SOMEBODY GET TEDDY A DRINK
By Buck Evinger
Ted Kennedy appeared as the sole guest on CBS’s Face The Nation this past Sunday. Yes, the network that claims it has no liberal bias gave a solid, unchecked hour to one of the most liberal voices in politics. I don’t really have a problem with a single guest getting a chance to voice their opinion, but Kennedy is old news. He never has anything new or constructive to say. He is the gadfly of the wacko left. Just take a look at some of what Teddy had to say.
Iraq is “clearly is George Bush’s Vietnam.”
The fact that Ted Kennedy claims to see anything clearly is laughable, but how can a sitting Senator compare Iraq to Vietnam and expect to be taken seriously. This Vietnam comparison came up during the election and it just doesn’t hold water.
Vietnam: A 10 year war, ran by Democrats, an unmitigated failure. We lost. 50,000 dead US soldiers.
Iraq: A couple of years in, we’ve already won the war, now we’re fighting to build a democracy, a little over 1000 US soldiers killed in action. A nation on the mend.
Somebody get Teddy a drink.
“….They have been unable to make up a plan — they’re making it up day by day. Until Iraqis are going to fight for their own country we are going to have a very, very dangerous situation…We have to let the Iraqis make the judgment and the decision about the elections. The United States has been manipulating and making all the calls in terms of Iraq. The Iraqis have to make the judgments,”
Here’s the plan. Invade Iraq and take control of the country. Check. Find the evil dictator and put him away. Check. Reubild the nation into a thriving democracy. (Still working on it.) The problem with liberals like Kennedy is they are planners and not doers. Their ideas look good on paper, they just can’t be done. Could things have been done better in Iraq? Absolutely. Thank you Mr. Hindsight.
Yes, we do need to let the Iraqis make their own judgements. Which Iraqis? Hello! Isnt’ that why we are trying like hell to make these elections happen as quickly as possible? We want Iraqis to start making decisions about their own future, but the structures of government have to be in place to execute those decisions, don’t they?
Make that drink a double.
“Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves this very basic question. And that is, is the face of the United States part of the liberation and security and the stability in that country, or are we a force that is perceived to be expanding the kind of uncertainty and savagery and revolution that’s taking place there?”
If you would stand behind your President and be a true patriot the answer to that question would be yes. You, and your fellow whiners, are the only people expanding uncertainty about our motives. When the world can quote your wack-job conspiricy theories and use that against our efforts, that is what causes doubt and uncertainty.
On second thought, just give the man the bottle.
LAL
Suzanne Says: January 19th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
I just sent Kennedy a nice bottle of his favorite morning toddy.
I agree with standing behind our President, does not matter if you did or did not vote for him. He is the President, and as a nation, to remain strong, we must, and that is a double must, stand behind our Commander-in-Chief.
A President is only as strong as is the support of the entire nation.
This does not mean we can not and should not voice our thoughts if we feel the actions of the President are of concern. We can do this, and still stand behind our President; though never with our eyes closed.
A little follow up on that statement, our troops fighting this war are also only as strong as the support they receive from home, the people of America, along with the government’s support, not just while they are on active duty, they must know that when they return home, their specific war related needs will be taken care of. The men and women fighting this war, need to know that if they should die, their families will be taken care of. The men and women fighting this war need to know that if injured, they will be taken care of by the Veteran’s Administration. They need to know that the funding of The Veteran’s Administration is top priority in congress, and that the funding bills are passed, and not put aside for later debate.
I stand behind my President, does not matter if I did or did not vote for him, he is my President. This does not mean I can not, and will not voice my thoughts on important issues. Yes, I have an issue – we are failing on one of the statements above, and it is a disgrace, it is shameful, it is un-American, it is evil, and I doubt many of you know anything about it, as if you did, surly more would be said on this subject.
So, which of the two is now Suzanne’s issue? This issue is very big to me and should be to each and every American,
I will be very interested in the comments that follow.
Suzanne
I don't agree Says: January 24th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
Stand by your president is just plain stupid. When the man is making decisions that have led un deeper and deeper into a never ending war, led us into being reviled by the world, led our country into the biggest deficits ever, and on and on, then no I cannot support this president.
Do you think he is doing any favors for our soldiers, setting them off to battle with little protection, sending them out on recon, to be the bait for insurgents, and on and on.
Sean Says: January 24th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Hey, I don’t agree. Could you, just for the rest of our benefit, say a few key words for us. Could you say…”Quagmire”…could you say…”Halliburton” for us. Could you say…”Selected not elected”. Sorry for my disdain to your comments, but I’ve heard this tripe (e.g.: crap, B.S., Dem talking points, etc. etc.) before and I’ve refuted it ALL more times than I can count or would like to even remember.
Get a few new lines. On a serious not; however, for your own benefit if you look at what you’re saying in retrospect. It didn’t win the election for you, and it’s not going to do you any good in the future as well. Believe what you want, but none of what you’re saying is true and the most important thing is that the majority of America doesn’t buy it either. This sort of view is why you are losing.
Sam Says: February 9th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Some people make me sick. I want a FAR left-wing, whiney, complaining democrat to tell me all about the war. I’m a U.S. Servicemember (still on active duty) and the last time I checked, the Iraqi people are quite happy with us being there, appreciative of all that we’ve done for them, and THEY support the President. The only people who are responsible for the killing of U.S. soldiers are the…..TERRORISTS!!! And you wanna talk about “quagmire” and “Halliburton” there, Sean? If you’re as much of a liberal loser as the Dem politicians, then let me remind you of a few things…..1993: First attack on WTC (under Clinton’s watch), 1998: U.S. Embassy bombings overseas (under Clinton’s watch), 2000: USS Cole bombing (under Clinton’s watch). Let me keep going. When was the last time you heard of a Republican president (in recent years) committing adultery while still holding the office of President of the United States? Not in my memory has that happened. And, on top of it all, Clinton committed adultery IN the White House. So you want to talk about a disgrace to the nation? Think back to all the liberal screw-ups that have happened over the past decade. Think about how much the office of POTUS was tainted after Clinton’s little sexual innuendos. Think about all the terrorist attacks that happened to the U.S or to U.S. interests during Clinton’s watch. And if you want to express your true feelings about the war? I believe Hanoi Jane and John are protesting about the mistreatment of elves somewhere! So go join them. The liberal, whacko left-wing politicians and citizens of this country have NO IDEA whatsoever as to what it takes to go to war, to free a country, to rebuild a nation, and do it all while losing brave people who have given THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE for what they believe in. Just keep in mind….EVERYTHING that has happened in the last four years (and for the next four years) has been done to guarantee your freedom, your rights, your right to LIVE, your right to whine, and your right to make a difference. But, if you’re gonna start complaining about Bush and his administration you might want to get the facts straight about the Democrats….we’ve got enough evidence to wash the entire Democratic Party down the freakin’ toilet. Here’s a bottle of Teddy’s fave drink for you.
Sean Says: February 9th, 2005 at 10:50 pm
Sam,
Good for you Sam, and thank you for your Service. Americans are in debt to you. We need more people like you who to rebut these people like General Hoar, and other “arm-chair” Generals who are still saying that Iraq is a failure, and it’s a Quagmire as so on and so forth.
Sam Says: February 16th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
Sean,
I apologize if it sounded like I was barking at you. But I just hate it when liberals try to appeal to the American people when they obviously aren’t very American themselves. And thank you for the compliment. I’m glad to do what I can when I can for the freedom of all!!
FTA Says: February 21st, 2005 at 4:46 pm
I think the idea here is that America can win the war, but will never win the occupation. It has only created the greatest breeding ground for terrorists where, previously, there were none. What do you think would happen in Iran? Military power just ain’t what it used to be, folks.
FTA Says: February 22nd, 2005 at 9:35 am
This is a link to an article by a former Army Col. who also compares the mess in Iraq to Vietnam.
Sean Says: February 22nd, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Sam, Sam, what the h*ll are you talking about??? Read my comments Man!! I’m the most Conservative person you’ll ever meet. My comment #3 was replying to comment #2 by the writer whose name was “I don’t agree”. I was not saying that there was any validity to any of those claims (Quagmire, Halliburton, selected not elected). READ MY FRIGIN’ COMMENTS THROUGH ALL THE WAY. I STATED THAT THEY WERE B.S. I don’t believe it. My comment was in response to the previous comment. Please don’t EVER, EVER call me a liberal again!! I’m as conservative as humanly possible. Please re-read the comment, and the previous comment that I was replying to.
Sean Says: February 22nd, 2005 at 7:29 pm
Yes FTA, another FORMER Army Col., like General Hoar whose comments I’ve already refuted, who was not on the ground in either theatre of the War on Terror (Afghanistan or Iraq). Another “Arm-chair General”, Former Col. who is making another political statement and getting his name on the front page by saying exactly what the liberal press and the liberal Democrats want to hear.
The American military is the only beacon of freedom in the world. It not only defends and ensures our freedom, but it is spreading it to the rest of the world. You need to learn ONE lesson well. This is still a world that is GOVERNED BY THE AGGRESSIVE USE OF FORCE. Do you remember Van Clauswitz, the father of modern military strategy, who said “War is a continuation of politics by other means” What this says is that when political “talks” fail then politics must be enforced or continued by military might. Military power IS STILL THE LAST WORD in the world and not just our military power.
Your comment #7 shows one of your primary faults in your ideology. You see our American troops who are LIBERATORS NOT OCCUPIERS. We spread FREEDOM not TYRANNY. And you think there were NO TERRORISTS in IRAQ before we were there. YOU are so out of touch with reality it is profound. Saddam Hussein trained and funded terrorists. He funded suicide bombers in Isreal for $25,000 dollars a piece. There were terrorist training camps found in Iraq, and of course you didn’t hear anything about that in the mainstream media.
We are winning, the insurgents/terrorists are being captured or killed. Democracy is winning and the people are free. In Afghanistan and Iraq gains are being made everyday to ensure peace and liberty.
Julian Says: February 22nd, 2005 at 7:50 pm
SEAN, You need to look up the word “refute”. I don’t think you know what it means.
Julian Says: February 22nd, 2005 at 7:50 pm
Refute does not mean blab incoherently.
Sean Says: February 22nd, 2005 at 8:11 pm
Julian go to Hell. You know the opposite of Heaven, where God is. What you liberals don’t believe in. The only person who blabs incoherently here, lately anyway, is you. What you need to do is stop reading the New York Times and listening to Dan Rather on CBS, and find the facts. When you look at the facts the conservatives, the majority of the Republican party, and the Bush administration is right.
Rob Says: February 23rd, 2005 at 12:11 am
Glad to see I can check in from time to time and find that Sean is still as lunatic as he always was, rambling on about refuting stuff simply on the basis of neo-conservative fantasy instead of fact. Now he has been joined by Sam.
At least he admits what many Bush critic accuse Bush of: that he has legitimize the use of force so much that now any crazy dictator/terrorist with a gun and idea can justify his “agressive us of force” to get his way. Hey, we wouldn’t listen to Al Qaeda telling us to stop living the way they were, so they did the only thing any good Clauswitian would do, resorted to violence. WHo can blame then in the end, since Sean has told us that that is how the world works…
Julian Says: February 23rd, 2005 at 1:15 am
Sean, You don’t seem conservative. I think that the views that I have seen you express at this website are more aligned with neoconservative views (which are neither neo[i.e., new] or conservative).
FTA Says: February 23rd, 2005 at 1:54 am
Sean, the Col. hasn’t said anything that Pat Buchanan hasn’t said, so it’s not so much a liberal/conservative thing. Stormin’ Norman said that the reason the US didn’t go all the way in the 90’s was because we’d still be there now. It just wasn’t worth it. Besides, America liberated the Kuwaiti oil fields, and protected the Saudi oil fields as well. These are not free countries, but we went to war for them. If it’s not about oil, then what do you think it is?
Since Iraq didn’t have the WMD’s we sold them in the 80’s, there was no reason to invade the country.This whole thing about liberating Iraq is Plan C, or D after everything else falls apart. Spreading freedom is utopian and unrealistic.I wonder who would get elected in Saudi Arabia? Someone like Bin Laden, perhaps?
FTA Says: February 23rd, 2005 at 2:19 am
Sean, I almost forgot - you’re right about Hussein giving the $25,000 to suicide bombers. I should have said that Iraq wasn’t the number one breeding ground for terrorists, as it is now.
Julian Says: February 23rd, 2005 at 3:27 am
In the words of William F. Buckley, the father of American Conservatism, “you know and I know that the war was a mistake.” June 29, 2004 New York Times
Julian Says: February 23rd, 2005 at 4:34 am
Col. David Hackworth, the author of the article that FTA cited, was, in fact, a battlefield commander. This is to correct an erroneous post by an earlier irresponsible poster child. see this.
Sean Says: February 23rd, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Why don’t you quit being judgmental Rob and read the comment that Julian wrote about me (#11 and #12), and then you’ll know why I responded the way I did. That is if that’s what you mean by me being lunatic. I guess I’m just really sick and tired of you fu@#in’ hypocritical liberal pin-heads who can sling all the mud you want, but when conservatives do it all of a sudden we are lunatic.
Sean Says: February 23rd, 2005 at 4:10 pm
And it isn’t the number one breeding ground for terrorists now either, FTA. If it were then there would have been much, much more bloodshed during the elections.
Sean Says: February 23rd, 2005 at 4:17 pm
You know Julian, the elections that you and you’re other liberal kook friends like to pretend never happened and weren’t as huge a sucess as they were. By the way I wanted to ask you. Was Col. David Hackworth a battlefield commander on the ground in Iraq, and I’m speaking serious now I AM because I’d like to bring you back to a reasonable conversation with me instead of have you flying off with all your petty insults and low-blows.
I ask this, because the point that I was trying to make, just as the point I was making when I refuted Former Gen. Hoar’s comments, in comment #10 (about Hackworth) is that many of these former soldiers who are not in Iraq and do not have a first hand, on the spot account of what’s happening are telling extremely, 180 degree different stories than the soldiers who are actually IN IRAQ and DO HAVE A FIRST HAND ACCOUNT. That’s the point I was making and it’s an extremely valid one whether you want to admit it or not. Ask Sam who WAS THERE!
Julian Says: February 23rd, 2005 at 6:51 pm
Sean, I find it odd that you are offended by my comments when you have responded to many of my comments by cursing at me, calling me names, telling me to go to hell, etc. It doesn’t bother me, it just strikes me as odd – sort of like being gummed by a newt, not painful, just weird. To revisit our earlier conversation about General Hoar’s (USMC) article: fact 1) Gen. Hoar was the commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command. Fact 2) Gen. Hoar claims to regularly receive information about the Iraq war. Fact 3) He also claims that some of the information that he receives about the war from high-ranking military and government officials actually contradicts information that the Bush administration is disseminating. Fact 4) he claims that military personnel, especially those at the decision-making level who are exposed to a broad range of information are often required to choose between being honest versus being loyal to the Bush administration. He contends that military leaders should not be put in the position of having to choose between honesty and loyalty to Bush. I, and apparently the editors of Military.com, think that his views are informative and warrant serious consideration, especially in view of the fact that he is well positioned to have access to high quality information about the war. You however dismiss information (facts) that are not provided directly from current field commanders in Iraq. When you dismiss the comments of someone like Gen Hoar on the grounds that his views are uninformed I can’t regard that as a “refutation.” I suspect that you dismiss Gen Hoar not because he wasn’t a field commander in Iraq but rather because his views differ from yours and you can’t tolerate the views of others.
Sean Says: February 23rd, 2005 at 8:06 pm
NO Julian. Once again you’re reading way too far into my comment. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. When I say that I disagree with his take on Iraq it IS because he was not there and is not there. As I have said TIME AND TIME AGAIN I hear numerous “claims” from people who say the war effort is going terrible, yes even military officers, but then I hear very opposite and optimistic reports and examples from soldiers and OFFICERS who have served in Iraq, who were there or are STILL there and they say things are going monumentally better than what the media claims and what Former Gen. Hoar or Col. Hackworth claim.
I’m very honest and forthright when I speak. I don’t speak in code. My comments don’t have to be translated. They mean exactly as they read. This is something you’re going to have to learn and realize if you’re going to digest and even begin to understand what I’m saying. Now I’m expecting some insulting, or condescending response like. “Oh Sean I couldn’t understand what you say anyway ’cause it’s all rhetoric and double talk.” And that’s fine if that’s the way you’re going to go, but you’ll never learn anything new that way.
Julian Says: February 23rd, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Sean, I honestly hope that peace and prosperity come to Iraq. That would be a dream come true. There are good reasons to worry though. And elections alone will not work magic in Iraq. Elections are great, sometimes. Remember that Hitler came to power through democratic elections.
Julian Says: February 23rd, 2005 at 9:40 pm
Sean, So since you are not in Iraq, I presume, your take on the Iraq situation is invalid - just hearsay? I would expect that it must be even more degraded than Gen Hoar’s since he is getting his info from in-theater commanders.
Rob Says: February 24th, 2005 at 1:27 am
In any event, Sean, having information from soldiers and officers in the field that says that all is going “monumentally” well doesn’t, on its face, “refute” claims from others that it is not going well. No one doubts that you hear things all the time about how things are going, and no one doubts that a lot of what you hear is actually true. But remember, there are 120,000+ American troops in Iraq. The experience of, say, 60,000+ of them could be wonderful and smooth, etc. in areas where there is no conflict or on assignments where they don’t see first hand the conflict and the problems. That creates 60,000 positive experiences that soldiers can post on blogs and tell family and friends that supports the administration’s claim that all is well. However, that also leaves 60,000 more who have first hand, day-to-day experience with things going badly, or hostility from Iraqis, or crime in the streets, etc. These soldiers also post their experiences on blogs, tell their friends and families that life in Iraq sucks, both for Iraqis and occupying troops. Just as you and I have both read and heard about the positive experiences, you (if you cared to look) and I have both read and heard about the negative ones.
So the question is, since both sides (pro war and anti-war) could find a group of soldiers whose experience will confirm their view of the situation, how does one really tell what is the dominant trend in Iraq? Are things going well or not overall? Are the prospects good or bad for the establishment of democracy in Iraq? Neither side can rely on the stories of individual soldiers and officers, because these are meaningless in the big picture; they are simply anecdotes that may or may not support a claim. To say that a collection of anecdotes supporting your claim “refutes” all competing claims is naive at best, delusional in most circumstances and downright dishonest at worst.
So how do we get a sense of the true picture? I am sympathetic to Julian’s approach. You find someone who has the contacts with the folks on the ground at high enough level to have access to a wide range of reports from various groups in Iraq; someone who is independent of the administration or the military so as not to be subject to a loyalty oath, someone with no connections to ideological opponents of the administration, and nothing to gain by selling a given slant on the story, and in my mind you have a credible source of information on the big picture.
Most other sources are simply not credible: the administration certainly can’t be trusted to tell the truth because of its ideological commitment to its version of Iraq, senior members of the administration and military can’t be trusted to tell the truth because it is their job to protect the administration’s line, and individual soldiers and officers can’t know the whole truth because of their localised experience. So General Hoar, among others, are beginning to look credible. All the more so when you compare what he is saying to NGOs and the UN who are on the ground and who also have no reason to lie one way or the other. Add to the mix the concerns of Iraq’s own intelligence service, and things start to look downright worrying!
As for why I called you a lunatic, it is not because you insult people, but rather because of the faulty logic and blind faith you use to justify demonstrably false assertions about the policies of this administration. The fact that one of your techniques to avoid true discussion of issues is to insult people just make it worse…
Sean Says: February 24th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
To Julian and Rob,
So by your rationale Julian, which is unreasonable, then your take on Iraq is completely invalid as well. Where does it end? You’re not making sense, and your contradicting yourself by yourself all the time. Now listen I’d really like to make a point here.
I’m basing my argument off active, credible soldiers WHO ARE SERVING IN IRAQ, who are there, who have a true, un-filtered look at the situation there. Not from people who work in D.C., and read about it. Not from “Arm chair Generals” who have never led forces in Iraq.
Furthermore Rob’s rebuttle to my argument makes no sense and is wrong as well because I have NOT based my argument, or any of my points on anything for that matter, from sources located in only one place in Iraq. I’ve heard from soldiers in Falluja, which is actually safer now than Baghdad reported by a reporter at the Boston Globe, from soldiers in Tikrit, I actually have a college friend who served in Tikrit who’s in the army, I’ve heard from soldiers in the south like Basra. Not just from one area ROB not just one part of IRAQ. Sorry that argument doesn’t fly either!
Sean Says: February 24th, 2005 at 9:03 pm
Ok so Rob, soldiers, platoons, brigades, etc. People who serve in Iraq who are there are NOT a credible source of information. That’s your argument.
Is it any wonder why the Democrats are losing every election that comes down the pike? You need to base your argument in Reality. I’m sure that somewhere in this universe your argument would make sense, but your fatal error is that you are on planet EARTH!
Julian Says: February 24th, 2005 at 9:35 pm
Yikes!
Julian Says: February 24th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
Sean this is just getting silly. You are not even trying to make sense.
Sean Says: February 24th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
Julian this is a response to your comment #25. Once again you’ve mis-represented and attempted to re-write history. Hitler was never elected to Chancellor by the German people. The most he ever got in any German election was 37%.
The story of how Hitler became a dictator is set forth in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer, on which this article is based. In the presidential election held on March 13, 1932, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler, and two minor candidates, Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg. The results were: Hindenburg 49.6 percent, Hitler 30.1 percent, Thaelmann 13.2 percent Duesterberg 6.8 percent. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, almost 70 percent of the German people voted against Hitler, causing his supporter Joseph Goebbels, who would later become Hitler’s minister of propaganda, to lament in his journal, ‘We’re beaten; terrible outlook. Party circles badly depressed and dejected.’ Since Hindenberg had not received a majority of the vote, however, a runoff election had to be held among the top three vote-getters. On April 19, 1932, the runoff results were: Hindenburg 53.0 percent, Hitler 36.8 percent, Thaelmann 10.2 percent.” So again, 63% of the German voters voted against Adolf Hitler. “Thus, even though Hitler’s vote total had risen, he still had been decisively rejected by the German people.”
“On June 1, 1932, Hindenberg appointed Franz von Papen as chancellor of Germany, whom Shirer described as an ‘unexpected and ludicrous figure.’ Papen immediately dissolved the Reichstag (the national congress) and called for new elections, the third legislative election in five months. Hitler and his fellow members of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party, who were determined to bring down the republic and establish dictatorial rule in Germany, did everything they could to create chaos in the streets, including initiating political violence and murder. The situation got so bad that martial law was proclaimed in Berlin. Even though Hitler had badly lost the presidential election, he was drawing ever-larger crowds during the congressional election.
Let me cut to the chase here to wrap this up. I know the comment is getting long. On February 28th, 1933, Adolf Hitler got Hindenburg, President Hindenburg, to pass the Reichstag’s which abolishes most political rights in the republic.
On 23 March of 1933, forced to have its session in the nearby Kroll Opera Building, the Reichstag takes away its own powers, transfers them to Hitler, and becomes a show parliament for the Fuehrer and the Third Reich without any political weight. Keep in mind the Nazis never got a majority of the vote. They received around 38% of the vote and formed a coalition government with Hindenburg’s party and then basically overthrew Hindenburg. They got Hindenburg to essentially appoint Hitler as chancellor #2 and then they basically just took out Hindenburg. Hindenburg kicked the bucket — uh, died — and so the history was thus made. Adolf Hitler WAS NEVER ELECTED.
I found this information at http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp if you like to check it out.
P.S.: I don’t blame you for this mis-representation at all. I most of the public schools these days, including the one I went to, give the impression and basically teach history that Hitler was elected….HE WASN’T.
Julian Says: February 25th, 2005 at 2:31 am
Sean, Comment 32 is very interesting. Thank you.
Julian Says: February 25th, 2005 at 2:44 am
Sean, I went to the web site you cited. It is fascinating and I think there are important lessons to be learned from it. Thanks again. I read you ps to me too and I can’t blame the public schools for the gaps in my knowledge of history. My parents paid obscene amounts of money for me to not learn history.
Rob Says: February 25th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Yes, Sean, that is an amazing website you found, and the article on Hitler demonstrates how frighteningly simply it was for Hitler and his party to use a terrorist act to illegitimately consolidate its power and deprive Germany’s citizens of their rights. With such a devious man inpower it was no wonder the world rebelled against Germany and set out to destroy it. Thanks for the link.
Sam Says: March 4th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
To Sean….
Just to let you know…..my comment at #6 was an apology. So I hope you understand that. To Julian, Rob, and everyone else…..I am a Conservative American. I’m not ULTRA-Conservative, and never have been. But I do believe in life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of all that threaten those values. Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorists BEFORE the war started. And for anyone who thinks it wasn’t….you all need to relearn your history. Saddam was the biggest supporter of terrorist activities and he opened his borders to terrorists long before Resolution 1441 was even conceived. So please…stop trying to tell the rest of the world (and Americans) that we made it worse for Iraqis. The Iraqi people are fighting the insurgents and the terrorists. Not just the coalition anymore. They are taking back the country. If it happens to be that some of the terrorists are a little bit smarter than we first thought, then so be it.
There’s something to be said about even some conservatives saying this war was a mistake. Whether they ARE conservative or liberal, these are the “types” of people that have never been in a war (let alone the military), have never visited a country like Iraq (before the war, mind you,or the Serbian nations, i.e….remember Slobadan Milosevich), and have never been in a position to fight for what they believed in. And I mean, really fight.
The bottom line is this, and think about it in a non-partisan point of view. If you guys were in the shoes of an Iraqi citizen before the war started, knowing that there were terrorists living in your country that would do anything to hurt you, your life, or your family because you believed in something (i.e, life…in general)they did not, then how can you just sit back and watch everyone you’ve ever loved die, and see everything you’ve admired get destroyed because of those beliefs? Think about it. Regardless of how you feel about the administration or the war, there’s a greater good there. And I hate to say it, but the liberal media is not helping people understand what the situation is like there, now. There are so many more positive results coming out of Iraq and those results need to be taken into consideration.
No, the election is not going to change much and it’s going to take a long time before the Iraqi people can REALLY make a difference. But for the first time in, what–40 years–, these people are free, they can now speak for themselves, they can vote for who/whatever they want, and they are fighting to keep their liberty.
Let the U.S get torn apart over the domestic issues, but the war is one thing that NOONE should be disputing. And in case if anyone forgot, there were a lot of British and American soldiers killed when we became free. And just for the record, I was in Iraq. I was in Kosovo. I’ve seen the devastation that one man could bring unto a country that was completely defenseless. To feel death and despair, and horror and fear as you’re walking through a city and seeing how much it’s affected the people there, you don’t want to see them suffer anymore. The Iraqi people needed our help a long time ago, and we couldn’t give it to them. Now we have, and they are FOREVER grateful. Argue what you want about anything else. But leave the Iraq war and the results thus far to the people who have lived it and fought it. Because no journalist, no official, and no politician is going to understand the full effect. And why? Because they haven’t lived it or fought it.
Oh, and just a couple of side notes…..#1)it doesn’t seem right to call somebody FAR left or right-wing when the person doing it is obviously pretty FAR off the beam themselves, and #2)it usually helps to use a spellcheck when you’re writing a comment. Because if you don’t know how to type or write properly, then you shouldn’t be writing at all.
In the meantime, I’m looking forward to anybody else’s comments, as this is extremely funny stuff to read. Be safe, be vigilant, God bless, and good day!!
Zach Says: June 2nd, 2005 at 3:42 am
To Sam,
First off, I’d like to say that I agree with everything that you have said about war and the current situation in Iraq. I admire and am proud that America’s servicemen are out there sacrificing their lives to free the oppressed. If there is one thing out of anything that I would like to do, is spend my time out there with you guys in the War against Terrorism. The greatest thing about our nation is that instead of looting and enslaving other nations, we send our forces to help the weak.
Taking the Green Beret motto, “De Oppresso Liber” or To free the oppressed in english, our country will do anything for the greater good; even if it means to send our brave men and women to die to break the chains of oppression. Semper Fi…..