It has been proven that almost EVERY politician was for going into Iraq since atleast 1998. The Right AND the Left. So what is the problem now?
Do you not like that Saddam is not in power?
Do you have a problem with Iraq having a democracy?
Do you hate it that the terrorists are fighting in Iraq and not bombing us in the United States?
Do you hate that Iraq has a constitution in under 12 years?
Does it make you mad that we have rebuilt schools and hospitals?
Wait a minute, how could I be so blind? These are all TERRIBLE things. (just kidding)
Now, some Left winger could come in here and say that too many soldiers died....Well, more people died on 9-11 than during the whole war on terrorism. I'm very sorry that troops have died, however, their job is to protect us. They are protecting us, they are changing the world.
This war on terror has brought positive RESULTS. I'm not sure if liberals understand what results are...that is when you say you want to do something, then you do it. Clinton did the first part, but then never did anything about it. Bush said he would bring justice to terrorists, and he is actually doing it.
The fact that the Left and the media only focus on the negative of the war makes me sick. We have to support our President on this issue. He is doing what is right. Ask a liberal what objective listed above is so bad? Then ask them how their liberalism would have produced the same results.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
What is the problem?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
I have to say that beginning with "It has been proven that EVERYONE was for going into Iraq" seems like a very poor beginning. I'm not saying I was opposed to America's going into Iraq myself, but to begin with such an unsupported statement makes it almost impossible to view your other comments as credible. I am a moderate Texan, not a flaming Lefty, but I know of many people who felt there were other or better ways of handling Iraq. I hope you take my comments as positive criticism in the cause of communication. It just seems that, if you want people to take your ideas seriously, you would give them a better chance of hearing you if you began with a true statement... or if you do have proof, then refer people to your source of that proof.
I was refering to all politicians voting for it...but I'll edit it now...
way to not have any comment on the actual content...
problem solved
It's still not correct. All these quotes you and the other Republicans bring up DO NOT ADVOCATE an invasion of Iraq. They advocate regime change. There are a number of ways that regime change might have been accomplished without invading a sovereign nation that had not attacked the United States. War is a last resort. Regardless of who saw what intelligence, the United States had not exhausted all the alternatives.
I do like it that Saddam is not in power. I would also like it if Bush were not in power, but I do not advocate his removal by violent means. There were alternatives to invasion.
I don't have a problem with Iraq having a democracy. However, that was not the rationale for invading Iraq. Democracy of Iraq may work out, and if it really does work out and the US and world benefit from it, that would be good. But it is not our right to force democracy on another sovereign nation by use of military force.
I don't hate it "the terrorists" are fighting in Iraq and not here. Unfortunately, that is a loony argument. It assumes that 1) Iraqi insurgents are predominently terrorists (no clear evidence of this) and 2) there are no terrorists outside of Iraq to harm us since they are all in Iraq. I think Spain, London, Amman Jordan, Bali, etc. proves that they aren't all in Iraq. Do you actually think that there are not terrorists plotting and currently in the process of carry out attacks in the United States because they are "pinned down" or otherwise "distracted" by US forces in Iraq?
I don't care how long it takes to create a constitution in Iraq. I care that it will be just and enduring. But it is not the place of the United States to invade a sovereign nation to help them create a constituion. And that isn't why the US attacked Iraq.
I think it's great that we have rebuilt schools and hospitals in Iraq. I think it would be better if we let the Iraqis themselves do this and other reconstructive work instead of Halliburton. Then you would have EMPLOYED Iraqis being productive, building an economy, and having a stake in their own recovery instead of having a bunch of pissed-off, unemployed Iraqis with guns.
I'm just trying to see, Jim, what ideas the Left had that would have brought resigm change? There are none...talking to crazy dictators does not work...
Your ideas only work in a perfect world...in which this is not...
I do understand that terrorists are trying to plan attacks here, but the fact that most of thier efforts are in Iraq, and the fact that things like the patriot act (which I'm sure you hate) have stopped terrorism here...
Bottom line, if you and the Left like the goals that have been accomplished here...you should not complain, because your way of doing things just doesn't seem to work...
Remember how great "talking" worked between Carter and the Iranians??? I think Reagans approach worked much better
How can you say Carter didnt do a good job? The hostages were released after all the work he put in. Just because Reagan was a couple days into his term doesnt mean he had anything to do with it. Did we forget so easily that Carter sent the Special Forces into Iran to rescue the hostages. They failed cuz their equipment wasnt acclimated to the climate(sound familiar?). With the element of suprise gone, Carter and his diplomats sat down and got the hostages freed. Reagan had all of zero to do with it. The Cold War is a different story, I admit.
On Iraq, you can slobber all over the peaceniks who cant stand having any conflict going on, and that fine. However, even those of us who wanted Hussein gone, wanted it done correctly. Bush sucks. He's an asshole, a coward and a fool. If he would have said, "The time is now to free the people of Iraq from the throngs of bondage," or something...it would have been legit. However, rather than face a challenge, he cowardly lied in order to get people to rally behind him. He deserves every single bit of criticism he gets about that. Because of his lies, Americans die. Iraq was never any threat to us. He lied. Iraq was invaded under the guise of fallacial evidence, so that he could gain control. The invasion was poorly run, the campaign executed too quickly, and the occupation completely fucked. Thats why non-liberals hate GWB.
You have absolutely NO proof that Bush LIED...he thought the same things all the Dem's thought...remember, lying is what Clinton did under oath...saying something you KNOW isn't true...
And Carter showed what true liberalism causes...double digit inflation, no energy (gas) and no one listening to him...Iran released the hostages because they were scared of Reagan...period
There are several things that could have been done before invading Iraq.
First of all allowing the UN inspectors to continue NOT FINDING nuclear weapons. Working with Iraq's neighbors to secure Iraq's borders and create a strong economic blockade. Providing support to Iraqis who could work against the regime from inside.
Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US. Every high-ranking military officer including the Secretary of State agreed that Hussein was being well-controlled and had no means of threatening the US as long as that control and inspections continued.
The problem with inspections is that Saddam kicked the inspectors out, and even when they were there he wouldn't let them do their jobs. The rest of the world was getting tired of his attitude, and the USA had the balls to do something about it. Besides, do you honestly believe it would have been hard for Saddam to hide half a dozen truckloads of whatever from twenty inspectors in a country the size of California? Now that we're there and overwhelmingly successful, your complaining does absolutely nothing productive.
A blockade... The economic sanctions against Iraq were erroding, and it was a matter of time, maybe months, maybe just a few short years before they were removed completely... France and Russia certainly weren't going to help, they were on Saddam's oil for food payroll. So was half the U.N.'s top officials, likely including Kofi himself. Moreover, which of Iraq's neighbors, Jim, would have helped us blockade Iraq? Iran, maybe? Syria? Come on, I thought you were smarter than that.
Rhyno..."The campaign executed too quickly"!?!?! We soundly defeated iraq's military, disbanded the government, and set up a functioning democracy in less time than it took to recoup our losses from Pearl Harbor and even start advancing on the Japanese in WWII. Calling that anything other than a record breaking success is pure self-deception. Sure, it's not perfect. Name one war in which anything was ever executed exactly according to pre-existing plans with no mistakes and no unexpected setbacks... You won't answer because you can't. It hasn't happened. Whatever the body count is, we've won. And we will only snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if we cut and run before the country is stabilized. Did you know that it took ten years to completely subdue Post-Nazi Germany? And did you know we STILL have troops there? Peace is not a short process, neither is rebuilding.
Many liberals were against the blockade...how long did we do it the liberal way and have no change in power in Iraq???
Also, your arguement has not shifted away from the fact that the results of the war are fantastic to...we shouldn't have went to war...
different topic...you can't deny that the war is what caused all the positives cited in my blog.
Mike makes points that can't be refuted...all someone has to do is understand history to see what a success Iraq is....not perfect, but a 100% success...they whine and complain about it, but to anyone with a brain it is a huge accomplishment
You are delusional.
(Sorry to stoop to Stephanie Rose's level, but there is no other explanation.)
Yay! Jim surrenders. Just like a liberal.
The Associated Press seems to think it's dirty pool to actually make the Democrats vote on Murtha's resolution. Their article begins:
House Republicans, sensing an opportunity for political advantage, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.
When was the last time you saw an AP article whose first sentence included the words: "Democrats, sensing an opportunity for political advantage..."?
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME?
I was on Espella's site when I ran across the above from his link to "The Powerline". It's good.
Jim:
I don't make comments about your thinking patterns as a means to win or lose an argument. I don't argue with you, I just observe how you argue with others, then I make judgments from my observations. Therefore, I make those comments simply as observations about the way you think. That's the difference here...you are using these sorts of comments as a form of name calling when you have lost an argument. Since I have never argued with you in the first place, it is obvious I am not stating these sorts of comments just because I lost an argument, as you are doing here. And yeah, that is low of you to resort to name calling. Much lower than I will ever be.
Jim can't win this one (or really most arguements).
Steph, great point...the AP story is clearly bias...no doubt about it...
Jim, do you deny that this story that Steph gave us was written with bias???
SR:
"Jim is hopelessly lost."
"the idiocies of these 'intellectual' theories"
"obviously schizoid conclusions"
"Weak like Jim"
SR, you are so much more high-minded than I am. Game, "How can anyone dispute that?"
Post a Comment