betrayed trust
I've been on vacation for about a week now, so I haven't been keeping up with the news too closely, but I just read an article in CNN about a bunch of marines from Ohio that were killed in Iraq. I'm not going to try to speak for the families of these men, because I don't really know how they feel, but I can speak for myself. In my opinion, these men joined the military because they wanted to protect their homeland, and George Bush betrayed them and sent them to attack another country for his own selfish purposes.
Whether he did this knowingly or through ignorance is irrelevant. Any man who forms his opinion before seeing all of the evidence, and then only asks to see evidence that supports the opinion he's already formed, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, shouldn't be allowed run a small grocery store, let alone the most powerful country in the world. (My apologies to grocers everwhere.)
posted by LeRoy at 9:43 PM
3 Comments:
I guess that's why you don't run a small grocery store ;) Sorry I couldn't resist. But, I didn't log on to type that.
I was watching this show on the history channel about world war II. Specifically the Pacific conflict. They talked about the Kamikaze and they asked the old vets if they considered terrorist to be like Kamikaze. They said, "No. Kamikaze were brave, honorable men fighting for their country. Terrorist are cowards."
I think that George Bush thought he was doing the right thing by sending our troops into Iraq to try and put the hurt on the terrorist. The problem is that this conflict is not like the Pacific conflict. We are fighting an enemy that wont show himself except on the 6:00 news on video.
Even so, George and our troops must be doing something right because the terrorist haven't been back and Saddam is in our custody.
Now if only his policies can achieve something as wonderful as what Ronald Reagan's policies achieved. Ron's policy brought down the Berlin Wall and caused the down fall of Communist Russia. We need to bring down terrorism and cause the downfall of tyrants and their regimes in the area.
-j
First of all, there were few if any terrorists in Iraq before GWB attacked it. If he was really interested in Terrorists he should have focused on Afganistan.
From the beginning of his administration, GWB ignored Al Qaeda and tried to focus on Iraq, because he "knew", before seeing the evidence, that Iraq was a worse problem than Al Qaeda. No one will ever know if 911 could have been prevented if GWB had listened to his advisors instead of telling them what to focus on, but I think it's a distinct possibility.
As for the terrorists "not being back", what about the recent bombings in London? What about the train bombing in Spain a year or so ago? Are you saying that they haven't been back in this country? They hadn't been in this country before 911 either, so the fact that they haven't attacked here since 911 can't really be called an improvement.
As for Ronald Reagan's policies being responsible for the end of the cold war, I remember at the time thinking that that was mostly Gorbachev's doing. I don't remember anyone crediting Ronny with this until probably the 2000 election, or so. The only think I know for sure that Ronny did was increase our national debt by more than 3 times the amount more than any other president before him, in fact, by more than 2 times the amount of all other presidents before him combined.
Finally, as for comparing the Kamakazi and the terrorist, I still don't think the word "coward" is the best way to describe a terrorist. I think it's a propaganda term made up to dissuade people from having sympathy for them and their cause. I'm not saying that I agree with their methods. I think if they really want to further their cause, they should send some people to law school and try to change the laws through legal challenges. They can also use peaceful protest. This is the method that worked for Ghandi, and I think it's the best method when you're going against a power that's much stronger than you.
By the way, going back to Ronald Reagan, what have you heard that ties Ronny to bringing down the Berlin Wall? Maybe there's some tie that I'm not aware of. All I've heard is some vague allegations that he ran this country so well that the USSR couldn't compete against us economically so they gave up on communism and decided to try capitalism, but nobody can really know why they did what they did, it's only conjecture. Have you heard anything more concrete?
Hey Joe,
Sorry it took so long to reply.
What makes you say "Ronny decided to change the model"? You make it sound like Perestroika was his intent all along. It sounds to me more like he was just trying harder to continue the same game and give us more of an edge militarily. It was Gorbachev who decided to "change the model".
Also, if Gorbachev really thought he was being out-competed by Reagan, all he had to do was look at the huge debt Reagan was incurring, and look at the types of programs, like the Star Wars Defense Program, that Reagan was trying to push for.
Furthermore, I can see how Gorbachev might give up trying to compete against us militarily if he thought there was no hope of winning, but why would that cause him to give up Communism and turn his country into a Democracy with Free Enterprise economics? The only reason to do that would be if he realized the advantages of it. The fact is that the U.S. had been doing better economically than the Soviet Union since well before Reagan. It was really the strength of our private sector, not our government or military, that won Gorbachev over.
You said:
The terrorist are not back because history has shown that when our mother land is attacked, we hit back. We don't back down, like the Spaniards, when confronted with terror.
I agree that fighting back against terrorism was justified after 9/11, and I fully support the war in Afganstan, but the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.
Furthermore, immediately after 9/11, the U.S. had a huge amount of support around the rest of the world. There was a lot of talk about how 9/11 was an attack against the whole civilized world and not just against the U.S.. But Bush threw all of that away when he tried to rally his political support by declaring that the U.S. had been attacked, and by saying that any nation that wasn't with us was against us. There were a lot of nations that were alienated by this because they were against terrorism, but didn't want to support the U.S..
I also wanted to address the "coward" thing, but I'm going to have to continue this later. See ya.
Post a Comment
<< Home