Here's the fifth anniversary poll...

[Colleen]

I messed up my previous post so I'm starting over. I am hoping that even those who want to avoid discussion about this potentially hot topic will at least post in the poll. I know the poll options don't cover the array of opinions; such is the nature of a poll.

[mellifera]

nt

[Colleen]

nt

[GothicGyrl]

I see I am not alone in the "get out yesterday" part, but I am the first to post a why--

We should have never gone there in the first place. We went there under false pretenses (WMD's that didn't exist), Saddam being responsible, etc...

We should have never gone. And if the need really was there for us to go, we should not be trying to instill American Values/beliefs into their nation. Our democracy doesn't even work half the time, what makes us think it will work over there?

Nope--should never have gone.

[Janet in WA]

I couldn't vote because I don't know for sure which approach will be the best one for both the US and that region. It's not just about my feelings about war and whether we should be there.

[Antonia]

Pat Buchanan summed up my feelings nicely in his book, "Day of Reckoning," when he said the US needs to stop playing "globocop" to the whole world. Saddam was an evil dictator, but he should have been removed from power by the Iraqi people. Civil wars happen all over the globe on a continual basis. We cannot and should not be involved in every country's internal struggle.

I voted get out now because get out yesterday isn't really an option. I'd love for us to never have gone there to begin with.

[Colleen]

The nature of a poll is such that it can't possibly encompass all viewpoints. This is subjective; the results offer a look into our thoughts and feelings regarding the issue. I don't expect everyone is able or willing to respond, and that's fine.:)

[Michelle T]

It is absolutely unbelievable to me that we went into this war under false pretenses and are still there spending billions.

What could be done with that money here in this country?

We could rebuild New Orleans.

Remember a couple years ago when a power grid went out, blacking out much of the northeast? And it was said that the entire country power grid was aging and unable to bear the load? But couldn't be fixed because it would cost too much? Fix it!

Repair the decaying roads all over this country. Build more freeways to support the incredible traffic in our cities.

Rebuild the inner cities, spend $$$$ to improve living conditions, healthcare, education for poverty stricken Americans.

More research into alternative power sources, less dependence on oil. We wouldn't even be in Iraq without our dependence on oil.

I could go on and on, but don't have time!
Michelle T

[Audrey]

I think a poll like this is better. The board rules have a thing about not discussing politics (at least, the old boards did).

This is a way to "count" your opinion without having to "get into it." And, we all know how nasty it could get!
I also think your poll options covered a good, broad spectrum of sentiments. Besides, it can be kind of fun to pop back in and see how your choice is ranking. :lurk5:

[Jenny in Atl]

I would love for us to be out now, yesterday, never there... but I do fear for what will happen when the troops pull out. No easy solution.

[Tutor]

I see I am not alone in the "get out yesterday" part, but I am the first to post a why--

We should have never gone there in the first place. We went there under false pretenses (WMD's that didn't exist), Saddam being responsible, etc...

We should have never gone. And if the need really was there for us to go, we should not be trying to instill American Values/beliefs into their nation. Our democracy doesn't even work half the time, what makes us think it will work over there?

Nope--should never have gone.

And to top it all off, it's illegal to boot! We haven't declared war. (We haven't declared war since WWII, if I'm not mistaken, so Korea and Vietnam and the first Gulf War were illegal, too.) Then, just to show that we really, really like to break the law, Congress voted to hand over its constitutional authority over military funding to the executive branch without a Constitutional amendment.

I get that not everyone is going to agree with every policy or decision made by every branch of government. I can live with that. But the Constitution defines the government. No Constitution, no federal government. The public should have the comfort of knowing that they are governed by the government outlined in the Constitution. I'm not sure what country's government is ruling America since the one there now, at least when it comes to military decisions, isn't the one outlined in the Constitution.

(I hope that was slightly clearer than mud. :D)

[Amy loves Bud]

I have a question for those who chose the "Yesterday" option. While I completely understand why you chose that option, it's not reality. I'm really interested in knowing, considering the reality of the situation, how you think we should proceed from here.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

I definitely think we should reduce our numbers but, stay involved. I don't usually post on controversial things, but, this is important to me because I have family who have served in the past and will be serving in the near future.

The reasons we got in are, for me, not as important as finishing well. We're there. Now we have to deal with our decision. I wish we would have had better intelligence before it all started, I wish we would have known more about what was really happening there, I believe it would have made a huge difference. But, we are there now. I think we owe it to those who's lives have been torn apart to give them a chance at stability. We can't just leave (eventhough deep in my heart I wish we had gotten out yesterday) and leave that part of the world open to anything. It's not fair to those living there who are hoping to have a chance at some semblance of freedom.

They deserve that chance, IMHO, and I hate to think we've sacrificed so many incredible people to have it all fall apart.

[GothicGyrl]

I have a question for those who chose the "Yesterday" option. While I completely understand why you chose that option, it's not reality. I'm really interested in knowing, considering the reality of the situation, how you think we should proceed from here.
Since you asked, here is the truth:

Since "get out yesterday" is a pipe dream (and it is really, but I liken that option to "never should have went"), then my answer to your question is "Get out now, just put it all down and walk away. **** the consequences to their people because I am tired of the US thinking they have a right to be "globoCop" (thanks for that!!) to everyone. So pack up, ship out and focus on your own **** country--get OUR country back in shape before we go trying to fix everyone else's problems".

And since Colleen got dinged, I'm going to pre-empt my ding with this:THIS DOES NOT MEAN I DO NOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS. I FULLY SUPPORT THOSE MEN AND WOMEN BECAUSE I FEEL SORRY THEY HAVE TO BE FIGHTING A WAR THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER OCCURED IN THE FIRST PLACE!

(and I'm not yelling at you Amy, :D )

[Volty]

I have a question for those who chose the "Yesterday" option. While I completely understand why you chose that option, it's not reality. I'm really interested in knowing, considering the reality of the situation, how you think we should proceed from here.

I'd go to the UN, see if they want to police it. Then I'd try the Arab League. If nobody cares, neither do I, they can go ahead and kill each other.:lurk5: We did what we did, sorry my bad, time for the Iraqis to sort this mess out.

[Mamagistra]

I see I am not alone in the "get out yesterday" part, but I am the first to post a why--

Well, since ITA with you here, and I cannot rep you today, I'll step up to the plate and ditto what you said. :iagree:

I did not feel this way a few years ago. Since I ditched most all mainstream media and decided to educate myself on political matters (beyond what is sanctioned by and for CNN, FOX, and the other majors), I came to believe that our nation made a grave mistake by continuing the Gulf War (yep, it's the same conflict in my eyes). I hold no grudge against anyone at all who believes differently than me, and I wholeheartedly endorse our servicemen. :patriot: I no longer believe, however, that stamping the Stars and Stripes on something makes it right. :sad:

:leaving:

[Tutor]

I have a question for those who chose the "Yesterday" option. While I completely understand why you chose that option, it's not reality. I'm really interested in knowing, considering the reality of the situation, how you think we should proceed from here.

I was torn between choosing "get out yesterday" (which I chose) and "get out now" (which is the viable option I would have chosen, but felt that it was better, as GothicGyrl said, to vote that we never should have gone).

As I see it, we have two options:
1. Legally declare war, return decisions of military funding to the Congress, define a clear definition of "victory" (which would involve the defeat of a state or established military power; I'm sorry, but "terror" is not a realistic opponent) and proceed toward that goal then leave (this would not involve leaving a "peace-keeping" force in Iraq indefinitely).

2. Admit we went in unconstitutionally and pull troops out immediately. (I would also like to see a declaration that we will no longer participate in nation building, but that, and thinking anyone in our government would admit that the "war" was unconstitutional, save one, is a pipe dream.)

I support #2, but realize that of the two, the first is more likely to happen if either... I'm not holding my breath, though.

[Colleen]

The board rules have a thing about not discussing politics (at least, the old boards did).

That is no longer a rule. I think polls are nice option for "hot topics", but it is nice if a civil discussion can take place, too.

[Diana in OR]

Since you asked, here is the truth:

Since "get out yesterday" is a pipe dream (and it is really, but I liken that option to "never should have went"),


I don't see "get out yesterday" and "never should have gone" as the same. I chose the "Yesterday" option, b/c while I can't say for certain there wasn't some justification for going in the first place, I believe there was a point where it was clear that what we were doing wasn't working, and we were not going to be able to accomplish what we set out to do in the first place. At that point (maybe a couple of years ago), I believe we should have started the process of pulling out.

[GothicGyrl]

That is no longer a rule. I think polls are nice option for "hot topics", but it is nice if a civil discussion can take place, too.
And in truth, Audrey, I'd rather discuss politics and religion than the same old vacuum cleaner/boob holder/pms discussions we used to have.

The problem is, as Colleen said--some can't keep it civil. I should be able to voice my extreme displeasure with this war and Bush without being called names or told where I am going at the end of my life.

[GothicGyrl]

I don't see "get out yesterday" and "never should have gone" as the same. I chose the "Yesterday" option, b/c while I can't say for certain there wasn't some justification for going in the first place, I believe there was a point where it was clear that what we were doing wasn't working, and we were not going to be able to accomplish what we set out to do in the first place. At that point (maybe a couple of years ago), I believe we should have started the process of pulling out.
While I agree they are not the same in theory--for the purpose of the poll, I had to see it like that, in order to be able to articulate why I feel that way :D

And fwiw, I do agree with you that if there was a viable reason for us being there in the first place, as Tutor said--the rules of engangement should have been followed(firstly) and (secondly) a quick resolution should have happened--not 5 something years later.

[Mama Lynx]

The reasons we got in are, for me, not as important as finishing well. We're there. Now we have to deal with our decision. I wish we would have had better intelligence before it all started, I wish we would have known more about what was really happening there, I believe it would have made a huge difference. But, we are there now. I think we owe it to those who's lives have been torn apart to give them a chance at stability. We can't just leave (eventhough deep in my heart I wish we had gotten out yesterday) and leave that part of the world open to anything. It's not fair to those living there who are hoping to have a chance at some semblance of freedom.


Insightful and nicely put, Dayle.

[melissel]

I can't vote because "Never should have started this 'war' under false pretenses in the first place" isn't an option.

Now, though, I just can't say what I think. We knocked the foundation out from under these people. To simply drop our stuff and walk away doesn't seem right, and in fact, it was one of the concerns of the Iraqui people about the US coming in in the first place--that we would come and shake things up and then just walk out like we did last time. In addition, it risks leaving a huge power vacuum given the shaky system currently in existence there. I just don't know. It really stinks.

[melissel]

I definitely think we should reduce our numbers but, stay involved. I don't usually post on controversial things, but, this is important to me because I have family who have served in the past and will be serving in the near future.

The reasons we got in are, for me, not as important as finishing well. We're there. Now we have to deal with our decision. I wish we would have had better intelligence before it all started, I wish we would have known more about what was really happening there, I believe it would have made a huge difference. But, we are there now. I think we owe it to those who's lives have been torn apart to give them a chance at stability. We can't just leave (eventhough deep in my heart I wish we had gotten out yesterday) and leave that part of the world open to anything. It's not fair to those living there who are hoping to have a chance at some semblance of freedom.

They deserve that chance, IMHO, and I hate to think we've sacrificed so many incredible people to have it all fall apart.

Gosh, I see that I could have just said "Ditto" after a few posts, LOL!

I also wanted to add that my opinion does not mean I don't support our troops at all. They're honorably and heroically doing the job they signed up for, and I appreciate that greatly. I regret that so many of them had to make huge sacrifices for this cause :(

[GothicGyrl]

I think we owe it to those who's lives have been torn apart to give them a chance at stability. We can't just leave (eventhough deep in my heart I wish we had gotten out yesterday) and leave that part of the world open to anything. It's not fair to those living there who are hoping to have a chance at some semblance of freedom.

I do not think we owe them anything. If they wanted freedom, they should have requested help from the UN. If anything, we owe them only what we've destroyed. It is not our job to worry about other countries and their bid for freedom or stability when we did not cause the non-freedom or instability in the first place (before the war that is).

You don't see any other country coming to America's aid, do you? So why isn't America focusing on the problems here and trying to fix our very real and very deadly problems first, before we go try fixing other's problems?

That's pretty much why I just cannot support this war. We've got problems here, big ones, that need fixing and could be fixed with all that money we are spending over there.

[KidsHappen]

Ditto: GG, Tutor, Mamagistra, Antonia, Michelle T, and Volty. :iagree:

I will say that my df, dh and ex-h were all veteran and I absolutely support our troups and believe that we should take care of them. I just don't support this war or global policing.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

I do not think we owe them anything. If they wanted freedom, they should have requested help from the UN. If anything, we owe them only what we've destroyed. It is not our job to worry about other countries and their bid for freedom or stability when we did not cause the non-freedom or instability in the first place (before the war that is)


I see what you're saying. I, personally, think we do owe them something. We definitely owe them what we've destroyed, absolutely. But, I think we've given them a taste of what they can have as far as voting, self-rule, setting up a government, and giving everyone the right to an education and freedom of religion (not that these things are perfect, yet, but, they've had a glimpse of it). We, as the ones who are there do owe them a little bit better than, "Well, this isn't working out the way we thought, so, see ya." (Not that I'm saying that's what your attitude is at all, it's just how it might seem to them.)

I wish others would get involved. I wish the UN would do something. But, they currently aren't, so, IMHO, we should.

I totally agree with you that we shouldn't put ouselves up as the police state of the world. It's not our business to get involved in so many things we've gotten involved in. It's horribly sad that there are things in our country that need so much attention and they aren't getting it (education, health care, cleaning up Washington--could we go on hours and hours about just that one topic!). But, since we've gone in, there is a sense of responsibility to finish as well as we can for those who are counting on us.

[GothicGyrl]

I see what you're saying. I, personally, think we do owe them something. We definitely owe them what we've destroyed, absolutely. But, I think we've given them a taste of what they can have as far as voting, self-rule, setting up a government, and giving everyone the right to an education and freedom of religion (not that these things are perfect, yet, but, they've had a glimpse of it). We, as the ones who are there do owe them a little bit better than, "Well, this isn't working out the way we thought, so, see ya." (Not that I'm saying that's what your attitude is at all, it's just how it might seem to them.)

I wish others would get involved. I wish the UN would do something. But, they currently aren't, so, IMHO, we should.

I totally agree with you that we shouldn't put ouselves up as the police state of the world. It's not our business to get involved in so many things we've gotten involved in. It's horribly sad that there are things in our country that need so much attention and they aren't getting it (education, health care, cleaning up Washington--could we go on hours and hours about just that one topic!). But, since we've gone in, there is a sense of responsibility to finish as well as we can for those who are counting on us.
And "cleaning up our mess" is about as far as "finishing the job" as I think we should get. I know what you are saying about giving them a taste of what we have, not leave them hanging and all that, but (and I'm not attacking anyone for liking him) as far as I'm concerned, Bush deserves impeachment for this. Or charged with some type of war crime. What he did was completely irresponsible and illegal (as was pointed out). And he's going to walk away from it with nothing on his hands.

Again, that's not to say I don't support our troops--if I could go over there and feed them, clothe them, even wash their flipping feet--I would, do anything to help allievate their pain. But IMHO, the government are the ones who owe them this--the alleviation--not the general public. It doesn't mean I will shun them or hurt them or do any of the things done to Vietnam Vets-absolutely not! But it's about time our government stepped up and took responsibilty for their horrendous actions.

(and if you can't tell--this would be a good reason why I don't like it here :D)

[Dayle in Guatemala]

Again, that's not to say I don't support our troops--if I could go over there and feed them, clothe them, even wash their flipping feet--I would, do anything to help allievate their pain. But IMHO, the government are the ones who owe them this--the alleviation--not the general public. It doesn't mean I will shun them or hurt them or do any of the things done to Vietnam Vets-absolutely not! But it's about time our government stepped up and took responsibilty for their horrendous actions.

(and if you can't tell--this would be a good reason why I don't like it here :D)

Absolutely! The bright spot in all of this is the sense of pride we can all feel in our amazing troops. They are truly the most impressive group of people I've ever seen and I cry regularly hearing of their acts of unselfish bravery, courage, and compassion. We are blessed as a nation! I hope noone ever accuses you or anyone else with a dissenting opinon of not being supportive of our troops. They would be the first to say that being able to considerately disagree is what makes our country great!

[kRenee]

I have a question, not a statement, since I am not well educated in this area. No one has mentioned Al-Qaeda. If we pull out of the mid-east, won't Al-Qaeda once again overrun the area? And since their mission is to kill Americans, the stronger they are the more attacks we will see. Isn't one of our purposes in sending our troops over there to eliminate or at least to minimize their influence?

[GothicGyrl]

I have a question, not a statement, since I am not well educated in this area. No one has mentioned Al-Qaeda. If we pull out of the mid-east, won't Al-Qaeda once again overrun the area? And since their mission is to kill Americans, the stronger they are the more attacks we will see. Isn't one of our purposes in sending our troops over there to eliminate or at least to minimize their influence?
I guess it is a matter of whether or not you believe Al-Qaeda was really the threat or not. While I believe they are a threat, I'm not sure they are as big of a threat as our Government says (again, keep in mind how I feel about our government) because I don't trust our Gov. in the first place.

I don't believe their mission is to specifically kill US (as in us, not the united states specifically), but rather to kill ANYONE who they feel are insolent to their cause. Again, I feel that Al-Qaeda has been made to be bigger/badder than what they really are.

I'm not saying they are not a threat to us, but I do believe that there is something more going on that we don't know about--something being kept from the people. For example, we only found out about Saddam being captured by accident--we were not supposed to know (and anyone who calls for a cite, just google it, it's there).

I truly believe we've either already captured Bin Laden or we know where he is hiding and are "waiting". And I'm not the only one who thinks that Bush is "sitting on" Bin Laden either--there are a lot of people who think Bush is waiting to place his "ace of spades"--that is right at the end of his term, suddenly "capture" him.

And to be quite honest with you--if Al-Qaeda really is as big of a threat to the US as they claim--why the hell are we over there instead of working towards protecting here?

[Audrey]

And in truth, Audrey, I'd rather discuss politics and religion than the same old vacuum cleaner/boob holder/pms discussions we used to have.

The problem is, as Colleen said--some can't keep it civil. I should be able to voice my extreme displeasure with this war and Bush without being called names or told where I am going at the end of my life.

Dear gods! I so agree with you on the "same old" topics. I wasn't trying to chastise anyone with the mention of the old rule. I hadn't known it was no longer a rule. That's probably a good thing. I did say I thought the poll was a good idea, too.

For me, I'd rather have a poll on a hot topic like this, than just a straight discussion thread. I want to check my little box so my vote gets counted, too. However, I'm simply NOT going to get into spelling out my political opinions on THIS board. My politics are spelled out clearly on my blog, and I'm very, very, very sure that no one wants to hear me go on about what gets me hot under the collar about this war, or any other political topic. I save those rants for other, more topic-appropriate boards.

And, Colleen... that is NOT to say that I think your poll or this topic are not appropriate for this board. I'm simply saying that there are boards devoted to politics. I'll save my rants for there. OK? To say it again, I thought your poll was a GOOD one! :001_smile:

[GothicGyrl]

Hey Audrey--you could always just "ITA" the thread to death :D

Actually, I'd prefer to hear other viewpoints--even if opposing ones. So if you have a laundry list of what gets you hot under the collar (and the names Banderas and Depp aren't on the list :D)by all means, post!!

I just do not want some (that I know will if the other thread is any evidence), coming in here screaming "like it or leave" or "Bush was such the most Godly wonderful man" (because even some Christians who voted for him are thoroughly displeased at doing so now).. I just want to have an honest discussion the way Colleen intended the poll to be--that's all.

[Tutor]

I have a question, not a statement, since I am not well educated in this area. No one has mentioned Al-Qaeda. If we pull out of the mid-east, won't Al-Qaeda once again overrun the area? And since their mission is to kill Americans, the stronger they are the more attacks we will see. Isn't one of our purposes in sending our troops over there to eliminate or at least to minimize their influence?

Well, we went into Afghanistan because they were harboring Al-Qaeda. Our declared reason for going into Iraq had to do with "weapons of mass destruction" and genocide (which had been going on for decades). Al-Qaeda entered Iraq after we began military action because the instability created allowed them a foothold. However, they are not being harbored or supported by the government, so harboring terrorists is not a reason to be in Iraq. However, we do have intelligence that Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda members are in Pakistan, but we aren't invading Pakistan. Why? President Bush said it was because they are a "sovereign nation". (Yeah, makes no sense to me, either.) We also know that the majority of the 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, but we aren't going after them for harboring terrorists. I don't think Al-Queda organizes in Saudi Arabia, but an awful lot of recruiting seems to go on there.

I posted my opinions on this whole thing on my blog back in December. You can read it here (http://apollosacademy.blogspot.com/2007/12/objections-addressed-part-1.html)if you are interested. The post is in response to a friend's email after learning who I was supporting for President. As you can tell from my friend's email, he doesn't support the same candidate. :D I have not written part two of this post yet, because I was getting so frustrated and depressed thinking about it. My candidate will not win the general election, but I think I am going to finish the series of posts I started since it forces me to really think through my position on these issues and allows me to confront objections when they are raised. Just another area of self-education, I suppose. :)

ETA: I realize that this is an oversimplified answer, but kRenee's question was a good one, and I wanted to address it, so I did my best.

[GothicGyrl]

Tutor--I'm blind--link me to that section cuz I can't find it. :)

[Tutor]

Tutor--I'm blind--link me to that section cuz I can't find it. :)

I'm a dope and hit "post" before I added the link. (I need a good "dope slap" smilie.) It's there now. :001_smile:

[Kate in Arabia]

If we pull out of the mid-east, won't Al-Qaeda once again overrun the area?
First of all, al-Qa'ida has never "overrun the area"; they have had training camps in some isolated locations, and more of a supporting group in Afghanistan when the Taliban were in power.

Second, I don't think anyone was suggesting pulling out of the entire Middle East. There is a military base quite close to me, as a matter of fact.. and just for people's general knowledge (not you specifically), the soldiers over here actually interact quite well.. I remember a while back there was an overcrowded dhow that sank off the coast, and the US Navy sent people in to help search for survivors, which I thought was way cool. :patriot:

[GothicGyrl]

Tutor--with the exception of wanting Ron Paul in (I don't like politicians, let alone Republican ones), all I can say is I SO TOTALLY agree with that post you made and look forward to the second half.

You did all the research and unemotionally explained why "Bill" was way off base.

Good Job!!

[Tutor]

Good Job!!

:o Thanks.

(I don't like politicians, let alone Republican ones)

I don't blame you. My dh's motto (which he stole, but I can't remember where from) is "Don't vote, it only encourages them."

[pixelroper]

can any of us say our opinions are based on cold hard facts? I often think there is more to the story (and the 'more' could make it either simpler or more complicated).

Between the mainstream media (I do believe it to be biased) and the internet allowing us access to never ending opinion and news columns from all over, trying to navigate the web of manipulated info(mostly opinion, not fact) is downright flabergasting!

What I'm trying to say is that any way I think about this issue brings about a string of tangents, that is ultimately debilitating. Feel like a rodent in a wheel. Anyone else feel this way? Maybe that is the plan?!?

I'm don't want to sit on the fence, just wishing top secret documents were available so I can make up my mind.

BTW I'm not advocating relativism.

[Kate in Arabia]

I don't think Al-Queda organizes in Saudi Arabia, but an awful lot of recruiting seems to go on there.
You know, the Saudis have so many deep-seated issues going on, I *almost* feel sorry for them, lol. They are doing quite a lot to try and stamp out extremist (to them) elements within the kingdom, employing tactics we sure wouldn't allow in our own country and pressing hard on many fronts. Time will tell how effective these techniques are, but they've got larger societal problems that, in my lofty opinion lol, continue to drive people to desperate causes.

jmo

[Virginia Dawn]

I agree with a lot of what Tutor and GothicGyrl have said. I come from a military family. My brother served 18 months in Iraq. He would say "get out yesterday" too.

For many of the already stated reasons we don't belong there. I might say we need to stay a little while longer and clean up our mess, if I didn't know something about the history of that whole area. What we are trying to do is practically impossible.

We can not combine 3 separate peoples who think of themselves as individual tribal nations, into one unified Iraqi state, unless they want to be unified. Guess what, they don't really want to. This whole area was carved up in the 19th and 20th centuries by imperialists looking out for their own interests. The nations of the mid-east are psuedo nations, so are those of Africa, which is why there are so many problems there as well. And there will continue to be problems, because of the past nation building attempts of Western culture.

Our American mind-set keeps us from seeing how important these people's cultural roots are to them. They are like huge families being separated and/or forced to cooperate with other families that have no commonality. In our country we identify ourselves as Americans, whether we are Irish-American, African-American, or Asian-American. (Except for the American Indian, but that's another story.) The people of Iraq define themselves by their cultural groups: Kurds, Suni, Shiite. *We* call them Iraqi Kurds, Iraqi Suni, Iraqi Shiite. The word Iraqi has little meaning to them. They have no "Iraqi dream," no desire for a nation guided by the proposition that all men are created equal, no desire for an inclusive or "melting pot" society.

We are the occupiers. If we should ever leave that is what we will be remembered as. That is what we are remembered as in Vietnam, one of many former occupiers. That is what we are seen as in many parts of the world where we have troops stationed.

In the book The Thousand Year War in the Mid-East and How it Affects You Today is a good overview of the history of the area and shows the futility of what we are doing. And it was originally written before we invaded Iraq.

[ArwenA]

I'm not sure I should be voting as I'm Canadian but I did anyway.
I voted "Get out yesterday". I don't think the U.S. army should ever have gone Iraq. That is my honest opinion. When Canada was asked if they would join in I was one of the people that didn't want war, fighting, violence or whatever you want to call it.
I'm one of the people praying for world peace, how are we supposed to achieve peace when there are armies fighting. Couldn't we just resolve our conflicts peacefully?
I don't want to hurt any one's beliefs, I'm simply stating my opinion. I'll admit that I am probably not as well informed on this topic as many of you. It isn't my country that is fighting so my view may not be "fair". But I'm sharing it anyway.

[astrid]

The whole Iraq issue was predicated on a lie. There were no WMD's in Iraq, and Bush & Co. knew it.

[astrid]

I see I am not alone in the "get out yesterday" part, but I am the first to post a why--

We should have never gone there in the first place. We went there under false pretenses (WMD's that didn't exist), Saddam being responsible, etc...

We should have never gone. And if the need really was there for us to go, we should not be trying to instill American Values/beliefs into their nation. Our democracy doesn't even work half the time, what makes us think it will work over there?

Nope--should never have gone.

Democracy cannot be forced. Iraq has never been a democracy, their culture is not based on democratic principles, and to use military might to force another country to become a democracy is ludicrous.

[astrid]

Not snarky, I truly wonder.

As long as WHAT takes? What is "IT"? WHAT are we doing there? Stabilizing the region? It will never be stabilized, and our very presence is probably the most destabilizing feature.

What are you thinking will be accomplished by staying "as long as it takes" or 100 years as John McCain promises? (whichever comes first?)

[pixelroper]

out of curiosity: what should of been done about 9/11? Or does everyone see that as a separate issue?

curiosity killed the cat...I know, I know

[Jenny in Atl]

Democracy cannot be forced. Iraq has never been a democracy, their culture is not based on democratic principles, and to use military might to force another country to become a democracy is ludicrous.

The US is not even a democracy... I hate how this word is thrown around. I agree, one country can't make other countries/people do what they think is best for them, what is best and who decides?

I distrust most all governments, and think it's healthy to do so. All this is so hard.. This war was a mistake, but what of situations like Darfur? Tibet? and numerous other situations where governments are openly abusing and even slaughtering their people? I have no answers and feel the US should not be the world police... but what will become of this planet? Why have we never learned.

[Carol in Cal.]

The problem is, as Colleen said--some can't keep it civil. I should be able to voice my extreme displeasure with this war and Bush without being called names or told where I am going at the end of my life.

You know, although I have never been one of those responders you cite, I suspect that for them it's not so much the content, but the tone and manner of expression.
You're not being civil when you express opinions as fact, especially when you know that there are many who disagree with you. And naturally that evokes a strong response.
I don't defend incivility, but the ranting tends to evoke it. You can have extreme displeasure but express it respectfully, in a way that leaves room for those who disagree.

[Sharon in SC]

out of curiosity: what should of been done about 9/11? Or does everyone see that as a separate issue? curiosity killed the cat...I know, I know

Me-ow..... count me in with the basket of kittens.... :)

I think about the days my maternal grandfather spent fighting the Germans as a WWII paratrooper (101st Airborne) where he ultimately gave his life at the ripe age of 24. I am SO thankful that Americans took a stand against the threats to our freedom in that generation. History reveals that Pearl Harbor was the catalyst for that. In my mind, 9/11 fits the same bill in the issues that stand for this current generation.

[Virginia Dawn]

out of curiosity: what should of been done about 9/11? Or does everyone see that as a separate issue?

curiosity killed the cat...I know, I know

Some say that our government should have issued a "letter of mark," which would have essentially been a bounty, on Osama Bin Laden and his cronies. They would probably have been disposed of (assassinated) swiftly and efficiently, and that would have left no doubt as to our country's position of strength. Our constitution allows us to do this.

I'm thinking it would have been far better than the mess we have created, but perhaps it wasn't spectacular enough. Or maybe war is more politically correct than assassination. Sometimes, when people are hurting and in shock, and being told lies, they do things they regret later.

[astrid]

out of curiosity: what should of been done about 9/11? Or does everyone see that as a separate issue?

curiosity killed the cat...I know, I know


Al Qua'ida did. So why are we not pursuing Osama Bin Laden with the same fervor and troop committment with which we overran Iraq?

[Twinmom]

and I'm not interested in getting too far into a hot topic discussion at this point. I'm just going to post my opinion on the subject and leave it completely at that, since it seems that not too many folks sharing my opinion have yet to post.

I'm one of the gals who answered that we should be there for as long as it takes. Why? Well, in large part because I've got a dear friend who served on the ground there. He came back with some amazing stories and pictures...stories of people crying in gratitude for the U.S. and coalition forces who were there to liberate them from Sadaam and his brutal dictatorship. These were people who'd lost family members to murder, who had daughters who'd been raped, who were starving, who were denied an education, the right to vote or the basic human right of living free from fear. These folks were cheering every time my friend and his unit would roll through town, helping them at every turn, letting them know where the roadside bombs were placed, etc. They were the ones standing in line when my friend would pass out clean water, basic necessities, etc. Their children were the ones playing stickball safely in the street because they were surrounded by coalition forces standing around to protect them, or making it to a voting place safely because our men and women were there to protect them. It happened...I've seen the pictures and video, and heard the first hand accounts.

No, we aren't perfect as a nation, and as imperfect humans our reasons for being there aren't completely pure. We could probably discuss that ad nauseum and likely all come to an agreement that mistakes were made even if we don't agree on what they were and who made them! However, ultimately I believe we've done a good thing in Iraq. We've helped the powerless, defended the weak and done what we could do to help the situation. There is evil in the world, and we stood up against some of it. Probably we can't/shouldn't do it everytime, but we did do it THIS time. We've also done some good work in Afganistan and Iraq to keep the terrorists at bay/away from American targets, and to defend Israel (as a Christian, I do believe that is my duty and by extension, my nation's duty!) In my book, we've done a pretty good thing.

I say stay put as long as it takes to finish the job right, or risk both looking like we don't have the stomach for finishing what we start as well as throwing away all the sacrifices our armed forces and their families have made. I say stay with the right motives (whether or not some think our original motives were right), and offer assistance in building their govt./infrastructure/etc. Not to make them "just like us" but to give them a real chance to be who they want to be (the real folks, not the pundits). If they don't take advantage of the chance, then shame on them. If we leave before the job is properly done, shame on us.

Just my opinion on the matter...I'd appreciate it if I receive no flaming arrows on the subject! ;)

[astrid]

Saddam Hussein did not invade neighboring countries. Democracy was never in peril in the area--- there was no democracy in Iraq.

This war was started because of a lie, and there are so many in congress and higher who are financially benefitting from the perpetuation, while our troops are without body armor and adequate medical care/therapy after they are injured. It's costing this country trillions of dollars, and leaving a debt that will take generations to recoup. Shameful.

[astrid]

I say stay put as long as it takes to finish the job right,

Hi Twinmom; welcome!

But this is my sincere question: what is "the job?" I don't want to sound ignorant-- I"m not, really. I watch the news programs daily and would hazard to say that I"m quite well-versed on this topic. But no one's ever been able to tell me what, exactly, we're "finishing."
Bringing democracy?
Making the area safe?

Those take generations. Should we stay that long?

[Sharon in SC]

I don't equate WWII and 9/11
Neither do I. That is the last thing I intended to imply in my post. I was only trying to say that, in my mind, 9/11 is a catalyst like what Pearl Harbor was toward causing Americans to take a stand for their freedoms so horribly imposed upon by the actions of the offending party.


Democracy was never in peril in the area--- there was no democracy in Iraq.

I was not trying to contrast the issues of democracy (or anything else for that matter) between the two wars. Again, I was simply trying to say that, for me, the issue is American freedom and the ability to exist/thrive in our own land without fear of what those who desire to inflict pain upon us may try to do next to achieve their objectives. It was never my intent to say the wars themselves were anywhere near alike to one another. I only aimed to mention key triggering events.

For me, personally, bottomline is hindsight is always better than foresight. If we had all the intel then that we have now, other decisions might have been made. We have to live in the here and now and face today, and then tomorrow. I pray daily that the "powers that be" have all the wisdom and insight that they need to make good decisions on behalf of everyone involved. Meanwhile, I remain thankful and do not take it for granted that we, you and me, have the privilege and freedom to have this discussion. I'm also thankful for the growth and knowledge that is birthed through the process. :)

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the intent of my original post....
sharon

[nukeswife]

I agree with Twinmom. I was one that answered we should stay as long as it takes. To answer those that ask what is "it", "It" is helping the Iraqi people create the kind of nation they want. Many say we had no right to be there, they didn't ask for our help etc. This may be a bad analogy but many battered women don't ask for help either but if it shows up on their doorsteps I'm sure many would jump at the opportunity. I suppose I should also say that I'm a military spouse so I know what it's like to have my dh over there in that fight. I also think that many believe everything the news media hands them and it might not always be the full truth. They like to put their spin on things too, not just the govt. As for the WMD discussion many will say "they were never there, we didn't find any" Well that doesn't mean they were "never" there, after all the regime was aware that we were looking pretty closely at them, how does anyone know they didn't just dispose of things before we got there? Even if one feels we shouldn't be there we did go and we are there, we can't just up and leave completely. I've heard alot of talk in this election year that we need to set a date to pull out all the troops. You can't just set a date, you don't let the enemy know when you're going to just stop. If you do that they'll most likely just lay low until said date and then once that date has come they'll unleash all they have on you when you least expect it.

I don't know that I've answered any questions as to my views but there it is.

[Jenny in Atl]

Saddam Hussein did not invade neighboring countries.

Actually, he did, but I don't think we would have cared if it had not been Kuwait.

[Peek a Boo]

well, as far as I'm concerned, I don't feel strongly either way -- whether we stay there another "100 years" like McCain wants or never went in.

I do think that just taking out Saddam was worth it. I'm glad we at least accomplished *that*.

We know Saddam had WMD because, uh, we GAVE them to him. Did he have them at the time we invaded? who knows!?! they could be buried anywhere or been transported at anytime. We simply can't say for a fact that he *didn't*.

I tend to prefer the "letter of mark" /assassination route myself, and agree that we should not be [in general] policing the world.

As much as i like Ron Paul, I don't necessarily agree that this is an illegal war. The Constitution says Congress has the right to declare war, but that doesn't mean it can't declare the war however it sees fit via "authorization for use of military force". But then again i also disagree w/ RP that abortion is a state's rights issue.

I would prefer to see a conclusion to the engagement. not sure what that would look like tho.
My li'l bro served w/ the Marines in Afghanistan and Iraq as a Navy Corpsman, and is finishing up Marine Corps Officer Candidate School at the top of his class. He's been in almost eleven years now. He supports McCain :)

But whether we stay there or pull out now doesn't really concern me as much as domestic issues do. I'm more concerned w/ stuff like The Patriot Act, abortion, border security, etc. It's a hot button issue for dh tho- his eyes get boiling blue when I start commenting on what his right wing talk radio shows bring up for discussion about the war :D

...not that *I'm* one to push buttons.... :001_tt2:

mwahahahahaha.....

[astrid]

......it takes more than "wisdom and insight." It takes honesty and humility and the ability to recognize when change is necessary, and that's been a problem for this administration as far as this war is concerned, at least IMHO.

As to whether we have the "freedom" to have this discussion, that remains to be seen. Upholding the Constitution doesn't seem to be a strong suit, either! :001_smile: Who knows who is watching! :001_smile:

[astrid]

Actually, he did, but I don't think we would have cared if it had not been Kuwait.

Kuwait is not the reason we're there now, with the promise of at least 100 more years if John McCain is elected. :banghead:

[pixelroper]

no WWII isn't 9/11, but there are comparisons and recently I ran across info that claimed Pearl Harbor wasn't a surprise (as some claim for 9/11). Personally this reminds me of trying to figure out which 4yo out of 20 is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, after they staged a mob run on the cookie jar. No one wants to take the blame and no one will admit they didn't try to stop it for the obvious reasons. (Not the comments made here! just the general swirl of war 'info')

If I don't make sense, I apologize, it makes my brain rust and I'm having an overwhelming urge to read Material Logic for lubrication...

[RebeccaC]

Saddam Hussein did not invade neighboring countries.


Ummm I got a nice little visit to Saudi and the UAE in a covert manner in the early 90 because Saddam tried to make a permant visit or what some might call invasion of Kuwait. Maybe you forgot that bit of history tho :001_huh: I didn't still have sand in my boots from it :D

[astrid]

To answer those that ask what is "it", "It" is helping the Iraqi people create the kind of nation they want.

THEY want? From all that's been said for five years, I was under the distinct impression that we're trying to creat the kind of nation that WE want.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and thanks to your dh (and you, the military wife!) for your (collective) service.

[astrid]

I'm fully aware that Saddam Hussein ventured into Kuwait in the early 1990's.
But that's a separate conflict. We're talking about this 5-year-old war. Saddam was a jerk, yes. But he didn't have his walkin' shoes on in 2003. We just showed up.

[pixelroper]

I also think that many believe everything the news media hands them and it might not always be the full truth. They like to put their spin on things too, not just the govt. As for the WMD discussion many will say "they were never there, we didn't find any" Well that doesn't mean they were "never" there, after all the regime was aware that we were looking pretty closely at them, how does anyone know they didn't just dispose of things before we got there?

right, we really shouldn't assume anything- & in fact we (as a nation) have become so polarized over this (as the poll here shows) I'm hard pressed to pick which is more dangerous, terrorists or the internal division. And- 'no' I don't have an answer to this.

[RebeccaC]

I'm fully aware that Saddam Hussein ventured into Kuwait in the early 1990's.
But that's a separate conflict. We're talking about this 5-year-old war. Saddam was a jerk, yes. But he didn't have his walkin' shoes on in 2003. We just showed up.


Well he kept trying to put his walking shoes on by flying in the no fly zone and not letting inspectors do the stuff that was agreed on at the end of Desert Storm. I see it this way Desert Storm was part 1 and they should have let us finish the job then but........ and this Iraq war is part two and the folks who want us to leave yet again before the job is done really just want part 3 without knowing that is what they want. I really don't think we just showed up :w00t: there were more than a decades worth of resolutions saying if you don't let inspections happen and stop flying in the no fly zone were coming.

Oh and look I made it to 100 posts :D Oh Happy Day:party:

[nukeswife]

[QUOTE=RebeccaC;114649]Well he kept trying to put his walking shoes on by flying in the no fly zone and not letting inspectors do the stuff that was agreed on at the end of Desert Storm. I see it this way Desert Storm was part 1 and they should have let us finish the job then but........ and this Iraq war is part two and the folks who want us to leave yet again before the job is done really just want part 3 without knowing that is what they want. I really don't think we just showed up :w00t: there were more than a decades worth of resolutions saying if you don't let inspections happen and stop flying in the no fly zone were coming.

:iagree: It's not like we just said "surprise" there was warning after warning that things weren't being complied with

On another topic: when did I become a nurse bee, I honestly didn't think I posted that many things:001_huh:

[RebeccaC]

On another topic: when did I become a nurse bee, I honestly didn't think I posted that many things:001_huh:


Ooooo nurse bee and you are only 23 ahead of me oooooooh where to post where to post ;)

[RebeccaC]

Accccckkkk 101 made nurse bee :grouphug: for all nurse bee's!!!

Ohhhh hapy hapy day :hurray:

[nukeswife]

Accccckkkk 101 made nurse bee :grouphug: for all nurse bee's!!!

Ohhhh hapy hapy day :hurray:

LOL, Congrats:grouphug:

[Tutor]

I tend to prefer the "letter of mark" /assassination route myself, and agree that we should not be [in general] policing the world...

*snip*

...The Constitution says Congress has the right to declare war, but that doesn't mean it can't declare the war however it sees fit via "authorization for use of military force".

I agree with you on the letters of marque. It was for situations like this, where we are not engaging a sovereign nation, that I think that power was invested to the Congress.

As to your second comment that I quoted above, I think that the War Powers Act of 1973 (http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm) was put into effect, in part, to address this issue. The WPA states that the President may command military action without an "official declaration of war" for 60 days. There is also the option of a 30 day extention, thus bringing the total number of days to 90 before the President must seek an official declaration of war from Congress. I understand this to mean that an "authorization for use of military force" wouldn't fit the bill. It does not take much to pass a declaration of war. Our declaration of war against Japan was passed within 24 hours of the attack on Pearl Harbor (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/dec/dec04.htm#japan) and contains very basic language (less than what was necessary to authorize the use of military force). IMO, Congress was trying to cover its butt by not actually declaring war so they could pas the buck if things didn't go well... but that's just my opinion. :D Actually, in House Joint Resolution 114 of the 107th Congress ("Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002") (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf) specifically cites WPA Section 5(b) as the powers they are granting to the President:

"SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces."

It could also be seen as being unconstitutional from another standpoint as well. Many, including myself, also believe that the House Joint Resolution cite above gives the President powers for calling up the military not granted to his office in the Constitution. The power to call-up the army is held by Congress alone (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8). Such a shift in power would require a Constitutional amendment.

[Peek a Boo]

Saddam was a jerk, yes.

ok, This gets "Biggest Understatement of the Century" award, lol.

making anyone's list of Top Ten Dictators in The World requires a bit more action than "being a jerk." ;)

[Peek a Boo]

I understand this to mean that an "authorization for use of military force" wouldn't fit the bill.


Why wouldn't it fit the bill? that's kinda what a war IS--The President is given permission to USE the military --as Commander in Chief, he calls upon the military w/ Congressional approval to execute the war. Congress has power to declare the war, not to wage it. Congress does hold the purse strings and can shut down the piggy bank real quick if they needed to.

i do have lotsa issues w/ the WPA- i think it DOES unConstitutionally shift power.

[Tutor]

Why wouldn't it fit the bill? that's kinda what a war IS--The President is given permission to USE the military --as Commander in Chief, he calls upon the military w/ Congressional approval to execute the war. Congress has power to declare the war, not to wage it. Congress does hold the purse strings and can shut down the piggy bank real quick if they needed to.

i do have lotsa issues w/ the WPA- i think it DOES unConstitutionally shift power.

I don't think it fits the bill in this case because HJR117 which authorized military action in Iraq invoked the specific section in the WPA which constrained military action without a declaration of war to 90 days max. Logic won't permit us to call the legislation which required a declaration of war to be the declaration of war itself.

Clear as mud? :D

[Peek a Boo]

I don't think it fits the bill in this case because HJR117 which authorized military action in Iraq invoked the specific section in the WPA which constrained military action without a declaration of war to 90 days max. Logic won't permit us to call the legislation which required a declaration of war to be the declaration of war itself.

Clear as mud? :D

but it doesn't limit it to a declaration of war: it says "or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces"-- so Congress hasn't approved any action since? It was my understanding that Bush continues to ask Congress for more money [and permission] to continue use of military force and they agree to give it to him.....

[GothicGyrl]

It was my understanding that Bush continues to ask Congress for more money [and permission] to continue use of military force and they agree to give it to him....

And this is where my problem is: Bush continues to ask for money (for an unjustified war), he continues to get permission(either by those who agree with him for whatever reason or by those that were duped in to believing he was telling the truth) and we continue to remain at war with a nation we have no business being at war with.

No one wants to see the correlation, or they just don't believe this correlation exists, but from my standpoint--this war is about oil. Pure and simple. There were NO WMD's and never were WMD's. What we gave Saddam do not count because those were taken back. And even if we did not take them back, that makes this war all the more stupid and unreasonable because that makes Bush an indian giver (here take these and then cry "war" when they do).

And yes, I am going to assume whatever I wish because I don't have my head in a hole thinking that this war is even remotely justified. We do not belong in this war at all. What about 9/11? I don't know, ask your government,IMHO. And don't even try to compare what happened with 9/11 to Pearl Harbor--they simply are not comparable at all and that is an insult to those who fought in Pearl Harbor. Two totally different things, two totally different reasons.

Now, I've said my peace as well. Some are going to nitpick it apart and that's fine. The one thing we all agree on is that this country is going to pot real quick. We just disagree on the why.

[RebeccaC]

Now, I've said my peace as well. Some are going to nitpick it apart and that's fine. The one thing we all agree on is that this country is going to pot real quick. We just disagree on the why.

Ummm sorry but I don't agree that this country is going to pot real quick. This is still the greatest country on the planet! And I have lived abroad both as a college student and serving this country. Traveled abroad quite a bit too and still think this is the best country on the planet :patriot:

[pixelroper]

feel better?:D- GothicGyrl that had a cathartic aura.

America is awesome.

[Peek a Boo]

And this is where my problem is: Bush continues to ask for money (for an unjustified war), he continues to get permission(either by those who agree with him for whatever reason or by those that were duped in to believing he was telling the truth) and we continue to remain at war with a nation we have no business being at war with.

No one wants to see the correlation, or they just don't believe this correlation exists, but from my standpoint--this war is about oil. Pure and simple. There were NO WMD's and never were WMD's. What we gave Saddam do not count because those were taken back. And even if we did not take them back, that makes this war all the more stupid and unreasonable because that makes Bush an indian giver (here take these and then cry "war" when they do).

And yes, I am going to assume whatever I wish because I don't have my head in a hole thinking that this war is even remotely justified. We do not belong in this war at all. What about 9/11? I don't know, ask your government,IMHO. And don't even try to compare what happened with 9/11 to Pearl Harbor--they simply are not comparable at all and that is an insult to those who fought in Pearl Harbor. Two totally different things, two totally different reasons.

Now, I've said my peace as well. Some are going to nitpick it apart and that's fine. The one thing we all agree on is that this country is going to pot real quick. We just disagree on the why.

LOL! The only thing I'm going to nitpick is your own statement:

"And yes, I am going to assume whatever I wish because I don't have my head in a hole thinking that this war is even remotely justified."

as long as we are going to make up our minds regardless of the facts, it makes it very difficult to carry on a real discussion :)

We know there WERE wmd.

Did we take back everything we gave them?? Documentation, anyone?

whether a war is "justifiable" is purely subjective. And that's fine when we are simply expressing an opinion.

Whether something is illegal depends on evidence.
Arbitrary assumptions won't cut it.

but yeah, i do think this country has some Very Real Problems w/ erosions of liberties.

[GothicGyrl]

Rebecca---That you've served, I salute you as well. For me, however, that does not translate into "greatest country"--so we will have to disagree on that one.

Pixel--I am not sure what you mean by "cathartic aura"?

Peek--I'd say bite me, but you would :D at least we both agree that we've got real problems here. I make my assumptions based on what I read, see, and hear. That you don't come to the same conclusions as I do, well--sharpen your claws (wait, who'm I kidding--you couldn't even catch a lowly mouse :D) .....that's fine too..

[Elaine]

I agree with Twinmom. I was one that answered we should stay as long as it takes. To answer those that ask what is "it", "It" is helping the Iraqi people create the kind of nation they want. Many say we had no right to be there, they didn't ask for our help etc. This may be a bad analogy but many battered women don't ask for help either but if it shows up on their doorsteps I'm sure many would jump at the opportunity. I suppose I should also say that I'm a military spouse so I know what it's like to have my dh over there in that fight. I also think that many believe everything the news media hands them and it might not always be the full truth. They like to put their spin on things too, not just the govt. As for the WMD discussion many will say "they were never there, we didn't find any" Well that doesn't mean they were "never" there, after all the regime was aware that we were looking pretty closely at them, how does anyone know they didn't just dispose of things before we got there? Even if one feels we shouldn't be there we did go and we are there, we can't just up and leave completely. I've heard alot of talk in this election year that we need to set a date to pull out all the troops. You can't just set a date, you don't let the enemy know when you're going to just stop. If you do that they'll most likely just lay low until said date and then once that date has come they'll unleash all they have on you when you least expect it.

I don't know that I've answered any questions as to my views but there it is.

:iagree: And I can't say anymore because of my foot in mouth disease. Since these new boards began I haven't had to apologize to anyone!:001_smile:

[Elaine]

THEY want? From all that's been said for five years, I was under the distinct impression that we're trying to creat the kind of nation that WE want.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and thanks to your dh (and you, the military wife!) for your (collective) service.

The nation that we want? No not at all.:001_smile:

I speak from my experience and information relayed to me from my SIL, who is there now with the Navy and my uncle, who just got back and is a Marine. The Iraqi people are happy to have them there. The military is establishing modern infrastructure and creating an atmosphere of safety. The Iraqi police are willing and happy to learn all that the U.S. military has to teach them. Make no mistake, the US news is biased.

[pixelroper]

cathartic(adj.)Inducing catharsis; purgative.cathartic
aura(n.)A distinctive but intangible quality that seems to surround a person or thing; atmosphere

[Elaine]

Ummm sorry but I don't agree that this country is going to pot real quick. This is still the greatest country on the planet! And I have lived abroad both as a college student and serving this country. Traveled abroad quite a bit too and still think this is the best country on the planet :patriot:

:iagree: It makes me sad, not angry to hear people speak so vehemently against the U.S. The whole world is going to pot if you want to split hairs. Which I don't.:D

[Peek a Boo]

Peek--I'd say bite me, but you would :D at least we both agree that we've got real problems here. I make my assumptions based on what I read, see, and hear. That you don't come to the same conclusions as I do, well--sharpen your claws (wait, who'm I kidding--you couldn't even catch a lowly mouse :D) .....that's fine too..

LOL! If i used my claws on you...... you'd enjoy it too much ;)

:D

[GothicGyrl]

cathartic(adj.)Inducing catharsis; purgative.cathartic(n.)An agent for purging the bowels, especially a laxative.


aura(n.)A distinctive but intangible quality that seems to surround a person or thing; atmosphere
Ahh so you were insulting my opinion, got it.

Glad you feel that way. I hope it makes you feel the better person.

[GothicGyrl]

LOL! If i used my claws on you...... you'd enjoy it too much ;)

:D
meh, not right now at least. Maybe another time. I'm dealing with a PMS moody 15 yr old.

[Sharon in SC]

Make no mistake, the US news is biased.

Yup. :iagree:

[RebeccaC]

Rebecca---That you've served, I salute you as well. For me, however, that does not translate into "greatest country"--so we will have to disagree on that one.



It is not because I served that I think this is the greatest country although that helped. When you sacrifice for something you hold a bit more precious than when you get it for free :001_smile: I think this is the greatest country because I have seen so more of this world than just this country. My parents were bush missionaries in Ethiopia, I went to school in Israel, and lived under Sharia law, seen slums in Mexico, ect......


While in school in Israel this non-Jew minored in political science and that plus the study of history through the field of archeology colors my view that this, with all its faults, is the greatest country on the planet :thumbup1:

[Elaine]

meh, not right now at least. Maybe another time. I'm dealing with a PMS moody 15 yr old.

Toni,
Right now, my biggest problem with you is that you have over 1,000 posts!!

STOP IT! :lol:

I'll never catch up.:crying:

[pixelroper]

your post has a "get it off your chest" tone, as in you feel strongly and you're making a stand, the content of your opinion was not addressed. I'm sorry to have made you defensive, NOT my intent.

[GothicGyrl]

It is not because I served that I think this is the greatest country although that helped. When you sacrifice for something you hold a bit more precious than when you get it for free :001_smile: I think this is the greatest country because I have seen so more of this world than just this country. My parents were bush missionaries in Ethiopia, I went to school in Israel, and lived under Sharia law, seen slums in Mexico, ect......


While in school in Israel this non-Jew minored in political science and that plus the study of history through the field of archeology colors my view that this with all its faults is the greatest country on the planet :thumbup1:
And I won't begrudge you that. I just disagree and I am allowed to. Your experiences certainly do color the way you feel just as mine do my feelings. And that's all well and good, we are allowed to feel/believe this way.

[RebeccaC]

And I won't begrudge you that. I just disagree and I am allowed to. Your experiences certainly do color the way you feel just as mine do my feelings. And that's all well and good, we are allowed to feel/believe this way.

:iagree:

[GothicGyrl]

your post has a "get it off your chest" tone, as in you feel strongly and you're making a stand, the content of your opinion was not addressed. I'm sorry to have made you defensive, NOT my intent.
then I apologize. It is a "get it off my chest" but not realy a "making a stand" thing--more of a resolution that my opinion is what it is, we agree to disagree and move on. :D

And Elaine--NO. :) I fought hard for those 1,000 posts. ;)

[Sharon in SC]

And don't even try to compare what happened with 9/11 to Pearl Harbor--they simply are not comparable at all and that is an insult to those who fought in Pearl Harbor.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :) I've done my best to communicate the message that I completely appreciate the fact that WWII and the current war are two different animals. I still maintain, however, that both were precipitated by triggering events. I have to respond with this - there is *nothing* in that premise that even remotely comes close to insulting anyone. :confused1:

[Mrs Mungo]

I want to address several things people have said (I took notes!) but I just sort want to address them in a general way rather than to anyone specific. GG's post where she told Peek "bite me" was the last post I read before I started to type. Not that I'm judging her for that, just a reference point ;)

WMDs. Yes, we (the American people) thought he had them. He acted like he had them. I even *think* *maybe* HE really did think he had them. Sort of an Emperor's New Clothes type of thing. It *is* possible they could be buried somewhere, the military has dug up MiGs out of the desert sands and missiles are a lot smaller than MiGs. Honestly though? I think he didn't and I think *we* (the US government) knew he didn't have them. I think it was an excuse, nothing more. I'll get to that in a minute.

Al-Queda-were they in Iraq before? Not really although it looks like they were recruiting there. Are they now? I guess it depends upon your definition. Some members of the administration seem to think everyone fighting us is AQ. I think the real reason for our invasion was so that we'd be fighting the terrorists somewhere other than on US soil. Bush has made *several* speeches in which he said as much. It's worked to some extent (not that I think it's right, necessarily) but it's put is in a tough spot as far as exiting.

Pakistan-yes, everyone thinks Osama is in Pakistan. Why don't we invade? They are a nuclear power. India and Pakistan hate each other as do Pakistan and Israel. All of those countries have nukes. If we were to *invade* Pakistan I think it would lead to all-out nuclear war. That's why we don't. So are these little countries and dictators *really* so crazy for wanting nukes? Not so much, IMO. It's worked for Pakistan. Saudi Arabia owns too much of the US and US companies, we have to keep them somewhat happy plus we're dependent on them for oil.

Some people say we shouldn't leave the entire Middle East and I would agree. However, I also agree we shouldn't be the world's policemen. As far as Darfur and similar countries go-there's not enough structure in that government for us to help, long-term from a military perspective.

I do think we were absolutely correct in invading Afghanistan. If we had as many soldiers in Afghanistan as we do in Iraq it would be a much different picture in Afghanistan now. However, that's hard to do from a logistics standpoint in a country like Afghanistan, they just don't have the infrastructure to support it. Osama does have a bounty on his head as do many of his subordinates.

I agree that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are democratic (or Republics for that matter) and I honestly don't think they ever will be. They both run on these sort of feudal systems. However, warlords with their own armies are pretty hard to control. You never know when one of them is going to try and take over. Capitalist democracies/republics are easier to stabilize, people are more reliant on each other and the government. They have more to lose when there is conflict than in these feudal systems. Iraq has a chance of succeeding with that. Afghanistan just doesn't. They don't have the resources to support that sort of government.

As far as peaceful resolutions to conflict-it's a wonderful thought but it's just not how the world works. And Canada *is* in the fight in Afghanistan if not Iraq.

As Iraqis being grateful-it's true, they were grateful at first. Understand, most everyone I know has served at least two combat tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. I've heard about the progress and the issues. The Iraqis are not grateful anymore. They want us out. We aren't doing them any favors by staying at this point, our presence is just continuing to draw terrorists their way. eta: One of the posters (with military family) says they're happy to have us there and I'd argue this really depends upon the region.

I disagree that it's about oil. It's about money, yes and who controls that many (we didn't want Saddam controlling it) but it wasn't to lay our hands on Iraq's oil. I don't think that's true at all.

Short answer-we can't pull out immediately. Anyone who is trying to sell you the idea of immediately pulling out of Iraq is selling you a pipe-dream. It will take *years* for us to get all of our people and equipment out of Iraq. It took us *over* ten years to get everything back from Desert Storm. However, I'd like us to start the draw-down as soon as possible.

edited a couple of places for clarity.

[Sharon in SC]

And don't even try to compare what happened with 9/11 to Pearl Harbor--they simply are not comparable at all and that is an insult to those who fought in Pearl Harbor.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :) I've done my best to communicate the message that I completely appreciate the fact that WWII and the current war are two different animals. I still maintain, however, that both were precipitated by triggering events. I have to respond with this - there is *nothing* in that premise that even remotely comes close to insulting anyone.

You may resume your originally scheduled programming.... :001_smile:

[Sharon in SC]

Your experiences certainly do color the way you feel just as mine do my feelings. And that's all well and good, we are allowed to feel/believe this way.

Yeah. You know what's been running through my mind as I've read the differeing viewpoints - the old adage, "perception is reality."

[GothicGyrl]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :) I've done my best to communicate the message that I completely appreciate the fact that WWII and the current war are two different animals. I still maintain, however, that both were precipitated by triggering events. I have to respond with this - there is *nothing* in that premise that even remotely comes close to insulting anyone.

You may resume your originally scheduled programming.... :001_smile:
You posted twice ;) It's ok though... (oh and Mrs. Mungo, I'm always telling that Cat to bite me. My fangs and her claws don't like each other :D)

Mrs. Mungo--I'll just address the last part--you said Anyone who is trying to sell you the idea of immediately pulling out of Iraq is selling you a pipe-dream. It will take *years* for us to get all of our people and equipment out of Iraq.. and I did admit it was a pipe dream early on. I know I'm not trying to sell anyone on this idea, I just wish we never went (which I know you were not singling me out, I'm just saying).

And Sharon-- all I can say is this, Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack on the US by the Japanese. Up until that attack, we were NOT going to get involved in WWII. We were prepared for it, but we had every intention of staying out. That's why they cannot be compared. What happened at 9/11, tragic as it was, was not a suprise attack (IMHO) and I fully believe the US KNEW it was coming (based on the previous bombing of the WTC a few years earlier) and the US did nothing to prevent it from happening. Pearl Harbor is not comparable because we have no intention of getting involved, we had no intention of fighting in the war, we simply had no intention. They made us have the intention. 9/11 was fully known by the US before it happened(which I understand some don't believe this, but I do).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

We just have to agree to disagree again. :D

[Sharon in SC]

You posted twice ;)

Yeah. I don't know how that happened. I have to trust you understand it was not some intentional effort on my part to sound like I was shoving my words on you! :tongue_smilie:

Regarding Pearl Harbor and 9/11....
We just have to agree to disagree again. :D

On *that*, we can agree! :D

Have a good evening, Toni! BTW, it sounds like you've got a better handle on the ins and outs of photography rights so feel free to do what you understand to be permissable with my photos on the other thread. I trust your judgment with that. :001_smile:

[pixelroper]

Thank you for taking the time to gather your thoughts so clearly. I run parallel on much of what you said- and you said it well.

[GothicGyrl]

Yeah. I don't know how that happened. I have to trust you understand it was not some intentional effort on my part to sound like I was shoving my words on you! :tongue_smilie:

Regarding Pearl Harbor and 9/11....


On *that*, we can agree! :D

Have a good evening, Toni! BTW, it sounds like you've got a better handle on the ins and outs of photography rights so feel free to do what you understand to be permissable with my photos on the other thread. I trust your judgment with that. :001_smile:
I appreciate the trust--I don't know that I've a good grasp on it, but I do have some grasp on it--I really shouldn't get into any kind of trouble because of what I'm doing to the photos(which is pretty much changing how they look, making them completely different from the originals) and I'm not selling them so we should be safe. :D

[TXMomof4]

I really, really, really am bothered by the idea that the Iraqi's don't desire to live in a free country. Now, obviously, it won't be a replica of the good old U.S. of A. but a country where you aren't killed for disagreeing with the leadership, or for being of a certain ethnic/religious background. Are Iraqis less human than we are? Is it an Arabic trait to desire living under a dictator? We throw it around that they aren't "ready" for freedom.....well, how do you get ready? How long did it take America to live together as a nation? We've always refered to the Civil War as when America really had to grow up. That was 90 years after the start of our nation. We expect them to have a perfectly organized nation in 5 years?

Also, I think we have a seriously warped perspective on time. If it wasn't done yesterday, it didn't happen fast enough. How long were we involved in WWII? Vietnam? The idea that we can go in, remove the leadership, aid the formation of a new government and be out in 5 years is naive. Believe me, I want this over as quickly as possible. DH, my brother and my BIL are all military and have been deployed numerous times, but the reality is that doing the job right, i.e. training the Iraqi National Guard, the police, helping the government and infrastructure get up and running effectively, is the only way to ensure that we aren't back there in a real mess in a few years.

Progress is being made, troop reductions are in the works, the Iraqi people are taking an active role in the stabilization of their country. Wasn't it Anbar Province that was handed back over to the Iraqi's a few months ago?

[Mrs Mungo]

I really, really, really am bothered by the idea that the Iraqi's don't desire to live in a free country. Now, obviously, it won't be a replica of the good old U.S. of A. but a country where you aren't killed for disagreeing with the leadership, or for being of a certain ethnic/religious background. Are Iraqis less human than we are? Is it an Arabic trait to desire living under a dictator? We throw it around that they aren't "ready" for freedom.....well, how do you get ready? How long did it take America to live together as a nation? We've always refered to the Civil War as when America really had to grow up. That was 90 years after the start of our nation. We expect them to have a perfectly organized nation in 5 years?

I don't see where anyone said they want to live in a dictatorship or in a country of severe religious persecution. The problem is there so much history of *recent* religious persecution that there are a lot of bad feelings about the sects in question. Think about England's history. By Elizabeth I's reign there were a lot of bad feelings on all sides of the argument. Those bad feelings continued for hundreds of years and within my memory (I'm 35) there were periods of religious fighting there. You're right, it's going to take a *long* time and there will be in-fighting until they get past some of that.

Also, I think we have a seriously warped perspective on time. If it wasn't done yesterday, it didn't happen fast enough. How long were we involved in WWII? Vietnam? The idea that we can go in, remove the leadership, aid the formation of a new government and be out in 5 years is naive.

I agree. Hitler invaded Poland in the fall of 1939. The US became involved in December of 1941. V-E day came in May of 1945. But there were still struggles, occupation and rebuilding for years and years after that.

Believe me, I want this over as quickly as possible. DH, my brother and my BIL are all military and have been deployed numerous times, but the reality is that doing the job right, i.e. training the Iraqi National Guard, the police, helping the government and infrastructure get up and running effectively, is the only way to ensure that we aren't back there in a real mess in a few years.

Progress is being made, troop reductions are in the works, the Iraqi people are taking an active role in the stabilization of their country. Wasn't it Anbar Province that was handed back over to the Iraqi's a few months ago?I do agree with you. At the same time, our huge show of force can be drawn down and we can still work on training the Iraqi military. In order to stop a lot of the attacks we need to be able to redefine our role from occupying force to err...different.

[pixelroper]

At the same time, our huge show of force can be drawn down and we can still work on training the Iraqi military. In order to stop a lot of the attacks we need to be able to redefine our role from occupying force to err...different.

But... since they have added to the force casualties have been down, from the 'extra support' so the story goes.

[Mrs Mungo]

But... since they have added to the force casualties have been down, from the 'extra support' so the story goes.

Yes, I know but it's been a while, there has been more time for them to develop their military at this point. I think "the surge" was good to give us ( and them) a starting point. Now it's time to say "we're going to start the draw-down" and see what happens.

[RebeccaC]

Rebecca says they're happy to have us there and I'd argue this really depends upon the region.
.

Umm this Rebecca didn't write that :001_smile:

[astrid]

I am against this war and this administration, and it enrages me that just today, when it was pointed out to Cheney that 2/3 of Americans oppose this war, he replied, "So?"

Like a petulent twelve year old.

[astrid]

(Biased, I mean.) In my opinion, it is folly to think that they got us into this war because they wanted to free the Iraqi people.

Why are we not in Darfur? Tibet?

Oh. No oil. No revenue for Halliburton.

[GothicGyrl]

Here's another "understatement of the year"......
I am against this war and this administration, and it enrages me that just today, when it was pointed out to Cheney that 2/3 of Americans oppose this war, he replied, "So?"

Like a petulent twelve year old.

For Cheney and his "so" comment, I give him:

:boxing_smiley::smash::cursing::cursing:

[Elaine]

In my opinion, it is folly to think that they got us into this war because they wanted to free the Iraqi people.

Why are we not in Darfur? Tibet?

Oh. No oil. No revenue for Halliburton.

Do you have proof for that statement? I hear it all the time and I think that it is complete nonsense.

[Elaine]

I am against this war and this administration, and it enrages me that just today, when it was pointed out to Cheney that 2/3 of Americans oppose this war, he replied, "So?"

Like a petulent twelve year old.

What answer could he possibly give. I am sure that no matter what his statement, there would be a backlash.

It does not bother me at all.

And? 2/3? No one polled me. I don't give much weight to those "polls."

[RebeccaC]

I am against this war and this administration, and it enrages me that just today, when it was pointed out to Cheney that 2/3 of Americans oppose this war, he replied, "So?"

Like a petulant twelve year old.

I wonder if this has something to do with the way polls are worded and how miss leading they can be. To be honest I seriously doubt that 2/3 of Americans want us to lose this war especially in light of how good it is going right now. He may be less of a petulant 12 yo and more of biased polls prove very little so who cares :w00t:

[Elaine]

I wonder if this has something to do with the way polls are worded and how miss leading they can be. To be honest I seriously doubt that 2/3 of Americans want us to lose this war especially in light of how good it is going right now. He may be less of a petulant 12 and more of biased polls prove very little so who cares :w00t:

Rebecca,
I think I love you.:lol:

[astrid]

To be honest I seriously doubt that 2/3 of Americans want us to lose this war especially in light of how good it is going right now.

Can you point me to an unbiased, reputable news source (not "world news daily" or whatever that site is, and not Fox News) that paints an optimistic picture? Not being snarky.....I'd really like some good news on this front!

[RebeccaC]

(Biased, I mean.) In my opinion, it is folly to think that they got us into this war because they wanted to free the Iraqi people.

Why are we not in Darfur? Tibet?

Oh. No oil. No revenue for Halliburton.

No this is Gulf War II because they did not let us finish the job after Sadam tried to permanently visit Kuwait in the early 90s and if they don't finish the job this time round in a few years there will be Gulf War III.

You do remember all the no fly and please let us in to inspect resolutions that took place over a decade don't you? Resolutions that took place while Kurdish men, women, children and others who helped us in Gulf War I were slaughtered. Supose none of their blood is on our hands tho because we didn't have the stomach to finish our job over there. If we leave now I wonder whose blood will be on our hands :001_huh: but hey get out no matter the cost. Hmmmm does anyone remember the Cambodian killing fields?

[Elaine]

from a man who has personally made and will make BILLIONS on this war?

How about something a little more sensitive to those who have lost loved ones in this war?

How about something with a little more humility from an elected official?

How about something that actually acknowledges that five years later, we're bogged down in a conflict that even the top military officials (and those who keep "retiring") say is a quagmire, and that the REAL threat, Bin Laden, is still at large while the vast minority of our troops are committed to Afghanistan and the efforts to actually FIND him?

Sorry, I just get very worked up about this. And when MY elected officials brush off public opinion about an issue that's costing US TRILLIONS of dollars with a "so?" it just makes me see red. I know so many of you love those guys, but I just don't see how they sleep at night.

Let the negative reps fly!

Molly, the last thing I am interested in is giving you negative rep. Why? What purpose would that serve? You have your opinion and I have mine. It's all good.

[RebeccaC]

Can you point me to an unbiased, reputable news source (not "world news daily" or whatever that site is, and not Fox News) that paints an optimistic picture? Not being snarky.....I'd really like some good news on this front!

I studied political science as a minor in college and polls can be swung by the way they are worded. I do not remember bring up any news agency at all. While we are at it statistics can be manipulated to the desired out come too. So unless I know the methods used and can crunch the numbers (which I hate doing) stats hold very little weight with me as do polls. Word a poll right and you can get the desired result no matter what your political view is. That is just reality :001_rolleyes: I would imagine that Mr. Chaney knows that polls can be manipulate and so he answered so :D

[astrid]

I fully understand the fallicy of polling. However, in my mind, that does not excuse Mr. Cheney from the snide comment he made, for the reasons I stated above.

Perhaps, as an elected official, people will ask you questions which you deem ridiculous or unworthy of an answer. That does not invalidate the question, nor does it give carte blanche for a dismissive reply. If he'd just left out the "so?" and answered the question, IMHO, it would have been much more befitting the office of Vice President.

[nukeswife]

No this is Gulf War II because they did not let us finish the job after Sadam tried to permanently visit Kuwait in the early 90s and if they don't finish the job this time round in a few years there will be Gulf War III.

You do remember all the no fly and please let us in to inspect resolutions that took place over a decade don't you? Resolutions that took place while Kurdish men, women, children and others who helped us in Gulf War I were slaughtered. Supose none of their blood is on our hands tho because we didn't have the stomach to finish our job over there. If we leave now I wonder whose blood will be on our hands :001_huh: but hey get out no matter the cost. Hmmmm does anyone remember the Cambodian killing fields?

:hurray: Rebecca, you took the words right out of my mouth.

[Gailmegan]

Ok whoever deleted my post, that was just uncalled for. This is getting ridiculous.

Very.

I wondered what happened to it. I thought you might have changed your mind about posting it. Being new here I don't know who has the authority to do such a thing, anyone or only administrators/moderators?

[GothicGyrl]

I just checked and some POSITIVE rep points I recieved tonight are suddenly GONE. They were there twenty minutes ago, and now they're not. Only the negative ones are left, such as the two that say, "Real intelligent." (why thank you!)

What's going on?
you can only see 5 at a time. so they aren't gone, just not showing.

And apparantly the "Mod" deleted that comment as well. Sheesh.

[RebeccaC]

I fully understand the fallicy of polling. However, in my mind, that does not excuse Mr. Cheney from the snide comment he made, for the reasons I stated above.

Perhaps, as an elected official, people will ask you questions which you deem ridiculous or unworthy of an answer. That does not invalidate the question, nor does it give carte blanche for a dismissive reply. If he'd just left out the "so?" and answered the question, IMHO, it would have been much more befitting the office of Vice President.


Ahhh maybe so but a question asked that has no factual base does deserve a so answer. How did the questioner come up with 2/3 number? If the arrival of 2/3 is not based in reality them it is a waste of time to answer and so is very appropriate.

I am sure that the very nice interviewer did not have all the poll questions nor the manner in which the pollster arrived at the 2/3s number so why validate the poll with an answer other than so.....

[pixelroper]

Michael Yon: Gates of Fire (http://67.192.120.151/index.php)

has anyone seen this *content warning* good coverage from on the ground in Iraq-

and polls- I've seen so many poll questions that do not mean what they at first seem to mean:tongue_smilie:- except of course this poll:D

[astrid]

Because you're expected to answer to the American people who elected you? Because it's no secret that a large segment of the population is, in fact, not in support of this war, no matter what the actual polling percentage?

I'm sorry.....IMHO, "So?" is not an acceptable answer. As I said, skip the "So?" (it's snarky) and just go on with the spiel/schpeil/shpeil? OH HOW THE HECK DO YOU SPELL THAT?! :001_smile:

[Mrs Mungo]

Umm this Rebecca didn't write that :001_smile:

I apologize for any confusion! Err..yeah...not going back through the whole thread, sorry. eta: I did edit my post and took your name out!

molly's mom-Did you read any of my post at all? and it's spiel (while I'm editing) ;)

[pixelroper]

Ahhh maybe so but a question asked that has no factual base does deserve a so answer. How did the questioner come up with 2/3 number? If the arrival of 2/3 is not based in reality them it is a waste of time to answer and so is very appropriate.


could be...
the 2/3 is 2/3s of 10, 20, 1000? what? IME whether or not a person will take a poll can be an indication of their leanings and where was the poll offered? So it can be misleading to say 2/3's of this poll answered this way therefore that correlates to 2/3 of the US voting population. Kinda messy.

[astrid]

now the positive is gone. What's that all about? :001_huh:

[GothicGyrl]

now the positive is gone. What's that all about? :001_huh:
Dunno about that, they can remove the reps, that much I do know, so maybe a mod removed it for some reason?

:( Sorry..

[astrid]

could be...
the 2/3 is 2/3s of 10, 20, 1000? what? IME whether or not a person will take a poll can be an indication of their leanings and where was the poll offered? So it can be misleading to say 2/3's of this poll answered this way therefore that correlates to 2/3 of the US voting population. Kinda messy.

I'm not talking now, nor have I been, about the actual poll numbers or how it was generated. I'm talking about Cheney's flip answer. But I"m tiring of beating my head against a wall.

[RebeccaC]

Because you're expected to answer to the American people who elected you? Because it's no secret that a large segment of the population is, in fact, not in support of this war, no matter what the actual polling percentage?

I'm sorry.....IMHO, "So?" is not an acceptable answer. As I said, skip the "So?" (it's snarky) and just go on with the spiel/schpeil/shpeil? OH HOW THE HECK DO YOU SPELL THAT?! :001_smile:


But it was not the American people asking the question it was a reporter or .... who was asking a question based on number that could not be verified. Therefore it was a stupid question and the reporter should have done a better job. It does not matter that a large segment of the population is not in favor (in your opinion) because the question as you wrote it was based on a poll number that could not be verified in the amount of time it took to answer the question. A reporter trying to trip up the Vice President of the United States using a poll numbers that he or she knew could not be verified is the snarky one :rolleyes:

[pixelroper]

I'm not talking now, nor have I been, about the actual poll numbers or how it was generated. I'm talking about Cheney's flip answer. But I"m tiring of beating my head against a wall.

it may in fact have been why he was flip- Cheney is a pawn (higher ranked of course: bishop maybe?) like the rest of them and it would sounded just as bad had he said, "Let me verify that poll result before I answer please." or "I'm not sure what poll you are referring to, let me get back to you." Hopefully he has more important things to do- wait- I know what you are going to say- and yes if he is responsible (to a point-he is the VP not the P) for addressing these matters he can address issues such as these in the appropriate forum, like a speech.

[astrid]

It does not matter that a large segment of the population is not in favor (in your opinion)

No, I'm pretty sure that no matter what poll you look at, it's an unpopular war now. I'm not the only one with this opinion....I think even Rush Limbaugh wouldn't claim it's a popular war. But I don't listen to him, so what do I know? :D

A reporter trying to trip up the Vice President of the United States using a poll numbers that he or she knew could not be verified is the snarky one :rolleyes:

All the more reason for the VP to behave in a bit more dignified manner. Rise above, as it were. Why lower himself, if he was so sure it was a "stupid question?" Sorry, I don't buy the "Well, he can answer however he wants because it was a stupid question" argument.

[pixelroper]

we have the system we do b/c "the masses" can get swept up in emotion and one should never make major decisions in that state of mind? I think that might be what Rebecca is trying to say. As I stated much earlier we don't have the *top secret* documents before us. Our opinions are largely formed by where our info comes from. Right? I can say with certainty I have no first hand experience and all my info is second hand.

[RebeccaC]

No, I'm pretty sure that no matter what poll you look at, it's an unpopular war now. I'm not the only one with this opinion....I think even Rush Limbaugh wouldn't claim it's a popular war. But I don't listen to him, so what do I know? :D



All the more reason for the VP to behave in a bit more dignified manner. Rise above, as it were. Why lower himself, if he was so sure it was a "stupid question?" Sorry, I don't buy the "Well, he can answer however he wants because it was a stupid question" argument.

I have no idea how old you are but I remember Nam and I do not see the numbers of Americans protesting this war like they did Nam. My dad was a college prof during quite a bit of that time in CA and none of the meager protests happening now compare to then. I have seen polls where there are more folks in favor of winning than those in favor of cutting and running. Polls can and do say anything and just because liberal media reports that most Americans are against the war does not make it so :001_huh: Just so ya know I don't listen to talk radio and am no fan of Rush Limaugh and watch very little TV news. Mostly cause I know all parties involved slant the news, polls, stats, questions, ect........

Just how is one to rise above a loaded question that may or may not be based on fact?

[Mrs Mungo]

we have the system we do b/c "the masses" can get swept up in emotion and one should never make major decisions in that state of mind? I think that might be what Rebecca is trying to say. As I stated much earlier we don't have the *top secret* documents before us. Our opinions are largely formed by where our info comes from. Right? I can say with certainty I have no first hand experience and all my info is second hand.

Oddly, (or not) most of the people I know with first hand information don't even vote. Many of them have told me: "why would you play a game in which the outcome is already decided?"

[Mrs Mungo]

I have no idea how old you are but I remember Nam and I do not see the numbers of Americans protesting this war like they did Nam. My dad was a college prof during quite a bit of that time in CA and none of the meager protests happening now compare to then. I have seen polls where there are more folks in favor of winning than those in favor of cutting and running. Polls can and do say anything and just because liberal media reports that most Americans are against the war does not make it so :001_huh: Just so ya know I don't listen to talk radio and am no fan of Rush Limaugh and watch very little TV news. Mostly cause I know all parties involved slant the news, polls, stats, questions, ect........

Just how is one to rise above a loaded question that may or may not be based on fact?

Sorry, probably a double post.

I think a *large* part of the difference is the draft v. an all-volunteer military. That's why you don't see as many protests. It doesn't directly affect so many Americans, especially young people.

[readwithem]

What answer could he possibly give. I am sure that no matter what his statement, there would be a backlash.

It does not bother me at all.

And? 2/3? No one polled me. I don't give much weight to those "polls."

:)

[pixelroper]

and oddly (or not)- I'm really not surprised- it is however disheartening

[Mrs Mungo]

and oddly (or not)- I'm really not surprised- it is however disheartening

I agree. I still have hope in the process...not necessarily belief but hope!

[readwithem]

I agree with this WSJ article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120596948337250223.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks


Where do we go from here? Iraq's transition to self-government remains fragile enough that U.S. forces will need to remain there in some numbers for years to come. The two countries will have to strike a long-term U.S.-Iraq military agreement, which would serve the interests of both countries. For Iraq, it would show America's continuing commitment in a rough neighborhood. And for the U.S., it would make the job of containing Iran easier. President Bush can best serve his Presidential successor by leaving enough troops on the ground to give him or her some strategic flexibility.

It is therefore unfortunate, and dangerous, that both Democratic candidates have backed themselves into a corner by endorsing rapid withdrawal from Iraq. In a speech yesterday in North Carolina, Barack Obama called for an almost complete U.S. withdrawal in 16 months. He continues to endorse the illusion that defeat in Iraq will help us prevail in Afghanistan; the opposite is closer to the truth. We will never maintain the support, either at home or abroad, to prevail in Afghanistan if we show we can be driven from the more vital strategic prize of Iraq.

* * *

[RebeccaC]

Sorry, probably a double post.

I think a *large* part of the difference is the draft v. an all-volunteer military. That's why you don't see as many protests. It doesn't directly affect so many Americans, especially young people.


I think you are right but...... :ack2::svengo: I tried to make my post nicer and so I edited it and :crying: you..... you quoted from the meaner post ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

It is therefore unfortunate, and dangerous, that both Democratic candidates have backed themselves into a corner by endorsing rapid withdrawal from Iraq. In a speech yesterday in North Carolina, Barack Obama called for an almost complete U.S. withdrawal in 16 months. He continues to endorse the illusion that defeat in Iraq will help us prevail in Afghanistan; the opposite is closer to the truth. We will never maintain the support, either at home or abroad, to prevail in Afghanistan if we show we can be driven from the more vital strategic prize of Iraq.

Sixteen months isn't even feasible, logistically, for a complete withdrawal. I'd like to see who is advising him on military matters.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think you are right but...... :ack2::svengo: I tried to make my post nicer and so I edited it and :crying: you..... you quoted from the meaner post ;)

Sorry! That happens to me all the time! I edited it to reflect your new post. eta: FWIW, I didn't think it was that mean!

I REALLY hate it when I notice glaring typos when someone quotes me. GAH!

[RebeccaC]

Sorry! That happens to me all the time! Want me to edit my reply to reflect your new post? eta: FWIW, I didn't think it was that mean!

Na I 'm on the record that I tried to make it nice although :D I am trying to keep away from assuming and using the you word too much :w00t:

[ArwenA]

I wonder if this has something to do with the way polls are worded and how miss leading they can be. To be honest I seriously doubt that 2/3 of Americans want us to lose this war especially in light of how good it is going right now. He may be less of a petulant 12 yo and more of biased polls prove very little so who cares :w00t:

I don't want to get snarky or rude but there is a difference between being opposed to war and wanting to loose the war. I too doubt that 2/3 of Americans want to loose the war but 2/3 of Americans wanting the war to be over doesn't seem unrealistic.

What do you consider a good war to be? Could you please think for a moment about the innocent Iraqis. I know that some Iraqis have hurt you but certainly not all. Yes, 9/11 was a major tragedy but the entire population of Iraq didn't decided to hijack planes. What would it be like to be mother in Iraq? Each day you would pray that your children were not attacked, that they would grow up and be able to live good lives. Their chance for a good life is much smaller than that of my children or yours.

I don't follow the Iraq war closely but I follow it enough to feel I've made the right choice in not supporting the war.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't want to get snarky or rude but there is a difference between being opposed to war and wanting to loose the war. I too doubt that 2/3 of Americans want to loose the war but 2/3 of Americans wanting the war to be over doesn't seem unrealistic.

What do you consider a good war to be? Could you please think for a moment about the innocent Iraqis. I know that some Iraqis have hurt you but certainly not all. Yes, 9/11 was a major tragedy but the entire population of Iraq didn't decided to hijack planes. What would it be like to be mother in Iraq? Each day you would pray that your children were not attacked, that they would grow up and be able to live good lives. Their chance for a good life is much smaller than that of my children or yours.

Woah. What do you think is going on in Iraq that would be completely solved by the US leaving? I realize it doesn't get a lot of press but you *do* realize it's the US military and/or government rebuilding their infrastructure, hospitals, schools, etc? They protected women, some of whom walked 20 miles or more just to vote. It's even more true for Afghanistan than it is Iraq since Afghanistan had so much less to begin with. Much of the work of the US military is humanitarian in nature. What the US is doing there *now* is *much* more about giving the Iraqis a better life. They aren't razing villages. Every day in Iraq *before* the war you would have had to pray that you weren't arrested by Saddam's guard or thrown out of your house by a corrupt official or many other things. It's not the US killing the civilians by blowing up marketplaces. Many of *those* people aren't Iraqi, either. They are from Yemen and Saudi, they don't have an investment in a better Iraq. I absolutely feel for these people and the situation but it wasn't all caused by the US.

[pixelroper]

What the US is doing there *now* is *much* more about giving the Iraqis a better life. They aren't razing villages. Every day in Iraq *before* the war you would have had to pray that you weren't arrested by Saddam's guard or thrown out of your house by a corrupt official or many other things.

exactly, as I hear it, usually our troops are getting shot at trying to prevent everyday people from getting shot as they try to go about their everyday business which includes improving their country & way of life

where is that US flag waving smiley?

[RebeccaC]

I don't want to get snarky or rude but there is a difference between being opposed to war and wanting to loose the war. I too doubt that 2/3 of Americans want to loose the war but 2/3 of Americans wanting the war to be over doesn't seem unrealistic.

What do you consider a good war to be? Could you please think for a moment about the innocent Iraqis. I know that some Iraqis have hurt you but certainly not all. Yes, 9/11 was a major tragedy but the entire population of Iraq didn't decided to hijack planes. What would it be like to be mother in Iraq? Each day you would pray that your children were not attacked, that they would grow up and be able to live good lives. Their chance for a good life is much smaller than that of my children or yours.

I don't follow the Iraq war closely but I follow it enough to feel I've made the right choice in not supporting the war.


There is no good war but sometimes war is necessary. Anybody who has been to war will tell you it is not good. I am thinking about innocent Iraqis and how they no longer endure r*pe rooms, or the disappearance of loved ones. I am thinking about whole towns of innocent Iraqi Kurds who were gassed by Saddam. I am thinking about the pictures of mothers with babies and young children dead, littering the streets of the town they lived in along with every other living creature in the town. Imagining an Iraqi mother praying that America would keep her promise and provide a safe place for her children and not leave them to the fate of a mass grave like we did after Gulf War I. People who we talked in to help us with the promise that we would protect them that we let down.

The Iraq war has nothing to do with 911. It has to do with Saddam not following international law after Gulf War I. With his breaking the no fly zone and not allowing weapon inspections for more than 10 years. We left Iraq with out finishing our job and thousands of people buried in mass graves in Iraq paid the price. If we cut and run now thousands more will pay the price again. I have enough blood on my hands and so does America we either finish our job or we lose part of our soul and many Iraqis lose their lives.

Just for the record no Iraqi has ever hurt me and I bode no Iraqi ill will. I have no idea where you got that idea at. When I was in Saudi there was not a day, and hour that went by that I did not pray that no innocent Iraqi would die because of what I did. There was not a day or an hour that I did not pray that the war would end soon. I took no pleasure in what I was doing and was very aware of the price being paid by civilian Iraqis and our men and women and the price Saddam extracted from the Kuwaiti people. There is not day in this war that I have not prayed for the Iraqi people along with our men and women and their families who pay a price that really can not be imagined.

I have however choked when I saw photos of the mass graves of people who died because America did not keep her word. Why we got in this war is now a mute point are we willing to cut and run and possibly repeat the killing fields of Cambodia and the mass graves of Iraq again? If so I say shame on us.

[Eliana]

I have a question, not a statement, since I am not well educated in this area. No one has mentioned Al-Qaeda. If we pull out of the mid-east, won't Al-Qaeda once again overrun the area? And since their mission is to kill Americans, the stronger they are the more attacks we will see. Isn't one of our purposes in sending our troops over there to eliminate or at least to minimize their influence?

Al Qaeda wasn't there before - Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda, though that was one of the reasons we were given for the invasion. I think they are far more likely to make inroads in Iraq is US troops stay than if they leave.

The country was stable when we invaded, though there were certainly... uhm.. domestic issues, but I do not see any evidence that there is any way for us to create greater stability there. We can keep military forces there indefinitely to be a very costly band-aid for the harm that was done by the invasion, but we can't heal it... we can only prolong the chaos and the losses for all involved.

It is a heartbreaking situation we have created, and it is hard to accept that all the good will and regret we might have can't enable us to fix what we have broken... and we are spending the lives of the brave young men and women serving there in this futile attempt. Their courage and devotion ... and their trust in our country's leadership deserves better than that.

[Eliana]

I have no idea how old you are but I remember Nam and I do not see the numbers of Americans protesting this war like they did Nam.

I'm not trying to argue the issue itself, but this line made me think about the differences between the social and political climate then versus now.

I think Mrs Mungo made a good point about the differences caused by volunteer army vs drafted army, but I think the differences run far deeper.

There was a belief then that protest could actually change something, a faith in the possibility of transformative change which my generation has never had. My father says he saw that faith and hope die with the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK...

[Eliana]

Ummm sorry but I don't agree that this country is going to pot real quick. This is still the greatest country on the planet! And I have lived abroad both as a college student and serving this country. Traveled abroad quite a bit too and still think this is the best country on the planet :patriot:

You've made me curious! What do you feel makes this the best country?

I know I see some qualities and conditions I feel are amazing and wonderful and which represent the best that our country has to offer to the world, but I also see different, but equally wonderful qualities and conditions in other countries... I have trouble believing that there is one best country.

I do believe that there can be a country which is the best match for a particular person, the best balance of advantages and drawbacks for that person's needs and/or values...

But how does one rate countries? It seems like comparing apples and airplanes...

[You can't hear it, but the above is meant in a friendly, inquiring way...almost a philosophical playing with ideas. I don't want to sound as if I am challenging the validity of your feelings of pride and loyalty!]

[HS in NZ]

I am an American living in a different country. It's nice here. However, I'd love to live in America again but not because it's the best. I just miss a lot of things that I'd prefer that are not here and/or are different.

I'd like to add... living in a different country can give one a different perspective like there ARE other nice places in the world and that the U.S. isn't the best at everything. You also hear what other people think of the U.S. and sadly it's not always nice....

[Peek a Boo]

I am against this war and this administration, and it enrages me that just today, when it was pointed out to Cheney that 2/3 of Americans oppose this war, he replied, "So?"

Like a petulent twelve year old.

i guess that depends on what your definition of the word "so" is.
:snicker:

but as far as whether our military strategy is dependent on a popularity contest? talk about acting like a petulant twelve year old!

The United States Military is NOT to be bandied about by a popularity contest of tug and war.

so: often used to belittle a point under discussion.

ZING.

you're mad cuz he answered the question and the question's intent with ONE WORD. You call it undignified --I call it brevity :) You think it was flippant --I think it was one the best thought out answers I've heard from a politician in years. That little word packs quite a punch. Talk about opening the door for analyzation! But you gotta think above a twelve year old's level to realize there's more to it than "just a petty reply." Call Me Ishmael :)

Lincoln's Gettysberg Address was "flippant" compared to the long drawn out speech that preceded him. yet, like Clinton's "is", it has gone down in the annals of speechdom. {{annals of speechdom? where the heck is that??!!lol}}

in other news-
I'd like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say that his "16 months" timeframe is more like "w/in sixteen months we will have the full details of a plan that will end up withdrawing all forces from Iraq." I'd *like* to, but find it very difficult.

Eliana-- I think it is America's true freedom that i like the most. At least, as true as it used to be :-)
If you can't totally fail, you're not totally free.
How many safety nets are there in other countries? Developing in our own country? That makes a nicely equipped cage w/ plenty of perks and amenities, but that's not *freedom*. Maya can sing, but I want OUT.
Yes, many other countries offer nice amenities, but amenities aren't what i want out of life. At least, not amenities handed to me at someone else's involuntary expense.

[Eliana]

Eliana-- I think it is America's true freedom that i like the most. At least, as true as it used to be :-)
If you can't totally fail, you're not totally free.
How many safety nets are there in other countries? Developing in our own country? That makes a nicely equipped cage w/ plenty of perks and amenities, but that's not *freedom*. Maya can sing, but I want OUT.
Yes, many other countries offer nice amenities, but amenities aren't what i want out of life. At least, not amenities handed to me at someone else's involuntary expense.

One of the things I love most about these boards is the opportunity it gives me to hear points of view so completely different from my own. It makes me so much more aware of the assumptions I am making about how 'we all' must be seeing things... and they are never right!

Thank you, Peek!

Very briefly, because I don't want to debate such a complex topic in this venue: I see the issue of safety nets from a completely different angle - which comes, I think, from my faith's emphasis on communal responsibility to care for all and my deep belief that my resources don't belong to me... okay, skip that, I'm not managing brief at all! Anyway, I see safety nets as something we have an obligation to provide for our fellow citizens (imho, from my faith, a religious, moral, and civic duty.)

How fascinating to think about, though, as an abridgment of liberty to have a safety net provided for you! Again, thank you for sharing that... as always the world is so much bigger, richer, and more complex than I try to make it!

**ETA: Grrr... I can't give you more rep yet! I'll try to remember to come back...

[Peek a Boo]

I am against this war and this administration, and it enrages me that just today, when it was pointed out to Cheney that 2/3 of Americans oppose this war, he replied, "So?"

Like a petulent twelve year old.

wait a sec, I missed an obvious problem here:

Saddam Hussein tortures, rapes, kidnaps, murders, evades sanctions, witholds food and medicine from his people, invades, and makes anyone's top ten worst dictators in the world list {and he's just "a JERK"},

BUT Cheney answers "SO" to a question and you're enraged????

????????????????????????????????????

where's that icon.......


:banghead:

[Peek a Boo]

I see the issue of safety nets from a completely different angle - which comes, I think, from my faith's emphasis on communal responsibility to care for all and my deep belief that my resources don't belong to me... okay, skip that, I'm not managing brief at all! Anyway, I see safety nets as something we have an obligation to provide for our fellow citizens (imho, from my faith, a religious, moral, and civic duty.)

How fascinating to think about, though, as an abridgment of liberty to have a safety net provided for you!

See, now I agree that faith expects ME to help others, but I'm not clear on where faith expects me to take from others by force to provide for others. stealing, coveting, all wrapped in "civic duty." Where does it end??

I'm all for voluntary programs, but the very definition of liberty involves *choice*. And as you mentioned, this IS a very extensive topic that really deserves its own thread. For the sake of saving everyone a lot of back and forth discussion, I tend to hearken to a more Ayn Rand capitalistic form of gvt.

[Colleen]

Whew! I've just read through the entire thread (as of late Wednesday night/early Thursday morning) and am grateful for the thoughtful discussion that's taken place. I know everyone may not consider the war in Iraq appropriate subject matter for this board, but I believe conversing about the "hard" issues alongside the many light-hearted topics is worth our while. I also want to assure you that it was not my intent to merely "hit and run", e.g. post the poll and allow others to engage without honestly expressing my own opinion. After posting the poll, I was away from home all day. I checked in a couple of times from the library to see the poll figures but was not able to formulate a thoughtful reply.

I'm not sure I'm able, even now, to formulate a thoughtful reply. I did cast my vote for "Get out yesterday". I felt that best represented my position as I did not support our intervention from the onset. But the reality is that we did get involved, we are involved, we weren't out yesterday, nor will we be out tomorrow or the next day or next year. I asbolutely understand the position of those who feel we have a commitment to finish what we started. I do feel an idealistic sense of responsibility in that regard. But what we started is so complex, how we started it is not justifiable, and any semblance of a "finish" so unattainable (imo) that the notion of "finishing what we started" is, for me, pie in the sky.

On the other hand, as I said, the reality is that it's not simply a matter of packing our bags and leaving on a jet plane. But I want to see an increased drawdown (hmm...bit of an oxymoron there...); no question, I want to see us exit the arena militarily. The insightful documentary No End in Sight underscores the tension between political ideology and military & diplomatic expertise that has permeated this so-called war.

Thank you again for the brain food!

[Virginia Dawn]

I really, really, really am bothered by the idea that the Iraqi's don't desire to live in a free country. Now, obviously, it won't be a replica of the good old U.S. of A. but a country where you aren't killed for disagreeing with the leadership, or for being of a certain ethnic/religious background. Are Iraqis less human than we are? Is it an Arabic trait to desire living under a dictator? We throw it around that they aren't "ready" for freedom.....well, how do you get ready? How long did it take America to live together as a nation? We've always refered to the Civil War as when America really had to grow up. That was 90 years after the start of our nation. We expect them to have a perfectly organized nation in 5 years?



*Of course they want to be free. Free to do things *their way.* Their concept of freedom is different than ours. We have a self-created government. They are being "guided" by forces outside their control.

* How do you get ready for freedom? The educated class of your society concieves it, preaches it, encourages it, and finances it. That is what happened here.

*As for Civil War, history has shown that without outside intervention, most civil wars last approximately 10 years. With outside intervention, a civil war is only postponed until the intruders leave, then it is continued for about the same time frame. Remember, we did not have representatives of another nation in our country after the Civil War telling us how to get along with each other. We had to work it out for ourselves. And yes it took time. How would we have reacted if another nation who thought they knew better came here and tried to teach us how to get along?

*We did not go to Iraq originally to "Free Iraq." We went in to "guarantee our own freedom from terror." There are countries now where conditions are just as bad, or worse, than those in Iraq under Saddam. Why are we not freeing them too?

[Dot]

I'm sorry, Dayle, but I think you're incorrect if you're talking about giving Iraqis freedom of education. People seem to think this was an ignorant, backwards country. During the Baathist regime in the 90's, education was at an all time high, I think the best in the region. For both sexes. Literacy rates were very high. A lot of education progress was being made, despite the political problems. Women held professional jobs, were allowed to be out alone, and could choose to be uncovered without the hassling that is happening now. I think Afghanistan's a different story.
Also, I think women were allowed to vote in Iraq previously, in as much as men's votes "counted" .

[Elaine]

i guess that depends on what your definition of the word "so" is.
:snicker:

but as far as whether our military strategy is dependent on a popularity contest? talk about acting like a petulant twelve year old!

The United States Military is NOT to be bandied about by a popularity contest of tug and war.

so: often used to belittle a point under discussion.

ZING.

you're mad cuz he answered the question and the question's intent with ONE WORD. You call it undignified --I call it brevity :) You think it was flippant --I think it was one the best thought out answers I've heard from a politician in years. That little word packs quite a punch. Talk about opening the door for analyzation! But you gotta think above a twelve year old's level to realize there's more to it than "just a petty reply." Call Me Ishmael :)



:lol: At the "is" sentence!

:iagree:

[TXMomof4]

Michael Yon: Gates of Fire (http://67.192.120.151/index.php)

has anyone seen this *content warning* good coverage from on the ground in Iraq-

and polls- I've seen so many poll questions that do not mean what they at first seem to mean:tongue_smilie:- except of course this poll:D


This is the best website. He was embedded with my brother's unit in 2005. Amazing coverage. Scary, but at least I felt like I was getting a true picture of the situation.

[TXMomof4]

*Of course they want to be free. Free to do things *their way.* Their concept of freedom is different than ours. We have a self-created government. They are being "guided" by forces outside their control.



If you look at the government that is being put in place, it isn't a copy of an American government. Look at the text of the Iraqi Constitution. The similarities are there, but there are glaring differences also. It is a religious government. Islam is the official religion of the government. Do you think that would fly in America? If we want it to be just like America, they should not be allowed to impose their religious beliefs through the law of the land. But they are doing just that. Is that wrong? I don't think so. It is their country. I know our model of government isn't perfect, but it works relatively well. I can't think of another framework that they could build on that would work better.


There is also the point that again, we are referring to these Iraqis as something different than us. Yes, they have different history, culture, lifestyle. But saying they are 'different' than us, they don't want freedom like we have (had), is demeaning and belittling to them. I will grant that their idea of freedom may not be as far reaching as ours simply because they haven't experienced it. But that they don't have the desire for that freedom, and that they can't live with freedom because they haven't experienced it is absurd. Right now, their freedom may equate being able to worship as a Shiite, Sunni, or Kurd without fear of persecution. Tomorrow, it may be the freedom to be educated equally, regardless of ethic background or gender. It will grow with their experiences. I don't believe we are 'forcing' our experiences on them. Just giving them the opportunity for their own experiences.

There are so many different aspects to this war, political, humanitarian, mercenary that there will never be an answer for all aspects of it. But again, the facts remain that we are there, we have created a situation that will only erode if we pull back immediately, we have a responsibility to do leave something better than we left it.

[Tutor]

I'm not trying to argue the issue itself, but this line made me think about the differences between the social and political climate then versus now.

I think Mrs Mungo made a good point about the differences caused by volunteer army vs drafted army, but I think the differences run far deeper.

There was a belief then that protest could actually change something, a faith in the possibility of transformative change which my generation has never had. My father says he saw that faith and hope die with the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK...

I think there is also a general "why bother" attitude and apathy. Also, with the internet, people who want to "get something off their chest" post to a message board or blog and feel better. Very little sits and stews long enough to compel them into action. I have to continually remind myself that venting here and to dh (you all are so patient with me :D) does not count as doing something and being involved. :001_smile:

[shell in SC]

I got home from work last night and DH best friend called. . .he's in the military. Been to Iraq twice now. Well guess what. . .he just found out that he's going AGAIN!!!!!! This really stinks! I love this guy like a brother and I am very sad today b/c of this! I won't step onto my soapbox, cause that wasn't the original intent of this thread and besides, I didn't sleep much last night thinking about this so I"m to tired to expend the energy. Just pray that God will protect him over there and that he comes home safe to us.

Thanks!
shell

[ArwenA]

I don't want to get snarky or rude but there is a difference between being opposed to war and wanting to loose the war. I too doubt that 2/3 of Americans want to loose the war but 2/3 of Americans wanting the war to be over doesn't seem unrealistic.

What do you consider a good war to be? Could you please think for a moment about the innocent Iraqis. I know that some Iraqis have hurt you but certainly not all. Yes, 9/11 was a major tragedy but the entire population of Iraq didn't decided to hijack planes. What would it be like to be mother in Iraq? Each day you would pray that your children were not attacked, that they would grow up and be able to live good lives. Their chance for a good life is much smaller than that of my children or yours.

I don't follow the Iraq war closely but I follow it enough to feel I've made the right choice in not supporting the war.


AHHHHH!!!
Okay, I need to clarify this. I did not write this!! I have a feeling it was my 15yo nephew who is here for Easter. He can get very annoyed, emotional and out of control. He also has a tendency to pretend to be other people, hence being me. Is there a screaming smilie I can use?

I did write the first part about opposing war vs. wanting to loose the war. Then, got distracted getting kids ready for bed. I forgot about it all until now and I see the above. Urgh.

I sincerely hope none of you we're offended by him. I'm sure he did not mean to hurt anyone, he just has a few disabilities.

My apologies, I will not leave the computer without finishing posting from now on.

[Antonia]

well, as far as I'm concerned, I don't feel strongly either way -- whether we stay there another "100 years" like McCain wants or never went in.

I would think you *would* care, Peek, esp. having boys. I care very much that, if we stay for any length of time whether it's ten years or 100, it is a very real possibility that this country will resort to a draft to provide soldiers for this war. It is already being discussed. I have a 12yo, and I would rather poke his eye out with a stick than have him die for no reason in a region that has never known and probably will never know peace.

[Peek a Boo]

I would think you *would* care, Peek, esp. having boys. I care very much that, if we stay for any length of time whether it's ten years or 100, it is a very real possibility that this country will resort to a draft to provide soldiers for this war. It is already being discussed. I have a 12yo, and I would rather poke his eye out with a stick than have him die for no reason in a region that has never known and probably will never know peace.

I do care very much whether my boys enter a career that includes the purposeful killing of another human being as a job description and training requirement.

Whether we pull out of this war or not doesn't guarantee that my boys will or will not be drafted in 10-20 years. Iraq may be "old news" by then.

So whether our military advisers decide it is best *for the country, in their expertise* to stay a bit longer or get out now doesn't really concern me as much as it does other people.

I take great comfort in the fact that no matter what my boys are drafted to do, they have the gift of peace in Christ and can act confidently either to refuse an order they feel to be unGodly or to act w/in their understanding of Right and seek shelter in the Lord.

And I find it very very untrue that people "die for nothing" --too often the reasons are simply unknown to us at the time. Or because it doesn't affect *us* directly that it didn't mean anything to someone else. :)

[Peek a Boo]

...DH best friend called. . .he's in the military. Been to Iraq twice now. ... . .he just found out that he's going AGAIN!!!!!! This really stinks! I love this guy like a brother and I am very sad today b/c of this! I....Just pray that God will protect him over there and that he comes home safe to us.

as I mentioned previously, my own li'l bro has been to Afg. once and Iraq twice. He will be a Marine Corps officer shortly, and he expects [and wants] to go again. prayers all around :-)

[Colleen]

He's looking forward to it. Such is the nature of some young guys, I suppose.

[Eliana]

I take great comfort in the fact that no matter what my boys are drafted to do, they have the gift of peace in Christ and can act confidently either to refuse an order they feel to be unGodly or to act w/in their understanding of Right and seek shelter in the Lord.


I'm separating this from its context (I might have the day off for Purim prep, but I don't want to spend it on heartbreaking politics!), to say :iagree:

We cannot know what the future will hold for our sons in this matter, and I too hope to give mine the strong moral compass which will enable him to respond to any of these issues with confidence and integrity - whatever that might mean for him. (I also want him to know that he will have our love and support, even if his answer isn't the one we'd want him to make, or the one we'd make ourselves. )


And I find it very very untrue that people "die for nothing" --too often the reasons are simply unknown to us at the time. Or because it doesn't affect *us* directly that it didn't mean anything to someone else. :)

I'm uncomfortable with this, but I'm not quite sure why. I agree that nothing happens in vain, but Hitler, to take an extreme example, threw away millions of lives in the gas chambers. There have been, and, G-d help us all, will continue to be, pointless, wasteful military conflicts... ones which serve no valuable purpose either now or later, to 'us' or anyone else....

I know I said I didn't want to go here, but...

When soldiers die in military conflict sometimes they are dying for a specific 'cause' - to defend their homes, to avenge a wrong (real or perceived), to put their leader in power, etc; but more often they are dying for a more abstract cause. They are dying 'for their country' in a more general sense. They signed up to serve with a trust in their government and military leaders that when they were given an order it was for the benefit of the country, and, even if it ended up not being, that when they followed it with faith they were preserving a system and a structure which would benefit their country in the bigger picture.

I believe very strongly that we should 'spend' their lives -and their trust - very carefully indeed. ...and that those who are giving this service and trust are owed an honest explanation of what they are dying for... and to be valued enough that if it is realized that the objectives were false or invalid that pride will not prevent pulling them out.

(The Israeli occupation of Lebanon comes to mind - a senseless, costly, lengthy enterprise begun with the best of intentions... It took courage, integrity, and vision to act of the fact that it was a hopeless situation, that there would be no resolution while the army remained, and that lives were being wasted to save face and/or to try to meet unrealistic/impossible goals.)

I like the way your comments make me think, Peek! It eats away at my free time, but it broadens my view of the world. :001_smile:

[Peek a Boo]

I'm uncomfortable with this, but I'm not quite sure why. I agree that nothing happens in vain, but Hitler, to take an extreme example, threw away millions of lives in the gas chambers. There have been, and, G-d help us all, will continue to be, pointless, wasteful military conflicts... ones which serve no valuable purpose either now or later, to 'us' or anyone else....

and that's just it --I'm not saying that the deaths aren't tragic, but I *refuse* to see NO benefit in another's death: their death should at least be as meaningful as their lives, and if it isn't, we should make it so.

whether that death results in these deeper discussions of 'why did these people die" or "should those other people have died" --just the discussion alone is a valuable *purpose*.

There is a lot to learn from death.
Horror. Purpose. Causes. Salvation. Survival. Love. Grief.

but to write off a death as "meaningless" makes ME uncomfortable.

look at what you just stated was learned by the hopeless Israeli occupation of Lebanon! those deaths may have been awful, but they sure weren't meaningless.

It doesn't mean a death was "right" --only that it can, does, and should absolutely serve a meaningful purpose to someone, at sometime, whether we realize it or not.

"I believe very strongly that we should 'spend' their lives -and their trust - very carefully indeed."

I would not hand my hard earned money over to some investor who only studied some financial investing part time and had no track record of investing success. That would be stupid.

I wouldn't invest my money in a place 'just because' 2/3 of the city was doing it. That would be stupid.

i wouldn't send my kids to an institution just because a HUGE majority of the public sector is doing it. That would be stupid.

I would consider it absolute stupidity to hand the lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers over to someone[s] who simply do NOT have the extensive knowledge in dealing w/ the many variables at play in a war.

That would be "spending" their lives very carelessly indeed.

They deserve the knowledge that people w/ decades of military experience, strategy, and history have.

They Deserve knowing that their leaders will not waffle just because "most" of the citizenry disagrees w/ the plan.

They DESERVE to not be the target of a popularity contest. their lives are worth MUCH more than that.

Again: The United States Military is NOT to be pulled back and forth based on a popularity contest. Their lives deserve the expert and varied counsel of people who are in the trenches w/ this every day. When those people decide it is best for our soldiers to pull out. So be it. If those experts decide that pulling out will cost soldiers a lot, then they can stay. Do experts make mistakes? You betcha. But I'd rather those mistakes be on the hands of the leaders than the unaccountable American public.

No matter how much we read on the internet, or how many things we choose to assume, there's always more to the story.

have a great weekend Eliana :-)

[Eliana]

and that's just it --I'm not saying that the deaths aren't tragic, but I *refuse* to see NO benefit in another's death: their death should at least be as meaningful as their lives, and if it isn't, we should make it so.

Yes. Absolutely, yes! I don't think that lessens the culpability of the leaders who mis-spent those lives, but, you are right, their deaths should not be wasted... even if the conflict they died in was pointless, that doesn't mean their deaths were.

My discomfort was, I think, with a possible reading of your words which is clearly (from what you have said since) not what you intended.


"I believe very strongly that we should 'spend' their lives -and their trust - very carefully indeed."

I would consider it absolute stupidity to hand the lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers over to someone[s] who simply do NOT have the extensive knowledge in dealing w/ the many variables at play in a war.

That would be "spending" their lives very carelessly indeed.

<snip>

They Deserve knowing that their leaders will not waffle just because "most" of the citizenry disagrees w/ the plan.

They DESERVE to not be the target of a popularity contest. their lives are worth MUCH more than that.



You've made two very interesting points here. One I completely disagree with (if I am reading you correctly!), the other I am right with you on...

If in your first point you're alluding to a choice of president, then I disagree with you... (if you are talking about choices for the direct control of a military operation, then we are in agreement) I think there are too many essential issues involved in leading our country to have it be feasible to have a president with decent experience in each of them... I also believe that a Presidential candidate with the character qualities which make a good leader and a person of vision and integrity does not need to be an expert, but does need to be someone who can both recruit good people to key positions (and give them the leadership and vision to get them giving their best) and who has the integrity and the humility to learn from those experts... even if it means giving up a goal s/he might hold dear.

Re your second point - *yes!* Leaders should lead... waffling is inexcusable. But, there are times when leaders make mistakes, and they should be prepared to acknowledge that and to change course (and make amends). I think that leaders should pay attention to the will of the people, but that doesn't mean changing course with every shift in the political currents...


have a great weekend Eliana :-)

You too, Peek! The kiddos are putting the goodies into the baskets, they've bathed, our costumes are all laid out... and *this* year I actually know where our groggers are!! Yummy stuff is in process for the festive meals (and for Shabbos!)... I just have to make sure we have enough copies of Megillas Esther to bring with us to shul tonight, in case they are all snagged when we get there! :hurray:

I'll pretend these little guys are all wearing masks instead of sunglasses and call in a Purim icon! :)
:party:

[Antonia]

So whether our military advisers decide it is best *for the country, in their expertise* to stay a bit longer or get out now doesn't really concern me as much as it does other people.

I take great comfort in the fact that no matter what my boys are drafted to do, they have the gift of peace in Christ and can act confidently either to refuse an order they feel to be unGodly or to act w/in their understanding of Right and seek shelter in the Lord.

And I find it very very untrue that people "die for nothing" --too often the reasons are simply unknown to us at the time. Or because it doesn't affect *us* directly that it didn't mean anything to someone else. :)

You have a lot more faith in our [military] leaders than I. I don't believe for a moment that the reason we are there is as noble as winning a people's freedom. Maybe then I'd say the dying would be for something. As it is, I think it has more to do with an old grudge and the determination to control the region and its resources (read OIL). That, for me, equals dying for nothing. I'm glad you have a source of such great comfort, though. For me, there would be NO comfort in knowing my beautiful son had been blown to bits in some roadside bombing, or had his head hacked off by a rusty blade and his body dragged through the streets. Nothing, I repeat, *nothing* is worth that.

[RebeccaC]

I'm not trying to argue the issue itself, but this line made me think about the differences between the social and political climate then versus now.

I think Mrs Mungo made a good point about the differences caused by volunteer army vs drafted army, but I think the differences run far deeper.

There was a belief then that protest could actually change something, a faith in the possibility of transformative change which my generation has never had. My father says he saw that faith and hope die with the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK...


Well I remember when Mlk and Rfk died :001_huh: ewwe I am getting old and vaguely remember JFK dying. This is what I saw at the time and that was MLK carried a mantel..... anointing.... that neither JFK or RFK carried. JFk and RFK carried a mantel similar to what Obama now carries but what MLK had was light years above that. I think the reason King stood above was that he had a life style of prayer and fasting that allowed him to go above politics and into things like forgiveness and loving your enemy. I was incredibly by King and my folks followed all of the above they were forward thinking and took us through Watts about a year after the riots as an object lesson. The year King and RFK died was a year that despair hung heavy in the atmosphere and I felt it as a kid. It cause immense fear in my life and drew me to G-d. I began to dwell as a child in the peace of G-d and he was my lifesaver during that time. My mother was pg and had a severe pre-partum depression and spent most of the summer and fall locked in her closet crying it was at that time that I took over the care of my 3 younger siblings, one a year old, and the house. She was not the only adult that fell apart as these men passed. It was not a good time to be a kid with you parents really followed the above men.

What America needs now is a man who carries what MLK carried. The opposition to this war is really about what happened in the 2000 election. There was the perception that the election was stolen and bitterness took root and went deep dividing a this country. A deep hatred of Bush began to grow and take root. Now Just for the record this is what I see sense. If there had not been the bitterness from the election and the Democrats decision to use that bitterness to shore up their power I doubt that the opposition would be so great. At this point most liberal can not follow even simple logic when it comes to the war. They have bought the spin from those who seek power through bitterness.

Now what scares the living daylights out of me is that the man who is the knight in shining amour for the Democrats is a man with similar charisma of hope of JFK and RFK but who is rooted not in the value of forgiveness that MLK preach and lived but in but in the values of Black bitterness. If any man had the right to be bitter it was King who tasted the fists and physical beatings of racism yet he fasted to forgive. If such a man came on the political horizon I would not care what party he was with I would follow.

[RebeccaC]

You've made me curious! What do you feel makes this the best country?

I know I see some qualities and conditions I feel are amazing and wonderful and which represent the best that our country has to offer to the world, but I also see different, but equally wonderful qualities and conditions in other countries... I have trouble believing that there is one best country.

I do believe that there can be a country which is the best match for a particular person, the best balance of advantages and drawbacks for that person's needs and/or values...

But how does one rate countries? It seems like comparing apples and airplanes...

[You can't hear it, but the above is meant in a friendly, inquiring way...almost a philosophical playing with ideas. I don't want to sound as if I am challenging the validity of your feelings of pride and loyalty!]


Well first the only other place where I would live other than the US as a citizen would be Israel. That is because that is the one place you can feel what my mil called the Holiness of G-d but what I sensed as not the Holiness but the actual presence of the Most High. If I had my choice I would live in Jerusalem and spend part of everyday praying at the wall for the peace of Jerusalem and the planet. Do you know this passage in scripture, Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. That is the closest I can come to describing the wall. There is no other place on earth like that. Where the presence of G-d is so real, so tangible, so....... filling of the entire atmosphere.

However I am a gentile and a Christian and while I was treated wonderfully when I lived in Jerusalem I did not find a place in society. The Israeli Arabs thought I was a Jew and there is nothing wrong with that :) The Jews thought I was a Jew and there were no Christians other than Orthodox and Catholic there at the time. I was lonelier than I have ever been in my entire life. Before I was done I craved to just be touch by another human.

All that said I look at a place and I sense what is in the atmosphere and I look for the heart of G-d. He of course is everywhere but He does not manifest like he does in Israel. So I ask myself would I be willing to die for the belief system held here? I could for the US as it stands with its Judeo-Christian belief system that allows for freedom and I think I could for Israel because of the place she holds in G-d's heart but I have never found another place where I would be willing to. There are lots of beautiful nice places in the world filled with nice people but is their belief system worth dying for.

So I guess the best place on earth for me is the wall in Jerusalem. The next best place is here. Hope that made sense.

[Mrs Mungo]

You have a lot more faith in our [military] leaders than I. I don't believe for a moment that the reason we are there is as noble as winning a people's freedom. Maybe then I'd say the dying would be for something. As it is, I think it has more to do with an old grudge and the determination to control the region and its resources (read OIL). That, for me, equals dying for nothing. I'm glad you have a source of such great comfort, though. For me, there would be NO comfort in knowing my beautiful son had been blown to bits in some roadside bombing, or had his head hacked off by a rusty blade and his body dragged through the streets. Nothing, I repeat, *nothing* is worth that.

Let's get something clear. The military *does not* decide where we fight or why we fight. Not *ever*. Our elected leaders do that. There have been several documentaries on how the administration repeatedly *ignored* advice from the military and military plans that had been in place for years.

As I said earlier in the thread, in my opinion we're there to give us a battlefield that is not the US. That is not unsuspecting warships in Yemen. That is is not our embassies overseas. That is not our military bases with military families overseas. That is not New York City.

[pixelroper]

it would be interesting if Thomas Sowell ran for office- at least he has an economic background-

[astrid]

Thank you!

:iagree:

[Antonia]

Let's get something clear. The military *does not* decide where we fight or why we fight. Not *ever*. Our elected leaders do that. There have been several documentaries on how the administration repeatedly *ignored* advice from the military and military plans that had been in place for years.



Can't tell if you're agreeing with me or reaming me out:), but that's why I put it in brackets. I was quoting Peek-a-boo, but speaking to the unilateral behavior of our leaders in Washington. I completely agree that the military are pawns in this wargame, whether one believes in the "cause" or not.

[TXMomof4]

Let's get something clear. The military *does not* decide where we fight or why we fight. Not *ever*. Our elected leaders do that. There have been several documentaries on how the administration repeatedly *ignored* advice from the military and military plans that had been in place for years.

As I said earlier in the thread, in my opinion we're there to give us a battlefield that is not the US. That is not unsuspecting warships in Yemen. That is is not our embassies overseas. That is not our military bases with military families overseas. That is not New York City.


I totally agree. And the biggest problem I have is that after the politicians decide to fight, they refuse to get out of the way and let the military do their job. Someone said earlier that they don't think the President needs to be an expert in military matters. I agree. BUT, the politicians, once committed to combat, need to allow the military to finish the job, not yank them back (or talk of yanking them back) the minute their poll numbers drop.

This isn't a situation where we can just change our mind in the middle. We have to finish our job there, i.e. a stable Iraq, or all of this would have been in vain. THAT would be a waste of the last five years.

[Mrs Mungo]

Can't tell if you're agreeing with me or reaming me out:), but that's why I put it in brackets. I was quoting Peek-a-boo, but speaking to the unilateral behavior of our leaders in Washington. I completely agree that the military are pawns in this wargame, whether one believes in the "cause" or not.

Err..neither? LOL.

I hear things often that are inaccurate when it comes to the military. I just want to point out the military doesn't decide when or where we fight, they sometimes don't even get to decide how (Anyone else read Wesley Clark's book? Wow. And that was the Dems.). If it had been something about military spending I would have pointed out that much of that is mandated by Congress. I just try to clear up misconceptions where I see them and the conception some people have that the military makes these decisions is just wrong.

[RebeccaC]

When soldiers die in military conflict sometimes they are dying for a specific 'cause' - to defend their homes, to avenge a wrong (real or perceived), to put their leader in power, etc; but more often they are dying for a more abstract cause. They are dying 'for their country' in a more general sense. They signed up to serve with a trust in their government and military leaders that when they were given an order it was for the benefit of the country, and, even if it ended up not being, that when they followed it with faith they were preserving a system and a structure which would benefit their country in the bigger picture.

This is well written and as close to explaining of why as I have ever read.


I believe very strongly that we should 'spend' their lives -and their trust - very carefully indeed. ...and that those who are giving this service and trust are owed an honest explanation of what they are dying for... and to be valued enough that if it is realized that the objectives were false or invalid that pride will not prevent pulling them out.



This however is tricky due in part to politcal spin. One party wants power so they spin one way twisting words to look false and the other does the same. They are equally guilty. What is needed is a fresh infusion of intergity in the spoken word word and action of politcal leaders and the ability to truely forgive no matter what the party.

[RebeccaC]

I guess the only other thing that I would add to the subject of death and other sacrifices that soldiers make is that not only do their deaths have meaning but that what they sacrifice should not be thrown away. Last year if we had left Iraq because it looked dark we would have in my opinion dishonored every drop of blood spilled and every sacrifice made by our men and women and by the Iraqis fighting with us. Not to mention dishonoring promises we made to the Iraqi people.

[Mrs Mungo]

I guess the only other thing that I would add to the subject of death and other sacrifices that soldiers make is that not only do their deaths have meaning but that what they sacrifice should not be thrown away. Last year if we had left Iraq because it looked dark we would have in my opinion dishonored every drop of blood spilled and every sacrifice made by our men and women and by the Iraqis fighting with us. Not to mention dishonoring promises we made to the Iraqi people

I agree and I think *many* military people feel this way.

[Antonia]

I just try to clear up misconceptions where I see them and the conception some people have that the military makes these decisions is just wrong.

Thanks for clarifying. I hate fighting with people when we're both on the same side! I, too, have family in the military - two cousins in the Navy, another a Marine in the first gulf war, and another an Air Force pilot who flew missions over Baghdad for two tours in this war, so I understand your concern and frustration. I pray constantly that all will come home safe and soon.

[LaMere Academy]

I voted reduce gradually

[Peek a Boo]

If in your first point you're alluding to a choice of president, then I disagree with you... (if you are talking about choices for the direct control of a military operation, then we are in agreement)

No, i am not talking about a single person. That's why i mentioned "people" in my post:

"They deserve the knowledge that people w/ decades of military experience, strategy, and history have."

I'm talking about a variety of experienced people figuring out the best way to accomplish a mission -including the President. Civilian advisors, gvt advisors, and military advisors. they all have experience that will help take hundreds of variables into account.

and you said "But, there are times when leaders make mistakes, and they should be prepared to acknowledge that and to change course (and make amends). "
THAT is where the Big Discussion is: WERE there mistakes made?? Some say no, others say Yes. Just because some people feel that mistakes were made doesn't mean there WERE mistakes made. Just because there might have been SOME mistakes doesn't mean the whole THING was a mistake.

The rightness of a situation is not determined by popular opinion. One person's decision to look at your argument and deem it unsuitable or not convincing enough doesn't mean that you or they are automatically wallowing in wrongness. It's a subjective thing.


Antonia, i don't have much faith in our leaders, but I have more faith in *them* than i do in the "majority of popular opinion."

And yes--as Mrs. Mungo mentioned, the military doesn't decide what to do: they just look at what they are s'posed to accomplish and figure out the best way to DO it. There's a difference between those who advise on military operations and The Military itself :)
I do agree that we should be ready to let the military do their job if we decide to use them. I hear a lot about that from my brother too, lol.

[Laura in VA]

:)

[Mrs Mungo]

and you said "But, there are times when leaders make mistakes, and they should be prepared to acknowledge that and to change course (and make amends). "
THAT is where the Big Discussion is: WERE there mistakes made?? Some say no, others say Yes. Just because some people feel that mistakes were made doesn't mean there WERE mistakes made. Just because there might have been SOME mistakes doesn't mean the whole THING was a mistake.

I agree with this. I'm not sure I think even now that the whole thing was a mistake. Certain decisions (such as breaking up the Iraqi military) were mistakes and led to the spot we're in now.

I do agree that we should be ready to let the military do their job if we decide to use them. I hear a lot about that from my brother too, lol.

I bet! LOL I know how much *I* hear about it. Seriously, people, you should read Wesley Clark's book. It's very dry though, I'm warning you.

[Eliana]

No, i am not talking about a single person. That's why i mentioned "people" in my post:

"They deserve the knowledge that people w/ decades of military experience, strategy, and history have."

I'm talking about a variety of experienced people figuring out the best way to accomplish a mission -including the President. Civilian advisors, gvt advisors, and military advisors. they all have experience that will help take hundreds of variables into account.

and you said "But, there are times when leaders make mistakes, and they should be prepared to acknowledge that and to change course (and make amends). "
THAT is where the Big Discussion is: WERE there mistakes made?? Some say no, others say Yes. Just because some people feel that mistakes were made doesn't mean there WERE mistakes made. Just because there might have been SOME mistakes doesn't mean the whole THING was a mistake.

The rightness of a situation is not determined by popular opinion. One person's decision to look at your argument and deem it unsuitable or not convincing enough doesn't mean that you or they are automatically wallowing in wrongness. It's a subjective thing.



I was trying to speak about/explore the more general issues... in part because any specific discussion gets derailed pretty quickly, or degenerates, if there are unspoken major assumptions about underlying issues - and it is so easy to assume we know what the 'other folks' mean by what they are saying (I've been really, really, wrong half a dozen times so far in this thread :)

So, with your added clarification, I think we are in agreement that the soldiers on the ground "deserve the knowledge that people w/ decades of military experience, strategy, and history have."

And, yes, I am in complete agreement that a perception that mistakes were made doesn't make that perception true, and that "The rightness of a situation is not determined by popular opinion." [However, popular opinion is very relevant in determining if the priorities behind a decision (military or otherwise) reflect the (overall) will of the nation.]

As I said in my original post on this thread, I do believe both that it was horrible mistake and that our ongoing military presence is doing more harm than good... I wish I could connect y'all with my brother, whose wide, deep, insightful knowledge of the region and its history have given me some of my the information which has shaped my opinions. ...clearly we disagree... makes for divided politics and fascinating discussions!

[Eliana]

Well first the only other place where I would live other than the US as a citizen would be Israel. That is because that is the one place you can feel what my mil called the Holiness of G-d but what I sensed as not the Holiness but the actual presence of the Most High. If I had my choice I would live in Jerusalem and spend part of everyday praying at the wall for the peace of Jerusalem and the planet. Do you know this passage in scripture, Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. That is the closest I can come to describing the wall. There is no other place on earth like that. Where the presence of G-d is so real, so tangible, so....... filling of the entire atmosphere.

However I am a gentile and a Christian and while I was treated wonderfully when I lived in Jerusalem I did not find a place in society. The Israeli Arabs thought I was a Jew and there is nothing wrong with that :) The Jews thought I was a Jew and there were no Christians other than Orthodox and Catholic there at the time. I was lonelier than I have ever been in my entire life. Before I was done I craved to just be touch by another human.

All that said I look at a place and I sense what is in the atmosphere and I look for the heart of G-d. He of course is everywhere but He does not manifest like he does in Israel. So I ask myself would I be willing to die for the belief system held here? I could for the US as it stands with its Judeo-Christian belief system that allows for freedom and I think I could for Israel because of the place she holds in G-d's heart but I have never found another place where I would be willing to. There are lots of beautiful nice places in the world filled with nice people but is their belief system worth dying for.

So I guess the best place on earth for me is the wall in Jerusalem. The next best place is here. Hope that made sense.

Oh, Rebecca! How beautifully you've shared your heart here! Thank you!
I enjoy hearing your feelings, and I now have a better context on what you said earlier.

[Colleen]

I mentioned "No End in Sight" in my other post, but I replied so late to my own poll, I'm not sure if anyone read what I had to say. This documentary is worth watching, regardless of your stance on the issue.