Other > General Debate & Political Discussions

OK Liberals, here's your chance to set the record straight..

(1/4) > >>

PostalBeanMachine:
I keep getting mixed signals from those who tell me that they support our troops wholeheartedly but condemn the mission they have bravely undertaken. I find it hard to believe these people, when they march under a banner designed by communist inspiration. "We need to unite"... "this war is wrong"... what is the message? I can tell you this, I saw Alan Colmes speak with a great deal of conviction and class some months ago, when he rebuked the actions of the so-called peace protestors and their inexcusable actions, going on in our cities around this country. He said that it was these people who are giving Democrats a bad name and are doing nothing positive for this country. Don't get me wrong, I support the American people's right to protest and demonstrate... as a soldier, I served to preserve that right. I do not support actions of civil disobedience and those criminal acts which swallow up our major cities public services.

This is one thing that I do indeed respect Alan for... he is a class act... I disagree with his politics, but he has class.

I hear the protesters, screaming about how evil THIS country and THIS President is but I did not see a single one of these people carrying a sign, protesting Saddam's murderous regime and demanding that he disarm and avoid the war. I hear people using the phrase "Rush to war". 12 years and 17 UN resolutions.... and this is a rush?

This is a war all about oil? If that were true, why did we not colonize Kuwait, after its liberation, and take those oil wells for our own in 1991? Where were the hundreds of thousands of protesters when Clinton sent missiles into Iraq? Where were the thousands of protestors when we lost soldiers' lives in Kosevo and Somalia? In my own humble opinion, I see this protest more as a politically-motivated exploitation than an honest expression of outrage for war.

Would it be fair to say that the liberal leadership in Washington would have better served towards a possible (though unlikely) diplomatic end to this mess, had they stood behind this President and set the example of unity & resolve, before the bombs started dropping? That, ladies and gentlemen, is a very fair question.

Let's roll back the clock and pretend that it is weeks before the beginning of the war:

As you can see, the liberal left in Washington eyeball the polls for public opinion like there in no tomorrow. As the polls reflected strong and increasingly stronger support for military action to disarm the Iraqi regime, key leftist party leaders and more notably prospective presidency hopefuls, switched their anti-war stance and moved a vote of support and confidence. Liberals in Washington, while low down, aren't stupid... this is politics. The left continued to watch the polls and watched even more closely as the battle reaches the city limits of Baghdad. As we began to suffer casualties, the reality of war was coming to light and America's sons and daughters started dying. The polls inevitably shifted, reflecting the reality of war as it settles into American minds and opinions. When these polls shifted, you saw a great renewal of the liberal left's intense criticism of the war  and libs spoke that they were ready to lead the way to demand that we pull our troops out. This was in conjunction with the liberal left's use of the communist inspired so-called peace protestors and self-proclaimed anarchists or civil disobeyers, as they are all connected and are working together. To keep these ties comfortable, the liberals in Washington appeased the anger received from these groups for its support in the war, by conveniently claiming that it only did so to "support our troops in hopes of saving American lives".

Through all of this, you gullible (hopefully not co-conspiring) liberals ate it up and touted how the Liberal leadership in Washington leads the way for peace... the convenience of this... they still don't have to answer my question:

The sanctions, which truly compassionate folks so clearly are against today are the same containment that the liberal leadership in Washington has been screaming that we should have continued, status quo.... even though they have publicly condemned those sanctions from the get-go. Look, this president had three choices:

A. Containment (Continued sanctions)
B. We withdraw and do nothing, allowing Saddam to continue oppressing and brutalizing the innocents in Iraq (Yes... this includes children) .
C. Military action

Now, these are the choices and if you say A or B... so much for self-righteous claims to compassion for your fellow man. Now, here is an opportunity to spread a good, positive anti-war message to America. I pose this:

Pretending that the war has not began and other options are on the table, come up with a workable plan to act as choice D, I would love to hear it. If you have a solution to ending the brutality inflicted by Saddam's regime, which doesn't include dropping bombs or continued starvation of innocent men, women and children through sanctions (containment) ... I really would love to hear it. This is a peace protestor's big chance to enlighten American minds.

Many might answer that we should have waited around for Saddam to willingly leave Iraq and stand before a war crimes tribunal. That ain't gonna happen. What then? We send the local sheriff out to serve Saddam with a warrant? Won't work and I pity the sheriff. So then, we are back at square one... A, B, C... maybe D?

Enlighten us, old wise liberal ones... tell us, what would your plan be to resolve the situation?

xbleedingheartx:
if we were really in this war for the iraqi people, why didn't we "liberate" them 10 years ago?

Iraqi women have less rights now, then they did under Saddam.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ~Teddy Roosevelt (one of the MOST patriotic presidents ever)

Why is it that no one can seem to find WMD in Iraq? could it be, because there isn't any?

and where is Osama after all this time? (considering that HE was the one behind 9/11, not Saddam)

jmood88:
I don't agree with the "war" either. It really just seemed like an occupation. All Bush has done is get lots of soldiers killed. He was too scared to go to war himself yet he feels the need to send the soldiers anywhere in a split second.

PostalBeanMachine:
Bleedingheartx,

You raise some very valid questions.

I created this thread, not to poke fun or attack those who disagree with the war, but to hopefully answer some questions and point folks in the direction of some of the answers.

1. If we were really in this war for the iraqi people, why didn't we "liberate" them 10 years ago? If one were to look at the history of the first Gulf War, they would understand that removing Saddam from power and bringing Democracy to Iraq was never in the scope of the mission parameters. The US entered that war, solely for the purpose of liberating Kuwait. Saddam's forces rolled into that country and destroyed everything in their path. They murdered, raped and looted as they went. Kuwait was just the beginning. We went to the UN Security Council and got suport for military action, restricted to carrying out the war only until all of Saddam's forces were driven out and Kuwait was free.

2. Iraqi women have less rights now, then they did under Saddam. I don't think that anyone in Iraq was better off with Saddam in charge, unless you were a wanton participate in his regime. You have to understand that we are there to remove Saddam's regime from power and give Iraqis an opportunity for democracy. We are not there to interfere with their culture and religious beliefs. Arabs are very unfair to the fairer sex... it is their culture and what we view as unfair in that regard, isn't necessarily unfair in their eyes. You have to understand, Iraq is (hopefully) a newborn democracy. Remember that the United States has only offered equal rights to women in a comparatively recent time. At least with democracy in the works, these people can strive toward equality... it will not come overnight.

3. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ~Teddy Roosevelt (one of the MOST patriotic presidents ever)

Teddy is right. Although I disagree with something someone says, I do not have the right to tell them that they cannot say it. I have served to protect the right to protest. You must understand, freedom of speech is a double-edge sword, when applied equally and fairly. Yes, you have the right to protest the war. On the other hand, others have the right to speak their opinions about your protest. This is where many half-heartedly support free speech... they want free speech, but only if it agrees with their beliefs. If you read some of my other posts, you will see that I have criticized this President on the issue he deserves criticism on.

4. Why is it that no one can seem to find WMD in Iraq? could it be, because there isn't any? This, also is a very fair question. It is also a very concerning question. Since the first Gulf War, Democrats and Republicans have warned about Saddam's WMD programs. He has openly sought, developed and used these weapons. 12 years and 17 UN resolutions.... to claim that we rushed into this war is at best, a statement with zero merit. If you listen to or read Kay's testimonies before Congress, you will see that President Bush made the decision to go to war, based on the best intelligence we had up to that date. Kay went on to say that in hindsight, Saddam was a greater threat than the US ever anticipated. Will we ever find those weapons? I think we may find small amounts... as we already have... remember the Biological strains, which were found in one of Saddam's bio-weapons scientist's home? The fact of the matter is that we waited too long to invade. Saddam is no fool, I think he moved the bulk of whatever he may have had, to other like-minded regimes in the region. Syria is a great example, while Iran would be doubtful. Saddam used his weapons on the Iranians.

5. Where is Osama after all this time? I believe that Usama is in one of three places. The most likely place, would be in the strongholds of the mountainous region along the Afghan-Pakistani border. He may also very well be in Pakistan, hidden by Islamo-fascist supporters in that country. The third, least likely but not impossible location, is Saudi Arabia.

6. (considering that HE was the one behind 9/11, not Saddam) This is a fact. However, the political implications of introducing democracy, within the heart of the anti-democratic region, are astounding. Don't you realize how frightened the Iranian regime of brutal dictators are at the thought of democracy next door? Democracy spreads like wildfire and when someone sees it up close, they want it. It doesn't mean turning American.... it means fair representation.

Jmood88,

With all due respect, as a member of the US military, there is no Commander-in-Chief I would rather fight under in these times, than Dubya. The only Democrat I would consider coming close, would be Joe Lieberman.

Read my previous post and give it some thought, guys... let me know what you would have done if you were in the President's shoes.

vegan ian:
"I hear the protesters, screaming about how evil THIS country and THIS President is but I did not see a single one of these people carrying a sign, protesting Saddam's murderous regime and demanding that he disarm and avoid the war. I hear people using the phrase "Rush to war". 12 years and 17 UN resolutions.... and this is a rush?"


have you been watching the news lately?  teehee, the UN weapons inspector said no weapons were found.  but i give it about a month before chaney sends in some cia weapons inspector, and we will magically find something huge.  what a terrific loss of life.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Reply