I've completely ruined one of those subjects now. Ah well. At least there'll be more Starbucks goodness. Starbucks is phasing in a new size- the Trenta. For those of you who don't know Italian and need that translated for you (like I did), Trenta is 30. Starbucks is going to be putting a 31-oz size on the market that you can fill with coffee, tea, or lemonade. I'm thinking a 31-oz strawberries and cream frappucino myself, but...yeah.
In other, far less important news, you can hop the border fence between here and Mexico in no less than 18 seconds if you are a roughly 20 year old, fit and trim young woman. Oh, and if you pick the right section of border fence. But don't you know, that fence is sure keeping those immigrants out. Um...yeah.
Iraqi "insurgents" detonated a bomb outside a police station in the midst of police recruits in Tikrit, Iraq. About 50 people died, to the best of my knowledge. Apparently, al Qaeda is trying to destabilize Iraq again. Sounds like a plan. Of course, if these attacks pick up again, we'll have to push back our departure date. Again. Because we can't leave the Iraqis defenseless.
Now to everyone's favorite subject: Sarah Palin. The woman has been constantly in the news lately because she used the term "blood libel" (and obviously doesn't understand the historical connotations of the term), and also perhaps because she used "shut up." Personally, I don't think we should give her the satisfaction. When she made up words, she made us laugh. When she misuses historical terms, that means we should start ignoring her.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Leaving Iraq?
So we've finally done it. We have achieved (at least partial) success in Iraq. "Yay us!" in the words of quite possibly the ditziest TV character ever written (kudos to anybody who can name her).
So, to recap seven years worth of war-
We went in under the auspices of Bush and his cronies, who touted the idea of supposed weapons of mass destruction owned by the Iraqi government. Since that time, according to CNN, 4,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq, as well as 106,000 Iraqi civilians. Mm-hmm.
Oh, but wait. What is this? We're not actually leaving Iraq. Of course not. We're leaving 50,000 American soldiers behind to help clean up. Well, I suppose that's only fair. We made the mess, we should clean it up. Of course, it would be optimum if we had never made the mess in the beginning, but one can't cry over spilled milk.
So not only are 50,000 American soldiers staying behind, but a bunch of our diplomats will also, to accomplish the goal of, and I quote, "By October 2011...assum[ing] responsibility for training the Iraqi police, a task that will largely be carried out by contractors."
Yay.
But I'm being cynical. Who knows. Maybe we will be able to get this beautiful country cleaned up in record time. But judging by the fact that most countries we've been at war with are just now coming back, or have been on a slow, hard road to recovery...I wouldn't count on it.
Say hello to "War, Part II- the Aftermath, as we try to clean up what we screwed up, and fail utterly."
Have a nice day.
So, to recap seven years worth of war-
We went in under the auspices of Bush and his cronies, who touted the idea of supposed weapons of mass destruction owned by the Iraqi government. Since that time, according to CNN, 4,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq, as well as 106,000 Iraqi civilians. Mm-hmm.
Oh, but wait. What is this? We're not actually leaving Iraq. Of course not. We're leaving 50,000 American soldiers behind to help clean up. Well, I suppose that's only fair. We made the mess, we should clean it up. Of course, it would be optimum if we had never made the mess in the beginning, but one can't cry over spilled milk.
So not only are 50,000 American soldiers staying behind, but a bunch of our diplomats will also, to accomplish the goal of, and I quote, "By October 2011...assum[ing] responsibility for training the Iraqi police, a task that will largely be carried out by contractors."
Yay.
But I'm being cynical. Who knows. Maybe we will be able to get this beautiful country cleaned up in record time. But judging by the fact that most countries we've been at war with are just now coming back, or have been on a slow, hard road to recovery...I wouldn't count on it.
Say hello to "War, Part II- the Aftermath, as we try to clean up what we screwed up, and fail utterly."
Have a nice day.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Victory in Iraq? Eh, Maybe Not
Okay, so I admit it- TheOnion.com isn't the best place one can get their news. Okay, so one could hardly call it news. But nonetheless, I found this hilarious. So, for you, this direct from TheOnion.com-
CAMP SPRINGS, MD—Addressing troops at Andrews Air Force Base Tuesday, President Barack Obama claimed victory in Iraq, saying that formal combat operations in the region would end Aug. 31, and that the United States had emerged from the seven-year war triumphant, kind of.
"For nearly a decade, our mission in Iraq has been to root out those who would choose violence over peace, to create a stable Iraqi government, and to transfer power to an incorruptible civilian police force," Obama said. "And, in a manner of speaking, we sort of did some of that, right? More or less?"
"Granted, this is not the definitive, World War II–like victory most of us expected," Obama continued. "But there's a military triumph in there somewhere, I swear. You just have to look at it from the right angles."
The aftermath of what the president is calling "a success, in a sense, although not really in a traditional sense, per se."
According to the president, the relative victory could be credited to a number of achieved benchmarks, depending upon how strict one's definition of "achieved" is. Obama pointed to the democratic election of an Iraqi parliament currently being held together by a thread; the streets of Iraq being slightly less hellish than they were in 2006; and the fact that women are now, for the most part, free to move around the country so long as they don't make a big production out of it.
Obama also noted that during the war more Iraqi insurgents died than American troops, which, he admitted, isn't necessarily the best way to determine a war's victor, but is nonetheless still preferable to the other way around.
"By the end of this month, victory, to a certain extent, will be ours, and we can finally welcome our troops back home," Obama concluded. "That is unless they are one of the 50,000 U.S. soldiers who will have to stay in the region for the foreseeable future."
Following the president's address, a car bomb ripped through an outdoor market in Baghdad killing eight Iraqis and wounding 32.
Pentagon officials also declared the mission, in a sense, kind of sort of accomplished Tuesday, citing the handful of Iraqi hearts and minds that may have been won over by the U.S. occupancy, and the fact that Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki had not yet been assassinated.
"In cases where we were unable to rebuild infrastructure or quell violent civil unrest, it wasn't for lack of trying," Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said during last Sunday's taping of ABC's This Week. "And trying your best, one could argue, is technically a triumph in and of itself."
"And hey, Saddam Hussein isn't in power anymore," Odierno continued. "So that's something."
With the cessation of combat operations, and the declaration of what sources said couldn't be called a complete and utter failure because to do so would be to admit that the U.S. wasted $750 billion, lost 4,400 troops, and killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians for absolutely nothing, both Democrats and Republicans have attempted to take credit for the quasi-victory.
"President Obama deserves zero praise for this borderline accomplishment," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told reporters. "After all, if it weren't for President Bush ordering the initial invasion of Iraq and making it his central foreign policy initiative, we wouldn't be here right now awkwardly celebrating the muddled outcome of whatever the hell it is we've been doing over there for the past seven years."
Pentagon and White House sources said the American people should expect more wince-inducing victory-if-you-can-call-it-that celebrations 10 or 15 years from now when we kind of, but not really, win in Afghanistan
CAMP SPRINGS, MD—Addressing troops at Andrews Air Force Base Tuesday, President Barack Obama claimed victory in Iraq, saying that formal combat operations in the region would end Aug. 31, and that the United States had emerged from the seven-year war triumphant, kind of.
"For nearly a decade, our mission in Iraq has been to root out those who would choose violence over peace, to create a stable Iraqi government, and to transfer power to an incorruptible civilian police force," Obama said. "And, in a manner of speaking, we sort of did some of that, right? More or less?"
"Granted, this is not the definitive, World War II–like victory most of us expected," Obama continued. "But there's a military triumph in there somewhere, I swear. You just have to look at it from the right angles."
The aftermath of what the president is calling "a success, in a sense, although not really in a traditional sense, per se."
According to the president, the relative victory could be credited to a number of achieved benchmarks, depending upon how strict one's definition of "achieved" is. Obama pointed to the democratic election of an Iraqi parliament currently being held together by a thread; the streets of Iraq being slightly less hellish than they were in 2006; and the fact that women are now, for the most part, free to move around the country so long as they don't make a big production out of it.
Obama also noted that during the war more Iraqi insurgents died than American troops, which, he admitted, isn't necessarily the best way to determine a war's victor, but is nonetheless still preferable to the other way around.
"By the end of this month, victory, to a certain extent, will be ours, and we can finally welcome our troops back home," Obama concluded. "That is unless they are one of the 50,000 U.S. soldiers who will have to stay in the region for the foreseeable future."
Following the president's address, a car bomb ripped through an outdoor market in Baghdad killing eight Iraqis and wounding 32.
Pentagon officials also declared the mission, in a sense, kind of sort of accomplished Tuesday, citing the handful of Iraqi hearts and minds that may have been won over by the U.S. occupancy, and the fact that Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki had not yet been assassinated.
"In cases where we were unable to rebuild infrastructure or quell violent civil unrest, it wasn't for lack of trying," Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said during last Sunday's taping of ABC's This Week. "And trying your best, one could argue, is technically a triumph in and of itself."
"And hey, Saddam Hussein isn't in power anymore," Odierno continued. "So that's something."
With the cessation of combat operations, and the declaration of what sources said couldn't be called a complete and utter failure because to do so would be to admit that the U.S. wasted $750 billion, lost 4,400 troops, and killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians for absolutely nothing, both Democrats and Republicans have attempted to take credit for the quasi-victory.
"President Obama deserves zero praise for this borderline accomplishment," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told reporters. "After all, if it weren't for President Bush ordering the initial invasion of Iraq and making it his central foreign policy initiative, we wouldn't be here right now awkwardly celebrating the muddled outcome of whatever the hell it is we've been doing over there for the past seven years."
Pentagon and White House sources said the American people should expect more wince-inducing victory-if-you-can-call-it-that celebrations 10 or 15 years from now when we kind of, but not really, win in Afghanistan
Friday, October 16, 2009
A Bi-Partisan Interview
Recently, I sat down for an interview between two of the (alleged) brightest minds in the political debate- Barack Obama and Sean Hannity. Both agreed to see me on a set date, and we were going to discuss a few things.
We sat down, and I started the conversation.
Liberty: I'd like to discuss the current wars and the recent actions that have been taken.
Barack Obama: Yes, about that- I uh, I'd have to say that my actions in Afghanistan are wholly justified.
Sean Hannity: What, giving up?
Liberty: Mr. President, before your recent lengthy deliberations on the subject of further troop increases, you sent yet more troops into Afghani territory. Do you think that was justified?
Obama: Wholly.
Liberty: And do you think the troops will be able to do their job with what they have?
Obama: You know, I'm listening to my advisers, and they tell me that the troops will be able to.
Hannity: But you're basically surrendering.
Obama: No, no I'm not. We're pursuing a new line of attack, that is all.
Liberty: Would you care to expand on this new line, Mr. President?
Obama: Well, uh...it's going to be revolutionary.
Hannity: You didn't answer the question.
Liberty: I agree with Mr. Hannity, Mr. President. Would you please expand on your new plan of attack in Afghanistan?
Obama: You know, I just think that I am unable to currently reveal our plans.
Liberty: Well, you'll let me know once you can, right sir?
Obama: You'll be right behind Fox News.
Liberty: Well then. What about the Iraq conflict? What are your plans there?
Obama: You know, we're really trying to get out of that.
Hannity: That's a mistake. Those people are trying to kill us.
Liberty: Do you have any proof of that Mr. Hannity?
Hannity: well...uh, you know, I didn't bring it with me. It's on my other laptop.
Liberty: Of course it is. Now in my research, I've found that there is no actual proof that Iraq was giving aid to terrorists, including al Qaeda and the 9/11 conspirators. Three studies, two from the congress and one independent bear this out.
Hannity: You know they're skewed towards the liberals.
Obama: I always thought it was the other way around.
Liberty: Gentlemen, let us pretend for one moment that all these studies are unbiased- which they are, for the most part. What would you say then?
Obama: That obviously, Iraq was not giving aid to al Qaeda.
Hannity: I would say that the reports were sketchy, just as they are now..
Liberty: Thank you gentlemen. Now then, Mr. Hannity- on your show, you have defended some of Bush's less-than-constitutional measures multiple times, including the PATRIOT act. How do you line up the nature of the PATRIOT act with your professed love of the Constitution?
Hannity: You know, I don't think there's any way those two things can be adverse to each other. The PATRIOT act is good- it protects us from terrorists.
Liberty: But it strips us of our fourth amendment rights. How can it be in keeping with the Constitution?
Hannity: Sometimes, certain liberties have to be compromised in the interest of keeping the American people safe.
Liberty: The founding fathers warned against that. Patrick Henry famously declared "Give me liberty or give me death," and Ben Franklin specifically said that any people that would give up liberty for safety deserved neither. What would you say to that?
Hannity: I would say that desperate times require desperate measures.
Liberty: So you're saying that the founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen what is happening today, and so what they said- including the Constitution- is basically moot?
Hannity: Uh, no, not at all.
Liberty: So what are you saying?
Hannity: I'm saying that sometimes, we have to compromise.
Liberty: But where do we stop compromising? You've said it yourself- once we start giving up liberties, we're well on the road to socialism.
Hannity: Yes, I have said that.
Liberty: Right. So, how does that bear out with your stance on the PATRIOT act.
Hannity: I don't see any contradiction.
Liberty: Yes. I'll let you think that contradiction over that for a while. Mr. President, do you have anything to add?
Obama: Well, I'd just like to say that I don't think the PATRIOT act was a mistake, and that there comes a time when the traditions of the past should be forgotten. It's time we moved on.
Liberty: So tell me, if we move on past the Constitution, what is left of our system of government?
Obama: We still have the men and women of America, as well as her leaders.
Liberty: But the whole point of the Constitution was to keep her leaders in check.
Obama: I don't see why they need to be kept in check.
Liberty: I think the logic is quite indisputable. It is common knowledge that power corrupts, and checks have been put in the place of people who would try to grab too much power- namely, the Congress, the President, and even state governments.
Obama: I'm guessing you watch Fox News.
Hannity: Talking like this? No she doesn't.
Liberty: Mr. Hannity is correct, Mr. President. Would you agree with me that power corrupts and we should have checks in place of too much power-grabbing.
Obama: I think that would be safe to say.
Liberty: So if we move on past the Constitution, what checks will be in place for that power-grabbing?
Obama: Well, some restrictions would have to remain in place, of course.
Liberty: So you're basically saying that we should pick and choose what we want out of the Constitution?
Obama: Uh...no. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that some of the restrictions and regulations in the Constitution are outmoded, and I don't think we should be so fanatically bound to the stuffy traditions that people had 200 years ago.
Liberty: If you study history, our system of government and the Constitution that was made isn't exactly a 'tradition.' The Constitutional Republic was a very new, revolutionary idea in that day and age.
Obama: Uh...
Liberty: If we wanted to be held to the traditions of that day, we'd be held to a monarchist system with repressive royalty.
Hannity: Heh. She's got you.
Liberty: Mr. President?
Obama: Yeah, well, maybe we should talk about the merits of change.
Liberty: This discussion is not about abstract concepts Mr. President.
Obama: Of course. You know, I have a press conference at four.
Liberty: You'll be out of here in plenty of time. Both of you, what is your opinion of the new healthcare bills in the Congress?
Obama: It is an admirable expression of the way this country is going. Of course, it could be improved, but that'll come.
Liberty: It is my understanding that earlier in your career, you were an avid proponent of a single-payer system.
Obama: I never said that.
Liberty: You were captured on video saying that you wanted this. If you do, why don't you just come clean and say so now that you are in power?
Obama: I do not recall that incident.
Liberty: You didn't answer the question, Mr. President.
Obama: I think that this country is just simply not ready for that kind of program.
Liberty: Very well. Mr. Hannity, what is your opinion?
Hannity: This bill will give undue power to the executive branch.
Liberty: But letting the executive branch use 200+ signing statements for it's own ends, and letting it put people in jail for nothing but the suspicion of terrorist activity is alright?
Hannity: I didn't think that was what we were discussing.
Liberty: But it is related. Would you mind answering the question?
Hannity: No, I don't think so.
Obama: Time is ticking.
Liberty: I'll take up just a few more moments of your time Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about your recent Nobel Prize. Do you think you acted in the best interest of the US as a whole?
Obama: Totally. I didn't personally receive the prize, not really. The prize was more like something that was awarded to the US as the whole.
Hannity: That didn't prevent you from taking it.
Liberty: Some have suggested that you could have refused the prize as an undue honor and instead conferred it upon the military or simply refused it.
Obama: You know, I really have to get going.
Liberty: Would you mind responding first, Mr. President?
Obama: Not at all. You know, I think I responded with as much humility and gratitude as possible. I think that I needed to accept the prize so as to give the world a better opinion of us.
Liberty: What does taking a token of the personal opinion of five Norwegians do for the world's opinion of us? Wouldn't having a revolutionary new foreign policy accomplish that more directly?
Obama: You know, it's over now, and I have to get going.
Liberty: Of course. Thank you for your time, Mr. President.
Hannity: Yeah, uh, I've got to get outta' here too- show comin' up!
Liberty: Certainly. Thank you for your time and your patience sirs.
Note- Unfortunately, this interview has not yet occurred. Apparently, neither President Obama nor Sean Hannity care about my opinion. However, I'm still holding out hope. In the meantime, this will have to do.
We sat down, and I started the conversation.
Liberty: I'd like to discuss the current wars and the recent actions that have been taken.
Barack Obama: Yes, about that- I uh, I'd have to say that my actions in Afghanistan are wholly justified.
Sean Hannity: What, giving up?
Liberty: Mr. President, before your recent lengthy deliberations on the subject of further troop increases, you sent yet more troops into Afghani territory. Do you think that was justified?
Obama: Wholly.
Liberty: And do you think the troops will be able to do their job with what they have?
Obama: You know, I'm listening to my advisers, and they tell me that the troops will be able to.
Hannity: But you're basically surrendering.
Obama: No, no I'm not. We're pursuing a new line of attack, that is all.
Liberty: Would you care to expand on this new line, Mr. President?
Obama: Well, uh...it's going to be revolutionary.
Hannity: You didn't answer the question.
Liberty: I agree with Mr. Hannity, Mr. President. Would you please expand on your new plan of attack in Afghanistan?
Obama: You know, I just think that I am unable to currently reveal our plans.
Liberty: Well, you'll let me know once you can, right sir?
Obama: You'll be right behind Fox News.
Liberty: Well then. What about the Iraq conflict? What are your plans there?
Obama: You know, we're really trying to get out of that.
Hannity: That's a mistake. Those people are trying to kill us.
Liberty: Do you have any proof of that Mr. Hannity?
Hannity: well...uh, you know, I didn't bring it with me. It's on my other laptop.
Liberty: Of course it is. Now in my research, I've found that there is no actual proof that Iraq was giving aid to terrorists, including al Qaeda and the 9/11 conspirators. Three studies, two from the congress and one independent bear this out.
Hannity: You know they're skewed towards the liberals.
Obama: I always thought it was the other way around.
Liberty: Gentlemen, let us pretend for one moment that all these studies are unbiased- which they are, for the most part. What would you say then?
Obama: That obviously, Iraq was not giving aid to al Qaeda.
Hannity: I would say that the reports were sketchy, just as they are now..
Liberty: Thank you gentlemen. Now then, Mr. Hannity- on your show, you have defended some of Bush's less-than-constitutional measures multiple times, including the PATRIOT act. How do you line up the nature of the PATRIOT act with your professed love of the Constitution?
Hannity: You know, I don't think there's any way those two things can be adverse to each other. The PATRIOT act is good- it protects us from terrorists.
Liberty: But it strips us of our fourth amendment rights. How can it be in keeping with the Constitution?
Hannity: Sometimes, certain liberties have to be compromised in the interest of keeping the American people safe.
Liberty: The founding fathers warned against that. Patrick Henry famously declared "Give me liberty or give me death," and Ben Franklin specifically said that any people that would give up liberty for safety deserved neither. What would you say to that?
Hannity: I would say that desperate times require desperate measures.
Liberty: So you're saying that the founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen what is happening today, and so what they said- including the Constitution- is basically moot?
Hannity: Uh, no, not at all.
Liberty: So what are you saying?
Hannity: I'm saying that sometimes, we have to compromise.
Liberty: But where do we stop compromising? You've said it yourself- once we start giving up liberties, we're well on the road to socialism.
Hannity: Yes, I have said that.
Liberty: Right. So, how does that bear out with your stance on the PATRIOT act.
Hannity: I don't see any contradiction.
Liberty: Yes. I'll let you think that contradiction over that for a while. Mr. President, do you have anything to add?
Obama: Well, I'd just like to say that I don't think the PATRIOT act was a mistake, and that there comes a time when the traditions of the past should be forgotten. It's time we moved on.
Liberty: So tell me, if we move on past the Constitution, what is left of our system of government?
Obama: We still have the men and women of America, as well as her leaders.
Liberty: But the whole point of the Constitution was to keep her leaders in check.
Obama: I don't see why they need to be kept in check.
Liberty: I think the logic is quite indisputable. It is common knowledge that power corrupts, and checks have been put in the place of people who would try to grab too much power- namely, the Congress, the President, and even state governments.
Obama: I'm guessing you watch Fox News.
Hannity: Talking like this? No she doesn't.
Liberty: Mr. Hannity is correct, Mr. President. Would you agree with me that power corrupts and we should have checks in place of too much power-grabbing.
Obama: I think that would be safe to say.
Liberty: So if we move on past the Constitution, what checks will be in place for that power-grabbing?
Obama: Well, some restrictions would have to remain in place, of course.
Liberty: So you're basically saying that we should pick and choose what we want out of the Constitution?
Obama: Uh...no. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that some of the restrictions and regulations in the Constitution are outmoded, and I don't think we should be so fanatically bound to the stuffy traditions that people had 200 years ago.
Liberty: If you study history, our system of government and the Constitution that was made isn't exactly a 'tradition.' The Constitutional Republic was a very new, revolutionary idea in that day and age.
Obama: Uh...
Liberty: If we wanted to be held to the traditions of that day, we'd be held to a monarchist system with repressive royalty.
Hannity: Heh. She's got you.
Liberty: Mr. President?
Obama: Yeah, well, maybe we should talk about the merits of change.
Liberty: This discussion is not about abstract concepts Mr. President.
Obama: Of course. You know, I have a press conference at four.
Liberty: You'll be out of here in plenty of time. Both of you, what is your opinion of the new healthcare bills in the Congress?
Obama: It is an admirable expression of the way this country is going. Of course, it could be improved, but that'll come.
Liberty: It is my understanding that earlier in your career, you were an avid proponent of a single-payer system.
Obama: I never said that.
Liberty: You were captured on video saying that you wanted this. If you do, why don't you just come clean and say so now that you are in power?
Obama: I do not recall that incident.
Liberty: You didn't answer the question, Mr. President.
Obama: I think that this country is just simply not ready for that kind of program.
Liberty: Very well. Mr. Hannity, what is your opinion?
Hannity: This bill will give undue power to the executive branch.
Liberty: But letting the executive branch use 200+ signing statements for it's own ends, and letting it put people in jail for nothing but the suspicion of terrorist activity is alright?
Hannity: I didn't think that was what we were discussing.
Liberty: But it is related. Would you mind answering the question?
Hannity: No, I don't think so.
Obama: Time is ticking.
Liberty: I'll take up just a few more moments of your time Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about your recent Nobel Prize. Do you think you acted in the best interest of the US as a whole?
Obama: Totally. I didn't personally receive the prize, not really. The prize was more like something that was awarded to the US as the whole.
Hannity: That didn't prevent you from taking it.
Liberty: Some have suggested that you could have refused the prize as an undue honor and instead conferred it upon the military or simply refused it.
Obama: You know, I really have to get going.
Liberty: Would you mind responding first, Mr. President?
Obama: Not at all. You know, I think I responded with as much humility and gratitude as possible. I think that I needed to accept the prize so as to give the world a better opinion of us.
Liberty: What does taking a token of the personal opinion of five Norwegians do for the world's opinion of us? Wouldn't having a revolutionary new foreign policy accomplish that more directly?
Obama: You know, it's over now, and I have to get going.
Liberty: Of course. Thank you for your time, Mr. President.
Hannity: Yeah, uh, I've got to get outta' here too- show comin' up!
Liberty: Certainly. Thank you for your time and your patience sirs.
Note- Unfortunately, this interview has not yet occurred. Apparently, neither President Obama nor Sean Hannity care about my opinion. However, I'm still holding out hope. In the meantime, this will have to do.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The War and the Troops
Once at a monthly meetup I attend, we got on the subject of the Iraq war. I'm no fan of the war, as you've surely guessed, and so it had the makings of a rather volatile subject. The lady I was speaking with was for the war. When I stated that I thought the war was wrong, she instantly accused me of being 'against our troops.'
Does this make any sense, that opposing the war is synonymous with opposing our troops? That wanting an end to the war without further violence is just the same as wanting all our troops to fall down dead?
Does that connect?
No.
The Iraq war was a preemptive action on the part of the US, against a sovereign country that was no threat to us as of our attack. Iraq was not behind the 9/11 attacks, ruling out the excuse of a war of holy retribution. Attacking a sovereign nation without provocation is wrong, not to mention unconstitutional, whether for the purpose of 'furthering democracy' or no.
But why does speaking out against the war equal attacking our troops in the minds of many?
Frankly, I really don't know. Would anyone care to shed some light?
Does this make any sense, that opposing the war is synonymous with opposing our troops? That wanting an end to the war without further violence is just the same as wanting all our troops to fall down dead?
Does that connect?
No.
The Iraq war was a preemptive action on the part of the US, against a sovereign country that was no threat to us as of our attack. Iraq was not behind the 9/11 attacks, ruling out the excuse of a war of holy retribution. Attacking a sovereign nation without provocation is wrong, not to mention unconstitutional, whether for the purpose of 'furthering democracy' or no.
But why does speaking out against the war equal attacking our troops in the minds of many?
Frankly, I really don't know. Would anyone care to shed some light?
Friday, March 6, 2009
MessO'Potamia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
