|
Post by whatever on Oct 26, 2004 10:00:11 GMT -5
...so I had to mess it up ;D
Hey, I've got a question: What do you think it is that Bush supporters/Kerry haters think it is that Kerry will/would be able to do if he is elected? I mean, I know what it is I fear with Bush; more of the same. With Kerry?
We're already at war, and as far as I can see, Bush hasn't listened to the advice of his own military, so even if you support the war, I can't see why you'd support Bush. If you don't support the war, even more so.
And I don't see what it is that Kerry could realistically be able to do that would be any worse than what Bush is likely to do. The war is going horribly; what could be worse?
I don't understand it, the Kerry fear.
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Oct 26, 2004 17:03:20 GMT -5
Bush isn't listening to the advice of the military leaders? I had not heard that.
I'm afraid that Kerry will have a lack of resolve...that he'll end up sabotaging our efforts in Iraq. I want the war over, like anyone else...but I don't want our departure to be like the departure from Vietnam. I want the sacrifices that our men and women to be for something - not for nothing. I don't want these cretins to win.
|
|
|
Post by n2nsites on Oct 26, 2004 17:19:03 GMT -5
Bush isn't listening to the advice of the military leaders? I had not heard that. I'm afraid that Kerry will have a lack of resolve...that he'll end up sabotaging our efforts in Iraq. I want the war over, like anyone else...but I don't want our departure to be like the departure from Vietnam. I want the sacrifices that our men and women to be for something - not for nothing. I don't want these cretins to win. What cretins to win what? I am not really being flippant. Although I will concede it seems so. I am just curious as to a definition. The fact of the matter is, on the war issue alone, Bush seems a stronger, if errant, leader.
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Oct 26, 2004 18:52:21 GMT -5
What cretins to win what? I am not really being flippant. Although I will concede it seems so. I am just curious as to a definition. The fact of the matter is, on the war issue alone, Bush seems a stronger, if errant, leader. Cretins = the terrorists who are beheading people, and sabotaging the reconstruction of Iraq...the people who want the new government to fail, so they can set up (I assume) an Islamic government. I guess that definition indicates the "win what" part too...
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Oct 28, 2004 6:29:47 GMT -5
Cretins = the terrorists who are beheading people, and sabotaging the reconstruction of Iraq...the people who want the new government to fail, so they can set up (I assume) an Islamic government. I guess that definition indicates the "win what" part too... Weren't we in this whole thing to begin with because of an attack perpetrated by Osama bin Laden? What does destroying and rebuilding Iraq have to do with finding and bringing Osama bin Laden to justice?
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Oct 28, 2004 7:02:08 GMT -5
Bush isn't listening to the advice of the military leaders? I had not heard that. I'm afraid that Kerry will have a lack of resolve...that he'll end up sabotaging our efforts in Iraq. I want the war over, like anyone else...but I don't want our departure to be like the departure from Vietnam. I want the sacrifices that our men and women to be for something - not for nothing. I don't want these cretins to win. Hmmm okay, this is what I asking for. Someone with a level head on their shoulders, not someone feels the need to jump up and down senselessly to make his point. I've heard from quite a few sources that he didn't listen to his military. Namely that even those that wanted to invade Iraq wanted a much larger force. But, for appearances sake, that the Admin used fewer forces. I also read that Powell and quite a few others didn't even want to go into this war, this way, for those reasons, the reasons stated. I believe that he wanted to go to war before 9/11, but has never admitted it. I think that was wrong, and a lie. The intelligence agencies told the admin that this thing could develop into a civil war, and this was ignored. We've killed who knows how many civilians, just because "they were home"...and it hasn't helped anybody. If anything, it started this widespread insurgency. I quite honestly don't understand why you feel the way you do Kender, and I mean no insult. We've done things to their people in prison that they wouldn't even do. We've become the monsters. We stand for everything they hate now, and I don't see how they can be blamed for that. All in the name of our...safety? So much of what we've done has been on theory, supposition, assuming what will happen if we dont act, and yet the things we've done over there aren't theory at all. Was this theory of fighting terrorism in Iraq worth the tens of thousands of people we've seen die there? If we don't care about human lives, what's the point? Are ours worth more than theirs, are they more violent than we are? I fail to see how they could be. We're the most violent thing around. Not something I'm proud of. Those are just a few of the things I think of, when I read what you wrote. You said "I don't want our departure to be like the departure from Vietnam", and all I can say is, with this Admin acting as blind and dishonest as it has...how can it turn out any way other than Vietnam? Do you see any honest resolution going on? The prisons we tortured them in, no WMD's, no Osama connection? It's SSDD with new terrain, new bodies and new bombs. My extreme opinion? Bush should be tried for treason. And imprisoned for the rest of his life. That's one of the few things we could do to right things. It won't happen of course, but nonetheless. It's the most just and least violent solution. I think it is likely that we won't agree on this war anytime soon Kender, so I should probably stop. I don't want or intend to insult you, no matter how strongly I disagree. And I'm glad you aren't in the military there kid. What they've done to our soldiers enrages me.
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Oct 28, 2004 16:34:59 GMT -5
Weren't we in this whole thing to begin with because of an attack perpetrated by Osama bin Laden? What does destroying and rebuilding Iraq have to do with finding and bringing Osama bin Laden to justice? Not a damn thing. Never claimed it did. We didn't go into Iraq because of Osama bin Laden.
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Oct 28, 2004 16:57:27 GMT -5
For reasons I don't want to go into here, I don't think the military would have me...otherwise there is a good chance that I may have gone into the military years ago.
Here's how I'm thinking: I don't like war. Nobody in their right mind likes war. People get hurt, people die...hell, that's the whole point of war...to make people get hurt and make people die.
That said...when you are in a war, you should fight to win. I like General "War is Hell" Sherman's idea, personally: total war. Destroy the roads, the railroads, the crops...anything that could possibly help the enemy. When the enemy is defeated, rebuild. It's cold, it's heartless, but war is Hell and war should be Hell. Maybe the problem is that we're trying to rebuild before the enemy is really defeated. If you're going to go to war, go to war. Forget about half-measures. They're a waste of time. If you're not willing to do that, then you shouldn't go to war in the first place.
Maybe we shouldn't have gone to war. Maybe we're not cold hearted enough to do what needs to be done in a war. The fact is, though...that we're in one now. We don't have to like it, but we are now responsible for what we have done to Iraq and to leave Iraq with the mess we have made (like we once did to Afghanistan - we supported their fight against the USSR, but did nothing for them once they won...) would be irresponsible, and ultimately a disaster. Our fighting men and women shed their blood to get rid of Saddam, and to allow these terrorists to set up their Islamic state (possibly worse than Saddam) would mean that they died for nothing. Maybe that will ultimately be the case...I don't know. It is my hope that we can leave Iraq better than it was when we arrived. Maybe that hope will be dashed under Bush. Maybe that hope will be dashed under Kerry...*sigh*...I hope not.
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Oct 28, 2004 17:23:07 GMT -5
The problem with declaring war on terrorism is it's so hard to define the enemy. We bombed Afghanistan from one end to the other but were the same afghani people that were so terrorized by Al Quada really our enemies. I'll bet a lot of them are now. I don't know morally, I had a problem with what we did there. I felt alone in my views amongst my friends and co-workers. Next the war and occupation of Iraq. Why did we stop chasing Bin Laden? Why the rush to Iraq? Why the lies? What was the real agenda in Iraq? So many questions...not enough answers.
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Oct 28, 2004 17:27:52 GMT -5
The fact of the matter is, on the war issue alone, Bush seems a stronger, if errant, leader. I'd like a little more mental strength in a President and a little less chest pounding. To me, Bush acts like he's just in one big pissing contest with the world.
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Oct 28, 2004 23:03:36 GMT -5
Not a damn thing. Never claimed it did. We didn't go into Iraq because of Osama bin Laden. Not to be argumentative, but, why did we go into Iraq?
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Oct 29, 2004 0:50:03 GMT -5
Not to be argumentative, but, why did we go into Iraq? The reason we went into Iraq had everything to do with Saddam and nothing to do with Osama. Saddam had been playing the United Nations like a fiddle for years. It was becoming more and more clear that he was not dealing with the UN in good faith, and that we could expect more of the same game playing from Saddam. Our belief was that he really did have weapons of mass destruction and was stalling for time to hide them before the inspectors could find them. We also observed that the economic sanctions that were placed on Iraq was not having the desired effect - it hurt the Iraqi people, but not Saddam. In short, we lost faith in the effectiveness of diplomacy.
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Oct 29, 2004 1:22:44 GMT -5
The problem with declaring war on terrorism is it's so hard to define the enemy. We bombed Afghanistan from one end to the other but were the same afghani people that were so terrorized by Al Quada really our enemies. I'll bet a lot of them are now. I don't know morally, I had a problem with what we did there. I felt alone in my views amongst my friends and co-workers. Next the war and occupation of Iraq. Why did we stop chasing Bin Laden? Why the rush to Iraq? Why the lies? What was the real agenda in Iraq? So many questions...not enough answers. Why did we stop chasing Bin Laden? My guess is that we lost track of him. That or we really have not stopped chasing him, but have realized that while publicizing this may be nice politically, it is not practical. There's a show on now called "Dog" - about a bounty hunter and his family. I only caught it once. In the episode, they were trying to find multiple people. One gal they were looking for was darn good at hiding. Dog's wife wanted to keep going after her. Dog, on the other hand, decided to give it a rest and work another case. He wasn't giving up on catching this elusive woman. He just didn't want to force her further underground. He wanted to let her feel comfortable. When she felt comfortable, she would get careless. When she got careless, they would be able to find her. While I cannot be sure (I neither work for the CIA nor am I in Afghanistan or Pakistan), it could be that our guys came to the same conclusion that Dog did....that it was time to be quiet, tone down the Osama rhethoric, listen, and wait for him to make a mistake. Why the lies? I'm afraid at 1:04 AM I'm not able to discern which lies you are talking about to attempt an answer... Morally...well...that's always a tricky one with war...since the whole point of war is to do nasty stuff like killing and destroying. There is a "Just War" theory, but I'm too tired to go into that, and try to figure out how close to "Just" we are. I think we did an admirable job of trying to limit the destruction and death we inflicted, though. It's certainly nicer than "Vae Victus" ("Woe to the Vanquished"). I do think that it is easier to defend what we did in Afghanistan, morally, than it is to defend what we did in Iraq. Afghanistan was harboring the group that attacked us, after all. There was nothing pre emptive about it...and let's face it, the Taliban are pretty hard to like, too. ;D Good riddance to bad rubbish. Well, it's 1:15 and I'm going to take a trip to the land of dreams. I hope what I typed above makes some sort of sense...but I'm going to go ahead and hit "submit" anyway and go to dreamland...ttfn.
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Oct 29, 2004 5:33:53 GMT -5
It's not the Taliban I'm concerned about. It's all those women and young girls who risked their lives everytime they picked up a book to read or study. We bombed them too. But I at least understand the Afghani connection. We know now that Iraq was in the agenda from the beginning. Before 9/11. That's the big lie.
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Oct 29, 2004 9:46:38 GMT -5
It's not the Taliban I'm concerned about. It's all those women and young girls who risked their lives everytime they picked up a book to read or study. We bombed them too. But I at least understand the Afghani connection. We know now that Iraq was in the agenda from the beginning. Before 9/11. That's the big lie. Although we did an amazing job of limiting the destruction to what we wanted to destroy...I don't think it'll ever be possible to only kill "the right people". As for "the big lie" I never thought that Iraq was in the agenda because of 9/11...so I don't feel deceived at all.
|
|