Lot's of armchair warriors here. I wonder how you would feel if you looked down and saw your leg was missing. Or worse. How would you feel when you are talking to your buddy and all of a sudden he is a splatter of blood and unrecognizable body parts. Know what it is like to see a friend look at you and realize with all certainty that they are about to die and will never see another thing again? I have seen these things. I was also sickened in 1991 when I was in a casino in Las Vegas and listened to some fighter jocks from Nellis Airforce Base laughing about how they straffed civilians on the ground in Iraq. These are 24 year old kids that have been psychologically proven fit. And yet, they thought it was funny. Death is pretty final. Killing civilians is inexcusable. Fighting before exhausting every possible alternative is insane. And politicizing war is just about the most disturbing thing I can imagine. People talk about Lyndon Johnson here like they knew what was going through his head. I blamed him at the time, but knowing more now...knowing where McNamara was coming from, it becomes even more scary. The president has to depend on his advisors. Now we have Cheney and Rumsfeld clamoring for war. So sad! And Dubya just his usual confused self. God help us all.
"imbecillic little wars" Was Clintons "little war" in Serbia imbecillic ? Was the Gulf war imbecillic ? Was the attack on Afganistan imbecillic ?
Everybody knows that war is bad, especially the people in the armed forces. The only group of people that have any special right to speak out are those in the military. The problem for the liberals is that the military people are straining at the leash to go and get it over with, not protesting. The wives and mothers of the military people are not protesting either.
I argue that politicizing the war is the only way we can retain a free and open democracy. What is the alternative, decisions and deliberations made behind closed doors and in smoke filled rooms? If anything should be a politically argued, openly debated and freely talked about issue it should be the proposed invasion of Iraq. Is it wrong for Bush to talk about the war at a fundraising event? If so then it is wrong to talk about any substantive political issue at a fundraising event. http://andrewolmsted.com/archives/000877.html http://www.dailykos.com/archives/000297.html When you read Daschle's objections, they are not about politicizing the war at all, but rather namecalling over the homeland security act. Who then is attempting to politicize the war by accusing the other guy of doing the same?
Lot's of armchair warriors here. I wonder how you would feel if you looked down and saw your leg was missing. Or worse. How would you feel when you are talking to your buddy and all of a sudden he is a splatter of blood and unrecognizable body parts Know what it is like to see a friend look at you and realize with all certainty that they are about to die and will never see another thing again? Completely irrelevant, these are the consequences of war. 1. The casualty rates today are a fraction of what they were in Vietnam; 2. 40-50,000 are killed on US highways with the attendant number of non-death casualties. I have seen these things. Where? I was also sickened in 1991 when I was in a casino in Las Vegas and listened to some fighter jocks from Nellis Airforce Base laughing about how they straffed civilians on the ground in Iraq. These are 24 year old kids that have been psychologically proven fit. And yet, they thought it was funny. If true and you will never prove it, an isolated case; that is not a reflection of the attitude of our armed forces. Death is pretty final. Killing civilians is inexcusable. Fighting before exhausting every possible alternative is insane. The civilian issue is unavoidable, their ruler most likely cheered when he viewed the three 767s and their aftermath. This is a slightly different situation and the peril to the world has been deemed real. And politicizing war is just about the most disturbing thing I can imagine. People talk about Lyndon Johnson here like they knew what was going through his head. I blamed him at the time, but knowing more now...knowing where McNamara was coming from, it becomes even more scary. The president has to depend on his advisors. That's all you have to say about McNamera? You weren't in the service during Vietnam then. Do you know what he did before his stint as Sec Def? McNamara should be shot at dawn, no blindfold, no cigarette. Now we have Cheney and Rumsfeld clamoring for war. So sad! And Dubya just his usual confused self. God help us all. Put the Gyspsy violin away, please. You're politicizing.
What sickens me is that the lefties know in thier hearts that the world will be a better place without Sadam , and they know it will be no worse than the first Gulf War, which they criticized also. Basically they know that they are wrong on this issue from a strictly logical point of view. But they can't just let Bush walk off with a big victory and possibly get elected again. They have reverted back to that old hippie spirit, which is still out there lurking like a virus that can be treated but never cured. Whenever the economy is bad, or we are about to go to war, it flares up again. The good news is that Bush has enough cajones to keep pushing forward.
The Shan And having re-read what I said, I myself did not look down and see my leg missing. But I did see it happen to someone that was no more than 20 yards from me. And I did see the look on his face. I see it still.
I actually agree with this 100%. What I meant was that it should not be politicized the way it appears to be right now. Along party lines. This is not a Republican/Democrat or Conservative/Liberal issue. Yet to hear what is being said these days, it seems like this issue is being used for political purposes. So let me re-phrase.....politicizing war (in TriPack's sense), is logical. Politicizing war for POLITICAL PURPOSE is what I have a problem with. I hope this clears up my intended point. Sorry if I muddied it. I don't believe that there is NEVER a reason for war. What I meant was to express that it needs to be avoided when at all POSSIBLE. Obviously, there are circumstances when it is not possible to prevent going to war. As far as the military, I am proud that my son has joined the Navy. I hope the world will be a SAFER place because of our armed presence, and not a more dangerous place. Obviously, it has always been a necessity to maintain a strong military to protect our freedoms. Our military might has certainly been used in both justifiable and unjust conflicts. We should all hope that we will always know the difference (so far, we have been kind of hit and miss), and we will have to excuse ourselves for our past errors. But not ever express regret in a way that will ultimately weaken us. The past is the past. We cannot undo it, and we cannot let potential enemies exploit us using these past errors. So when I hear the argument that we "created" Saddam, or UBL, so what? Does that mean we need to accept them because they were "experiments" run amok? We made mistakes, we need to unmake them. But without the bloodshed of americans if possible. Without the bloodshed of any civilians if possible. It all is about what is, and what is not possible.