Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
What would the founding fathers think about this.
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by Big_Girl_4005</i> <br /><br />Regardless of if this war if for "democracy" or for "oil", I seriously doubt anyone that died on September 11th would want 2000 more of their fellow citizens to die for them. <br /> <br />There is a saying "Charity starts at home". When there is less poverty , less homelessness, less hardship overall here at home I might believe Bush has interests other than his own and his "base" as he calls the "haves and the have mores". <br /> <br />I was incensed by September 11th, I was thrilled when we invaded Afghanistan and again when we went into Iraq. I stood by Bush ,even though I consider myself a Democrat, when he unveiled the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Even for awhile after that I still thought we had done the right thing. <br /> <br />Then more guys started dying, more troops started going over there. When a mission is "accomplished" we are supposed to ramp down, not up. When it started coming out that the intelligence was flawed I didn't want to believe it at first but since it was the same news agencies that had led me to believe we were right to go into Iraq why shouldn't I believe them when they have new information. <br /> <br /> <br />I want to say that I totally support the military-they had no choice. They are doing the job they signed up for. The problem is they are obeying faulty orders given by people that ( I don't think anyway) really don't have the best interests of this country or the men they are commanding at heart. <br /> <br />I also don't think we can just pull out-the war has destroyed so much that we have to clean up our mess. Were we to just leave things as they are the warlords would take over and everything we supposedly fought to end would come back to being. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Therein lies your hypocrasy. Those same news services did mention that the intellegence turned out to be faulty to a certain degree (yes, there were no WMD's found, but there were WMD plans found, buildings that could only be designed for the purpose of manufacturing WMD's, traces of WMD material such as yellow cake uranium), yet somehow you and the others are blaming Bush for the faulty intellegence. Don't you know that when a new President takes office, he inherents the CIA, State Department, et al, of his predecessor. You can't make wholesale replacements of CIA agents out in the field just because a new Administration has taken office. You can't make wholesale replacements of diplomats and State Department beauracrats just because a new Administration has taken over. Like Rumsfeld said, you don't go to war with the army you wish you had, you go to war with the army that you've got. The same holds for those other agencies - you don't go to war with the CIA you wish you had, you go to war based on the CIA you've got. I for one wish it had been possible to fire every single one of the Clintonista's that had inflitrated the CIA and State Department when Bush came to office. I have no doubt that if that could have been availed, we would have had a different outcome of events, including the probability that 9-11 never happens. <br /> <br />You make the allegation that the President, whatever his faults may be, does not have the best interests of the nation at heart. Tell me, do you think Clinton had the best interests of the nation at heart when he bombed the hell out of our ally Serbia? What did he accomplish with that war, other than to divert attention away from the Lewinsky scandal? "But no one died when Clinton lied" is your mantra, yet 10,000 Serbs died needlessly. Well, at least your side admits Clinton lied, and therein lies the basis for your hatred of Bush, in that you assume the worst in him based on your assessment of Clinton's character. Every president slides to the lowest common denominator in your narrow view, so you assume Bush lied about WMD's because you are so used to the lies of Clinton that you think such action is par for the course for US Presidents. <br /> <br />The truth is, you are right to assume Clinton did not have the best interests of the nation at heart, because that fits his personallity profile, e.g. it was all about him, not us. That's one of the prima facia aspects of today's Democrats, it's all about what's best for the party, and screw the nation in the process. Republicans don't think like that, they put the nation first, even to the point of being politically naive. Sometimes I wi***he Republicans would play as dirty as the Democrats just to keep the slime from regenerating into office, but they just won't play that game. <br /> <br />Bush has the best interests of the nation at heart, on that you can rely. Whether his actions are the best option, or if there are other things that would work better for the current situation is a viable subject of debate. The problem is, your side doesn't want to discuss different ideas, you just want to undermine our President and the armed forces, and somehow ride that bandwagon from Hell to victory in 2006. "Support our troops, oppose the war" is one of the dumbest slogans I have ever heard. Kind of in the vein of "Support your church, but don't attend services", or "Support your team, oppose them playing the game".
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy