Ever since President Bush committed U.S. troops to Iraq to continue the fight against terrorism Democrats in Congress have done nothing but bitch, moan and criticize without ever offering another plan. Well, we finally have a plan. Cut the funding for the troops. They don't have the power to bring them out of Iraq on their own so Sen. Russ Feingold has offered up a plan that would force them home. I don't know, but this seems like a big "Fuck You" to the men and women over there. Pull the money out that they need to help train the Iraqi military so they can take over the responsibility of their own country.
Categories:
Democrats/Liberals,
Insanity,
Iraq,
Politics,
United States Military,
War On Terror
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
It's probably better that you don't look at it as a 'fuck you' to the troops, as for as long there has been leaders/rulers, there has been troops getting 'the raw deal'. It's worse with a two-party system, the troops are 'caught in the middle'.
Some may see it as a bigger betrayal sending troops into the present situation without adequate planning. It's hard to find anyone who thinks Iraq is going well, and there was no shortage of of people who warned of this 'before it happened'.
It's honourable to serve your country, but it's criminal for a leader to pointlessly sacrifice those who are willing to serve.
Well; then the Dems should come up with a plan(anyplan) to succeed in Iraq. Retreat and copitulation to an enemy who has declared war on us is NOT a plan. It is national suicide. Criticism without alternatives is not only childish but idiotic.
"Criticism without alternatives is not only childish but idiotic."
not really. It's just a starting point. Bush has only recently conceded that there is even a need for a change in plan, so up until now, that criticism has served to encourage Mr Bush to agree that change is needed.
While it would be good if the Dems produced a plan (they'll probably need it after the damage Mr Bush has done to the chance of any republican winning the next election), the responsibility does lie with Mr Bush, while he's in power, to come up with a solution. That is especially so as Mr Bush (and administration) can be considered more morally responsible, as it they who 'dug this hole'.
"an enemy who has declared war on us"
I think it's safe to say that WE declared war on THEM (We have invaded Iraq, without any real reason).
I think its safer to say that Islamofascists declared war on the world and western civilization decades ago. Thats the "war". Iraq is only a battle in the global struggle against Islamic supremacy.
Battle/war
do you want to ditch the semantic exercise?
What you are talking about is a clash of ideas being resolved by violence.
It's easy for each side of that to point to some distant, unrelated atrocity as justification for continuation, but how is the invasion of Iraq in 2003 not an act of aggression by America and it's stooges.
John, you seem to be talking about genocide. If you are going to see 'the War on terror' as a war on 'western civilisation' by Islam, you don't leave much room for solution but killing all Islam. And as such, if a people are guilty by by being Islamic, why are some being spared?
Isn't the aim of a war to kill all the enemy?
It makes me think of sharks with a taste of blood in the water. After Afghanistan (an unrelated war), it seemed all to easy to just move on to another nation without needing a good reason, there was just 'blood in the water', and Iraq was next.
"What you are talking about is a clash of ideas"--
Not a clash of "ideas" but of Idiology; wrapped up in culture and religon. Right versus wrong. Alot of difference there. If you do not have a reference point of good or evil in the idiological war of religons and governments; then there is really no point in trying to explain it to you. Because you cannot possibly see the problem only that two groups are fighting. You cannot see the incompatability between the two ideologies nor the "fight" for survival of each. Its a big picture type of thought process. Not just a little battle here or a big battle there; Murphy.
"Not a clash of "ideas" but of Idiology"
... I wish I meant 'ideology' (it's normally a lot safer, characterised by 'hot air' and posturing)
Ideology grows out of interaction, and describes the contrast in culture.
What you have here is nations isolated from each other, each with a central IDEA of the other.
America: 'Islam is going to attack us ( cos they are jealous of our freedom, no sorry, that was Russia)'
Islamic nations: 'America is going to attack us (cos they are evil)'
In America's case, the rest is 'window dressing', an attempt to justify the whole lot after the central idea formed (a bit like shooting a hole in a fence, then painting a 'bullseye' around it)
In the case of Islamic nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria.. they have a realistic basis for thinking that they are going to be bombed, invaded, etc. (If they think that is evil, then that's when it heads off into ideology)
"you cannot possibly see the problem"
"You cannot see the incompatability "
...Oh! Shit! you've got me all worked out there, mister!
"Its a big picture type of thought process. Not just a little battle here or a big battle there"
Thank you. I've been trying to get an answer (that wasn't dogmatic. That's a start) on how you can think that a nation America invaded, started the fight (Is each war a separate choice, or are we just working down a pre-determined list?).
So why Iraq, why 2003? They were arguably less threat to anyone than any time in the decades that you claim this war has been running. For starters, America was no longer arming Iraq (like in the 80's), and they were co-operating with U.N. weapons inspectors, as well as can be expected from a nation with the 'sword of Damascus' hanging over their head (It's just like the sword of Damocles, but it's what it means to be 'fortunate' when you have ties to Syria, and you catch America's attention).
So if this is a "big picture type thought process", does that means that there was nothing Iraq could have done to avoid war? ..and the 'big picture' solution is a genocidal march through all of Islam? (like I've asking for a while. despite your claims John, that I can't see what's going on, (I have an opinion informed by the freedom to question, a freedom that I believe is curtailed somewhat in current social climate in America), I've merely been prompting you with some of the possibilities to get a straight answer, not the "good versus evil... right versus wrong".. coming to a cinema near you-type thing
What is amazing to me is not your lack of understanding of any point of view other than your own; (world view) is how you can ignore more than 700 years of Islamic fascism, terrorism and outright statements declaring war, reasons for that war, and the Conquest and world domination through the sword that ALL of the prominant leaders of Islam have stated and continue to state each and everyday around the world. Yet; its always such a trivial thing in your summarizations of world events. (See last oversimplification statement by Murphy above).
Why is it not Right verses wrong? Good verses Evil? Why is your world belief and opinion more valid than those who hold my world view and opinion? Every sarcastic dripping comment smacks of your ignorant self rightousness; that I feel like throwing up everytime I read one of your posts.
Discussion over. Find another plaything for your overinflated ego.(seems to be a common denominator among you Aussies.)
Correction: Should read more than 1300 years of Islamic Fascism, terrorism and world conquest by the sword. DENY that Murphy! But; it was all Americas fault in the other centuries before she existed also Murph? Yea. We know what you are. Your False facts and historical data concerning current events; speculation about their causes and effects on a global scale; tell everyone just What you really are.
Yawn... yeah, I thought you'd like that John!
"lack of understanding of any point of view other than your own"
You have got to joking?
I UNDERSTAND pretty much ALL points of view that I've heard on this matter, the bit that I suspect upsets you is that I don't AGREE with the point of view that you are presenting (and are confused by the inconsistencies in you're arguments).
"outright statements declaring war... Conquest and world domination through the sword"
I'm no more impressed by militant Islam advocating death than I am by you or any one else doing it.
"Why is it not Right verses wrong? Good verses Evil?"
Because the extremes of both sides are advocating the same thing (except America has been more affective at executing their objectives: 35,000 Iraqis killed in 2006). I value human life above all else, and have a pragmatic understanding of what is 'good', based on that. ie. 2 side that are seeking to kill each other can't be a matter of 'good vs. evil', that would be evil vs. evil. Having said that, I question the majority of Iraqi's stomach for war.
"Why is your world belief and opinion more valid..."
It's not, and if you think that is my attitude, then you grievously mistaken.
"Every sarcastic dripping comment smacks of your ignorant self rightousness"
I've tried plain and direct questions and statements to try and understand; what seem like inconsistencies in your arguments, and you answer with dogmatic, melodrama that makes your actual beliefs underneath it, no easier to get to. It is why most of what I've written are questions; you won't give me a straight answer (and maybe I duck a few questions from time to time... I'll show you mine (so to speak), if you show me yours...)
"tell everyone just What you really are."
ok, there are few answers to that, depending on your p.o.v.
Well, primarily I am someone who really wished Mister Bush (and administration) had considered a solution other than absolute force, as violence begets more violence (John, you're pointing to Islamic use of violence as a reason for violence. Do you not think that a generation of would-be Islamic extremists are on the other side of the world thinking Iraq justifies them taking up the sword? Where will this vicious cycle end? That's what really worries me).
What am I? someone who would have preferred that the present Australian gov. didn't buy into the hype, and would answer questions on their choices without just pointing to American decisions/policies as though they don't govern in their own right, as though they are a franchise of the present US gov.
What am I? Someone who is struggling to understand the full spectrum of attitudes in the world around me. Reading your posts and asking questions is just one source. Besides, John, you are my favourite American comedian!
what am I?
oh I know this one... I was listening when Mister Bush was trying to reset our moral compass'
let me see.. "you are either with us or against us"... I don't agree with this war in Iraq. So by Mr Bush's definition, I am a terrorist, simply for desiring peaceful alternative to war/violence.
You people want a plan? (I've been making fun of John, so I probably owe you a serious suggestion/conversation topic)
I don't think you are going to get a coherent plan from the democrats, any more than you are from the Bush administration.
As I said above, I believe in a pragmatic approach to the preservation to human life. So here it is, a 'big picture direction' and a 'short term response' direction
Big Picture:
A some stage, someone has to say 'we don't want a fight', and America is the only stakeholder in a realistic position to do this effectively. The terrorists are a fractured assortment without a common element (other than desire to kill/disrupt) or structured leadership that can speak on behalf of all.
Until someone 'breaks the cycle' of violence, that is all you will get, violence.
Sure politicians will say that sounds like weakness, and weakness is suicide... etc, but they are mostly more worried about appearances and election results, and not solving anything.
I'm not suggesting that America should just 'take a beating' from anyone with a pilot's licence, but address terrorism directly, engage each threat on it's merits. The kind of money that it takes to wage a war, could pay for a lot more effective preventative measure - What's important? to not get hit, right? While this war is being fought in Iraq, it does nothing to prevent a terrorist attack on home soil, other than making it easier to attack American troops overseas (all but the most organised terrorists are going to hit the easiest target they can, that means troops in Iraq are currently 'terrorist bait')
Short Term:
A declaration of a change in intention will not only go some way to defusing the problem (Iran, North Korea etc don't want a fight, they are talking tough [but will fight if attacked], they simply can't afford a war, they will lose, which leaves only individual terrorists and small terrorist organisations). Countries such as Germany, France, Russia, will be far more willing to help, if they believe that America is 'on the same page'. As a vital component to combating terrorism is a co-operative network to track potential treats, invest money in such detection (and other preventative strategies which I won't cover here), and not in wars. Wars are expensive, and don't solve terrorism (a pragmatic approach)
So, there it is. A plan that starts to address terrorism (war doesn't address terrorism, it just looks like someone's doing something, and gets a lot of good people killed)
The original article was about a need for a plan, that is a starting point for tackling terrorism. It is my opinion - no more, or no less valid than any other.
So while I recognise that there are many who will disagree, good, why not present a plan that seeks to address the problem of terrorism (I didn't say 'solve' or 'fix' terrorism, because it not that kind of problem, but you can reduce the motivation and increase the efficiency of response).
So people, what do you think will work with terrorism and why? (sure what I've written is an easy target for 'smart-arses', but anyone who is serious about the topic would address it seriously)
John, I'm not 'having a go at you', I get the impression that you think Islam is an evil empire waiting to happen, so how do you think that terrorism can be approached (which doesn't include the present strategy that is only going to result in endless war).
What will work?
Why will it work?
(John, I'll not 'take the piss', use sarcasm, vitriol, etc, if you can 'give it a rest')
I have a plan.
To take full control of Iraq, you need ground forces. America is stronger in the area of "sit back and bomb them to hell", so it won't succeed.
China however, has I believe, the world's biggest land army. And China likes trade deals.
Add those two points together and what do you get?
Post a Comment