Dissent in Time of War

I called shenanigans during the runup. I sat there shaking my head once the invasion was underway. You want a reason to stay there? I have already given it to you. But you have to concede the fact that it was an ill-advised undertaking that has been botched in order for it to carry any weight.


I don't limit myself to a single point in history to justifie action. There has to be an accumulation of events for me to take a side in war. Like I said before Sadam started this and we will win it given a chance.

Shenanigans:D :D I like that. I called the same thing when Bush senior didn't finish the job when he started Gulf war 1 and knew what was going to happen. Bush senior left us in the mess Clinton wouldn't finish it and Bush junior is paying for all of it. The concession I will give you is the politics of this stinks to high heaven.

25
 
I always thought bush 41 did the right thing. otherwise he would of just gotten into this mess earlier.(although we had quite a few more allies at the time, probably would of went better. I cannot say).

cant say where it was f'd up along the way, if it even was. hindsight is 20/20 and i cant tell ya.
 
noone

granted it is not just his fault the entire gov. right now is incompetent in my eyes.

I think we need good government but I think it just isn't about to happen soon. There should be no hesitation in closeing the border but it is going to take the death of thousands more for that to happen.

I am not pro Bush or anti Clinton, I am an American and think in the terms of making America better. We need to win the war. We need to close the border. We need to rebuild our economy so everyone has a decent job. We need to refocus on what makes us great and push in that area.

Every thing is linked here in the quality of the men who govern, one has shown his stain on us and the other one may leave a stain even worse. The blood of innocents.

25
 
I always thought bush 41 did the right thing. otherwise he would of just gotten into this mess earlier.(although we had quite a few more allies at the time, probably would of went better. I cannot say).

Hundreds of thousands died and he let Sadam walk thereby throwing away the victory earned by the death of Americans. 41 IMHO let politics rob us is so many ways that he deserved to be booted.

25
 
41 kicked iraq out of kuwait(and possibly saved saudi arabia) which was what the coalition wanted to do. if he had done more(like is going on now) he would of alienated the u.s. and been in a long drawn out war. seem familiar?

41's past was in intelligence. 43 was a failed oil man, and a gm. I think one of em knows when to listen to the intel people.(personal opinions).

edit: also 41 didnt have a 9/11 event to ride high on to pass anything through congress that he wanted to. even if he would of wanted to that is.
 
he sums it up pretty good here(him and cheney)

In a foreign policy move that would later be questioned, President Bush achieved his stated objectives of liberating Kuwait and forcing Iraqi withdrawal, then ordered a cessation of combat operations —allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power. His Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." [2] Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq". [3][4] In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, he said, "whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous
 
So where did it leave the country by his decision to not finish the war, we are there now and with very few allies. He left the problem to a man who wanted to chase skirts rather than clean up Bush 41s mess. That is the legacy of 41, Americans died for half a war.

Politics:barf:

25
 
I'm also on 41's side on this. Maybe I'm a little biased because I served under him in that conflict, but he went about it exactly the way he was supposed to.
The only thing I am at odds with is the fact he promised support to the Kurds when he knew he wasn't going to provide it.
Clinton....as pretty much expected was a domestic policy president. He decided to simply keep Saddam neutered. That's typical Democrat fashion.
43....Completely incompetent. His presidency has completely gutted the public's trust in the Republican party's ability to handle foreign affairs.
 
Simple question model 25, HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN WE HAVE WON??

41 did what he set out to do and that was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. He did it and then got the hell out and the world applauded him. what about w?? screw it up and refuse to admit mistakes. Now pratically the entire world, friend and foe, are laughing at us and look upon us as fools.

Headlines this morning is that the gwb administration is planning on withdrawing up to 55,000 troops early next year. These troops will be backed to Kuwait where hopefully they can stay until after the midterm elections. /Then I suppose it will be back to Iraq. Is this not playing with our security???? Is this not politics as usual for the administration??? Dose this not place additional risk on our military people in the interest of poittics?

I am sure the "gwb regardless radicals" agree that it would be a good thing, now.
 
25-- im glad to see how hard you are on people. especially people who have to make choices that put americas sons, and daughthers at risk. I for one think it is commendable the stance 41 took at the time(excluding the kurds, I forgot to mention that horrible f'k up). I guess we will have to go with the old No one can see the future clause. /sarcasm/ or of course we could hire you on with your obvious superhuman like intellect, military expertise, and your seer like qualities. Im sure nothing bad would ever happen again, and we would keep all our freedoms. /end sarcasm/

oh yeah ill throw in a couple of these like you do CONSTANTLY(by the way which takes away from its meaning) :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:
 
noone---why is this not a tangible arguement


Because our invading Canada because they are Canucks is as likely as Aliens landing here----thus, not a tangible arguement.


BTW, you never answered how this dissent you are talking about---never going to war----changes the fact that we are already there. Again it's a moot point now. Dissent before and/or after but NOT DURING! IMO:D
 
first, it was never meant to be a tangible argument. Im pretty sure most could see that. the only reason i said this(in a sarcastic way) was to show you that i think not dissenting is stupid(if you have a reason). but its cool, continue to blindly follow the other lemmings off the cliff(good ridance).

/quote/ BTW, you never answered how this dissent you are talking about---never going to war----changes the fact that we are already there. Again it's a moot point now. /end quote/
where did i say this? did i ever say it changed the fact we are ever there? NO!

DID I EVER SAY IT WAS NOT A MOOT POINT?
try actually reading my posts, as apposed to just pulling out certain parts out of context for you to argue assine points with.
 
noone---my party? exactly which one is that? I swear no allegiance to any party, i am critical of both. although most of the time my views are more in line with the dems.


That would be a bleeding heart Liberal Democrat!:barf: Claim to be an Independent or anything else you want----based on 90% of your comments, you fall into the category above. Other then the 2nd Amendment---I don't see it.
As I said before----anyone can claim to be a Christian--but it's based on your actions, NOT WORDS!
 
wow. labeling me again?

that whole actions defines you, not your words sentence was great. if you knew me, i would let you label me. but, sadly you do not(if you think you do please go through posts and point out to all where i show my true bleeding heart liberal ways).

huh, whos argument holds more water. the one trying to have an actual debate, or the one who labels people?........
 
/quote/ based on 90% of your comments /end quote/

/quote/ As I said before----anyone can claim to be a Christian--but it's based on your actions, NOT WORDS! /end quote/

uhm? NOT WORDS?

my actions are of one critical of all government. so your above statements do what for anyone on this board? You thinking im a bleeding heart liberal has what to with dissent during war time? please leave this stuff out of posts for now on(just a request). hopefully it will make them better. or i guess i could come down to your level and falsely label you as some sladerous name or another. oh wait my actions nor my words are like that. huh.
 
Any hope for a stable, democratic government in that country lies not in the continued presence of American forces, but in the absence of those forces. A significant portion of the Iraqi citizenry will regard any government established under the aegis of American military protection as a puppet of the Americans, rightly or wrongly, and will in all likelihood overthrow it the minute we leave. At the very least, it will be a toothless monster, all authority on paper and no real power.(Leif)
Click to expand...

The point of having the elections is so that the government installed is clearly not a puppet of the U.S., and the point of training their troops is so that they are not a toothless monster.

To simply write off any progress we make as doomed to failure is premature and defeatist, and I see no justification for it. Assuming nothing will work is one of the forms of dissent that is dangerous and not helpful. You don't have to be an eternal optimist, but don't be an eternal pessimist either.

Now, if there was a reasonable hope of "seeing this through," of remaining in Iraq until a well-protected, Iraqi democracy could be established and accepted by the Iraqi people within an acceptable frame of time without having that same populace regard us as occupiers, then maybe we should stay. As I understand it, though, this is not a realistic goal.(Leif)
Click to expand...

"Acceptable frame of time" is the key phrase here. We've only given them 2 years! Between our revolution and the writing of our constitution we had around 12 years. The character of a nation cannot be changed overnight, it needs to be given a little time. If that means we keep our troops there a little longer than so be it.
 
Big Jack

Simple question model 25, HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN WE HAVE WON??

When the government of Iraq stands on its own.

These troops will be backed to Kuwait where hopefully they can stay until after the midterm elections.

Forgive my straying a bit here. Kuwait back in March of this year ended its support by closing the bases we had there and stopped sending fuel to support the war. I was there as they moved all the people into Iraq.

Kuwait had made an agreement with us to give us all the fuel we needed to fight the war until a new government in IRAQ was elected. The government was elected and Kuwait begain to sell more oil on the open market.

Ironic here is this; When the Iraq government was formed there was a call for them to pay their debts. Iraq said they would dump oil on the market to get money and pay those debts. Kuwait raised a stink saying they will lose money because they gave up so much oil to help and that oil prices need to be higher to help pay for all the oil they gave us in the war. What has happened to oil prices?

While I agree with some of your statement I believe I will drop any further discussion because of sarcastic remarks made by other posters. No sense wasting words here and I don't want to become uncivil.

Thanks Big Jack and I respect your opinions and you as a human being.

25
 
Same here for you and your opinions, model 25. I didn't write the article I simple repeated what it said about troops to Kuwait.
 
I'll do my best to drag this back to the stated topic. Dissent. First Leif, I must disagree with your assertion that the actions of dissenters during the Vietnam war have biased us to all dissenters. I would submit that the actions of a good many of the dissenters of THIS war is what makes them disagreeable, Protesting at Walter Reed for example. Or for another a sitting U.S. senator comparing our troops to nazis, Or the khmer rouge. These things are not simple dissent, but rather a deliberate attempt to demoralize our troops. Which brings me to my next point. At what point does dissent become aid and comfort to the enemy? When said enemy sends a cassette to a sympathetic news agency parroting what these dissenters are saying. I hope I didn't p*ss noone off. E
 
noone--(if you think you do please go through posts and point out to all where i show my true bleeding heart liberal ways)


Certainly---don't need to spend alot of time on it, but here is a couple from posts that you started--never mind the ones you just commented in.


1."well first I dont view myself as a liberal, that is just what im labeled as by most people who i have conversations with. also alot of my views are the same as those of the majority of the democratic party. and the minute people hear they them they label me a liberal"

Hmm, wonder why that is?:p as for the not calling yourself a Liberal:rolleyes:

2."but i will continue to support the demacrats until this country is ready for different options. kind of a lesser of two evil thing".

Sounds Independent to me;) :barf:

Anybody who has had any sort of discussion or read any of your posts realizes what you are and which side you come down on. C'mon now noone---it's easy---I'm a Conservative Republican---and you are a Liberal Democrat IMO--Democrat at best---just admit it. Why do Liberal Democrats not want to admit who they are:confused: ;) ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top