Phoenix44 said:
This administration has made it clear that it does not trust the citizenry. It lies, it hides the truth, it deceives, it keeps the citizens out of the political process.
And by the way, enlisting after WWII is not in the same category as enlisting for the Iraq war. We entered WWII after Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. People enlisted to defend our country.
Despite what the Bush administration wants you to believe (and that 70% of Americans actually do believe) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was the work of Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan. The Bush administration pulled our resources out of Afghanistan to go to war in Iraq, which was what Bush planned to do even before he was inaugurated. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq--until now. Our invasion has turned Iraq into a Terrorism Generator.
No wonder people are against the draft.
Citizens are involved in the political process: Vote, lobby and call/write your politicians. As far as I know no one in the Bush admin has been censoring/blocking any of these things.
I think the problem is the 'no apology' approach that Bush takes makes him come off cocky. He makes executive decisions (but hasn't been charged with any violations of a political process so he must be working within the rules because congress would be like a school of frenzied sharks if he could be charged/impeached) w/o playing politics with congress. People (voters) tend to hate the politicians who play politics and wheel and deal - but when Bush does business claiming to be a "Washington Outsider" (not really accurate but sort of saying that he isn't trying to be a gamesman) he is a power monger.... I don't agree with everything he does, but I do like that he is not asking by your leave for every decision. He has to know that he is not winning many friends (at least his public relations people do) and he is still working the same way. That tells me he is doing things that he feels are right and not 'popular' at the expense of a chance at another term in office.... standing on principles.
There was a draft/selective service process during WWII as well if I remember correctly, the number of volunteers was such that it usually isn't even mentioned - and it would be inconsistent with the presentation of the "greatest generation" legacy that is promoted. What does that say about generations since? Are we 'smarter/wiser' or just more self involved and unwilling to come together because we are better informed by the media (which is partially motivated by profit when they use their own version of shock and awe imaging to trade increased subscriptions and Neilson ratings for really expensive advertising space)?
Have we inherited the post traumatic exhaustion of fighting and death that we don't see any honor in standing together for what is right in principle? There has been a lot of talk about the desensitising of people to violence because of violence in the media/entertainment. I would say another affect has been the vicarious trauma and learned fear as well. People have become more afraid (and I agree that by god it is a good thing to fear war so you make better decisions about whether to go or not) to the point of selling out integrity and principle (all packaged in the name of 'immoral political motivations' and "i will not support an unjust war" - War, like life is neither fair nor just) because of the pictures on TV as well.
No I don't think that the prioritizing of Iraq over Afg is right, but I do think that there are good reasons be be in both conflicts. SHussein screwed over and shrugged off his signed treaty agreed committments and got away with it for 11 years because the UN did not take him to task. If there are no weapons of mass destruction to be found, but they were there before (my own opinion but partially based on some of the data, along with some basic logic) then he had PLENTY of time to shuffle them off to other places through poorly controlled or totally uncontrolled borders, even could have sold them to fund the rebuilding of his new military.
The idea that there were no terrorists in Iraq until the US entered is conjecture and unproven. Even if it could be proven that they were there before US boots on the ground, was it a large enough threat to justify entry into Iraq? I don't think so. I do think there were other reasons to enter Iraq that had nothing to do with ALQ.
We are still involved in Afg, there are still military operations running there.
