Sometimes I hate being right
 

I think you all know where I stand politically. Supporter of Bush in his Iraq efforts, but not interested in seeing us go anywhere else. That said, you can understand why I wish I wasn't right about this.

A little background. Around the time we were gearing up for Iraq, my buddy told me about something his son said. Now, my buddy, let's call him J., is divorced and his ex-hosebeast is married to a military guy. So anyway, one day, while J's kids were visiting, his son asks him, "Daddy, why do we hate Syria?" This is because his stepdad was ALREADY studying maps of Syria. This is why I've been saying for a few months now, "watch, we're going to Syria next."

What to my wondering eyes should appear this evening but the headline "Tension Rises between Syria, U.S."

Now, I want our military to have the funds it needs to do a good job in Iraq. Really, I do. But I cannot support Bush's current request for fundage, because I *know* what they're going to be used for. Enough is enough. We saved the Iraqis, now let's get them going and get the hell outta the middle east already! Remember Georgie, we repubs are for LOW TAXES as well!

Grr...

Fox News is already talking up the importance of taking out Syria, Iran and North Korea- basically, a get-them-before-they-get-us stance. I don't doubt that these are scary countries and the potential for problems quite high, but surely there are better ways? All this posturing and saber rattling is ridiculous and dangerous. One might also ask where the hell he's going to get the troops to do this? Don't get me wrong- I believe we have the right to defend ourselves against attack, but we simply cannot go around attacking countries because of the threat they pose against us. We haven't got the manpower, and it will ruin this country.

Yeah. As said before, I agreed about Afghanistan and Iraq. But I draw the line there. Anything else is going to put us in unimaginable danger. This must not continue.

I don't get it. You're okay with attacking Iraq, who posed no danger, but you draw the line at Syria and Korea who are PROVEN to be more of a threat than Iraq ever was?

I agree with GD; Syria and Iran along with Korea are much greater threats then Iraq was(hindsight)....however, Iraq was in violation of a cease fire....as far as I know these other countries are not. Like it or not, we may have to wait for one of them to make the first move before attacking :(

Iraq=Saddam=problem

I'm not saying Syria is all that great. But now is sure as heck not the right time for this. If we invade yet another country, we can no longer deny the imperialist label they're sticking on us.

You know, the terrorists are long-range planners (probably because much of their language doesn't even acknowledge the passage of time). I think we're being goaded into something.

Which is why we really will have to wait for them to make the first move before launching in all out attack. Hopefully our saber rattling will convince them to behave.

What bothers me even more is the further straining of U.S. military manpower capability. We already entered Iraq woefully undermanned, which led to many unneeded deaths since the conflict began. If troops are sent into Syria or Iran, not only will those troops not have large enough numbers to properly do their jobs and guarantee their own safety, but troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are going to be left in even worse shape than they are now. This paradox that the Bush administration has created for itself; let's go fight a conflict requiring X number of troops, but only send .5X or .3X so that we don't upset the citizenry too much, is only going to lead to even more unnecessary death and loss.

I was always taught to do the job right, or don’t do it at all. Too bad no-one in Washington can see things through that far ahead.

Which leads us to the possibility of a draft. Those troops have to come from somewhere and recruitment isn't exactly on the rise these days.

Oh wait...never mind...that was just a democratic scare tactic. We have plenty of troops to open a few more fronts on this war, right?

Which is a good, and frightening, point. I supported going into Iraq, but wouldn't have if I had known how it was going to go down. I am wholly against going anywhere else until operations currently being undertaken are drawn to a close and the military can withdraw and regroup. And that's if it is absolutely necessary to go anywhere else.

But a draft even at this point is totally unwarranted. During the first Gulf War the U.S. sent far more troops than this time. (I'm too tired to look up actual stats right now, but I want to say it was 450,000 then, as opposed to 150,000 or 200,000 now? I'll check tomorrow.) Yet there was no draft then. I'm convinced that this current problem has arisen because politicians again (as during Vietnam) fancy themselves war strategists, instead of leaving that job to the professionals, which is a huge policy mistake and a very costly and dangerous lesson to have to learn again.

Oh, don't worry, they'll call back all those(us) that thought we were out for good and already discharged honorably(there are reports of it already happening) before they institute the civilian population draft. BTW, this posturing and the Iraq fiasco was a major contributor to me choosing to leave the military, amongst numerous others.

we don't know if this is planning a new theatre of battle, or merely a psychological battle...let's not borrow trouble yet

Stunning, ain't it?

No, what is stunning is how everyone, including the leading dems thought Iraq WAS a threat, and that it needed to be dealt with- until we got there and found that there was nothing there now (moved into Syria, I have no doubt)- now all of a sudden the adminstration lied and there was nothing worth going for. It's a convenient lapse of memory and a revision of history.

You say potato...

heehee ;)

Don't you worry about that. The Bushies have been working on a plan to make military enlistment an attractive alternative to extreme poverty for millions of Americans. Widen the gap between the haves and have-nots and, wonder of wonders, the recruitment pool increases.



We need the poor to
fight our wars. Those too stupid
to have rich daddies.

You go to war with the President you have.

Nope.

It was a leap of faith- that Tony Blair and the intelligence community might actually know more than they could let on, and that things really were as dire as Bush and his cronies were making them out to be. It was a lapse of judgement, and a mistake that I certainly will not make again.

So, if the draft is started up again, where might the rich boys (and perhaps girls) hide now? The National Guard is no longer a safe haven.

I am not even going to bother wasting my time pulling up the dozens of quotes of dems demanding action in Iraq, or the dem claims that Iraq had WMD's, those quotes were not leaps of faith. They were comments made by people who have access to the full info and briefings- which we are not.

I see a convenient change in opinion and attitude which is easily proven by the quotes easily found that contradict themselves for the purpose of being contrary to an administration they (and most of you) hate.

I know that George will never, ever admit to a mistake. That is probably going to be his fatal flaw. I am far more comfortable admitting I was wrong about something than I am following a questionable course of action that will lead to unimaginable dangers. Maybe you are willing to contribute the cannon fodder that will be required to handle Mr. Bush's overseas adventures, but I am not. My opinion is every bit as relevant as yours. I won't attack your stance, because it's what you believe. I happen to believe otherwise.

I'm not attacking you in the least, nor am I going to indulge in making this personal. I am not adding cannon fodder to anything....

I am speaking directly to the comments about someone being fine attacking Iraq which posed no threat- yet at the time, and for years in the past it was COMMON agreement that Iraq was a threat. Now it is convenient to state that it was all a lie and use it to attack the administration.

I don't have anything to admit wrong for. I was not sitting in those congressional or senate meetings, I don't have access to the intel they do, and I have not personally sent anyone to war. I personally think, as does Morrigoon, who started this thread, that we did the right thing in Iraq- and I don't have to admit to being "wrong" about anything.

The dems are not saying they were wrong- they are denying their past stance and screaming that Bush and Co are liars. It's partisan and transparent, and no attempt to make it look noble works.

So they demanded action in Iraq over what they thought was an urgent threat to America's security based on "full info and briefings" provided by....the Bush administration. Yowza!

And let's not forget, since we are engaging in an exercise to defend against revisionist history, the political climate (70% of Americans in favor of attacking) at the time. The dems where guilty of lacking a backbone and going along with the frenzy whipped up by a warmongering administration, I'll grant you that.

Yes, there were people on both sides who truly believed that Iraw was a threat before we went in. But as the issue got pushed, as the time for a decission came, people said, "Okay, let's see the hard evidence, the smoking gun, THEN we'll support it." And what hard evidence came out? Collin Powel with a couple satelite photos of trucks with circles around them. THAT'S when people's "stories changed", and by "stories changed," I mean people stood by their statements that said we shouldn't go in without defnitive proof. And yet we did.

Between you and me, I wouldn't have been surprised to find out that Sadaam DID have a WMD program. But without proof, there was no justification for action. Assume and speculate all you want, but there's a damned good reason part of the foundation of this country involves the addage "innocent until proven guilty." I suppose we should all thank George for demonstrating so vividly why it's important to do more than pay lip service to the values that define our country, and actually uphold them rather then uphold them unless it's convenient not to.

:rolleyes" yeah- that's it. The dems were weak willed helpless and hapless, almost victims, who just could not stand up to anyone. They are not REALLY responsible for any of the opinions that Iraq was a threat, or had WMD's, no, they were just misled, and it's all someone else's fault

The briefings and intel came LONG before the current Bush administration-

do you ever get tired of offering these excuses, justifications or finger pointing at anyone BUT your party?

You can't apply our JUSTICE system to this! I'm sorry- after years of problematic inspections, breaking of cease fires, flaunting every resolution from the UN, and MONTHS of warnings and time to move any WMD or program- we had plenty of proof. How many terrorists did Iraq have to pay money to? How much support of terrorisim do you let them get away with?

They are not subject to the addage of innocent until proven guilty-

you seem to want to apply US citizen principles to world issues or foreign people- it doesn't work that way. They don't get the innocent until proven guilty anymore than foreign NON-uniformed terrorist get the protection of OUR Constitution.

I could point to the quotes by powell and rice about Iraq not being a threat a year before they were a threat, but whats the point.

If by excuses you mean an honest recollection of the events between 9/11 and the Iraqi invasion, no, I'll never stop telling the truth.

The dems weren't helpless, they were spineless. Considering the climate at the time, it would have been political suicide to speak out against attacking Iraq. That shouldn't have stopped them from doing the right thing but it did.

Do you remember the congresswoman from Oakland, California and the hell she went through when she voted against giving Bush the authority to go to war? Ugly stuff. Let's face it, this country is full of people who feel better about themselves when America is kicking somebody's ass.

I like to believe that the US citizens principles are principles that many of us strive to live by, and not just use when it is convinient to us. And the only concern I have about not living our principles outlined in the constitution and considering them when dealing with NON-uniformed individuals that may or may not be terrorists is at that point we are no longer living by those principles, and living a lie. We then become arrogant, and better then the rest of the world. Which is also a lie, for this country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal, no matter on what the citizenship.

You don't think guilt should be established before engaging in the heretofore un-American act of unprovoked aggression? Yikes!

What you call the truth I call partisan hysteria and manipulation.

GUILT WAS ESTABLISHED! Years and years of proof, reason, and motive- months and months of wrangling and warnings. You want to replay history, pretend your "side" knew they truth all along and was just hijacked by the mean nasty neo-cons. I find that laughable.

I am not doing this- I am not going to let you put words in my mouth either. :mad:

Bingo. This country spouts how great our morals and values are, but refuses to apply them in our dealings with the rest of the world. What does that say about those values?

Well then, what's Bush waiting for? Let's see those WMD.

all men may be created equal- all men are NOT subject to our justice standard of innocent until proven guilty.

Because it's not a value- it's a standard of justice applied to US citizens entitled to certain legal protections as citizens.

Nobody knew the truth, that's the issue isn't it? The administration swore they knew the "truth" but I fear the sky may be purple in their world.

Sure- let's go into Syria and get them shall we? :rolleyes:

no wiggling out of it- you said dems were only guilty of being spineless and getting carried away by war mongers- that implies that if left to their own devices they would not have done this because they knew it was not "true"....and they would have done it differently.

This administration...HA. And heaven forbid if anyone bring up any other administrations stances on this because you all rule that out as sour grapes and dismiss it.....it's a useless conversation.

Maybe they would have arrived at the same conclusion as the neocons, maybe not. But an invasion should have been a last resort.

John Kerry said on the day they voted to give authorization to Bush that his vote came with the caveat that every other possible avenue be explored before invading Iraq.

Can you, in good conscience, claim that Bush exhausted all his other options prior to invading?

I guess I don't understand values then. I see it as a value, all the principles in the bill of rights. That was the whole reason they were put in, because they were the values that the people held and hold true.

Agreed. If they don't apply to everyone, then why are they important at all?

yes