# Proud To Be An American



## Elayna (Sep 12, 2006)

This is my thought on what has happened in the years since the 9/11 attacks and how disgusted I am that it has turned into a political forum then a forum for freedom.
The 9/11 anniversary got me thinking alot. And I am ashamed in the way that we have not rememberd our fallen.  And our freedom.  
*****


I support the war.
I know OMG how could I right?  Well, easily.  I mean seriously people how could I not?  I know, I know very cliché with 9/11 being just yesterday, but I figured, hey now is as good a time as any right?

For those of you who dont support the war I ask you, why? Because it was a plot by our own government, to get into Iraq?  So that Bush jr. could do what daddy dearest wasnt able to?  Well that sure is a conspiracy theory if I ever did hear one.   I mean in all honesty people if you want to go that angel I say this.   What if
It was a conspiracy to make you believe it was a conspiracy in the first place?  Maybe, the truth is that the Muslim terrorists really did fly those planes into the trade towers.  Maybe, the truth is that our government didnt have a year or more warning.  Maybe certain people, saying, they had warning is only a ploy to get you to hate Bush and the U.S.?  
OMG!!
Where does it all end?  I mean you werent there.  I wasnt there.  Im not the government; youre not the government. Or are you??   So how do we really know?  The reports could be doctored. The news could be doctored. So what facts do we really have to go on?
Well for me, my eyes.  I saw the images that day.  Ive seen what the terrorist Muslims have done in the past to others. To their own people.  Thats the facts I go by.   
I go by one statement they keep saying over and over, in their own media and in ours.
DEATH TO AMERICA.

People wake up.  If that isnt proof enough for you, nothing ever will be.
And just to let you all know a truth.
They arent saying death to bush. They arent saying death to gore. They arent saying death to anyone specific.  They are saying death to you. To me. To an unborn American child.  To any American on this continent, on any continent.
We didnt provoke them.  The terrorist and most of the people over in the Middle East have hated the United States for a very long time.  And to want to kill every single infidel over it is not right. It is not nice. It is not kind.  It is not Godly.   And just because you think America is wrong, and just because you think we should just leave them alone wont stop them from killing you.  The only thing that will stop them from killing you is 2 things.  If you completely 100 percent give your soul, your freedom, everything to them.  Or you kill them first. 
Read their media. Their own news stations. I dont speak their language, but translated I can do.  And I know body language. That is a universal language.
Im not saying to go and kill every Middle Easterner or Muslim. That would be wrong.  Because not all of them agree with the ones who hurt others and who say those things about America.  But I say, for those who wish death to America, I would rather bring the fight to them then let them bring it to my doorstep. To my son. To my family and to my nation.

We need to stand up proud together as Americans.  United.  Because if we dont, the attacks on 9/11 will have succeeded. They didnt crash those planes into those buildings just to get rid of the building. No, they did it to get rid of the idea. The dream. The hope.  And they are succeeding.
They are turning us against each other.  The only way to kill the U.S. is from within.  So many people have said that.   Well guess what, its happening.
So what are you going to do about it?
Dont want to fight, then support the ones who do.  Tell them good things. Write them good letters.  Dont write them letters of how you hate them.  Shame on you if you do!!.
If you dont want to do that then tell your government how you feel in a peaceful way according to the constitution.  Telling our government how we feel has worked in the past very well, it will work again.  But each time we have won a war against those who wish to take freedom is by standing united together, not apart.   
If we wish to win this war we must stand together.  If we let one faction get away with it, all the others will think they can to, and we will loose more innocent lives then there already have been.

Stand Up! Be Proud!  Remember what our forefathers fought for. Remember what the people of Flight 93 fought for!

(Oh and if you dont like the way America is and you cant do anything else but bash it, then Im pretty sure China and Iran would love to have you, because I dont want you as my neighbor.)

My Salute to all the men and women in the armed forces.  YOU GO!!

An American for America
Elayna



P.S.  I 100% believe not every Muslim hates America


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 12, 2006)

Elayna said:


> We didnt provoke them.  The terrorist and most of the people over in the Middle East have hated the United States for a very long time.  And to want to kill every single infidel over it is not right. It is not nice. It is not kind.  It is not Godly.   And just because you think America is wrong, and just because you think we should just leave them alone wont stop them from killing you.



People should look at www.memri.org for some eye opening articles. The Middle East Media Research Institute has been translating a lot of articles from the region for years and it is scary to say the least.

Another thing people that care should do is go to the library and see if they can find an issue of Newsweek that came out shortly after the attacks with "Why They Hate Us" on the cover. I believe it was mainly written by Fareed Zakaria. It is a well written, very informative article that I really can't do justice to, but will try to give an synapsis of. You can probably find it on file in microfilm files. Anyone that cares should take the time.

In short, it says that there are a lot of goverments in the region that are really, really scummy. Much of the stuff they do would gag a maggot. They are not democracies, they control things with an iron fist and they do things that would make even the worst frat boys blush with shame.

When Isreal was born, they realized that there was a bit of discontent and some anti-semitism. They started using Isreal and the west in the same manner as Orwell's goverment in _1984_ used Oceiana- as a means of blaming their woes over and a target for the discontent of the masses. This has been going on for _decades_ and most of the people in that area has been reading the type of stuff you will find on Memri.org all their lives. They have been taught that Jews require the blood of a Muslim for a religious pastry in their school text books and that the US is controlled by a Jewish conspiracy on their TV.

Of course, using the Palestine people as a diversion does not mean that they have treated them very well themselves. The author says that as a Muslim he is shamed that Isreal treats them in a pretty scummy manner, but it the best treatment for them in the region! But as long as the papers are filled with tales of exterior threats, there is less call for them to be decent rulers.

And this is what we have to deal with. We will probably take decades to fix this problem since it has been in the making since before most of us were born. But it is not the muslims themselves that are most of the problem, it is the goverment that has used them like that.

Many times, we will be faced with situations where there are no good choices, only the least bad. Many of the areas from Pakistan to Eygpt are pulling back from open support for Islamic terrorists. American has proven that is will not be stopped by anyone else if they really want to take out the goverment. But after decades of this propaganda, the people waiting in the wings should there be democracy are mainly Islamic lunatics now.

The pressure on the goverments will be a delicate balancing act. Some people have urged us to basically attack the House of Saud. As deserving as they are, we would lose all influence over them outside of an invasion. So we deal with them with nudges instead of the cruise missles they deserve. And in some cases, nudges and such do not work. And that is when we have to use force.

More later.....


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Elayna said:


> This is my thought on what has happened in the years since the 9/11 attacks and how disgusted I am that it has turned into a political forum then a forum for freedom.
> The 9/11 anniversary got me thinking alot. And I am ashamed in the way that we have not rememberd our fallen. And our freedom.
> *****
> 
> ...


 
There is just one tiny little fact that supporters of the current war so conveniently overlook.

The War in Iraq has _nothing_ to do with what happened on September 11, 2001.

That individuals lament about how 9/11 is used as a "political tool" but invoke it to support the current war speakes volumes, in my opinion.

Have a good one.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> People should look at www.memri.org for some eye opening articles. The Middle East Media Research Institute has been translating a lot of articles from the region for years and it is scary to say the least.
> 
> Another thing people that care should do is go to the library and see if they can find an issue of Newsweek that came out shortly after the attacks with "Why They Hate Us" on the cover. I believe it was mainly written by Fareed Zakaria. It is a well written, very informative article that I really can't do justice to, but will try to give an synapsis of. You can probably find it on file in microfilm files. Anyone that cares should take the time.
> 
> ...


 
Don,

Last year, I came across an excellent article authored by Fareed Zakaria in an issue of _Newsweek_ magazine. I will have to apologize in advance for not being able to provide the specific issue number in the context of this discussion.

In the article, Mr. Zakaria provided some rather convincing statistics demonstrating using aggressive force against nations such as Iraq and Iran more often than not does more harm than good (I think the cases where it actually had a positive effect on the countries in question was less than 10% of the time). He argued that it was because the "modernization" and "democratization" of these nations requires empowering the common public and the middle classes of the nations. When you use military force to destroy their infrastructure or use economic sanctions to inhibit their commerce, the unintended effect is that this actually empowers the dictators, military leaders, and warlords of the nations in question. The common citizenry actually lose power when "force" is used against their nation.

He concluded by pointing out that while it feels justified to "do something" in nations where terrible things are happening, more often than not (i.e., over 90% of the time) we are actually doing more harm than good by doing so. The perfect example is post-Gulf War Iraq. Sanctions were imposed on the nation, which gave Saddam Hussein the opportunity to consolidate his power and establish even more control in his country.

Have a good one.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 12, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> There is just one tiny little fact that supporters of the current war so conveniently overlook.
> 
> The War in Iraq has _nothing_ to do with what happened on September 11, 2001.



Iraq did not arm Al-Quaeda for the attacks.

But 9-11 kind of showed the way that some countries shielded and used terrorists as proxies. They claim they are not attacking other countries or giving anything other than "spiritual" support for terrorist orginizations. And the Taliban expected us to not do anything unless we could prove that Osama Bin Laden was in fact guilty of what he did.

9-11 kind of showed us that it is a not a wise idea to play by those rules anymore and to not just sit back while goverments that hate America build ties with terrorists. To not let others attack us and then respond to the attacks.

And that was why the world is better off without Hussein.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 12, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> In the article, Mr. Zakaria provided some rather convincing statistics demonstrating using aggressive force against nations such as Iraq and Iran more often than not does more harm than good (I think the cases where it actually had a positive effect on the countries in question was less than 10% of the time). He argued that it was because the "modernization" and "democratization" of these nations requires empowering the common public and the middle classes of the nations. When you use military force to destroy their infrastructure or use economic sanctions to inhibit their commerce, the unintended effect is that this actually empowers the dictators, military leaders, and warlords of the nations in question. The common citizenry actually lose power when "force" is used against their nation.



In the short term, I agree. But in the long term, I do not think that the scum bags we have to deal with will make any sort of move to clean up the messes they control unless they are sure that talk is not the only thing they might face.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Iraq did not arm Al-Quaeda for the attacks.
> 
> But 9-11 kind of showed the way that some countries shielded and used terrorists as proxies. They claim they are not attacking other countries or giving anything other than "spiritual" support for terrorist orginizations. And the Taliban expected us to not do anything unless we could prove that Osama Bin Laden was in fact guilty of what he did.
> 
> ...


 
I will have to reiterate my point, it seems.

Iraq and Saddam Hussein had _nothing_ to do with 9/11 and _nothing_ to do with Al Queda. 

It was only after our forces invaded, that the infrastructure of the country was utterly demolished, that terrorist groups actually moved in and set up camp in the country. Hussein didn't establish terrorist groups in Iraq. We did, albeit unintentionally.

This just goes back to the point I highlighted in my last post. Namely, that when you demolish the ability of the common citizen, the educated middle class, to thrive in a nation, you are empowering the warlords, dictators, religious zealots, and terrorists in that country (or other countries, in this case).

Arguing the world is better off Hussein in some defense against terrorism is disingenuous, in my opinion, in that Hussein had absolutely no ties to terrorism.

Have a good one.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> In the short term, I agree. But in the long term, I do not think that the scum bags we have to deal with will make any sort of move to clean up the messes they control unless they are sure that talk is not the only thing they might face.


 
Actually, Don, the facts show that just the inverse of what you have proposed is true.

The _short term_ effect of military force and economic sanction is that individuals such as Hussein or organizations such as Hamass are weakened. The _long term _effect is that these actions practically cripple the power of the educated citizenry and middle classes in these nations, thus putting all social and economic power in the hands of the despots.

This is precisely what happened in Iraq in the years following the Gulf War (which would have been worsened if we actually occupied the region as we are doing now). And, it's pretty much what's happening now, too.

Laterz.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 12, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Arguing the world is better off Hussein in some defense against terrorism is disingenuous, in my opinion, in that Hussein had absolutely no ties to terrorism.



Oh? I am sure someone could look up the name, but there was a guy on a wanted list caught living under his protection when Iraq fell.

And then there were those guys who were his personal terrorist cells called the Feyadeen.

And there is always the future and the fact that he was moving more and more towards appeasing Ismlamists and forming ties with them. As well as his great interest in nasty things like Bio warfare, deep pockets and sanctions probably being raised by now due to his friends Russia and China. Who knows what the future would have brought? And are you willing to wait for the types of risk a man like Hussein could bring?

And, with all due respect, we are not yet able to see the long term effects. We are still in the short term when talking about the future of Iraq.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Oh? I am sure someone could look up the name, but there was a guy on a wanted list caught living under his protection when Iraq fell.
> 
> And then there were those guys who were his personal terrorist cells called the Feyadeen.
> 
> And there is always the future and the fact that he was moving more and more towards appeasing Ismlamists and forming ties with them. As well as his great interest in nasty things like Bio warfare, deep pockets and sanctions probably being raised by now due to his friends Russia and China. Who knows what the future would have brought? And are you willing to wait for the types of risk a man like Hussein could bring?


 
I am relatively certain that the individual supposedly "under protection" in Iraq was corroborated to be in Europe at the time. I am unfamiliar with the Feyadeen.

Also, when I say "military force is not the answer" that is not the same thing as "do nothing". However, at this point in history, I would have to conclude that there is little else we can accomplish in Iraq by having a military presence there. We only seem to be making things worse.



Don Roley said:


> And, with all due respect, we are not yet able to see the long term effects. We are still in the short term when talking about the future of Iraq.


 
I wasn't talking about the long term effects of Iraq per se.

What I was referring to were the patterns that have been observed in history when dealing with such nations time and time again. Mr. Zakaria cited the exact statistics in his article.

It is entirely possible that Iraq may be some quasi-magical wild card that goes against what dozens of countries just like it have done. But, I sincerely doubt it. Statistically speaking, there is less than a 10% chance that the war is going to end up making things better in the country.

Laterz.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 12, 2006)

heretic, I will agree with you on a couple of  points. 

Force is not the answer to terrorism.

The answer is overwhelming force.

Many people cite economic reasons for "Islamic" terrorism, but the facts don't support that.  The 19 neo-jihadists that crashed  the planes five years ago were not poor goat farmers from the mountains of Afghanistan, but college educated men from middle class families.

I agree with you on an other point, Iraq was most likely the wrong target to go after.  Iran, who supports the terrorists ideologically and funds them monetarily would be a much more appropriate target.

Just my two cents,

Jeff


----------



## crushing (Sep 12, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Don,
> 
> Last year, I came across an excellent article authored by Fareed Zakaria in an issue of _Newsweek_ magazine. I will have to apologize in advance for not being able to provide the specific issue number in the context of this discussion.
> 
> ...


 
Heretic, I will do some searching for the article you mention because it sounds like an interesting read.  There was an interview this morning on NPR that the person being interview (I don't recall his name, but he worked for Mr. Blair and has become controverial) pretty much agreed with your representation of Mr. Zakaria's article.

It does make sense as Operation Infinite Reach seems to have been one of the major motivating factors leading up to the 9/11 attacks.  Unfortunately, we will never know for sure if the attacks would have happened anyway if the US wasn't so militarily active in the middle East and Africa throughout the 90s.

Speaking of Hussein's power and control.  I was curious as to why it isn't called sectarian violence when one sect has all the power and kills thousands, if not millions, and it's only called sectarian violence when the other sects reply with their own violence?


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> heretic, I will agree with you on a couple of points.
> 
> Force is not the answer to terrorism.
> 
> The answer is overwhelming force.



I think we may be confusing concepts here.

My reply that "force is not the answer" was not in regards to terrorism, but in regards to reforming non-democratic nations throughout the world. I firmly believe you cannot "force" democracy on a people, due to its very nature.

However, terrorists are international criminals, not sovereign nations. They should be apprehended and tried for their crimes, then sentenced accordingly. This requires the use of force, obviously, but not necessarily the unilateral force that many Bush supporters opine.



JeffJ said:


> Many people cite economic reasons for "Islamic" terrorism, but the facts don't support that. The 19 neo-jihadists that crashed the planes five years ago were not poor goat farmers from the mountains of Afghanistan, but college educated men from middle class families.



I think the reasons behind 9/11 are very complex, involving a lot of factors and variables.



JeffJ said:


> I agree with you on an other point, Iraq was most likely the wrong target to go after. Iran, who supports the terrorists ideologically and funds them monetarily would be a much more appropriate target.



Exactly.

Laterz.


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 12, 2006)

September 11 marked the beginning of Jihad. We responded by overthrowing the Taliban. Our next move, knowing that al-Quaeda is a network spanning multiple boarders, was to remove anyone that would support them, present or future. Saddam fit that threat.

As a side effect, this war has drawn in combatants from neighboring countries to Iraq, which is where I personally would rather fight them, instead of my back yard. Of course, the war is not over.

It would not surprise me, nor disappoint me, if Iran and Syria were next.

Oh-- and it was never about oil. 

Peace! :uhyeah:


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> September 11 marked the beginning of Jihad. We responded by overthrowing the Taliban. Our next move, knowing that al-Quaeda is a network spanning multiple boarders, was to remove anyone that would support them, present or future. Saddam fit that threat.


 
Hussein only fits the above categorization if one is dealing in fabricated "facts" and neo-conservative lies.



Monadnock said:


> As a side effect, this war has drawn in combatants from neighboring countries to Iraq, which is where I personally would rather fight them, instead of my back yard. Of course, the war is not over.



Personally, I'd never agreed with the prospect that the role of our men and women in uniform is to collectively act as human shields. But, hey, if you think their lives are disposable....

I should also bring up the additional point that the invasion of Iraq has actually _multiplied_ the number of Al Queda agents and sympathizers in the world. Al Queda had no base of operations in Iraq prior to our military presence, but they most assuredly do now.

Whatever we're doing there right now, it is not stopping terrorism.



Monadnock said:


> It would not surprise me, nor disappoint me, if Iran and Syria were next.



That the prospect of additional war does not "disappoint" one speakes volumes, in my opinion.



Monadnock said:


> Oh-- and it was never about oil.



The War in Iraq is about nothing short of neo-conservative imperialism. 

All of the chief architects of the war were contributing members of the PNAC, an organization which has repeatedly expressed a desire to "militarily reform" Islam and secure America's economic and political interests (including oil) in the Middle East.

Under the PNAC's leadership, our nation is evolving (or is that de-evolving?) into what the British Empire was during the early 20th century. With all due respect, this should scare the living hell out of any rational American citizen.

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> knowing that al-Quaeda is a network spanning multiple boarders, was to remove anyone that would support them, present or future. Saddam fit that threat.


 

This statement is utterly and completely and demonstrably false. 

Saddam Hussein, as a secular leader of a secular nation did not support al-Qaeda in the past, in his present, or in the future. 

The ongoing ignorance on this issue is disheartening. 

Please see the Senate Report issued last week. Please see the 911 Report. Please see any news report from the last seven years.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 12, 2006)

In fact, Hussein and AQ were often at odds.

Jeff


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 12, 2006)

OK, I'll play.



heretic888 said:


> Hussein only fits the above categorization if one is dealing in fabricated "facts" and neo-conservative lies.


 
Au-contraire, mon frere. But I think, as was pointed out earlier, there were al-Quaeda people in Iraq before we went in. By my, and our President's definition, you are either with us, or against us. Nations that harbor terrorists are against us.



heretic888 said:


> Personally, I'd never agreed with the prospect that the role of our men and women in uniform is to collectively act as human shields. But, hey, if you think their lives are disposable....


 
I'll waive my right to respond to further dillution of my original post. But dream on if you must.



heretic888 said:


> I should also bring up the additional point that the invasion of Iraq has actually _multiplied_ the number of Al Queda agents and sympathizers in the world. Al Queda had no base of operations in Iraq prior to our military presence, but they most assuredly do now.


 
Funny, I would have included the multiple calls for holy war as a primary factor. Maybe you missed that one. But as for my prior comment, I'd rather have their base in Iraq, than my back yard. You of course have the right to your own opinion.



heretic888 said:


> Whatever we're doing there right now, it is not stopping terrorism.


 
How do you eat an elephant?



heretic888 said:


> That the prospect of additional war does not "disappoint" one speakes volumes, in my opinion.


 
In a narrow view, I suppose it might.



heretic888 said:


> The War in Iraq is about nothing short of neo-conservative imperialism.
> 
> All of the chief architects of the war were contributing members of the PNAC, an organization which has repeatedly expressed a desire to "militarily reform" Islam and secure America's economic and political interests (including oil) in the Middle East.
> 
> ...


 
And the rest, as they say, is........irrelevent. Circumstantial? Out on a limb?? Conspiracy? Well, I like good drama too, so can't fault ya there.


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 12, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> In fact, Hussein and AQ were often at odds.
> 
> Jeff


 
My wife and I are often at odds....


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 12, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> My wife and I are often at odds....


But is your wife calling your children to violently overthrow you?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> Au-contraire, mon frere. But I think, as was pointed out earlier, there were al-Quaeda people in Iraq before we went in.


 
Please define the pronoun - 'people' - used in your statement above. When you can clearly define what you are saying, it will easily be disproved.

Your continued belief in this falsehood is poison. All the thoughts that follow are fruits from that poison tree, and thus arrived at through error.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 12, 2006)

There were a few AQ people in Iraq.

Most of them were in the northern part.

You know, the part controlled buy the anti Hussein Kurds.

Jeff


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> Au-contraire, mon frere. But I think, as was pointed out earlier, there were al-Quaeda people in Iraq before we went in.



Correction. It was _claimed_ there was an Al Queda _person_ in Iraq before we went in.

And that claim, by the way, has been completely debunked. The individual in question was corroborated to be somewhere in western Europe at the time.



Monadnock said:


> By my, and our President's definition, you are either with us, or against us. Nations that harbor terrorists are against us.



Does that include nations that aren't actually harboring terrorists but our national leaders say they are to create a false rationale for war??



Monadnock said:


> I'll waive my right to respond to further dillution of my original post. But dream on if you must.



I think not. That is _precisely_ the scenario you laid out in your post: that it is acceptable to send our Armed Forces into Iraq so as to fight them "over there", rather than "over here". 

The rationale being that they function essentially as human shields or human distractors to militant terrorists.



Monadnock said:


> Funny, I would have included the multiple calls for holy war as a primary factor. Maybe you missed that one.



Nope, I just don't believe in dumbing down important discussions with platitudes and catch phrases. 



Monadnock said:


> But as for my prior comment, I'd rather have their base in Iraq, than my back yard. You of course have the right to your own opinion.



Correct. I, unlike you it seems, believe the proliferation and growth of Al Aqueda is a _bad_ thing.



Monadnock said:


> How do you eat an elephant?



In other words, you will avoid the issue by invoking an irrelevant non-sequiter. Bravo.



Monadnock said:


> In a narrow view, I suppose it might.



Yes, it is a "narrow view" to suppose that the further loss of military life and expenditure of American finances on yet another foolhardy war is reckless.



Monadnock said:


> And the rest, as they say, is........irrelevent. Circumstantial? Out on a limb?? Conspiracy? Well, I like good drama too, so can't fault ya there.



In other words, you will disregard important information in the discussion by tossing ad hominems and straw men into the mix. Nice.

This is why I hate having conversations with ideologues. They have the "truth" and no matter what all the evidence and facts say, the "truth" is the "truth".

Good grief.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> My wife and I are often at odds....


 
The implication that Hussein and bin Laden were somehow allies or "in bed" with each other (so to speak) is utterly ludicrous in this context.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2006)

In the mountains of the Kurdish area of Iraq - protected under the umbrella of the coalition No Fly Zone - was a training camp for Ansar Al-Islam. 

Ansar al Islam modeled itself after al Qaeda, but it was an independent organization.

Zarqawi did reside and train at Ansar al Islam camps. 

Only after the United States invasion, Zarqawi changed the name of the organization to 'al Qaeda in Iraq' - a very good marketing stragety, that inflated his importance, and served to distract American's from the sectarian violence taking place under our occupation. 

Additionally, the CIA provided credible target information to the Department of Defense and White House prior to the invasion that went unused.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 12, 2006)

Well I see we are all going around in circels like what usually happens in this debate.
I support the war yes.  Do I think violence is always the best way, no. But I do know there are some "kids on the block" who dont listen to their mommies if you know what I mean.  All they know is to stop picking on other kids when they get their butt kicked.  So when neccessary and if peace talks dont work after a given amount of time then I say yes, do what needs to be done.
I dont think it is the Muslim religion that is at fault. Just like we have catholic neo nazis that hate the U.S. and want to control everything and everyone.  Its and Idea people. Not the religion, not the country. The Idea.

And here is my big point to you all.   Screw the war. Screw the government.  Its about us supporting the men and women who are fighting no matter if you agree with them or not.  I dont see you out their risking your life. (and if you are more power to you).    I hear of children writing the men and women of uniform horrible letters because their teachers have told them its the right thing to do.  COME ON PEOPLE.    Shame on you!!
If the war ends fine. If it doesnt fine.  
All I want to see is the U.S. coming together in some form.  Even during the world wars not everyone in the U.S. agreed.  I mean going to war was one of the biggest issues of that time.  But you know what, they came together they supported and the won.  After Pearl Harbor was bombed, they didnt squabble or think hmmm maybe the japanese were in the right.  To this day they dont question...all they know is this...
They killed brothers, sisters, husbands, fathers, sons, and so on.  Shouldnt have done it so now your dead too.
Terrorist cells are not just in one country. So we decided to start in Iraq, big whoopie.  Honestly I see it as the luck of the draw.  We could have started in Iran, or Syria, or China , or whatever.  But thats not the point.
And if you cant get over your own ego to support people who are willing to give their lives shame on you!
Even if you dont support why, say it once, nicely then get over it.  You wont bring them back.  Because the military you join on your own. They werent drafted.  They asked to be there.  
Be an American.  Be Proud. Say BOOOOYAHHHHH.

And yes, I am glad the fight is over there.  I dont want it over here where my child, friends and family could be hurt.  I dont want the fight anywhere honestly, but sometimes you have no choice.
And as I said before, you let one bully get away with it and they will all get away with it.  And we all know of how judges will make an example out of someone who doesnt neccessarily deserve it, well that might be the case here.  I dont think so but its something to think about.

I dont have the fact of 9/11 as far as the report goes.  And honestly I wouldnt even know how much of that is true or how much is written from someone who was paid off, so I go by something I can trust.  My eyes, my feelings and the thoughts and opinions of those I love.  My friends and family.  From my parents and so on.

And you know what, if they wanted to move into Iraq for oil, whatever. As long as someone who had a part in the plane crashes of 9/11 are held responsible.  So what if oil is part of the agenda, Oil is always said to be part of the agenda.  Dont think its true, but oh well.

So boys and girls, i just say to you.  Be an american. Stop bashing america.  If you dont like it, do something to help instead of sitting around complaining.  Dont start a civil war or a bloody riot, but do something.  I mean it is america after all.


----------



## Carol (Sep 12, 2006)

Elayna said:


> So boys and girls, i just say to you. Be an american. Stop bashing america. If you dont like it, do something to help instead of sitting around complaining. Dont start a civil war or a bloody riot, but do something. I mean it is america after all.


 
Can I get an AMEN!

On that happy note, I'm off to be a productive member of society and earn some taxable income.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 12, 2006)

Well here is my two cents the war is a bunch of crap and our government sucks.

With that being said I'm an American and I will stand behind my fellow men and women who are fighting this war.

I will also stand behind our government for they are representing our men and women who fight this battle.

I will end with this America is not about everyone agreeing it is about everyone being Americans.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Terry Lee Stoker


----------



## Ping898 (Sep 12, 2006)

Out of curiousity, when people ask you about your national background, how many poeple say or even think to say they are American?  
My first thought it usually, that I am 1/2 French and 1/2 Polish despite that both sides of my family have been here for many generations.  It usually doesn't occur to me to say until well after the fact, that I am American.


----------



## matt.m (Sep 12, 2006)

Afganistan yes, Iraq no.  I am a medically discharged Sgt. of Marines.  I have unwavering support for those in uniform.  I have one question, just one.

If it has been doctrine since the 80's that if a plane is in illegal airspace and it is heading to a known target where mass destruction can happen then that aircraft is to be shot out of the sky.  Why did this not happen.

Look, I have seen combat on 3 different continents and 1 island.  Sorry, if you never fired a round in anger don't say anything.  I know first hand that what happens in reality and what you and I as a general public are allowed to hear are totally different animals.

Remember Desert Storm/Gulf War part I was fought with the Eisenhower firing its 2 missiles right?  That is all we saw.  Sorry, if you believe it then you are niave.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Elayna said:


> Well I see we are all going around in circels like what usually happens in this debate.
> I support the war yes. Do I think violence is always the best way, no. But I do know there are some "kids on the block" who dont listen to their mommies if you know what I mean. All they know is to stop picking on other kids when they get their butt kicked. So when neccessary and if peace talks dont work after a given amount of time then I say yes, do what needs to be done.
> I dont think it is the Muslim religion that is at fault. Just like we have catholic neo nazis that hate the U.S. and want to control everything and everyone. Its and Idea people. Not the religion, not the country. The Idea.
> 
> ...


 
And therein lays the crux of the matter.

Namely, "supporting the war" is held to be synonymous with "supporting the troops". Inversely, "opposing the war" is held to be synonymous with "bashing America". Both of these are faulty lines of reasoning.

The rationale behind this entire series of argumentation is, quite simply, that those that disagree with your political beliefs are held to be traitorous. Instead of attacking the logic or the evidence of one's opponents, the neo-conservtive opts to impugn their patriotism. This is a despicable tactic.

I see again that you are invoking 9/11. I will reiterate my previous point: Iraq has _nothing_ to do with 9/11. None of the hijackers or their leaders came from or were harbored in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a prick of unimaginable cruelty, but he had nothing to do with what happened to us on September 11, 2001.

If you really want to go after nation-states that were involved in 9/11, then countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran are much more logical choices. Iraq, however, is more along the lines of a distraction on our campaign against Al Queda.

I believe America will "come together" when we have a reasonable and compromising centrist in the Oval Office. That is not George W. Bush. I hope it will be John McCain. While I disagree with Senator McCain's position on the war, I can respect him as a leader. I cannot say the same for President Bush.

As for your remark about "doing something", I plan to do something. Three weeks from now, I plan to use my right to vote to help get the *******s that endorse this partisanship out of office. God bless America.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> With that being said I'm an American and I will stand behind my fellow men and women who are fighting this war.
> 
> I will also stand behind our government for they are representing our men and women who fight this battle.


 
I agree with the first statement. I disagree with the second.

I do not believe our government is presently representing the best interests of the men and women serving in the Armed Forces, especially the executive branch. I am very much in agreement with Senator McCain and a number of retired Army generals that Donald Rumsfeld is incompetent as a Secretary of Defense and is largely to blame to what is happening to our troops at present.

I also plan on helping to vote out of office the congressmen that are supporting these destructive policies.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Ping898 said:


> Out of curiousity, when people ask you about your national background, how many poeple say or even think to say they are American?
> My first thought it usually, that I am 1/2 French and 1/2 Polish despite that both sides of my family have been here for many generations. It usually doesn't occur to me to say until well after the fact, that I am American.


 
I have always said I am American when asked such questions.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 12, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> I agree with the first statement. I disagree with the second.
> 
> I do not believe our government is presently representing the best interests of the men and women serving in the Armed Forces, especially the executive branch. I am very much in agreement with Senator McCain and a number of retired Army generals that Donald Rumsfeld is incompetent as a Secretary of Defense and is largely to blame to what is happening to our troops at present.
> 
> I also plan on helping to vote out of office the congressmen that are supporting these destructive policies.


 
heretic888 no where did I say our government was representing our troops best interest, but I will stand behind my government for the people of this great land put those people in charge. I do not always agree but I will stand up for what our country is doing and I will always be backing all those men and women who fight for this great land.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Terry


----------



## Elayna (Sep 12, 2006)

Terry...

You said it wonderfully.   Thats all that needs to be for america.


Heretic....

We could go on and on about this forever.  I could use your points against you.  But you know what, thats not how I feel.  I support Bush because I think he has done the best that he could with what he was given.  I didnt support clinton because he was a cheating butthole.  And well he was just dumb.
I will support a democrat if one comes around that I feel is competent.  I dont support every repbulican.  I support who I feel is a competent leader, and right now thats Bush, because he is our only leader. Right now.  Now when the elections come around I will be voting as well.   Thank God for that right.  We shall see who I vote for because I dont even know yet. But I do know this, people change after they are voted in, so we shall see.
You or I can prove if the war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11.  To me it sounds a little conspiracy theorist like, but to you it is truth so I shall agree to disagree.


All I am asking is that everyone who agrees or disagree with the war, the U.S. or whatever, just support the men and women and the idea of freedom.

We arent always told the truth, the world isnt perfect. So you have to make your own decisions.  But just because someone disagrees with you doesnt mean you have to insult them, humiliate them or drag them down, or kill them.  And thats what the middle east needs to learn.  Because if they just knew that it wouldnt have happened in the first place.  But it did.

The U.S. is falling apart people.  The U.S. was the greatest country ever.  What our forefathers fought for was something to be proud of. People stood together against a tyrant king.  We became a United People.   We had our differences hell yea.  When do we not.?  But they overcame those and saw the need for the greater good.  So why arent we seeing that now??

Anyways, I could go on forever. Agree or not. Be supportive and do something other then complaining is all I ask.

To me you are an American if you were born here,or your parents are american, or if you pay taxes here and have a legal greecard. Oh and if you dont believe in death to america.  LOL


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> heretic888 no where did I say our government was representing our troops best interest, but I will stand behind my government for the people of this great land put those people in charge. I do not always agree *but I will stand up for what our country is doing....*


 
Sorry, but I just cannot agree with this line of reasoning.

"My country right or wrong" is precisely the problem that I see in so much of American politics today. In a proto-Orwellian nightmare of sorts, serious discussion and dissent of the status quo is despised. Conformity and compliance with those in power is rewarded. 

This is the exact opposite of what our country is _supposed_ to stand for. The American Ideal is Freedom For All, not Freedom So Long As You Agree With The President. This is an insult to every citizen in our country.

It is no wonder that old-line conservatives like John Dean, author of Conservatives Without Conscience, will say with a straight face (as he recently did on _The Daily Show_) that the country is moving toward a proto-fascism.

Laterz.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 12, 2006)

Elayna said:


> Terry...
> 
> You said it wonderfully. Thats all that needs to be for america.


 
No.  As patriotic Americans, we have a DUTY to stand up and loudly and strongly oppose the policies of our government when it is wrong, and when it is enacting policies that are despicable both at home and abroad.  That is what being an American is about.  Not blind obedience to the government.  It is terrifically important to speak up loud and clear when our government is doing things that we oppose.  

Simply going along with our government, and thinking that that is what is means to be a patriotic American, is what allows our government to get away with horrible actions, and will lead to fascism.  It is the DUTY of every patriotic American to hold our government in check, and demand that it remain answerable and accountable to the People who put it in power.  It is not the other way around.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Elayna said:


> Terry...
> 
> You said it wonderfully. Thats all that needs to be for america.
> 
> ...


 
I'm sorry to break this to you, Elayna, but our country is falling apart _because_ of that "great leader" (and his associated cohorts) you think so highly of. 

The center of gravity of political discussion in this country has shifted to the right. Moderates and centrists are now held to be traitorous liberals. Anybody that does not tow the party line is looked upon with suspicious eyes. This is insane.

As to your question regarding why we aren't seeing a united people right now, it is precisely because the leadership currently in office are political extremists out of touch with the pulse of the American people. George W. Bush is a far cry from George Washington.

I'm sorry, but whenever I see arguments like this I can't help but spot the glaring subtext to the discussion: "Do Not Question the Government".

Thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> No. As patriotic Americans, we have a DUTY to stand up and loudly and strongly oppose the policies of our government when it is wrong, and when it is enacting policies that are despicable both at home and abroad. That is what being an American is about. Not blind obedience to the government. It is terrifically important to speak up loud and clear when our government is doing things that we oppose.
> 
> Simply going along with our government, and thinking that that is what is means to be a patriotic American, is what allows our government to get away with horrible actions, and will lead to fascism. It is the DUTY of every patriotic American to hold our government in check, and demand that it remain answerable and accountable to the People who put it in power. It is not the other way around.


 
Well said, Flying Crane!!


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 12, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> "Do Not Question the Government".




Didnt you get that memo?  Somthing about not questioning them or winding up in the secret prisons that dont exist?


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 12, 2006)

My family has been in just about every war there has been here in America and I'll speak for my Father Master Drill Sargeant W.R. Stoker Sr U.S.M.C. veteran of World War Two and the Korean War.

When I was growing up all I even heard him say is for our county to be free we must fight those that try to bring us to our knees, we must never show wreakness for that is a sign for someone to attack. When we strike strike hard and fast and be humain enough to give compasion to those not at fault.

Stand behind our country for if we don't, no other country will either.
Right or wrong we must always show unity in the face of danger.

So sorry if some of you dis-agree with me and sorry if some of you do.
I will support what our county is doing at this present time, *so do not get this confused with I agree what they are doing or even like what they are doing but I support what they are doing, if not what my Father, brothers and sister and cousins have gone though means nothing to this great land.*

Terry


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Technopunk said:


> Didnt you get that memo? Somthing about not questioning them or winding up in the secret prisons that dont exist?


 
I don't think a WASB like myself has much to worry about, Technopunk.

And, even if that does happen, it's a good thing our country always respects the ethical guidelines outlined in the Geneva Convent.... 

oh, crap.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 12, 2006)

Ok let me get this out there.

As I put in a precious post I think it is pathetic what the government has to do the U.S.  I dont think we should just do everything they say, no way.  I mean it has gotten to where the criminals are rewarded and the victims are punished.  WTF!!!
This is not right.  But I dont see people standing together to stop this.  I see people complaining about it and being like, oh well.

So let me rephrase this as well.  I support the "IDEA" of the war. The idea of Freedom.  I support the men and women fighting the war.  I dont support any supposed hidden agendas.  I dont support that at all.  But i cant prove for 100 percent certainty that they exist.  The probably do, but who really really knows.   
I support the american people.  I firmly believe in the consitution and the decleration of independance.
We should be able to say, think, do what we want to do within the law.  The law should not favor those who do wrong like it does.
That is what we need to unite as a people for. Bettering this country for all the people. Not for the government, not for other countires or other people, but for OUR people. For american people.   We need to make our country strong again before we worry about anyone else.

The reason why I Used the war is people complain so much about it.  But I dont see them banning together and doing something.  So there were a few riots, but now theve stopped. Oh yea thats conviction.  LOL.
But I dont think it should be like that.  We need to start with small things, then there will be a domino affect.  We should UNITE together as a people to make THIS country better.  To make the laws better, to make the security better.  To care for our children more then those of other nations.  We give more charity to other nations then to our own people.  Whats wrong with that picture??   Why do we care more about other nations then our own???
So that is what Im trying to say. Care more about our nation from the start then other nations.  Until our nation is the best nation in the whole feaking world.  And I know it can be.
We are in Iraq because they provoked us.  You may disagree fine.  And I love you for it.  At least you can think on your own.  But instead of flaming me and hating me for it, how can we ban together to make THIS nation better??  
What things do we agree on?  
Stop thinking about the things we dont agree on and start thinking about the things we do.  Thats the way the forefathers did it.  What you think they didnt disagree on alot of things??  THEY DID.  But they worked past it and made a wonderful country and document. 
I have tried to make forums and groups to help with the situation, but instead of people concentrating on what we agree on , they attack you for what you disagree on.  Nothing ever gets done that way. ONLY WAR.

Sooo...think, come up with something. Be apart of the solution instead of the problem.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> My family has been in just about every war there has been here in America and I'll speak for my Father Master Drill Sargeant W.R. Stoker Sr U.S.M.C. veteran of World War Two and the Korean War.
> 
> When I was growing up all I even heard him say is for our county to be free we must fight those that try to bring us to our knees, we must never show wreakness for that is a sign for someone to attack. When we strike strike hard and fast and be humain enough to give compasion to those not at fault.
> 
> ...


 
Consider me one of the "some" that disagree with you.

I just cannot abide by the kind of rationale that says we should not question any policy or war that our government decides to get into until after the deed is done. This leads to the path toward self-destruction, in my opinion.

Our country is founded upon the principle of rational debate and compromise. The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew what was happening to us.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Elayna said:


> Ok let me get this out there.
> 
> As I put in a precious post I think it is pathetic what the government has to do the U.S. I dont think we should just do everything they say, no way. I mean it has gotten to where the criminals are rewarded and the victims are punished. WTF!!!
> This is not right. But I dont see people standing together to stop this. I see people complaining about it and being like, oh well.
> ...


 
Well, it seems to me that the country is "uniting" in their opposition to the war and their opposition to President Bush's policies. Or is 70% of the public not good enough for you?? Or is that this "uniting" doesn't count because it's for a cause you disagree with??

In three weeks time, we'll see if the American people will "do something" about the mess we're in right now. I have faith that they will.

Have a good one.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 12, 2006)

If It works wonderful. I will just be glad to see that people are voting. Bush cant be voted for again so that is a mute issue. As far as who will be president, I honestly dont know.
But I honestly believe that no matter who the president is will will still have the same issues.  The war is only the tip of the iceberg and that is what I have been trying to say.  It is more then the war that so many people flame about.  So maybe having a different pres will make things better but I doubt it. Honestly I think that no matter what pres we have until the people decided to do something other the squabbiling it wont get better.  I  mean these are the issues that still have to be debated...

Criminal laws.
Child support.
Illegal immigration.
The enviroment.
Oil and Alaska.
And so many more....

We cant just make those go away by electing our pres that we want.  And they wont be solved untill all the people agree on middle ground.  That is what I am saying.
Voting is not all we can do. One letter to a congressmen is not going to do any good.  But thousands will.  Millions even better.   Voting only happnes every 4 years people.  So what do we do between those 4 years? Just sit back and say...oh well just wait in 4 years im not voting for you....So there.    Come on.

Anyways....if my point hasnt been made, then my point has been made.
If we dont start agreeing on something...America wont last for long.  I dont want that and I hope you dont either.  Becuase I sure as hell dont want to live in the U.K. or china or under the United Nations rule. GOD NO.
So.....


----------



## crushing (Sep 12, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> No. As patriotic Americans, we have a DUTY to stand up and loudly and strongly oppose the policies of our government when it is wrong, and when it is enacting policies that are despicable both at home and abroad. That is what being an American is about. Not blind obedience to the government. It is terrifically important to speak up loud and clear when our government is doing things that we oppose.
> 
> Simply going along with our government, and thinking that that is what is means to be a patriotic American, is what allows our government to get away with horrible actions, and will lead to fascism. It is the DUTY of every patriotic American to hold our government in check, and demand that it remain answerable and accountable to the People who put it in power. It is not the other way around.


 

Exactly!  You must have had other posts that I liked, because the system wouldn't let me give you a rep for this until I spread the wealth.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 12, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Consider me one of the "some" that disagree with you.
> 
> I just cannot abide by the kind of rationale that says we should not question any policy or war that our government decides to get into until after the deed is done. This leads to the path toward self-destruction, in my opinion.
> 
> ...


 
I never said do not question I said I would stand by my county decission PLEASE do not play word games with what I said. I do not like BUSH never had never will but he is the president of this county, question all you want but the fact remains the war is going on and our troops need to know this county stand behind them.

My cosin Frank was in the vietnam War and when he got home people called him a murderer all he did was do as ths county ask well September 11 2001 he died inside the Twin Towers masacre, the same people who called him a murderer years agoe know says he was a hero, how ironic is that.

Please do not lecture me about our politician or our President, my issue is wheather we are going to be here and support those troops that are at war. Who cares about them when all is said and done they get forgotten and this county does not.

LIKE I HAVE SAID BEFORE
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Terry


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

Elayna said:


> If It works wonderful. I will just be glad to see that people are voting. Bush cant be voted for again so that is a mute issue. As far as who will be president, I honestly dont know.
> But I honestly believe that no matter who the president is will will still have the same issues. The war is only the tip of the iceberg and that is what I have been trying to say. It is more then the war that so many people flame about. So maybe having a different pres will make things better but I doubt it. Honestly I think that no matter what pres we have until the people decided to do something other the squabbiling it wont get better. I mean these are the issues that still have to be debated...
> 
> Criminal laws.
> ...


 
Elayna,

The midterm elections are three weeks from now. It can start by changing the balance of power in the Senate and the House of Representatives. That is absolutely essential.

The "culture wars" that you speak of (Right vs Left, Red vs Blue, etc) really began around the time President Bush came into office. It had always been there, in spades, but things really exploded when President Bush began implementing neo-conservative policies and his cohorts began their smear campaign against all who opposed them.

I believe Senator McCain could change things if he were president, but we will have to see in a year and a half as to how things go. 

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> I never said do not question I said I would stand by my county decission PLEASE do not play word games with what I said. I do not like BUSH never had never will but he is the president of this county, question all you want but the fact remains the war is going on and our troops need to know this county stand behind them.
> 
> My cosin Frank was in the vietnam War and when he got home people called him a murderer all he did was do as ths county ask well September 11 2001 he died inside the Twin Towers masacre, the same people who called him a murderer years agoe know says he was a hero, how ironic is that.
> 
> ...


 
Well, as far as that goes, I believe our military forces have done an admirable job in Iraq to date. They should all be commended for their efforts.

However, I think we have just about accomplished all we can using military channels. At this point, we seem to be doing more harm than good by having such large numbers of soldiers there.

The appropriate channels, at this point, seem to be humanitarian, economic, and diplomatic in nature.

Laterz.


----------



## crushing (Sep 12, 2006)

Who invented the term neo-conservative and what is conservative about it?  Doesn't something have to have something conservative about it before it can be 'new conservative'?  Or is it just a devisive term to be used in an attempt to lump conservatives with the Bush administration in order to maintain the political duopoly?  Us v. them, instead of Us v. them v. them and some of them?


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2006)

crushing said:


> Who invented the term neo-conservative and what is conservative about it?


 
Neoconservatism 



crushing said:


> Doesn't something have to have something conservative about it before it can be 'new conservative'? Or is it just a devisive term to be used in an attempt to lump conservatives with the Bush administration in order to maintain the political duopoly? Us v. them, instead of Us v. them v. them and some of them?



"Neo-conservative" specifically refers to self-proclaimed "conservatives" that have abandoned the traditional conservative notions of fiscal responsibility and defensive foreign policy. In many ways, it combines the worst of both conservatism and liberalism.

Laterz.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 12, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Well, as far as that goes, I believe our military forces have done an admirable job in Iraq to date. They should all be commended for their efforts.
> 
> However, I think we have just about accomplished all we can using military channels. At this point, we seem to be doing more harm than good by having such large numbers of soldiers there.
> 
> ...


 
I agree our troops need to come home and as always we will build there county for them like always. I hate it when we re-build what we have to detroy.
Terry


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 12, 2006)

I really don't think anybody is blaming the troops, aside from some specific abuses that have taken place.  But nobody blames the troops for the war or for what is going on in Iraq, in the larger picture.

What people do believe is that the war itself is wrong, we went to war based on lies and half-truths, and the true motives have little to do with the publicly stated motives.  For that, we blame the politicians.  

But the soldiers are simply being abused by the government.  The US military is being misused to aggressively start wars, rather than in defense of our nation.  Sure, they are just doing their job as they are expected and required to do.  But the job they are being used for is wrong, plain and simple.  It is the politicians who are at fault for this.  I don't think anybody is calling our soldiers a bunch of murderers, like what happened after Vietnam.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2006)

Elayna said:


> I didnt support clinton because he .... was a cheating butthole. And well .... he was just dumb.


 
That statement speaks volumes, and tells us so much.


----------



## crushing (Sep 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> That statement speaks volumes, and tells us so much.


 
Well, at least he wasn't a 'repugnant', right?  Personally, I didn't think he was dumb either.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2006)

crushing said:


> Well, at least he wasn't a 'repugnant', right? Personally, I didn't think he was dumb either.


 

To me, to make that statement that Clinton was 'just dumb' is kind of like arguing the 'grass is blue'. But, I guess they do give out Rhodes Scholarships pretty easily these days, don't they?


----------



## Carol (Sep 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> kind of like arguing the 'grass is blue'.











Sorry Mike I couldn't resist  

* ducking for cover *


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 12, 2006)

Support our troops, support freedom the world over.

Including freedom here in the U.S.

An administration that calls reporters and other people who disagree with their policies un-american should raise red flags.  Remember McCarthyism.

That being said, we are in Iraq.  We should finish the job there.  The moment their own military and security forces are reasonably capable of fighting the insurgency, we should pull our own young men and women out of there.  IMHO, if we just unilateraly pulled out without insuring the stability of Iraq, it would create more problems than it would solve.

I spent ten years in the U.S. Army.  I saw combat on four continents and know how horrific it is.  I don't want our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen in the line of fire like I was.  However, if we don't finish there now, we'll be there yet again a few years down the line.

However, I feel the administration chose Iraq over other, more important targets in the "War on Terror" for two reasons.  One, the oil.  Two, it was (and still is) an easier target than invading Iran and the areas of Pakistan that even their armed forces are afraid to go into.

Just my opinion,

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> That being said, we are in Iraq. We should finish the job there.


 
Something that has been woefully lacking since this debacle began, was a clear, consice definition for the word 'job' - as used in your sentence. 

The American people were told that the fight might last, 6 days, maybe 6 weeks, but probably not 6 months  (SecDef Rumsfeld). We were told that Iraq was a country that could finance its own reconstruction (Wolfowitz). And now we find, the Secretary of Defense threatened to fire any planner who suggested a 'Phase 4' plan should be prepared (that's the plan for what happens after the pulling down the statue for the cameras).

Well - this past weekend, we were finally given a definition for what 'Victory' will look like; how we will know the 'job' is done. 




			
				Vice President Richard Cheney said:
			
		

> Victory in Iraq will be a situation in which there is a viable government representative of the people of Iraq... It'll be an Iraq that is not a threat to the United States in terms of being a safe haven for terrorists.
> 
> It'll be an Iraq where al-Qaeda has been pretty well eliminated, where in fact the Iraqis are able to govern and deal with the difficult political situations, obviously, that exist inside Iraq, given their history. Those are all things that need to happen, and I think we're well on the way to doing it.


 
Fellow citizens --- please, please, please, --- read those few sentences carefully. 

Do you honestly think we are "well on the way" to achieving what the Vice President describes? 

Do you know the Kurdish flag is now flying over the government buildings in Northern Iraq, with the approval of the Iraqi President, and against the wishes of the Iraqi Prime Minister? A viable government for the people of the country. - We are moving further away from that. 

But, that is the measure behind the mindless 'Road to Victory' signs; the 'As they stand up, we'll stand down' comments. 

Iraq is more than a 'safe haven' for terrorists who wish to do America harm. It has proven to be a training ground. Watch the tactics developed and perfected in Iraq move to Afghanistan. But it not al Qaeda that is developing those tactics. al Qaeda represents a tiny portion of belligerents in Iraq. But, al Qaeda is watching, and learning from the Sunni insurgents. 

Our government - WE - have created the very thing we were trying to eliminate. It is called the "Law of Unintended Consequences".


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 12, 2006)

We should have rolled through Afghanistan and right into Pakistan IMO. Saddam got what was coming to him and it should have been done sooner IMO as he was still under a cease fire from the last war anyway. But thats just my 2 cents.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 12, 2006)

Thanks for the Insults guys.  Really appreciate it.  *rolling eyes*.
You have made my point for me.  That instead of standing together on the things we agree on, you flame people, insult them and so much more on the things you disagree on.

And by me saying that about clinton all it shows is that I dont like people who cheat on their spouses.  Do you?  And as far as him being dumb, i thought it was dumb to cheat on his wife, and to raise the taxes as much as he did.  Now anything else I cant say for sure.  At that time other then his cheating and the high taxes I was paying attention.  I didnt know what to believe. Still dont.   Like Ive said before.  I believe my eyes, my feelings and the people I trust around me and their opinions.

Now as far as being a conservative, in alot of ways I am, and In alot of ways Im not. I believe in 2 way streets and compromise and 100 percent the betterment of this country.   And I support the people of this country.  I base alot on character. Not just policies, but character of a man or women. Because when their policies fail thats what they have to lean back on, is their morals and character.  So sure shoot me for that.   But if you dont care about morals and character then what do you care about?

So I hope instead of bashing me for what we disagree on that we can find something to agree on.  Or will you yet again side-step my point.
I dont care if you like clinton or gore or whoever...so what.  All I care about is that you try to make the effort to hear my views as I want to hear yours.  I have already agreed to several of your points because I am humble enough to do so.  However I am also proud enough to stand my ground as you should be in some situations. 
But if we are every going to make this country better as a whole, ALL the people have to stand together and make it better.  Not agreeing on everything but at least finding middle ground.
I know easier said then done.   But once we start trying it will get done.

So stop insulting me and hating me for not agreeing.  I may have different views and you may not like them.  FINE.  Get over it and try to start working with me.  Working with other people.

I still havent seen any ideas of how to make this country better yet.  The election is a good place to start definatly.  But what else?  Letters? Phone calls?  Writing articles? Calling radio stations?  Teaching your kids to find middle ground?  Teaching people around you to work together instead of fighting with each other?
What are you doing other then insulting and complaining to help?

Me I teach my son. I talk with my friends. I post on forums.  I try to make a difference in the small ways. I know its not alot, but Im only one person and in a country with millions and billions....well, you get the picture.

So...lets see ify ou can get past insulting and actually try to work with people.   That is a challenge for all of you!!!!


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 12, 2006)

Elayna said:


> Thanks for the Insults guys. Really appreciate it. *rolling eyes*.
> 
> You have made my point for me. That instead of standing together on the things we agree on, you flame people, insult them and so much more on the things you disagree on.
> 
> ...


 
Nobody had flamed you, insulted your, or hated you.  You began a discussion that has proven to be a hot topic of debate, with some pretty polarized positions.  People have disagreed with you and have given their reasons why, and others have agreed with you and given their reasons why.  Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are flaming you, insulting you, or hating you.  It ain't personal, unless you make it so.

Given the volatility of this topic, I'd say the discussion has remained remarkably polite.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> To me, to make that statement that Clinton was 'just dumb' is kind of like arguing the 'grass is blue'. But, I guess they do give out Rhodes Scholarships pretty easily these days, don't they?


 

Maybe its just me but that sounds like an insult.  And yes I do believe that this topic has stayed very poilite and decent.  
I Thank You all for that, really.   

But you are right, I should not take it too personally.  My bad.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 12, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> We should have rolled through Afghanistan and right into Pakistan IMO. Saddam got what was coming to him and it should have been done sooner IMO as he was still under a cease fire from the last war anyway. But thats just my 2 cents.


If, years ago, we would have supported the Kurds and others in the country when we called upon them to overthrow Hussein, it would have saved a lot trouble and American lives.

Jeff


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 12, 2006)

Elayna said:


> Maybe its just me but that sounds like an insult. And yes I do believe that this topic has stayed very poilite and decent.
> I Thank You all for that, really.
> 
> But you are right, I should not take it too personally. My bad.


 

well, this is a topic with some very strong feelings.  I don't think that comment was meant as a personal attack on you.  Just expressing a different viewpoint in a strong way, that's all.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 12, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> well, this is a topic with some very strong feelings. I don't think that comment was meant as a personal attack on you. Just expressing a different viewpoint in a strong way, that's all.


 


No worries.  I understand.  I definatly should not have taken it so personally.  Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 12, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> If, years ago, we would have supported the Kurds and others in the country when we called upon them to overthrow Hussein, it would have saved a lot trouble and American lives.
> 
> Jeff


 
Regime change starts at home.  It doesn't happen successfully when rammed thru the barrels of foreign guns.  That seems to be a lesson nobody wants to acknowledge.  

We seem to think we can just roll on into a country, shoot the place up and tell them how to do things from there on out.  But nobody is going to accept that method.  

As much as I oppose the Bush administration, I would never accept it if the Germans, French, Canadians, Mexicans, Venezuelans, Cubans, Chinese and New Zealanders decided to form a coalition to invade the US, topple the Bush regime and install their version of government that they think is best for us.  If that happened, I  can guarantee that you and I and a whole lot of others here would take up arms to fight the invaders and kick them out of our country.  We would use every single sneaky guerrilla tactic that we could think of, and yes, we might even reach the point of embracing suicide bombings if it got bad enough.  This is our home, after all, and we got no other.

And I can promise you, those who acted in cooperation with the occupying forces, and who tried to be part of the new government installed by the occupiers, would find themselves targeted by us as well.  We would have a civil war the likes of which is going on right now in Iraq.  While we thought of ourselves as "Freedom Fighters", I am sure the occupying forces would label us "Insurgents", and use every language technique possible to make us look like illegitimates and terrorists, to justify their occupation.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 12, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> If, years ago, we would have supported the Kurds and others in the country when we called upon them to overthrow Hussein, it would have saved a lot trouble and American lives.
> 
> Jeff


 
True. true.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 12, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Regime change starts at home. It doesn't happen successfully when rammed thru the barrels of foreign guns. That seems to be a lesson nobody wants to acknowledge.
> 
> We seem to think we can just roll on into a country, shoot the place up and tell them how to do things from there on out. But nobody is going to accept that method.
> 
> ...


 
After we pushed Hitler back across the Rhine should we have stopped? And if we had how much more crap from him should we have tolerated?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2006)

Elayna said:


> Maybe its just me but that sounds like an insult. And yes I do believe that this topic has stayed very poilite and decent.
> I Thank You all for that, really.
> 
> But you are right, I should not take it too personally. My bad.


 
You have made an assertion, which I have challenged. 

I have defended my position in that former President Clinton received a Rhodes Scholarship. I believe that approximately 24 students a year are granted this award. They tend to given to some of the brightest college seniors in the country, and have been for a century.

If you wish to defend your assertion that President Clinton is "just dumb", step right up. 

---

As for your defense ... .

What Mr. and Mrs. Clinton do in their private lives is none of my business. If Mrs. Clinton chooses to forgive her husband for indiscretions, it is, should be, and remains, between them.

Next, President Clinton did not raise taxes. Only the House of Representatives has the ability within our Constitution to raise taxes. They are directly elected every two years. They are the closest elected officials to the citizenry, so if taxes are raised, your Congressman is accountable to you sooner than any other federal official. 

But, that being said - that the Federal budget came into balance during President Clinton's term - that the nation became fiscally responsible - can be described accurately in many ways. I do not believe that fiscal responsibility can be described as 'dumb'. But if you care to try, please do. 

Oh, and by the way, I don't believe I have made any statements about my personal opinions concering Mr. Clinton. I believe the statements here are independent of personal opinion.




			
				Elayna said:
			
		

> That instead of standing together on the things we agree on,


 
I do not agree on anything in your initial premise. And the more the conversation goes on, the less I agree with. 

This war is wrong. It was launched through lies from our highest elected officials. I believe our military soldiers have confused their duty to the oaths they swore, and their duty to their superiors. 

I believe the only way to support the military is to call for the immediate redeployment from Iraq. Our military are targets for the insurgents; nothing else. The military is being broken by this effort - an effort I have called illegal. 

President Bush should be impeached for lying to the American public. 

Further you assailed over 1 billion religous followers with your attacks on Muslems and Islam. Completely ignoring that a 'Christian' nation invaded an 'Islamic (albeit Secular) nation'.


----------



## OUMoose (Sep 12, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> After we pushed Hitler back across the Rhine should we have stopped? And if we had how much more crap from him should we have tolerated?


What has that got to do with anything involving the conflicts today, other than some emotional "rousing"?  You tell me, how many terrorists cells have we "pushed back" across some geographic boundary?  Oh right, there isn't a boundary anymore to push across, nor is there a specific or recognizable enemy.  The only bearing Nazism has on today's world is the neo-fascism that's fed over the airwaves as "news".  Unfortunately, that comes from both sides of the fence this time.  

I guess one of the differences you could point out is that Hitler was a fantastic public speaker.  Bush is... well... not.  :idunno:


----------



## Elayna (Sep 12, 2006)

Michael, 

As far as the smartness of Mr.Clinton, that can be debatable.  Maybe not through book smarts, as he was. But through "street" smarts yes.  I will not get into it though, as our definitions are most likely very different and that is not the point of my thread.  

Now as far as the quote you put from me I dont understand it as that has a comma at the end of it so therefore you either didnt complete it or you are taking out of context, which we all know is not a proper way to prove anything.  So please elaborate more on what you were meaning by that particular quote from me.

Also as far as "assailing" 1 billion Muslim and Islamic people.  If you go back and look in my first post I specifically state that I in new way believe that all Muslims felt the same way.  I also sated
P.S. I 100 percent believe not every Muslim hates america.

I made sure to state that the "Muslim Terrorists" as I see them seperate then the everyday "Muslim" person walking the street.
Just as we hear make sure and state that a "Catholic Priest" assaulted a young boy.  It is the same difference.  Does not mean it is and isults to "Catholics" it is just a statement.
I went to school with several Muslim people. They were very nice and we were very close friends until I moved away with my parents. I also have great respect for the poetry that can be found in the Koran.  Poetry used figurativly.

As far as Mr.Clinton and his love life being his business, it has long been known that when you are the President of any country your business whether personal or not is the business of the country that you are running.  I personally do not want someone that cheats on their spouse as the leader of my nation. But that situation is long dead.   Im over it.
As far as the taxes things all I know is that I never heard Clinton disagreeing with taxes. That may not be a good enough reason for you for me to think badly enough for him, but because of those tax raises it made it very difficult for my family and many other families to live. Very hard.
So sorry if you dont like my reasonings, but they are mine.
Im not asking you to agree with me.
And this will be the last time that I repeat that.
So I hope you take the point.
State your point of view.  But I dont think it is right to tell people that they are wrong to think the way they thing, because Im pretty sure there are those out there that think the same thing about you.
And yet that is my point.
We will disagree. We will agree to disagree.   But even when you said 
***in your defense....
you gave nothing that helped defend my point of view.

So when will we stop bickering and start trying to find common ground.

I conceed that the government should only have a minimal place in the peoples lives.  I agree with that.  I think we should always question our government.   I think that once our people have made it to where the Iraq people can do ok on their own that they should leave.  I dont think invasion is always then answer unless really really neccessary.
I think the U.S. has alot of cleaning up to do that should start on our own soil first.

Those are only a few things that Im not sure if we agree on, but I hope it will give us a start.
It only takes a few to start trying to agree to start a domino affect.
Im sorry if you dont like me for whatever reason.  But I like you even if I think you can be a pain in the *** sometimes.  I see that as a good quality in small doses.   LOL     

Anyways....you all have a good night.  And I hope my point has been made and heard somewhere.


----------



## crushing (Sep 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> But, that being said - that the Federal budget came into balance during President Clinton's term - that the nation became fiscally responsible - can be described accurately in many ways. I do not believe that fiscal responsibility can be described as 'dumb'. But if you care to try, please do.


 
It's unfortunate that the budgets didn't meet the actual spending and the debt continued to skyrocket. The tech bubble did help until it burst and the economic growth started to slow in 1999 and the markets started there decline in 2000 leading to the recession.

http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm

09/28/2001   5,807,463,412,200.06 
09/30/2000   5,674,178,209,886.86 
09/30/1999   5,656,270,901,615.43 
09/30/1998   5,526,193,008,897.62 
09/30/1997   5,413,146,011,397.34 
09/30/1996   5,224,810,939,135.73 
09/29/1995   4,973,982,900,709.39 
09/30/1994   4,692,749,910,013.32

The debt continues to grow. It looks like it will pass $8,500,000,000,000 tonight based on the debt clock at the same site referenced above.


----------



## matt.m (Sep 12, 2006)

Wow, I served from 92-97.  I bet that means that I know a lot of Clinton's actions concerning foreign policy.  Sorry, even though I was put in harms way (Haiti, Liberia, Tunisia, Albania, Israel) it was for more or less humanitarian reasons.  

Consider this:  A man is not worthy of trust or running the country because of extra marital affairs.  Anyone heard of John F. Kennedy?  However, it is ok to go on shaky intel into war.

I seem to remember in the 90's if you lost your job you could find another one rather quickly.  Not only that, but american wages along with wage increases stayed steady with inflation and at times outpaced it.

Sorry, but the way the Republican party has been during the Bush Admin. just is a sore spot with me.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2006)

Elayna said:


> Michael,
> 
> As far as the smartness of Mr.Clinton, that can be debatable. Maybe not through book smarts, as he was. But through "street" smarts yes. I will not get into it though, as our definitions are most likely very different and that is not the point of my thread.
> 
> ...


 
Elayna,

I have no desire to find common ground with you. 

Your comments demonstrate beliefs and attitudes that are alien to me, to my understanding of how human beings interact, to my understanding of the founding principles of my country, and to the basic precepts of the worlds religions, regardless of what justifications you assert. Your analysis is flawed when compared to known facts. And, you contradict yourself in your own posts.

I apologize for mucking up your post. I will do my best to take my leave of this thread now. 

Michael


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 13, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> I see again that you are invoking 9/11. I will reiterate my previous point: Iraq has _nothing_ to do with 9/11. None of the hijackers or their leaders came from or were harbored in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a prick of unimaginable cruelty, but he had nothing to do with what happened to us on September 11, 2001.



But as I said, the lesson we learned from 9-11 were very applicable to him.

I missed a lot of the debate in the last 24 hours and it has gone off in many tangents. So I will deal with only this issue for now.

Yes, Hussein had no contact with Al- Queada and did not support them in their attack on the US.

But what of the *lessons* of 9-11?

Some will say that Hussein was no threat to the US and we should have left him alone.

Well, by that logic, neither was Osama Bin Laden or the Taliban.

Can anyone name me an advantage, resource or ability that Osama had that Hussein did not have or could get after the sanctions were lifted?

Because I can list a whole lot of things Hussein had that Osama would have killed to have. Hussein had a hell of a lot more money, two members of the UN security council willing to go to bat for him, countries that owed him favors, the resources of a real goverment and military.... just to name a few.

Yet with all the disadvantages that Osama had compared to Hussein, he managed to kill thousands of Americans.

9-11 showed us what happens when we play the game of trying to discover attacks and deal with those that want to kill us *after* they make their move. We played defense for years and let a guy who openly wanted to do harm to Americans get away with attacks on our citizens and build up support. Am I talking about Osama or Hussein? Osama attacked the twin towers in the 90s, and we didn't blast the country that sheltered him off the map. Hussein tried to kill an ex-president as well as things like trying to run a bio weapons program under the noses of UN inspectors and he was still in power afterwards.

9-11 taught us that it does not take aircraft carriers or tanks to do harm to another nation. It taught us that people who attack us and are allowed to survive try to kill us again. And it taught us that even a small group of people can manage to kill thousands of innocent people.

Everything that Osama had on 9-10-2001 Hussein would have had and more as soon as he got his patsys to lift the sanctions. He hated America just as much and was even more nutty than Osama- who never tried taking on America in a stand up fight.

Hussein had no hand in the operation of 9-11. But 9-11 showed us the dangers we faced from even people with no ability to land tanks on our beach. If you think the US should have done more to stop the 9-11 attacks by attacking Osama until he was dead, why leave Hussein to do his stuff and get lucky at some point?


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 13, 2006)

As an (last) addendum to my previous posts and to further clarify my position, I believe the war on terror is necessary but obviously not progressing they way that it should.

I would never side with the loudmouths of the board, but they do have a point on the war's overall success rate thus far.

The trouble is, that today everything can be broadcast and shown on TV. War is ugly; babies, mothers and fathers die. The innocent are lost just as the enemy. But once the decision has been made to go in, it can't be done half heartedly. But as of late, this country is hell bent on the "gentle war" to appease, well, the loudmouths, foreign nations and other people with loose grips on the reality of what war is.

We all know the United States is the most powerful nation on earth, militarily among other ways. There is NO reason Iraq should be in the state it is aside from improper execution, in my humble (non-military) opinion. But the decision to go in was right, and that is what I stand behind, including the troops over there.

Bash the administration if you must, criticize the execution of the war, but to deny it's importance is suicidal.

See you on the other boards. Snide comments and ad hominums will still be smiled at.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 13, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> The trouble is, that today everything can be broadcast and shown on TV. War is ugly; babies, mothers and fathers die. The innocent are lost just as the enemy.


 

Ah, but very very little of this is shown in American TV.  We are too delicate in our sensibilites to view these images.  What is shown in US TV is dramatically softened and censored so that we won't recognize the true horrors of war, and we can sit back in comfort and not worry too much about how terrible the situation really is, and how responsible for that fact the US is in creating a completely unstable situation over there.  Show us the images of mangled bodies from the blasts, and the assassinations.  The US public needs to see these images plastered all over the TV, so that we can understand what it is really like in a war zone.  Maybe then we will not be so eager to go to war, and maybe then we will look in earnest for alternate methods to solve our differences, rather than falling back on military might.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 13, 2006)

Even assuming that we should not have gone into Iraq (I think we should have gone into Iran instead), we are there, and the policies we've implemented made a hash of things.  We would be doing ourselves, the Iraqi people, and the world a huge mis-service if we just pulled out without putting things right.  We went in there and it's now our responsibility.

If we pulled out now, we'd just be sending our young men and women there again a few years down the line.  No amount of argumentative tactics will change that fact.

Jeff


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 13, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Even assuming that we should not have gone into Iraq (I think we should have gone into Iran instead), we are there, and the policies we've implemented made a hash of things. We would be doing ourselves, the Iraqi people, and the world a huge mis-service if we just pulled out without putting things right. We went in there and it's now our responsibility.
> 
> If we pulled out now, we'd just be sending our young men and women there again a few years down the line. No amount of argumentative tactics will change that fact.
> 
> Jeff


 

Yah, I know, it sucks.  We made a huge mess of the place, and we have an ethical obligation to fix it.  I don't know if we can, however.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Even assuming that we should not have gone into Iraq (I think we should have gone into Iran instead), we are there, and the policies we've implemented made a hash of things. We would be doing ourselves, the Iraqi people, and the world a huge mis-service if we just pulled out without putting things right. We went in there and it's now our responsibility.
> 
> If we pulled out now, we'd just be sending our young men and women there again a few years down the line. No amount of argumentative tactics will change that fact.
> 
> Jeff


 
JeffJ, 

Please look at Mr. Cheney's description of what "Putting things Right" means to him, and by proxy, the Administration. How long is it going to take to reach that description? Remember that 2.28 American Service members have died each day we have been in Iraq. How many more days will it be to 'Put things right'? How many more soldiers? 

This is looking at the world as it is. I am not trying to be argumentative. I am trying to save the lives of American soldiers; 2.28 of them each day. 

Lastly, I am not certain your assumption that we would have to go back a few years down the line is correct. Our soldiers left North Korea, have we gone back in a few years later? Our soldiers left North Vietnam, have we gone back in a few years later? 

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 13, 2006)

I personally think that we have so angered that portion of the world and made ourselves so hated that no matter what we might try to do, we will be met with tremendous resistance.  I question our ability to get anything done, no matter what.  The "cleanup" has to be done by others, because our very presence there is like poison.

That is how big a mess I believe this to be.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Lastly, I am not certain your assumption that we would have to go back a few years down the line is correct. Our soldiers left North Korea, have we gone back in a few years later? Our soldiers left North Vietnam, have we gone back in a few years later?



I do think we'd end up having to go back, in part because of arguments you yourself have put forward.  The neo-jihadists there ARE using it as a training ground.  It would become a safe haven for them to base themselves out of much like Afghanistan was.  North Korea and Viet Nam did not have aspirations of taking on the U.S. anywhere outside of their own regions.  These fanatics, most of whom have only read the Sword Verses of the Koran, do.

Plus, we made the mess so we should clean it up.  It's become a matter of responsibility.

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> I do think we'd end up having to go back, in part because of arguments you yourself have put forward. The neo-jihadists there ARE using it as a training ground. It would become a safe haven for them to base themselves out of much like Afghanistan was. North Korea and Viet Nam did not have aspirations of taking on the U.S. anywhere outside of their own regions. These fanatics, most of whom have only read the Sword Verses of the Koran, do.
> 
> Plus, we made the mess so we should clean it up. It's become a matter of responsibility.
> 
> Jeff


 
I think the neo-jihadists are a tiny minority of those in Iraq creating difficulties. The inability to discern between sectarian violence, civil war, and neo-jihadists, is making it difficult to discuss what is going on in Iraq and to establish concrete metrics and plans. Without clear language, goals will never be met. 

Most of the people in Iraq who are attacking and killing their neighbors do not have ambitions of taking over the U.S. Instead, they are seeking vengence for wrongs done by others (Shia attacks on Sunni's) or are afraid of the coming genocide (Sunni attacks on Shia). To assert that all those committing violence in Iraq have aspirations of 'taking on the U.S. is an example of confusing a civil war with a neo-jihadist.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I think the neo-jihadists are a tiny minority of those in Iraq creating difficulties. The inability to discern between sectarian violence, civil war, and neo-jihadists, is making it difficult to discuss what is going on in Iraq and to establish concrete metrics and plans. Without clear language, goals will never be met.
> 
> Most of the people in Iraq who are attacking and killing their neighbors do not have ambitions of taking over the U.S. Instead, they are seeking vengence for wrongs done by others (Shia attacks on Sunni's) or are afraid of the coming genocide (Sunni attacks on Shia). To assert that all those committing violence in Iraq have aspirations of 'taking on the U.S. is an example of confusing a civil war with a neo-jihadist.


So because of the confusion, we should just leave the mess we've made to sort itself out?

And I never said anything about "taking over" the U.S.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 13, 2006)

Oh, and that environment is a perfect harbor for the neo-jihadists.

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> So because of the confusion, we should just leave the mess we've made to sort itself out?


 
Two wrongs don't make a right. 



			
				JeffJ said:
			
		

> And I never said anything about "taking over" the U.S.


 

You did say:_North Korea and Viet Nam did not have aspirations of *taking on the U.S.* anywhere outside of their own regions. These fanatics, most of whom have only read the Sword Verses of the Koran, do._​
I said:_ambitions of taking over the U.S._​ 

and​ 

_aspirations of *'taking on the U.S.*_​The first clause is unfortunate, I should have used 'on' in both sentences.



			
				JeffJ said:
			
		

> Oh, and that environment is a perfect harbor for the neo-jihadists.


 
There are 25 million people in Iraq. I think they would have something to say about whether the neo-jihadists would have a perfect harbor in their country. 


There are courses of action that can be taken that are not the simple characature painted by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and RNC Chair Melhmann.

Each day we remain - 2.28 American soldiers are dying. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, there were no programs, there was no connection between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda, there was no imminent threat.

I often tell my daughter --- Be Harmless, Not Helpful (Taken from 7th Heaven television show) --- In Iraq today, the American presence is neither Helpful or Harmless. The best course of action is to STOP. This does not mean leave a vacuum, but it does mean 'leave'.

Perhaps this is veering too far away from Elayna's topic. Again, I will try and distance myself from this thread.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 13, 2006)

> Again, I will try and distance myself from this thread



Just as an aside, this phrase always makes me think that someone is holding a gun to the posters head, telling them they'll shoot if they don't post.  Can't help but smile at it.

Once again let me iterate, this has nothing to do with the discussion.

Jeff


----------



## tradrockrat (Sep 13, 2006)

Ping898 said:


> Out of curiousity, when people ask you about your national background, how many poeple say or even think to say they are American?


 
First time every time.  If they want to know my ethnicity, it's Irish /Italian, but I am American first and always.  Teddy was right about that.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 13, 2006)

Hmm, Have you guys gotten off topic??? YES!!

This thread was not supposed to be about if the war is right or wrong. Or if Bush is a good president, or any of the things you guys have posted on here.  You guys have not seen the point of my posts.
I have tried my best to tell you what my goal is here.  I have put forth a challenge but I fear you guys have just skipped past it and not seen through your anger and your OWN views.
    I have my views and let me say something to those of you who like putting forth fact, reviews, reports, news and so on.
I know the fact very well. I was the top debater in my college. I know how to get the facts, do the research and so on.  But even though the "public" may know the facts how often do you see people actually regarding or doing what the "facts" or the "truth" tell them to do??
    I mean parents tell their kids...oh babies come from a stork, and until they go into sex ed thats "their truth".  So use that.
    Your truth is your truth and to you I am nothing but an uneducated person that cant see the light through the trees.   And you know what, thats ok.
     But where that because rather childish is when you cant step aside from that and listen, and try to consider my point of view.

And to say that you are not willing to find common ground with me because my ideas are alien to you is well....just...wrong.  To me that is a very single minded person.   That is behavior that should have been long gone hundreds of years ago.
I put this too you....
    If the white northerns of the civil war era could find common ground with the black slaves of the south, and change the history of a nation and its people, we can now. 
 Cant we??

I will try as hard as I can to listen to you, to really inspect your point of view and to see if there is something we can agree on.  That is my word to all of you.   Because I firmly believe that even though it may be small, and maybe only an inch we all have something called "common ground".  It will be hard to find sometimes, but it is there.
    It may be as small as what color we like.  But all it takes is something small.  The red woods grew from only 1 tiny seed into something strong and beautiful.
I may not always agree with you and you will not always agree with me and that is ok.  I have the right to tell you my opinion and my view. Does not mean I disregard yours, it just means I am telling you where I stand.  As I would expect you to do.  But then there must be a time where we stop "arguing" or "debating" and start asking....
"what do we agree on?"

That is my CHALLENGE TO YOU ALL.
State what you disagree with, then at the end of your post state how you will try to agree with someone.  I dont care  what you use. Even if its just something silly as I like chocolate.    Just something to show you understand and you are listening with an open mind and heart.

I know there may be alot of things some of you think arent "logical" or able to happen.   But, what you can imagine can happen.
Once they didnt think the world was round, and people were thrown in jail for challenging what they knew to be "true"....but now here we are.

So will you step up to the challenge and evolve as people and intellectuals as we are always doing?  Or will you choose to stay in your comfort zone?

I ask this to you all.   Lets see if YOU are willing to step up, and take the leap.
I am....

Good Luck to you all.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 13, 2006)

Well, I am an American, plain and simple.  I don't have pride in that, neither do I have shame in that.  Since being an American is a condition into which I was born, it is not an accomplishment for me, so Pride and Shame have no place in my feelings about it.  Pride and Shame are feelings that, in my opinion, are more appropriate in regards to accomplishments, or decisions that one makes, and the such.  Being an American is simply who I am.

I am, however, tremendously ashamed of the leaders of this country.

Sorry, I hadn't ready the rest of your post:  I like dark chocolate, 72% or higher is best.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 13, 2006)

FlyingC....

Ohhhhh you sure do know your chocolate.  YUMMMM....I know what that would really go well with, but this is a family site.  Hehehehe.

I do have to agree with several parts of your post.  I believe that just to be proud because your country is America is somewhat wrong. Even though I am proud of that.   But I do agree with your sentiment in what to have pride in.

I am more dissapointed then ashamed of our government as I feel they have lost the true meaning of representing their people and their country.  
I believe that Bush has lost some of that through this whole ordeal.
I dont think he was always that way, but I can imagine with the job that he has no matter who you are you would end up loosing a piece of yourself you know.
I know I couldnt do it. Deal with all the politics and the things they say about you and so on.   So I give him props for that.


I really enjoyed your post Flying Crane, thank you for your input.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 13, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Even assuming that we should not have gone into Iraq (I think we should have gone into Iran instead), we are there, and the policies we've implemented made a hash of things.  We would be doing ourselves, the Iraqi people, and the world a huge mis-service if we just pulled out without putting things right.  We went in there and it's now our responsibility.
> 
> If we pulled out now, we'd just be sending our young men and women there again a few years down the line.  No amount of argumentative tactics will change that fact.



In the spirit of Elayna's challenge of,



> That is my CHALLENGE TO YOU ALL.
> State what you disagree with, then at the end of your post state how you will try to agree with someone. I dont care what you use. Even if its just something silly as I like chocolate. Just something to show you understand and you are listening with an open mind and heart.



I will say that I disagree with your statement that we should have gone into Iran first. At the time there was still a leader there trying to reform things. I always prefer to try something other than violence if I can.

But I will try to find agreement with you in your statement that even if you think the war is wrong, pulling out would be a mistake. I think you understate the problem. 

We can see how the fighting in Lebanon was stopped because the entire world wanted Isreal to stop and Isreal listned to them. But if you look at the streets of not only Lebanon, but other parts of the Arab world, people are crediting Hamas with a great victory over Isreal.

There is no way to think that the guys fighing us in Iraq would not use our pulling out to convince the world that they beat us. Osama Bin Laden would be considered the victor, and the goverments in the region would know that if they wanted to survive, they would have to back the horse that is willing to go for the long haul. The goverments that paid off the militants in return for them leaving them alone have stopped their support for now. That would change and the militants would be flush with cash. The goverments themselves would know that we really do not have the stomach to stick it out and would stop all reform.

It might save lives in the short run, like if we had just pulled back to the states after Pearl Harbor was attacked, but in the long run we would lose and even more Americans would die.

So you think that going into Iraq was a mistake and I disagree. But we both agree that pulling out would be a mistake if looked at in the long term. So we agree on that, eh?:cheers:


----------



## Elayna (Sep 14, 2006)

Thanks you very much Don for stepping up to the plate.  

My salute to you. 

I hope that many more will join in.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 14, 2006)

Hmmmm....?????


I wonder why everyone is so quite after my challenge???
*shrug*.


I hope you all will join in. It can make a difference even if it doesnt seem like it.  At least give it a chance.  Please dont be afraid of change.  Its a good thing.

I know one common ground we all have.
We all want Freedom.  Everyone everywhere. Right?
I guess where we begin to disagree is how to accomplish that.   LOL rather ironic if you ask me.  

I believe I may start a sperate thread on this.
But I hope this is something for you all to address and to use my challenge in.
 

Dont be shy now.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 14, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> In the spirit of Elayna's challenge of,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well said Don.  

I agree with almost everything you've said in that.

In fact, 'bout the only thing I disagree with you on is when you said I understated that pulling out of Iraq would present more problems than it solves.  But that's probably just a semantic argument.

Jeff


----------

