|
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Opus, No offense, but this whole "Talking Points" argument is a 2-way street. You are equally guilty of throwing out "Talking Points" of the left the people you are pointing the finger at. Furthermore, just because it is a "Talking Point" and you point it out as such, doesn't mean it's an irrelevant point. Ergo, simply identifying said "talking point" does not make it an irrelevant/impertinant. |
Okay, to be painfully honest I guess I never really considered what I say as a Dem. talking point, despite agreeance of points made from various liberal sources. Your point is taken and I'll concede this, however I do stand by the fact that the points being passed down from the RNC and the White House to the various conservative mouthpieces are much more influential and in synchrony than any given liberal talking head will ever be. If I have to use a given example, take the topic of this thread - Sheehan. Not one liberal blog or radio station was ever behind her actions from the start. Oh sure, a slew of 'em came on once her momentum increased, but as far as I know she had no sponsors from the getgo. This is a far cry from the coordinated Machine on the Right that starts together and continues running together until the entire public crowd is singing their repetition. The Swift Boaters are a prime example of this.
But again, you're coming at this with a cooler head, so I'll reply in kind as I concede your point.
| quote: | With that said, I think there have been valid points made from both sides and the resulting ire and mudslinging are indicative of how divided we are are as a nation.
I honestly don't think it's a surprise at all that the longer the war has gone on, the more public support has waned. I bet that has been the case for a majority of wars throughout history. However, the right choice is not always the most popular one and I have more respect for a leader that is willing to see a mission through than for one who cowers out because suddenly the direction of leadership isn't as popular as it once was. There is a difference between leading and following public opinion. |
As would I, so please don't misunderstand me here. I would not want a president to merely sway one way or the other simply because of opinion polls. Indeed, one of the true attributes of Bush is his conviction, which by and large the public identifies with and respects (and IMO, won him the reelection against hapless Kerry). If I agreed with this war and the resulting outcome of this war, I would not want Bush to sway merely on public opinion either.
It's not as if I don't understand this about you or Q's opinion on the matter - I do. However, I must also say that I don't think this fight for the resulting outcome is worth the fight anymore. Given the direction of where Iraq is likely going to go, analysts on both sides of the aisle are starting to chime on the tune of setting a date to get the hell outa there, and with good reason. And like I said, I wasn't too big on an immediate pullout myself, but things have changed and the lovely rosy picture that's being portrayed on how things are going to be in Iraq is just simply falling apart.
It's all bullshit, Shakka, and I don't want my friends and the loved ones of my friends dying for such a bullshit cause anymore. If things were not going to result in such a fucked-up outcome, I'd think otherwise about this whole thing. But that's simply not the reality of the situation, and I don't want ANYONE from our country dying by being in the middle of a civil war in another country.
It's just not worth it anymore. We fucked up, big. Our presence there is only giving them more momentum against us, as well as giving momemtum to our truly enemy, Al Qaeda, as it has become a terrorist breeding ground and recruitment hot bed. We just have to be seriously thoughtful on our actions there, and I don't see such thought occurring in this intellectually-challenged President.
Intelligence must override unwavering conviction at some point. Something has to give.
| quote: | | Additionally, this administration has said from the get-go that this would be a multi-year operation, and to their credit, many of the milestones that have been targeted have been met on schedule. |
I think you're trying to sugarcoat the bullshit here. Sure, some milestones have been met, but the vast majority have not, and many milestones the bar has been continually lowered and lowered down to the point that a blind quadriplegic toddler could crawl over.
| quote: | | With that said, whether the WMDs were found or not, you cannot deny that their existence was factually known in the '90's and before, and whether or not you want to admit it (because, yeah they were trace amounts), plenty of evidence has been found to support the fact that Iraq had the capability and the ambition to pursue a WMD program. |
You know I don't deny that - I've discussed that issue ad nauseum here before. And my reply has always been that Saddam did indeed need to be dealt with in time, but NOT at the expense of putting bin Laden and Al Qaeda on the backburner, NOT at the expense in terms of how we examined the evidence and discarded any counterevidence (Read "The Stovepipe" in the New Yorker), and most definitely NOT at the expense on how we handled the post-invasion fiasco. There were other alternatives to dealing with this hapless dictator, and the last option that we were supposed to utilize was invasion esp. at the expense of taking the eye off Al Qaeda.
That was clearly not the last option, especially given the fact that Saddam didn't have what we thought he had. Other Administrations certainly believed Saddam had capability, but it was THIS Administration that acted upon that notion without solid evidence and relying on dipshits like Chalabi and his minions ("Curveball") whom were deemed unreliable by CIA and the State Dept. intelligence agencies.
Of course all this will be told as soon as my Senator Roberts (KS) starts part 2 of the Select Intelligence Committee on WMD on how the White House and Dept. of Defense handled the intelligence given to them. Oh wait, I keep forgetting that he refuses to start that investigation.
Strange that, ain't it?
| quote: | | Aside from the WMD issue which was clearly the major selling point in going to Iraq, there was always the mission to get Saddam out of power and to establish a representative government for the people in Iraq. Saddam is out, elections have been had, a constitution has been drafted, and we have an obligation to see the mission through to the end, regardless of how loud the hypocritical Ted Kennedy's, John Kerry's, etc. of the world want to scream. |
And the question remains - what are our troops doing there fighting for again? What exactly is being established? What will likely occur once it is established? Why would our troops be required to remain there once the outcome occurs?
(answers: fighting for an Islamic fundamentalist government regime that has the Law of Islam as their guiding governing principle, civil war will ensue because of the Sunnis having no governing power, our troops will be fighting on the side of the Shiites against the Sunnis during this civil war).
| quote: | | As much infighting as we have about this entire operation, as much as the anti-war crowd wants to equate it to Vietnam (which is in and of itself a laughable comparison meant to invoke hard-core anti-war sentiment), I think it's right to reserve judgement on the success of this operation as only time will tell (not 2 years, but more like 20) how this move serves the world (better or worse). |
You know I've kept away from the Vietnam analogy, and I'll continue to do so. 2 different wars, 2 different times. While there are some similarities, the differences still tend to outweigh overall.
| quote: | | Did we rush to war? Maybe, though people seem to forget what life was like in 2002 and only remember what life was like yesterday (i.e. pretty much seems normal). However, what would waiting have accomplished? More rape room torture? |
Seems we did pretty well with some torture on our own. Abu Ghraib anyone?
| quote: | | A more advanced weapons program established prior to someone finally doing something? Forget the 12 years of ignored UN resolutions. |
Again I don't disagree with the necessity to address the Saddam problem. But we had a very real problem with AQ needing to be addressed and we simply pissed that away for this one. The truth of the matter is, according to the Duelfer Report, the UN sanctions had successfully kept Saddam crippled, although he had the intentions otherwise.
Well Jesus, there's probably 2 dozen asshole dictators out there that don't care too much for us that might have similar intentions too. What, are we going to attack every asshole on the block simply because they have the intentions to attack us? Since when did the US foreign policy become the fucking Thought Police?
And if we were to address the problem with invasion - then we fucking needed to do it right. How can you not agree with this? You guys honestly believe that the number of troops we used for post-invasion was appropriate? We still can't maintain stability in that country in at least 3 provinces which just happen to be Sunni populated - you think this is appropriate at all to have such low numbers of troops that are still not completely armoured?
This is what I fucking laugh at when people like Q accuse me of attacking the sacrifice being made. If this Adminstration believed in the sacrifice made - they would have fucking done things right from the getgo to successfully stabilize the region. But the truth is they didn't think this out whatsofucking ever. They thought it was a bunch of rose peddles at our feet as we rebuild with such great ease. They have no fucking clue or care a whit about Muslim culture, and they didn't even have fucking enough interpreters in the first place.
This is what I'm talking about. The choice to me is clear on this war, and let me make my point very clear for you - fight this war right or get the fuck out.
It's clear that this Administration refuses to even comprehend on how to fight this war right with the right # of troops and protection to both them and the innocent. As a consequence, they're fucking stuck in the middle as they slowly get picked off one by one while a civil war ensues. This is the stem of my anger, and I think this is why the public is turning on the issue on both sides of the aisle. I'm sick of this Administration fuckups, and I don't want any more men and women to die as a consequence. I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly than that.
| quote: | Also, as much of a pipe dream as it is, I can't help but imagine how the situation would've played out had the entire country gotten on board and supported this mission. It would've shown the Iraqis, radical Islamists and the world, that we at least were unified in our mission to stop the spread of radical Islam. Instead, we have bickering, a media that is by and large obsessed with blowing any negative story out of proportion without reporting positive developments, etc, etc, etc.
I'm tired of this. |
As am I, but you simply can't handwave away the fact that you GOPers had the public in the palm of your hand after 9/11. Bush could do no wrong at all, and the numbers of invading Iraq and even post-invasion numbers were very much in your favor.
But sooner or later, reality catches up. It's not simply a matter of having a bigger chearing section in a ballgame - it's the fact that the players down on the field have no helmets, no referees, and no football either. It doesn't resemble the game that the people came to cheer for, so they're leaving the stadium.
Can you honestly blame them?
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
), that the administration began to come clear about this IMO.
