Part of the discussion that's taken place on this blog concerns whether or not the President has created an atmosphere of fear in order to pursue his objectives in Iraq. Depending on which side of the fence you're on, he's either the world's biggest liar, or you believe he acted upon the available intelligence in good faith.
I have compared those opposed to the war to ostriches in the past - preferring apathy and denial as opposed to confronting our enemies wherever they may be, but that is an unfair characterization. All the people that oppose the war don't have their heads buried in the sand; they are aware and involved. Unfortunately, millions of Americans make their political decisions based on the barest of criteria, usually provided by the mainstream media.
No matter what your position on the war is, trying to learn as much as you possibly can about the situation and incorporating that into your decision making process is essential, but practiced by too few of our citizens. For many Americans, a half hour of news at 6:00 pm is the extent of their involvement in the world, and then there are millions that don't bother with the news at all.
I was sent the link to usawakeup.org by my good friend Sir Charles. If you click on the title of this piece you'll see a video that is about 3-4 minutes long. Some of you will look at this and label it fear-mongering, while others will have confirmation of their belief that we have been at war with Islamofacism since the 1970's. I doubt that there will be many people who are uncertain as to whether or not we are at war - they're the ones that tend to lean whichever way the wind is blowing.
I suspect there will be few minds changed, if any, but I decided to post this for all of you who oppose the war in hopes that, perhaps, you might begin to understand how those of us who feel we are at war have arrived at that conclusion. To continue arguing over whether we should have been there in the first place is pointless - we're there.
Now the debate should center on what we do next. If you feel like Senator Obama, you want to pull all of the troops out immediately. To me, that's a recipe for future warfare that will make our losses to date pale in comparison. I can't prove it - if I could I'd be called Nostradamus. I can only make my decision based upon the beliefs and principles I hold, and historical perspective.
That's why I'm linking to this short video. I don't believe we're paranoid, I believe that we are taking the actions that a prudent person takes to protect themselves and their families. Vigilance can be misconstrued as paranoia; prudence as aggression; but there is one thing upon which we can all agree: We love this country, we want what's best for our future generations, but we disagree as to the extent of the threat this country faces.
I can only hope that if you take the time to watch the video, setting aside prejuidice as much as possible, you'll begin to understand why many of us feel that Iraq was necessary. Our enemies needed to know that, just like Israel, from this point forward, we will come after you, no matter where you may be, and open up a can of whoop-ass, the likes of which you've never comtemplated.
I hope that whoever is elected to the Presidency gives thought to following up with an effort similar to President Kennedy's Peace Corp. If you've checked out any of Michael Yon's reporting from Iraq, you know that our soldiers are performing many tasks similar to those that the Peace Corp volunteers would do. In his latest report, he indicates that he's walking the streets in south Baghdad now without any body armor or protection. As things continue to settle in Iraq, we continue to help build their infrastructue.
A call to the nation by the President for volunteers for the Peace Corp - or even mandating 2 years of service to your country either at home or abroad are actions I think could lead to greater unity here at home, and a definite improvement of our image in the world.
I'd prefer to change minds by lending a helping hand, but if you're going to bite my outstretched hand, you'd best remember what I'm holding in the other one.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Ok, maybe invading Iraq was necessary. But why did it have to happen before we were finished in Afghanistan? Wasn't getting Osama bin Laden more important? Wouldn't that have sent a message to the "islamofascists"? Was Iraq really a danger to the USA? As dangerous as the policies of Saudi Arabia (our ally)towards their people which results in so-called islamofascism? What about nuclear armed Pakistan, another "ally" of the USA. Any danger there? Are they protecting bin Ladin? Were they selling nuclear secrets to the "islamofascists" while professing to be our ally? Did Bush ignore intelligence concerning Iraq to rush us into war? Will there ever be congressional hearings to find out? Did the 9/11 commission really do their job? Did they let many things slide for political reasons?
That is probably the dumbest, most fear mongering webwite I've ever visited! Conservatives are the most cowardly group of individuals I've ever seen. They use fear as a political tactic. Oh yes, let's fear Hillary Clinton as president. But let's not question the great Mr. Bush. While he spends billions every month in Iraq, ships are allowed into American ports with impunity. No inspections necessary. We complain about these countries that run their governments based on Sharia law, yet the fundamentalist Christians would love it if the USA was run according to their laws.
Dear Anonymous #1: I agree with you as regards Afghanistan and Bin Laden. I think that what we're seeing in Afghanistan now is the direct result of the success of the surge in Iraq.
As to our "allies" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, it kind of reminds me of Russia during and after WWII - when it's beneficial to us, you're our friend, when it's harmful to our enemy, you're our friend, but don't mistake a mutually convenient relationship for true friendship. I would say the only nation we have a true friendship with is Great Britain - everyone else tolerates us or we tolerate them.
We could hold additional hearings if we want to waste more of our tax dollars, but since the espionage agencies of nations like Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia all had the same faulty intelligence, the real purpose of such an inquiry would be purely political, accomplishing nothing.
Dear Anonymous #2:
Conservatives are cowards
We use fear as a poltical tactic
Let's fear Hillary, not George
Our ports aren't safe
We don't like Sharia law, but we'd like the country run according to Christian fundamentalist principles
Like the title says: Prudence or Paranoia
Thanks for sharing your paranoia.
Here's what my pal, Pete at the House of the Mouse had to say, "Charlie, this is the same bull-shit that Rove used to keep the knucklehead in the whitehouse. Be afraid, very afraid. It won't work this time. Fox and 24 won't help with people losing their homes and jobs. If they know where the cells are, what's the problem. The Neo-cons can use all the half-truths they want, but it won't work this time. This sounds like a Glenn Beck rant. Conservatives are toast in the Repooblican party. It'll be a while until another Reagan shows up." Somewhat more thoughtful than Anonymous #2
By the way, Anonymous #2 kind of reminds me of another Quisling who said: “A Nordic union between Scandinavia and Great Britain, with the adherence of Finland and Holland, and in which Germany and eventually the British Dominions and America might later on be absorbed, would take away the sting of any communist combination and secure European civilization and peace for the foreseeable future.”
Vidkun Quisling 1939
Anyone with a modicum of imagination can figure out where to substitute the word Islamofascism
Anonym-ass #2 is obviously a Neville Chamberlain wannabe. If only 1% of the worlds muslims are radicalized that is 1.1 million people. They hate us and want to destroy our way of life. Why does christian fundamentalism even get mentioned? (B4 you get your tit in a wringer I'm an atheist Anon#2) I have no fear of the christians; I could piss on the bible, draw moustaches on Jesus and denigrate the virgin mary w/out the fear of having a death sentence issued by a a minister. Try that with Mohammed the pedarest prophet. Until we wake up to what a threat the islamofascista pose to our way of life we are doomed. And unlike in the time of Chamberlain, there will not be an America-like force to bail our asses out.
Oh and before i get accused by big gay al or anon#2 or any other liberal dipshit, of being a whackoconservpublican, here are my political views:
1)In 2000 I was embarassed to see GW bush as a presidential candidate (i dont think he's terribly bright)
2)I am against the death penalty
3) i believe the war against drugs is a waste of money; legalize it mon.
4)I think that gay unions are ok. Homosexuality is a genetic thing not a choice.
5) I am tickled pink that limbaugh, hannity,coulter et al dislike John McCain (who should have been a candidate in 2000.
So as you can see I am a real conservative nutcase!!!
So wanting our ports protected against the possibility of a nuclear weapon being snuck into the country is paranoid and not prudent?
You chickenhawks still need to explain how invading a secular run country like Iraq helped fight islamofascism. Putting the Shia in charge was a good thing? An ex-longhaired hippie (who conveniently happened to be against a certainwar), a knight-wannabe (who probably would love to be a Lord) and zulu-fighting boer wanna-be make a great team. It's laughable.
Noone said we wanted to have the US invade Iraq. It was a mistake based on (i hope) faulty intel.
The reality is we are there, and if we leave it will become a terrorist haven. Al Qaeda is there now, so as long as we have feet on the ground we need to put steel to flesh. WE NEED TO KILL THIS ENEMY NOW. Get your heads out of your ass, these people want us dead, they want our children dead, they want our way of life dead. Neville Chamberlain's need not apply
"Who conveniently happened to be against a certain war."
To the anonymous of the quote above:
All of your other attacks were somewhat creative, but I am somewhat surprised by your personal attack on me without knowing me or what I was like at that time. You apparently think me either a coward or a conniver, or both. You have judged me and found me wanting, and as long as that gives you some form of satisfaction, feel free to keep on with the personal attacks, although I doubt you'll make any converts that way.
I forgive you.
And to the sensible anonymous who asked of wanting our ports protected was prudent or paranoid, I guess I'd have to go along with prudent on that one. Right now, you could sneak a WMD in most major ports almost as easily as you can walk across the border with Mexico. We're not being all that prudent there either.
Post a Comment