posted on April 19, 2004 06:40:23 PM new
Hello All,
I just read several posts on this board only to see that several republican posters are very nasty uninformed people just like their leaders.
posted on April 19, 2004 06:45:34 PM new
You are so correct. I don't think, though, that it's so much nasty as it is overly compassionate. When you're "blinded by the light", you can't see your hand in front of your face and that's got to affect your disposition. I think those of us on the left, although just as passionate, are more diplomatic about it. We don't resort to name calling and pettiness to get our point across. At least most of us don't.
Republicans in general would be most embarrassed to be represented by those posters that you refer to here making nasty comments. In other words, I don't think that most Republicans are nasty and mean spirited people.
posted on April 19, 2004 08:37:23 PM newI don't think that most Republicans are nasty and mean spirited people.
There you go Helen talking about me again.
Come on now kraft, can you honestly say that there hasn't been any similar HEAT coming from the left. I have seen several posts on this board coming from the left where Bush has been refered to as being a Nazi and his administration is akin to the fourth reich.
There has also been other circumstances where lefties here have posted derisive innuendo about others here refering to such things as bigotry, depravity, etc. where none really existed.
Yes I will admit that some on the right have engaged in this sort of thing also, but then so have some on the left. We are all, or some of us guilty of this.
And by the way what was the C word I must have missed that one.
posted on April 19, 2004 08:44:26 PM new
Who on the left has been nasty? If you're talking about Helen & Linda, that's been an ongoing thing for 4 years now. I've heard Skylite pass a few comments, but other than that, I'm not sure who you mean Yellowstone.
And Twelve was the one calling Helen & Kiara that C-word which is too vulgar to repeat.
posted on April 19, 2004 08:52:43 PM new
I know both Republicans and Democrats and none of them are nasty so I agree the board isn't a fair sampling. I also hear Republicans views on TV and radio and I read them on the net and most seem quite intelligent and some almost think like Democrats and also the other way around.
Yes, Helen and I were called the C word on the Roads to Baghdad thread yesterday and we were also accused of many other untrue things but I considered the source and it didn't surprise me. I don't see the necessity of using that word though, just because he didn't agree with our views but then he has no respect for the opposite sex.
posted on April 19, 2004 09:02:33 PM new
I'm not going to name names, I don't really want to pick a fight. But just to give you maybe a little hint, I was refered to as being a bigot in a past thread, where no bigotry existed on my part. I'm not stewing over it, understand. It's in the past and really doesn't mean all that much to me but I just thought it was germane to this discussion and that's why I am mentioning it.
You didn't say exactly in your 1st post who on the right has been engaging in name calling, so I guess I don't know who you are refering to either.
posted on April 19, 2004 09:19:08 PM new
If we were all sitting around a big table in RL facing each other no name calling or nastyness would happen, probably.
I personally don't think this sort of thing should be neccessary in our discussions and just because we aren't facing each other in RL it's no excuse.
posted on April 20, 2004 03:08:02 AM new
Yep, and no apologies will I be making... oh and yellowstone I have and would say anything I have said here in RL... there are those that talk the talk, I also walk the walk...
Some posters here that claim to be liberal and/or democrat either use what I call "backdoor" insults or do insult other posters, no one here is guitless... especially those two who earned my wrath... I have tried to understand those creatures and as of that date have given up... vile and disgusting still come to mind, I have nothing but utter contempt for them and any that support them...
This is has been going on for over a year...I will continue to post here because I want anyone reading these boards to know that we are all not supporters of the taliban or the insurgents just because they hate President Bush.
I see once again that name calling is overlooked when dealing with President Bush... Hard to have a "discussion" when some of the first words you read are deragatory to someone that some of here respect and is the Leader of the Free world...
So be "nasty" is a point of view, depends which "side" you are standing on.
Democrats/Liberals are just as "nasty" in my opinion than any poster here
It's funny how often that is overlooked by those sharing the same side... but then again they are blinded by the wrong...
posted on April 20, 2004 04:33:11 AM new
Sorry, twelve, but I've heard more nasty comments coming from you and Linda than anyone else on this board and that includes Bear. The Baghdad Road thread is just one example. I didn't get the opportunity to read it until this morning and I think the comments made were awful. As for Kiara and Helen getting nasty, it's seems to me you started it. You don't seem to think it's possible to support the troops and not the war. That's very narrow minded of you.
Yes, we've all said things that haven't been nice. However, the majority of times it's started by someone on the right who doesn't like how someone on the left feels about Bush. Sorry, Linda, you are probably a very nice person outside of this board, but you don't come across that way on this board a lot of the time. You come across like twelve. Maybe a lot of us do need to work on our debating skills. I've seen more maturity in my granddaughter's kindergarten class.
Hard to have a "discussion" when some of the first words you read are deragatory to someone that some of here respect and is the Leader of the Free world...
So be "nasty" is a point of view, depends which "side" you are standing on.
And, twelve, as for President Bush being the leader of the "free" world, I guess that depends on which "side" you are standing on and how many of your liberties you are willing to lose. And, which countries in this "world" have appointed Bush as their leader? I didn't know we were a "world". I though America was a country.
I may not know the inner workings of the US military, but I'm not totally stupid. My grandfather served in WWII, my father was in the service before I was born and my uncle served in Vietnam. I do support our troops, but I do not support this war. The same as I did not support Vietnam, but supported my uncle who was in it.
posted on April 20, 2004 05:11:04 AM new
Yes and we LOST Vietnam...
Each and everytime the American people have supported the war, we have won, each time they "protest" we lose... terrorists are not stupid either, they know by continuing to harrass our troops, people here slamming President Bush is GOOD for them and BAD for our troops... the more you protest the more troops will die.
posted on April 20, 2004 08:04:17 AM new
This goes back to Bunni's comment the other day about world travel. How dare anyone travel to more places than HE has and when they stated the countries he called them liars. How dare anyone say they support the troops unless they've "served" like he claims he has. How dare anyone not support the government when he does.
So then he counters it by lying and accusing me of supporting the insurgents or being anti-American even though my words are here for anyone to search and most other rational thinkers can read and judge. Does he actually think if he makes false claims long enough that he will be believed?
"Hate" is a strong word and I don't hate anyone and just because I don't agree with President Bush or his policies doesn't mean that I hate him and never have I said that.
Yellowstone is correct in saying that we probably wouldn't talk to each other like we do if we were sitting together at a table but then in RL we usually choose who we sit with. Same as in RL no man calls me the C word as the men I know respect women and treat us as equals.
posted on April 20, 2004 08:31:22 AM new
have a look at this report....very interesting......
Fables of the reconstruction
2004-04-20
By Jason Vest
A Coalition memo reveals that even true believers see the seeds of civil war in the occupation of Iraq
By Jason Vest
AS THE SITUATION in Iraq grows ever more tenuous, the Bush administration continues to spin the ominous news with matter-of-fact optimism. According to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Iraqi uprisings in half a dozen cities, accompanied by the deaths of more than 100 soldiers in the month of April alone, is something to be viewed in the context of "good days and bad days," merely "a moment in Iraq's path towards a free and democratic system." More recently, the president himself asserted, "Our coalition is standing with responsible Iraqi leaders as they establish growing authority in their country."
But according to a closely held Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) memo written in early March, the reality isn't so rosy. Iraq's chances of seeing democracy succeed, according to the memo's author -- a U.S. government official detailed to the CPA, who wrote this summation of observations he'd made in the field for a senior CPA director -- have been severely imperiled by a year's worth of serious errors on the part of the Pentagon and the CPA, the U.S.-led multinational agency administering Iraq. Far from facilitating democracy and security, the memo's author fears, U.S. efforts have created an environment rife with corruption and sectarianism likely to result in civil war.
Provided to this reporter by a Western intelligence official, the memo was partially redacted to protect the writer's identity and to "avoid inflaming an already volatile situation" by revealing the names of certain Iraqi figures. A wide-ranging and often acerbic critique of the CPA, covering topics ranging from policy, personalities and press operations to on-the-ground realities such as electricity, the document is not only notable for its candidly troubled assessment of Iraq's future. It is also significant, according to the intelligence official, because its author has been a steadfast advocate of "transforming" the Middle East, beginning with "regime change" in Iraq.
'The trigger for civil war'
Signs of the author's continuing support for the U.S. invasion and occupation are all over the memo, which was written to a superior in Baghdad and circulated among other CPA officials. He praises Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, and laments a lack of unqualified U.S. support for Chalabi, a long-time favorite of Washington hawks. (It bears noting that Chalabi was tried and convicted in absentia by the Jordanian government for bank embezzlement, in 1989, and has come under fire more recently for peddling dubious pre-war intelligence to the United States.)
The author also asserts that "what we have accomplished in Iraq is worth it." And his predictions sometimes hew to an improbably sunny view. Violence is likely, he says, for only "two or three days after arresting" radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr, an event that would "make other populist leaders think twice" about bucking the CPA.
Written only weeks ago, these predictions seem quite unwarranted, since simply trying to arrest al Sadr has resulted in more than two weeks of bloody conflict -- with no end in sight -- and seems to have engendered more cooperation between anti-Coalition forces than before.
Yet the memo is gloomy in most other respects, portraying a country mired in dysfunction and corruption, overseen by a CPA that "handle(s) an issue like 6-year-olds play soccer: Someone kicks the ball and 100 people chase after it hoping to be noticed, without a care as to what happens on the field." But it is particularly pointed on the subject of cronyism and corruption within the Governing Council, the provisional Iraqi government subordinate to the CPA whose responsibilities include re-staffing Iraq's government departments.
"In retrospect," the memo asserts, "both for political and organizational reasons, the decision to allow the Governing Council to pick 25 ministers did the greatest damage. Not only did we endorse nepotism, with men choosing their sons and brothers-in-law; but we also failed to use our prerogative to shape a system that would work... Our failure to promote accountability has hurt us."
In the broadest sense, according to the memo's author, the CPA's bunker-in-Baghdad mentality has contributed to the potential for civil war all over the country. "[CPA Administrator L. Paul] Bremer has encouraged re-centralization in Iraq because it is easier to control a Governing Council less than a kilometer away from the Palace, rather than 18 different provincial councils who would otherwise have budgetary authority," he says. The net effect, the memo's author continues, has been a "desperation to dominate Baghdad, and an absolutism born of regional isolation."
The memo also describes the CPA as "handicapped by [its] security bubble," and derides the U.S. government for spending "millions importing sport utility vehicles which are used exclusively to drive the kilometer and a half" between CPA and Governing Council headquarters when "we would have been much better off with a small fleet of used cars and a bicycle for every Green Zone resident."
While the memo upbraids CPA officials -- an apparent majority -- who stay inside the Green Zone in the name of personal safety, it also maintains that the Green Zone itself is "less than secure," both for Westerners and Iraqis. According to the author, "screening for Iranian agents and followers of Muqtada al Sadr is inconsistent at best," and anti-CPA elements can easily gather basic intelligence, since no one is there to "prevent people from entering the parking lot outside the checkpoint to note license-plate numbers of 'collaborators.'"
Ordinary Iraqis also "fear that some of the custodial staff note who comes and goes," according to the memo, causing a "segment of Iraqi society to avoid meeting Americans because they fear the Green Zone."
It also derides the use of heavily armed personal-security details (PSDs) for CPA personnel, saying the practice inspires reticence among ordinary Iraqis. "It is ingrained in the Iraqi psyche to keep a close hold on their own thoughts when surrounded by people with guns," the memo notes. "Even those willing to talk to Americans think twice, since American officials create a spectacle of themselves, with convoys, flak jackets, fancy SUVs."
While the memo offers an encouraging and appealing picture of thriving businesses and patrons on the streets of a free Baghdad, it notes that "the progress evidently happens despite us rather than because of us," and reports that "frequent explosions, many of which are not reported in the mainstream media, are a constant reminder of uncertainty."
Indeed, while boosters of the Iraqi invasion delight in the phrase "25 million free Iraqis," if the CPA memo is any indication, this newfound liberty does not include freedom from fear. "Baghdadis have an uneasy sense that they are heading towards civil war," it says. "Sunnis, Shias and Kurd professionals say that they themselves, friends and associates are buying weapons fearing for the future."
The memo also notes that while Iraqi police "remain too fearful to enforce regulations," they are making a pretty penny as small-arms dealers, with the CPA as an unwitting partner. "CPA is ironically driving the weapons market," it reveals. "Iraqi police sell their U.S.-supplied weapons on the black market; they are promptly re-supplied. Interior ministry weapons buy-backs keep the price of arms high."
The memo goes on to argue that "the trigger for a civil war" is not likely to be an isolated incident of violence, but the result of "deeper conflicts that revolve around patronage and absolutism" reaching a flashpoint.
'Their corruption is our corruption'
Asserting that the United States must "use our prerogative as an occupying power to signal that corruption will not be tolerated," the CPA memo recommends taking action against at least four Iraqi ministers whose names have been redacted from the document. (Though there may be no connection, two weeks ago, Interior Minister Nuri Badran abruptly resigned, as did Governing Council member Iyad Allawi.) Also redacted is the name of a minister whose acceptance of "alleged kickbacks... should be especially serious for us, since he was one of two ministers who met the President and had his picture taken with him." (Though the identity of the minister in question cannot be precisely determined, the only Iraqi ministers who have been photographed with President Bush are Iraqi public-works minister Nesreen Berwari and electricity minister Ayhem al-Sammarai, on Sept. 23, 2003.) "If such information gets buried on the desks of middle-level officials who do not want to make waves," the memo warns, "the short-term gain will be replaced by long-term ill."
Developing this theme, the memo asserts that the United States "share[s] culpability in the eyes of ordinary Iraqis" for engendering Iraq's currently cronyistic state; since "we appointed the Governing Council members... their corruption is our corruption."
The author then notes that two individuals -- names again redacted -- have successfully worked to exclude certain strains of Shia from obtaining ministerial-level positions, and that for this "Iraqis blame Bremer, especially because the [CPA] Governance Group had assured Iraqis that exclusion from the Governing Council did not mean an exclusion from the process. As it turns out, we lied. People from Kut [a city south of Baghdad recently besieged by Shiite forces loyal to Muqtada al Sadr], for example, see that they have no representation on the Governing Council, and many predict civil war since they doubt that the Governing Council will really allow elections."
Fanning the embers of distrust is the United States' failure to acknowledge that the constituencies of key Governing Council members "are not based on ideology, but rather on the muscle of their respective personal militias and the patronage which we allow them to bestow," according to the memo's author.
Using the Kurds as an example, he reveals that "we have bestowed approximately $600 million upon the Kurdish leadership, in addition to the salaries we pay, in addition to the USAID projects, in addition to the taxes which we have allowed them to collect illegally." To underscore the point, the author adds that he recently spent an evening with a Kurdish contact watching "The Godfather" trilogy, and notes that "the entire evening was spent discussing which Iraqi Kurdish politicians represented which ["Godfather"] character."
The memo also characterizes the CPA's border-security policy as "completely irrelevant," going so far as to state that "it is undeniable that a crumbling Baathist regime did better than we have" in that regard. Noting that senior Defense Department officials do not fully understand the nature of the problem, the memo recommends that the United States "deploy far greater numbers [of soldiers] than we have now" to the borders.
The memo also criticizes the Defense Department -- in particular the Office of the Secretary of Defense -- for keeping potentially useful personnel in Washington. "There is an unfortunate trend inside the Pentagon where those who can write a good memo are punished by being held back from the field," it says, adding that "OSD harms itself, and its constituent members' individual credibility, when it defers all real-world experience to others."
The CPA's press operation -- headed by Dan Senor, Bremer's senior communications adviser, who is seen by many as little more than a White House hack -- doesn't escape the memo writer's criticism, either. The press office, he says, has made a bad political situation worse by "promoting American individuals above Iraqis." In one case, the memo says, "Iraqis present at the 4 a.m. conclusion of the Governing Council deliberations on the interim constitution were mocking Dan Senor's request that no one say anything to the press until the following afternoon.... It was obvious to all that an American wanted to make the announcement and so take credit. Our lack of honesty in saying as much annoyed the Iraqis... [they] resent the condescension of our press operation."
Pre-war concerns validated
By and large, the March memo validates many points raised by career military, diplomatic and intelligence officers before the war. For them, lack of planning for post-war stabilization was a primary matter of deep concern, which cannot be said for the Bush administration's hawkish advocates of "regime change."
Among the more informed and prescient in this camp is Retired U.S. Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, a long-time National War College instructor and war-games specialist who asserted in February 2003 that "the military is not prepared to deal with [Bush's] promises" of a rapid and rosy post-war transition in Iraq.
Based on Gardiner's experience as a participant in a Swedish National War College study of protracted difficulties in rebuilding Kosovo's electrical grid after NATO bombed it in 1999, Gardiner made a similar study, in 2002, of the likely effect U.S. bombardment would have on Iraq's power system. Gardiner's assessment was not optimistic. It was also hardly unknown: not only did he present his finding to a mass audience at a RAND Corporation forum, he also briefed ranking administration officials ranging from then-National Security Council Iraq point man Zalmay Khalizad to senior Pentagon and U.S. Agency for International Development officials.
Despite repeated assurances over the past year from CPA chief L. Paul Bremer that Iraq's electricity situation has vastly improved, the memo says otherwise, reporting that there is "no consistency" in power flows. "Street lights function irregularly and traffic lights not at all.... Electricity in Baghdad fluctuating between three hours, on and off, in rotation, and four hours on and off."
"I continue to get very upset about the electricity issue," Gardiner said last week after reviewing the memo. "I said in my briefing that the electrical system was going to be damaged, and damaged for a long time, and that we had to find a way to keep key people at their posts and give them what they need so there wouldn't be unnatural surges that cause systems to burn out. Frankly, if we had just given the Iraqis some baling wire and a little bit of space to keep things running, it would have been better. But instead we've let big U.S. companies go in with plans for major overhauls."
Indeed, as journalists Pratap Chatterjee and Herbert Docena noted in a report from Iraq in Southern Exposure, published by the Durham, N.C.-based Institute for Southern Studies, the steam turbines at Iraq's Najibiya power plant have been dormant since last fall.
As Yaruub Jasim, the plant's manager, explained, "Normally we have power 23 hours a day. We should have done maintenance on these turbines in October, but we had no spare parts and money." And why not? According to Jasim, the necessary replacement parts were supposed to come from Bechtel, but they hadn't arrived yet -- in part because Bechtel's priority was a months-long independent examination of power plants with an eye toward total reconstruction. And while parts could have been cheaply and quickly obtained from Russian, German or French contractors -- the contractors who built most of Iraq's power stations -- "unfortunately," Jasim told Chatterjee and Docena, "Mr. Bush prevented the French, Russian and German companies from [getting contracts in] Iraq." (In an interview last year with the San Francisco Chronicle, Bechtel's Iraq operations chief held that "to just walk in and start fixing Iraq" was "an unrealistic expectation."
The CPA memo also validates key points of the exceptionally perceptive February 2003 U.S. Army War College report, "Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario." Critical of the U.S. government's insufficient post-war planning, the War College report asserted that "the possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace is real and serious."
It also cautioned that insufficient attention had been given to the political complexities likely to crop up in post-Saddam Iraq, a scene in which religious and ethnic blocs supported by militias would further complicate a transition to functional democracy in a nation bereft of any pluralistic history.
According to a Washington, DC-based senior military official whose responsibilities include Iraq, CPA now estimates there are at least 30 separate militias active in Iraq, and "essentially [CPA] doesn't know what to do with regard to them -- which is frightening, because CPA's authority essentially ends on June 30, and any Iraqi incentive to get rid of the militias is likely to go away after that date, as sending U.S. troops around Iraq against Iraqis isn't likely to endear the new Iraqi government to its citizens."
And then there is the problem of Iran. According to the memo, "Iranian money is pouring in" to occupied Iraq -- particularly the area under British control -- and the memo asserts it is "a mistake" to stick to a policy of "not rock[ing] the boat" with the Iranians, as "the Iranian actors with which the State Department likes to do business... lack the power to deliver on promises" to exercise restraint in Iraq.
According to senior U.S. intelligence and military officials queried on this point, the Iranian influence in Iraq is both real and formidable, and the United States is, as one put it, at best "catching up" in the battle for influence. But the officials also added that pushing the point with Iran too hard -- either through diplomatic channels or on the ground in Iraq -- would likely be more problematic than the current course of action, possibly resulting in armed conflict with Iran or a proxy war in Iraq that the United States isn't ready to fight.
Famously, Lord Cromer once described Great Britain's approach to the Land of the Nile: "We do not rule Egypt; we rule those who rule Egypt."
Compare that with several statements made by the U.S. official who wrote the memo considered here. Of one senior Iraqi official, whose name is redacted, he states that "it is better to keep [him] a happy drunk than an angry drunk." And he says of two other Iraqi leaders that they are "much more compliant when their checks are delayed or fail to appear," adding that "the same is true with other Governing Council members." The attitudes aren't much different, are they? And yet sometimes, the most true and heartbreaking view is afforded from the wheel of the mighty ship of state.
posted on April 20, 2004 10:30:31 AM newtreat us as equals.
That's the joke of the century... women are not equal in any shape or form...
Very inferior in most repects...
But then again when you talk to them as you would any man... ooooooh....
and of course I would never use that to a real Lady...which I don't include those 2 in that group...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 20, 2004 10:34:41 AM new
Twelve, you should wash your mouth out with soap, or maybe drink some soap... a good stiff swig of Ipecac should help. When you're done, come back and tell us about your experience.
[ edited by kraftdinner on Apr 20, 2004 10:46 AM ]
WoW, that's the mindset among many of the males who have inferiority complexes and those who doubt their own masculinity.
Thankfully in my world the men are proud of their women and treat us like ladies. Many of the women make more money than their partners and the men encourage them all the way. The men I know all want intelligent ladies that they can converse with and would never settle for less.
posted on April 20, 2004 02:00:43 PM new
Most of the guys I know are pretty secure too Kiara, so coming across someone like Twelve is like finding a trillion year old fossil in your backyard.
posted on April 20, 2004 02:06:34 PM new
Thankfully in my world, Mike makes enough money, and I encourage him and am very proud of him esp. when he hands over the money for the mortgage, bills and stuff
(I have my own money, but he can't touch it )
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 20, 2004 06:24:54 PM new
Cheryl, I have a question for you. Do you really think its possible to say you support the soldiers but not the cause they are fighting for? To me, there is no synchronicity in that statement. They Have to be there, and do the job they are assigned as warriors. How can they continue do that with any efficiency when people keep saying what they are doing over there is wrong??
Psychologically, I don't think it works to say I support you but I don't support what you are doing? Its almost like sending your kid to a school, but all the while bashing the principal, the administrators, and the curriculicum to the kid and then telling them, but its okay, you go there and do a good job, and listen to whatever they say even though they sux.
posted on April 20, 2004 07:26:34 PM new
Hi Nero, I'm not Cheryl but I'll say how I feel about this.
I believe that most of the soldiers that went to Iraq believed deep in their hearts that they were bringing peace and a better life to the people of Iraq and that they are trying to do the very best job that they were sent to do. They are very brave, all of them.
That's why I support them all the way even though I don't agree about the reasons why they were sent there or the lack of planning. I am also concerned about the innocent people in Iraq who have had their lives disrupted and who have lost loved ones and who now live in fear because they are caught in the middle between the troops and the insurgents and to change my feelings about any of this would be trying to change the way I am as a person and I can't do that.
Even some parents don't agree with the war but have sons and daughters there that they fully support. Some have even said that their sons or daughters have a different opinion of the war than they do and they respect them for their choices and are hoping and praying that they get home safely.
BTW, I've known parents that sent their kids to school and bashed the administrators and worked very hard to improve things for the better and now have better educated kids.
And Kraft, I found another one for your list above. We were also called "Jerk Offs".
posted on April 20, 2004 07:30:50 PM new
And they know that I don't support the reason they are there how? I don't opening protest or write letters to the editor. Yes, I can and do pray for their safety and I can and do pray that when they do return they are mentally and physically healthy. I know they have to be there. It's evident in the fact that they aren't even allowed to return when their tour is up. They are forced to stay in the service. Now, do you call that a volunteer armed forces? I certainly don't. If you think that my opinion or that of anyone who opposes the war is causing our men to die, then I guess you can hold the insurgents blameless. I'm willing to bet a vast majority of them are not in good spirits and it has nothing to do with how I feel about the war. I'm also willing to bet if you asked a majority of them and if they were ALLOWED to answer you honestly, they'd say they want out.
I'm also willing to bet that if you asked twelve, he'd say we should either #*!@ or get off the pot and bring his nephew home. In the meantime, we are spending billions of dollars in a country that, IMO, will never be a true democracy while our schools continue to lose funding, while our poor continue to get poorer and while our jobs are continuing to move out of this country. When are WE going to come first?
The state of Ohio is facing dire deficits due to a loss of federal money and the Cleveland Public Schools has lost much needed state funding because of this. A $200 million dollar deficit has cost the cutting of summer school, sports, teachers, books, intervention programs and the like. I'll remember to tell these children that they are not as important as the children of Iraq.
Edited to add: Sorry if I sound a little mean spirited, but I am sick and tired of people telling me what I do and don't support. Unless you can physically get inside my head (oh, please it's crowded enough in there), you can't possibly make that judgement. So, calling me anti-American or any other name is not going to get me to sway my vote on this issue or any other one.
posted on April 20, 2004 08:39:53 PM new
Neroter, think of this analogy - you have a gay son. You love him but you don't support his lifestyle. They're two separate issues.
posted on April 20, 2004 09:06:38 PM new
It's also important to point out that not all servicemen believe that they are fighting for a good cause. Many reservists, for example, are not as gung ho as the regular army and would prefer to stay at home, keep their jobs and take care of their families. They joined the Reserves to make a few extra bucks on the weekend. They are motivated to do their job as soldiers because their life and the lives of their friends are on the line.
Of course I can support the soldiers and not the cause. I think that I would be letting the troops down if I supported this neocon insanity.
[ edited by skylite on Apr 20, 2004 08:40 AM ]