Re: [OT] Iraq

SkippyPB wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:16:16 GMT, "William M. Klein"
> <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
>
> Yes I know he works for the USAF.  He cries that half (it is over
> half) of Americans are against the war while his "brothers in arms"
> are still there.  Well, I am a Vietnam vet and the first thing I did
> when I got out was protest that mistake.

And some of us thing that the protesting was the mistake in Vietnam.

And I'm not crying - I think it's despicable, bordering on treasonous,
but I'm not crying.  Angry would be the term.

> And as I look around at who
> is opposed to this mistake, I see more and more Vietnam vets and more
> and more Iraq vets as well.  If Mr. USAF REALLY cared for his
> "brothers in arms", he'd be there yelling for them to come home as
> well. But then the fact he is still in the military may prevent that.
> I know it did when I was in.

Bringing them home before the job is done would waste the sacrifice that
has already been made.  Then, ten, twenty years from now, we'd have to
go *back* there to try to "fix" it the third time.  What happened when
we pulled out of Vietnam?  What happened when we pulled out of Iraq the
first time?  Neither of those results were desirable, or reflected well
on America.  If we fail this time, our credibility is through.

But, that's what the Democrat leadership has aligned themselves with.
The socialists in that party have always hated our success, our freedom,
and our capitalistic society.  The fact that it has thrived while other
socialist experiments have failed just drives them absolutely crazy,
because socialism is so "fair".  I really don't understand why they
cling to such a discredited philosophy, but they do.

And no, none of my views are being prevented due to my current
employment.  If anything, they're probably being mellowed by it.
Turning that desert into a sea of glass would have been a lot quicker
and resulted in a lot smaller loss of American life.  Plus, it would be
over by now.

> The war on terror was never in Iraq and the "stuff" they allegedly
> moved to Syria (that has never been proven) was old anyway.

Oh - so old weapons don't work?  Who was it here that was talking about
RPG's?  I'm sure the families of our troops killed by them would love to
know they're just old anyway.

> And with
> no fly zones being enforced on the north and south of Iraq, what was
> Saddam going to do?

Admit he had them, disarm, and keep his country.  Instead, he hid
things, refused to let inspectors in large areas, and defied 12 UN
resolutions over the course of 11 years.  His choice - you can't blame
the police for giving you a ticket when you were the one speeding.

> The war on terror was and still is in Afghanistan
> and Pakistan.  But because GWB had a different agenda, that war is
> still flourishing, the Talaban and Al Queda have grown stronger, the
> culprits behind 9/11 still roam free and are able to spread their
> propaganda and Al Queda has a training ground they never had before in
> Iraq and a rallying cry for militant muslims.

Iraq is now a magnet for al-Qaeda.  We keep hearing how Iraq had nothing
to do with al-Qaeda, but what's this group that keeps killing folks
called al-Qaeda in Iraq?  Sure, maybe GWB had a personal interest in
toppling the guy who threatened his dad, but Saddam certainly gave him
enough excuses.  And some of the hijackers *did* train at camps in Iraq.

> Was invading Iraq a mistake?  Even Bush's own administration now says
> it was badly planned, badly executed and had no exit strategy and no
> forward goals other than toppling Saddam.

Just because you weren't sure how something would end doesn't mean it's
a mistake to start it.  But, this is another one of those "depends on
how you take it" statements.  *I* think it was badly planned and badly
executed, but my views probably aren't what most people think of when
they hear that.  We were too soft, too surgical, and too concerned with
what people would "think."  We should have gone in, kicked as much butt
as possible to get the thing over with quick, *then* come back home.

> It think the question
> answers itself.

Not really...  There are many means to the same end.

--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:56:34 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>By virtue of a stance that they're promoting, it isn't objective.  I
>could change the term if you'd like.  This administration's propaganda
>machine is the worst I've ever seen!  :)

I am happy when a politician who favors policies that I don't favor -
isn't too competent.

Political competency might be overrated as a characteristic that we
should select for our politicians.    Big Brother is politically
competent.   Castro has been politically competent.

Pick the president you dislike the most - how would you like it if he
was twice as capable of getting his policies implemented?

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:56:34 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
>
> I am happy when a politician who favors policies that I don't favor -
> isn't too competent.
>
> Political competency might be overrated as a characteristic that we
> should select for our politicians.    Big Brother is politically
> competent.   Castro has been politically competent.
>
> Pick the president you dislike the most - how would you like it if he
> was twice as capable of getting his policies implemented?

Well, it's not quite compentency I was lamenting - more just not even
explaining his side!  How are people supposed to make informed choices
when only one side is given?

--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine