Subject:
|
Re: A small rant...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:20:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
200 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Stefan Garcia wrote:
| |
Hi all,
Just wanted to vent/share some of my frustration with people about the ongoing
Iraq war. So with that warning...
To all the media, populace, and politicians whining about the war going on too
long and having too many American casualties...WHAT ELSE DO YOU EXPECT IN A
MILITARY CONFLICT!?!? We’re INVADING a foreign country in an area with
Anti-American sentiment, suspicious of our true purposes. Compare this war to
the Korean war or Vietnam or just about any conflict prior to Gulf War I, and
the numbers pale. And U.S. forces did succeed already in toppling Saddam’s
rule.
|
I’m getting exactly what I expected: we rolled over Saddam’s army in record time
with stunningly little losses, but now the venture is increasingly looked on as
neo-colonialism (oh hey, let’s siphon off a little of that oil because we are
due that as liberators. Free elections? What if Islamic fundamentalists win?).
It’s not the numbers per se. It’s why were they asked to die in the first
place?
| |
To all the Iraqis whining that things were actually better when Saddam kept
order, the road to freedom and independence is a hard and rocky one. At least
now they can speak freely, even about how they don’t like us.
|
Which is why the “liberation” aspect of the justification of the war is a farce.
Those that risk nothing for freedom do not value it or the sacrifices of those
that did. In other words, the Iraqis needed to decide their own fate.
| |
To all the soldiers over there whining that they’re tired of the govt screwing
with ‘em and that they don’t want to be over there anymore; tough. Despite
their training, they’re exhibiting the same kind of selfish damned Americanism
that makes the rest of the world dislike (if not hate) us. Tireless service
to their country is what they signed up for when they signed up for the army.
Getting to use the Abrams is just a perk.
|
The trouble with an all-volunteer army is that politicians are more prone to
adventurism, always having the Super-Chicken excuse, “You knew the job was
dangerous when you took it, Fred.” Besides, soldiers always complain: it’s
their God-given right. :-)
| |
To all those saying Bush is an idiot for going to war and that he lied to us;
I disagree. If there’s one guy whose head should get lopped off for this,
it’s Tenet (Dir., CIA). That guy is a weasel, not to be trusted. Remember
those Senate hearings a while back? I saw a bit of them on C-Span or some
such, and he barely managed to hide his contempt for the senators. I
*personally* think he was trying to get Bush out of office and that this is
all blowing up in his face. The thing most people don’t seem to understand or
remember is that Bush is a Texan. As such, he has a different vocabulary than
Clinton. He’s not an idiot, he’s just less formal. I’m sure he’d wear a
Stetson in the White House if he could. He is a bit of a klutz though, but
that’s a personality trait. Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten that
he helped lead the country through one of the toughest days in recent American
history (9-11) *.
|
Bush is an idiot. He still looks like an idiot even though Tenet loyally fell
on Bush’s sword for him (Tenet is trying to get Bush out of office by covering
for him?!?). Bush should be stamping out Al Qaeda and finding Bin Laden, and
instead he picks a fight with Iraq on trumped-up charges. I-D-I-O-T.
| |
Also, to anyone whining that we were too careless in bombing Iraq, we loaded
the B-52s with cruise missiles, not the massive load of sticks it can carry
instead. And we probably would’ve gotten Saddam if we’d carpet-bombed the
heart of Baghdad.
|
War is inherently sloppy. In comparison to the wars of the previous century, we
have been pretty good at holding down civilian casualties. Could we be even
better? No doubt (war is inherently sloppy). But no, if we had carpet-bombed
Baghdad, we would probably not have gotten Saddam.
| |
Which reminds me, to all those whining that we aren’t finding any of those
“weapons of mass destruction,” remember that because Bush chose to go to the
UN and try to get it’s backing first, good ‘ol Saddam had an additional, what,
2-3+ months to stash the weapons. Add that of course to the DECADE he had
already had, knowing no doubt that one day we would come back to do what we
should’ve done in 1991, when his Army lay in ruins and the road to Baghdad lay
open. Oh, and he had already proved more than willing to use chemical weapons
(against the Kurds, the Iranians, and possibly against American troops).
|
If Saddam the WoMD, why didn’t he use them? You just said he was willing to use
them, so if he had them, they would have been used.
| |
So in conclusion; even if the all mighty United States, the only world power
left, starts a war, there is no telling how long it will really last,
especially when there is no element of surprise. The very nature of war
prohibits making such a prediction.
|
Which means that you should be darn choosy about starting a war.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A small rant...
|
| (...) Richard had made this point a while ago elsewhere and I admit that its truth gave me pause. I still think that liberating the Iraqis was a morally good thing to do, but I agree that we cannot force them to accept Freedom and Democracy. It is (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | A small rant...
|
| Hi all, Just wanted to vent/share some of my frustration with people about the ongoing Iraq war. So with that warning... To all the media, populace, and politicians whining about the war going on too long and having too many American (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
