Response to comment
1/17/06
At last! A comment from a "lib" that doesn't simply consist of some obscenity. You ask several questions. I will try to answer as I can in this reply.
Prove to you that we should have gone to Iraq.
Well, that might be hard to do. It depends on what you consider proof. Did you consider the first Gulf war a good reason to go to Iraq the first time? If so, are you aware that the first war was ended on a cease-fire in which Hussein agreed to certain things, including the continuing inspection of his country? Are you aware of the Oil For Food foolishness that was preventing proper UN supervision? What about the attempt to kill George H W Bush? Did Hussein shoot at American and British Airplanes in the area HE agreed was no-fly zones?
What about The recent revelation by Stephen F. Hayes in The Weekly Standard that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had ties to – and was training thousands of – terrorists in the years prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Or, the 9/11 Commission Report that clearly stated, “[Osama] bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995.” http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
Did or didn't the US Congress vote to allow the war to take place? See: http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441
Did or didn't almost all of the US Senators make statements that the Hussein regime was a threat to the US? Too many to document but check out press statements of Kerry, Clinton, et al at the time—not 2 years later.
Did of didn't George W Bush take the cause to the UN and didn't they unanimously approve the right of the US to enforce the original cease fire? See http://www.psr.org/home.cfm?id=Post_Gulf_War_U_N__Securi for a list of resolutions relating to WMD.
As for the WMD's, there has been some WMD’s found but I will ignore that. Regardless of the existence of WMD’s or lack thereof, the intelligence services of the US, UK, France, Germany, Egypt, Israel and others all stated he did have them. If you are the leader of a country and you believe that your enemy has both the capability and the desire to inflict damage on you, you MUST take action to prevent that damage. What would you and the great liberal left have said if President Bush had NOT attacked and we found out Hussein did have the WMD's when he or some group he sold them to used them in New York? There would have been rightful HELL to pay. A leader has to react to capabilities and intent. Imminent threat implies something in the nature of a bomb on the way.
Why didn’t he use them? I do not presume to be able to read his deranged mind. He may have already moved them to Syria. He may never have had them and had no generals to tell him that. I don’t know. But then again he may just have been more insane then we know.
If you doubt the truth of my statements of the absurdity of saying I support the troops but not what they are doing, ask a soldier. They would prefer peace also but they are doing what they signed up for. In large numbers, they think they are making a difference in Iraq. They think they are giving a country that was held in bondage a chance to be free. Maybe not American democratic government but a reasonably modified democracy that will perhaps make a major difference in the Middle East.
I suppose my biggest ire is directed at the people that say they support the troops and then in the next sentence say something like: “…that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs," John Kerry.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47765
or perhaps Dick Durbin who: compared American behavior at Guantanamo Bay to the killing fields of Pol Pot, the Nazi concentration camps, and the Soviet Gulag. http://durbin.senate.gov/gitmo.cfm
In conclusion, I will say this again. You have the right to disagree with the war. You might even have an obligation to speak up about it if you do. No problems here. I simply object to the seemingly obligatory “but I support the troops” stuck at the end of any such protest. Don’t bother. They have seen the support many protestors give them.
posted by Harry at 12:10 AM
2 Comments:
I think to the liberal person that commmented on the Iraq war. I commend your efforts and feeling are very much justified but to HARRY I have a few comments to make. 1.) do you claim your Vietnam Veteran? IF you do then you know then its NOT a war it was a police state. I know this due to the fact my Father was over there and did serve in the UNITED STATES COAST GUARD. He did the channel patrol in CATLO and Vong tow( sorry for the Spelling) but if you didnt serve you have no reason to BITCH or even have the RIGHT TO. My father was finally given the right to a Honorary metal in 2003 after being brought home after the POLICE action and TREATED LIKE SCUM by HANOI JANE FONDA. THE TRUE Vietnam veterans can only wish for her dimise but until that day comes the wait and act out against her. I understand granted that I have never served in a time of war but I did never the less serve the NAVY in 1984-86 I am proud that we are over there and fighting for our freedoms and if today I was told I had to fight well I am there.. I know no boundaries about this country and all that is capable. I am tired of people like you who sit there in their arm chairs and do nothing but BITCH. If you have the issue with the president and congress write to them let them know intead of bitching about it in the office. YOu are a product of the 1960's and I cant wait for it to die. Its the 60's generation that has screwed up this country and it will take my generation X to get it right and back where is going to have to be.. But you will get your Social Security but I wont thanks to your LOVE CHILDREN you couldnt raise.
What the hell was that all about to the anonymous pester? (poster hehe) That was some kind of gibberish!!
My return comments to you Sir Harry:
Quote: At last! A comment from a "lib" that doesn't simply consist of some obscenity.
Not all libs are as most concervatives believe, (you posting yet another canned response more a less) having the need to cuss and throw tantrums. Repubs are guilty of the same things I assure you. I want to have a conversation that is true to facts and good debating structure. There will be no cussing or ill thought out comments from me I assure you.
Quote: Prove to you that we should have gone to Iraq. Well, that might be hard to do. It depends on what you consider proof.
I would not think this such a tough thing to do for someone who so totally believes in it. Proof is per our legal system called "evidence."
Quote: Did you consider the first Gulf war a good reason to go to Iraq the first time? If so, are you aware that the first war was ended on a cease-fire in which Hussein agreed to certain things, including the continuing inspection of his country?
Depends on why we went in the first time and how it correlates to going in the second time. As they were getting blown to bits, maybe it put Saddam in a position to sign off on a cease fire agreement to, at the time, insure his people would be protected.
And why did we go in the first time? Was it for wmd's, because he was a dictator, what was it? We left out of there with some resolutions. Why did we not remove him at the time if he was this horrid man who should not have power? We left the man there, yet he was somehow a risk we had to deal with.
And when did it become our responsibility to protect the world? What had Saddam done to us for us to be there? Why didnt the UN deal with it, and if they are still failing per your comment about "Are you aware of the Oil For Food foolishness that was preventing proper UN supervision?" We have come to know that the UN leader himself was involved in this. why do we deal with the UN and even consider resolutions to be a form "supervision."
As far as cease fire agreements, would'nt we have an existing document of sorts with Korea? Why are we allowing Korea to spout off about nuclear weapons. Are we to now take on Korea and Iran? Where does it stop. Or has it somehow become our responsibilty to tell every country what to do, what to have, and what sort of government to have.
As I watch our legal system go in the toilet, convicts that murder and sit on death row for 20 years, judicial hearings that sound like a bunch of high school kids, politicians (and by god, politicians on both sides of the right and left argument) that bicker back and forth for all the world to see, I ask myself, why...why do we push our so called democracy on the rest of the world?
Quote: What about the attempt to kill George H W Bush?
Was there actual proof that this attempt was made? Why was saddam not delt with for this. The UN could have taken action on him for "war crimes."
Quote: Did Hussein shoot at American and British Airplanes in the area HE agreed was no-fly zones?
Did he? Thats what Im asking you. Do you have any proof that has been laid on the table to the american people that these things were happening. Or are we getting the same info from the cia and individuals that have since been fired such as George Tenet.
Quote: Did of didn't George W Bush take the cause to the UN and didn't they unanimously approve the right of the US to enforce the original cease fire?
The first 2 resolutions refer to the ceasefire. The rest are all condemnations and 1 deplorization. There is nothing regarding the United States being the enforcer of any failures to comply with these resolutions.
Quote: As for the WMD's, there has been some WMD’s found but I will ignore that.
Typical of the right to ignore the main issue at hand. That is the sole reason that Bush wanted to go to Iraq, because he had these wmd's and he was going to use them. I did not hear Bush say, "we will go there because of the kurds, or that he is assasinating people etc. or because the UN wanted us to enforce the resolutions" , it was because of wmd's.
What little of the so called wmd's that have been found could hardly be a case or proof positive to go in and do what we have done. Because a roadside bomb had serin gas in it, all of a sudden there are wmd's. Hardly. This is typical "rightie" rhetoric. A typical excuse, very lame and shallow for such a conversation.
I can not sit here and agree with a statement that:
"What would you and the great liberal left have said if President Bush had NOT attacked and we found out Hussein did have the WMD's when he or some group he sold them to used them in New York?"
We had no proof he was selling them to al-qaida or intended to use them himself. We certainly do not have a right to invade a country on a basis of what we "think" he might do.
Can I go and use such a theory in real life. If someone looks at me cross eyed, or a bum comes to me and asks me for money, should I just assume they mean ill will and punch them in the damn face? No I cant can I.
You mention many countries that stated and agreed that he had wmd's. If this is so as the right and Mr. Hannity continue to expound upon, with no real evidence, then why Harry, why do these same countries now not stand with us. If they were so sure he had them, why do they not stand with us.Why do they condem us for taking the action as we did if these were not true? One would think these countries would stand against such things knowing they could be equally attacked.
I find it interesting that you wish to ignore such a question and then answer it with such a feeble response.
Quote: Why didn’t he use them? I do not presume to be able to read his deranged mind. He may have already moved them to Syria. He may never have had them and had no generals to tell him that. I don’t know. But then again he may just have been more insane then we know.
Harry, come on, your posts seem to be so worldly and insightful. How can you have no answer regarding this question. Does it even make you think? Have you just completely ignored this fact, in a hopes that denial will eliviate it from the equation?
Let me massage your cranium a minute. Just imagine you are a countries leader. You have stock piles of weapons, those of which could wipe out batallions of millitary personell. You see the infidells coming across the border, or know they are coming........
And you get rid of them?
This makes no sense. These would have been his only real weapon in a fight with the US and the world. He surely must have known a millitary/hand to hand fight with the US/Allies and his Ba'th party would surely lead to his loss. Why would he get rid of his only hopes of winning this war?
He used them on the Kurds and against Russia this we know.(we know this cuz we assisted in him getting them) Why not now? Why not against the one country he hates more than anyone else?
Or maybe he didnt have them. Maybe he only had x amounts that had already been used up. Maybe Bush moved too fast. Maybe Bush was to eager to get revenge for said attack on his father. Maybe we should have stayed focused on the one man who is still running around and even today releases another video regarding attacks. Yet we have no idea where he is at.....
Quote: If you doubt the truth of my statements of the absurdity of saying I support the troops but not what they are doing, ask a soldier.
How do you know I havent? How do you know I am not millitary? You make a large assumtion here in your quest to remain "right." (no pun intended)
You on the right have made this into a issue that people can not possibly do 2 things: 1. support the troops and 2. be against the war they are trapped in.
This is incorrect. I support the troops whole heartedly. I have military family. I have a family member in the air force.
Why can I not support what he does, but fear for his life in being a part of a war that in this americans eyes have not been justified. Its one thing to be continually loosing servicemen and women whilst chasing Bin Laden and his cohorts, it is another to believe in a fight in a totally different country against a man, who has yet to be proven, had anything to do with 911.
As I see yet another story of Bin Laden and see that he is still alive, how do I find a way to support what is going on in Iraq, and 99.9999% likely hood he is not even in Iraq. John Kerry does not speak for me and many other people. We have not lost our mind like Cindy Sheehan. So to use them in a response is defeating the purpose. I have thrown nothing in your face to try to prove a point. I try to give legitimate facts and statements and you should too.
It is possible to do both my friend. It is very possible to say I support the troops, but do not like the direction their commander in cheif has taken them. I do not have to agree with what my government has done. As I watch innocent mothers and fathers pull their kids and family members from piles of rubble and the man who started this still runs free, how do I believe.
And I will not say I agree just to agree. I will not say I support the troops and the war, just so people like you will not bitch about the fact that I dont. I love the troops and I love what they do. But this is and has been the wrong war, with the wrong people. We brought more problems to Iraq then what they had to begin with. A couple of bullets could have easily gotten some of the same results as comepletely overthrowing the country.
I see so much "talk raido" response in your comments. Be a free thinker Harry.
Post a Comment
<< Home