Enough of George W's War

Vote!?! That's it???

Voting is the bare minimum requirement of a citizen. We all have an obligation to support a free investigative press, keep up on current events, and use our God-given intelligence and experiences to analyze what our representatives are doing. We must feel free to criticize or to work to remove those from office who are corrupt, incompetent or just plain stink at leading.

Our elected officials are fallible humans, not prophets with direct connections to the Almighty! Any who lay claim to such inspiration should be taken out by the religious communities and stoned. At the least, they should be laughed out of office.

Our elected officials must earn our trust.

 

"The troops and the mission will not be (broadly) supported if the purpose and need for a war are insuffciently justified at the outset. In such circumstances, there will be a demonstrable lack of support with its attendant risks for the troops, and the attendant discord at home. You can bank can it. Guaranteed, everytime."

They are broadly supported. Nearly 70% of Iraqis support our efforts!!!!!! The fact that the president won re-election means that there is broad support for the war - or oppositely - there is not overwhelming support for withdrawl - not in Congress or the Senate. Until then I will support our troops.

"If you want suppoort for the troops, then do everything in your power to prevent us from going to war without suffcient justification."

That is not my call - I will trust our President - whoever it might be.

I will, and I do expect Americans to, support our troops - and do everything they can do to decrease the potential for harm coming their way - if you chose not to do so - fine - you might be able to live with that - I could not. At this point I would consider that aiding and abetting those trying to kill our soldiers - I could not live with myself with that thought.

Living in an altruistic world with American soldiers in harms way may be ok for you which is fine, but again, I could not do that. I am not going to personally add one iota of risk to our troops - again you can (and do) and that is fine - that is your right as an American - again, I could not live with that on my head.

God Bless and Protect those troops.

 

"At this point I would consider that aiding and abetting those trying to kill our soldiers"

In other words, anyone who disagrees with you is "aiding and abetting" the enemy. Do you think we should be shot?

 

NO! You have the right to disagree, and I respect that right to disagree. There are ways to disagree without increasing the risks for our troops in harms way. I think people like Jack Murtha come close to crossing that line at times - I believe he has the right to disagree with the war - but he does not have the right (especially as a former Marine) to put greater our troops in greater risk.

It is ok not to support our troops. I just could not do that - never. No matter what war they were fighting. As long as our President sends them, I will back them 100%.

Just tell me you are not one of the crazies who goes to a soldiers funeral and cheers. I have seen that on TV and on the net, and that just drives me INSANE. If I was there in person, I do not know what I would do.

 

No, I would not cheer at a soldier's funeral. The death of soldiers, usually young men, is very sad, as is the death of civilians in war zones. This is why I hate war - there are so many better things we could be doing than going to perpetual wars. Like investing in alternative energy sources, for example. We could take the billions of dollars wasted on war and spend them on education and universal health care.

 

I'm missing a piece here and need an explanation.

Just how, exactly, is disagreeing with the President's policies in Iraq being unsupportive of the troops?

I might be wrong but I don't think any of us are members of the tiny church (most are related to the self-proclaimed pastor) that sends protestors to funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. They're wackos. If one showed up at a funeral I was at, it would be their last protest. Either they'd be dead or I'd hound the entire family until they cried uncle.

When I went to that peace march in 2003, I was marching against Bush's proposal to invade. I wasn't spitting on anyone's uniform and I'd never call any of those I know in the military "baby killers".

 

dont believe in universal health care since there is not one example of it working - i also tend to be somewhat a believer in market forces and a small government - damn - if they cant get the military thing and war thing and the mail delivery thing and the social security thing right - i am NOT trusting them with my health - for sure.

civilian deaths - terrible - too bad the bad guys over there are killing more civilians than anyone else. they should also stop fighting like little woosies - hiding behind the skirts of innocent people. at least the Japanese still to this day regret sneak attacking us. at least no more mass graves being dug in Iraq - the body count of which we have uncovered to date exceeds 500,000 - not including the 100,000+ Kurds he gassed and the 1,000,000 Iranians he murdered - now if only he would be so kind as to have an MI and leave us too like Mislovicek(sp).

i hate war too. my dad was a captain (US Army - Sniper) and hated it even when he left for reserve training and sniper qualifications - the thought of him going to war terrified me -- not him by the way.

we could do a lot with that money - when our enemies disarm, so will we. when democracies rule the planet, we can than focus on peace and not having to defend ourselves. seems that every generation has faced challanges to our survival - this one being no different.

also believe in competition in education - hate tenure - teachers should be paid for their students performance amongst other things.

 

I think there is something very different between "supporting our troops" and "supporting the military action they are engaged in." Do I want all our troops to be safe? Yes. Would I ever even consider cheering at a soldier's funeral? No. Would I support a soldier disobeying orders and refusing to fight? Almost certainly not. Do I think we should be in Iraq? No. Do I support the President's orders that put the troops in this situation? No.

My opinion is that it's the President's job (as the Commander in Chief) to decide the military actions our troops should rightly be involved in. It's then the military's duty to follow those orders. I think that the military has performed spectacularly, and I think the President has failed spectacularly. So, while I support the troops and hope that they all stay safe, I also can direct equal amounts of anger and ill-will towards the person/people that put them in this dangerous situation. This is something that I don't completely understand. If you support the "troops" and want them to stay safe, how can you support a Commander in Chief that has put them in an extremely dangerous situation under false pretenses?

 

"dont believe in universal health care since there is not one example of it working"

Let just say that no parent in Canada has to worry about how to pay for their child's cancer treatments.

 

It's a oft-stated myth that mail and social security are failures. For a rediculously small amount of money ($0.39), I can send a letter from anywhere in the US to anywhere in the US and it will get there in a timely fashion more than 99% of the time. When you talk about "getting the social security thing right," I assume you're refering to the dire predictions that social security is going to go bankrupt in the next ~20 years. It is much less likely that this is going to happen than Bush would have you believe. This sort of thing is something that has been predicted many, many times in the past and has never materialized. If the economy continues to grow at a reasonable rate, social security will be fine. If it doesn't, we can raise the retirement age by 2 years and save it that way.

 

Do you have any clue what you're talking about? Those protesters at the soldiers' funerals are NOT PROTESTING THE WAR but HOMOSEXUALS! Their logic is the USA harbors gays and servicemen are dying because of it. They're the same church that picketed at Matthew Shephered's funeral, the Wyoming guy who got beat to death, and some AIDS victims. Make sense? Of course not, but if you thought they were protesting the war YOU'RE CLUELESS! If anything, they're happy about the war and carry signs like "Thank God for IEDs".

It's a great emotional, sensational argument to say, "If you don't support the President & war without question, you don't support the troops and put them at risk." PLEEEEEEZE! This is a democracy, as you're so quick to point out... that means WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DISAGREE and speak out against our leaders. North Korea practices this kind of "democracy" where everyone always agrees. Speaking against the war is NOT putting troops at risk. Goiing to Iraq with too small of a force (Rumsfeld telling the Generals how many troops they will need!), not having an international coalition for support, troops having to buy body armor (their towns having bake sales!) because it's not provided... THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF NOT SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS!!!! How is this okay? Our troops should be getting the war resources, NOT HALLIBURTON!

 

Because our own health care system is working so well? Now 20% of Americans without coverage, currently 16% of our GDP goes to healthcare.. projected to climb soon to over 20%. Little money on prevention, lots on expensive treatments. Emergency Rooms becoming primary care sites. Hospitals financially unstable.

How is this system working?

 

Very well said, and this nails much of the points I have been trying to make.

We should support the troops and the mission. We should never be in a war where it isn't very easy for virtually every American to do so. When we are, like now, the troops won't get the full support of the American people. that is not the fault of the American people. It is the fault of those that started an unjustified war.

 

This is our original Constitution:
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm


This is the incorrect version SEE BELOW:
http://www.constitution.org/usconsti.htm


Iraq vs Vietnam death toll numbers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5102501185.html

:
And the top 10 worst presidential blunders are...
Buchanan tops poll, Clinton scrapes in

Saturday, February 18, 2006; Posted: 7:00 p.m. EST (00:00 GMT)


James Buchanan: 15th president 1857-1861, and top blunder.

So who had the worst blunder? President James Buchanan, for failing to avert the Civil War, according to a survey of presidential historians organized by the University of Louisville's McConnell Center.

The survey's top 10 presidential blunders were announced Saturday during a President's Day weekend conference called "Presidential Moments."

"We can probably learn just as much -- or maybe even more -- by looking at the mistakes rather than looking at why they were great," said political scientist and McConnell Center Director Gary Gregg.

Scholars who participated said Buchanan did not do enough to oppose efforts by Southern states to secede from the Union before the Civil War.

The second worst mistake, the survey found, was Andrew Johnson's decision just after the Civil War to side with Southern whites and oppose improvements in justice for Southern blacks beyond abolishing slavery.

"We continue to pay" for Johnson's errors, wrote Michael Les Benedict, an Ohio State University history professor emeritus.

Lyndon Johnson earned the No. 3 spot by allowing the Vietnam War to intensify, Gregg said.

Where does Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal rank? Many scholars said it belonged at No. 10, saying that it probably affected Clinton's presidency more than it did American history and the public.

The rest of the top 10 blunders:

4: Woodrow Wilson's refusal to compromise on the Treaty of Versailles after World War I.

5: Richard Nixon's involvement in the Watergate cover-up.

6: James Madison's failure to keep the United States out of the War of 1812 with Britain.

7: Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807, a self-imposed prohibition on trade with Europe during the Napoleonic Wars.

8: John F. Kennedy allowing the Bay of Pigs Invasion that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

9: Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair, the effort to sell arms to Iran and use the money to finance an armed anti-communist group in Nicaragua.

 

I don't understand your point. Is it just that the Amendments weren't part of the original Constitution? It seems to me that, by definition, that's true (i.e. an "amendment" isn't part of an original document). IANAL, but it's my understanding that the amendments are regarded in the legal system with as much weight as the rest of the Constitution (maybe more, since the Amendments are "updates").

 

I've come to the conclusion that driving a Prius causes a lot of pent-up liberal anger.

Or, maybe it's that a lot of angry liberals buy Prius cars.

In any case, what a bunch of idiots. Do you re-read your posts and think.. Yeah.. that was great!!

Holy cow you people are clueless and stupid.

 

Yes. And you've really taken the discourse to a higher level with this post. <_<

 

Excellent rebuttal... This is the Gold standard of the liberal puke reply... Well done, you go boy!

 

Hi! my little POOFTIE...

 

My point, quite simply, is that there are people presenting actual arguments on either side of the discussion. While I strongly disagree with the point of view of dbermanmd, he's presenting his side of things and trying to specifically rebut arguments that he doesn't agree with. Your strategy seems to be to attack the character of the people on the other side of the argument. If you're going to criticize liberals for "not thinking," and writing meaningless replies, then you should hold yourself to the standard that you hold them. The sum total of your contributions to the discussion include three posts (emphasis my own):