrorists”(You know, those guys who the president says hate us no matter what and nothing will change their mind)?
We can’t critcize him on the build up to way because it “emboldens the terrorists”, we can’t criticize him while the war is going on because it “endangers the troops”, and we can’t criticize him when the war is over because “It’s over and done now. Let’s move on”.
The theme I’ve been noticing among many conservatives is that we’re not supposed to criticize the president…period.
**** that. This is a free country. It’s our duty to criticize when we see things wrong. It’s how we keep our leaders accountable for their actions. If Bush can’t take a little criticism, maybe he should get a better job, like dictator of a banana republic where he can have the perfect government with no need to answer to his subjects.
The troops do have our support. Whose support is lacking are the people who wanted so badly to go to war and then have been running it so badly, despite the entire government under their control.
It seem that it would make far more sense to say that less lives will be lost once someone competent is running the war, or the troops are brought back home completely.
Instead, your answer is “Shut up, you’re endangering the troops by pointing out that the war was badly planned and is being badly executed for dubious purposes” instead of “What the hell is wrong with you, Bush? You’re endangering our troops by continually doing the wrong things” . Putting the blame on those pointing out the errors being made instead of those actually making the errors.
Post #42 still remains only an appeal to emotion magellian01.
I still agree with elucidator: If we follow your lead “all a scoundrel of a President has to do is stick some soldiers in harms way, and he’s instantly immune from criticism.”
I need to find the constitutional rule that just because crimes pertain to a war, that then the president will obtain a “get out of jail” free card.
It should be a sober decision to go. And a sober decision to pull the troops back. We go to war for certain reasons, if things change we come back. No one has to be evil. It doesn’t have to be driven by partisanship. In fact, it shouldn’t.
To answer your question, which will no doubt result in the same negative response it has when I posted it about a month ago, we can write letters to out congressmen. If enough people feel the same way and he doesn;t vote how we want he is gone. If we don’t have enough people behind us, we don’t and shouldn’t have enough power. That is how our democracy works.
Congress should debate all it wants. It just doesn’t have to be done in a way where it makes the soldiers look like asses. I also think it would be more effective to argue on the merits of where you are in time. Once you go to war and people are in the field of battle, that decision is in the past. It serves no purpose to criticize or second guess it. And you don’t have to. Once you’re there, the situation—in the present—should be evaluated constantly. It is based on THAT assessment, that the decision to stay or pull out should be made. Now once everyone is home and safe, if there is a desire to evaluate the leadership the President provided in going to war, or in how it was executed, all gloves are off.
As noted about five hours after the administration tossed this stinker out for review, the casings were the wrong shape and size for nuclear centrifuges. They were the right sizes and shapes for rocket launchers (prohibited things that Hussein was known to be seeking), not merely “mortar” or “artillery casing.” In other words, the administration picked an object that Hussein had tried to smuggle into the country against the ban, but changed the meaning of his intentions to make them look even worse. Wilkerson is simply repeating his views as a person who had not seen the actual evidence. The tubes were built to a high-heat specification to be machined to a particular tolerance and coated with special anodizers, as was needed for the rocket systems for which they were intended. Every technical agency (nuclear and industrial) pointed out that the tubes could not be used for gas separation, but they were outvoted by the political groups (who had been ordered or coached to present the “correct” answers).
The IAEA debunked this claim within hours of the administration producing it. A group that ignores the actual experts on a topic may not be, in some narrowly defined manner, “lying,” but they are clearly being dishonest.
Iraq’s Aluminum Tubes: Separating Fact from Fiction (.pdf)
And, as has been noted on several occasions, already, no defender of the adminstration’s claim that they thought there were WoMD in Iraq has provided any explanation why the military groups whose task it was to secure WoMD sites was ordered to remain miles behind the lines and forbidden to enter “suspected” sites for days after they had originally been taken in combat.
To fail to secure WoMD sites, leaving them open to be plundered by any insurgents or al Qaida operatives in the area indicates pretty clearly that the administration either knew the sites were empty or that the administration was criminally negligent.
I’m sorry. I should bow out now. I just don’t have the desire to be flip about this. I don’t expect to change your mind. I don’t claim to have all the answers. In fact, I know I don’t. I just think that the primary concern we should have is the young men and women who are in the thick of it right now, some of whom will not be coming back, or coming back whole. I’ll just act in a way that I think shows them respect, appreciation, and support. I ask everyone to do the same, however they see fit. Just be aware that your actions do have consequences, however small they might be.
Good night.
What about the poor Iraqis, who happen to be the actual victims here ?
I wasn’t refering specifically to the war in Irak. Besides, it doesn’t matter. The poster I was responding to made a general statement, without caveat. Basically :
“they say the war is unjust”==> " the ennemy will be encouraged" ==> “it’s a bad thing”.
So, does it applies in all situations? If say, it’s proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the war is waged only because Bush wants to confiscates the Iraki oil fields and kill as many Iraki babies as possible in the process, is saying that the war is unjust still a bad thing? Is encouraging the ennemy still a bad thing?
The poster didn’t seem to think it was relevant whether or not the war was actually unjust. Or at least didn’t mention the issue. Hence my question. If the war is actually unjust, is criticizing the president still a bad thing? Is undercutting the troop’s effort still a bad thing? Is encouraging the ennemy still a bad thing? Is shooting at american soldiers (for an american citizen) still a bad thing?
I think that if a war is unjust it’s a good thing. And how are you going to determine whether or not the war is unjust? By rolling a dice? By believing whatever the administration is saying? Logically you’re going to follow your best judgment. So, IMO, if you believe the war is unjust, it ensues that not only criticizing the government isn’t a bad thing, even if (or maybe especially if) it undercuts the troops, but at the contrary a moral duty.
And now the Google ads are about buying aluminum tubing! :eek: :dubious: 
If the best defence of the intel is coming from a now shown misleader like Norman Podhoretz, it is not hard to figure out who really is lying about Iraq.
Before I hit the hay I thought I’d respond to this. Or just point it out. You guys can take a vote: do you think this kind of talk is more apt to help our own young men and women? Or the people who want to blow them uo and behead them.
With that, a bit you all a good night.
Except you Der Trihs. I wish you a night of fear, sadness, anxiety, discomfort, homesickness, nightmares and insomnia thinking about if you’ll ever see the people you love again, to the exact degree—no more, no less—than that experienced by the most frightened 19-year-old American kid fighting in Iraq. Make that ALL your nights. Maybe then you’ll get it.
My oh my, I’m terrified.
That certainly explains why we have to be extra-nice to the guy who put them there.
Incidentally, I see the Washington Post has a good article that explains that Congress did not have all the same intelligence that the administration did, and points out a few other blurred truths in the counterattacks.
Well, you should be, I do see the American soldiers also as the victims here.
It is all a matter of being specific: the soldiers that tortured in Abu Ghraib and in other places, or try to hide massacres like the one that wiped out an Iraqi wedding party don’t deserve sympathy.
But your comment that “They are fighting for an evil cause, and deserve no sympathy or support” was stupid, because it includes even soldiers that oppose the war. http://www.ivaw.net/
Reserve comments like that for the current leadership.