Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "There used to be a time when the losers involved in a national debate would accept defeat and rally in support of achieving victory for the nation."
It's rather silly to compare the Iraq adventure, which was, in fact, an adventure rather than a war that was forced on to this country, with the serious conflicts like WW2 where we were attacked by the armed forces of a sovereign nation. A better comparison would be with the Vietnam War, or the Spanish American war, and its aftermath in the Philippines, or the wars against the Indians. And in all those examples, which stretch back into our nations history for 140 years, you are dead, dead, dead wrong when you say that there "used to be a time when the losers involved in a national debate would accept defeat".
You're just plain wrong. You must not know the history of this great nation, so who are you to compare our current crop of war protesters with the likes of great American figures like Mark Twain who protested the war in the Philippines? Nor have the protests been restricted only to wars against faraway peoples who are no earthly threat to the United States. The Civil War saw vicious draft riots that were the worst in our history.
Re: "But no.. the national debate never ends, even if it winds up providing aid and comfort to the enemy."
This is pure unadulterated bullshit. Bush was the one who provided aid and comfort to the enemy. We had them where we could drop bombs on them from 30,000 feet with no damage to ourselves, but that wasn't good enough for him. He had to get us involved in a land war in Asia, without any local ally, against a population that hated us, because he is, at heart, an illiterate moron who hasn't read and understood a history book in his whole life. And you provided aid and comfort to Bush in his fiasco.
Now I hear the families of those killed in Iraq telling us that their doomed soldiers saw the futility of Bush's war.
It really pisses me off.
Re: "It's doesn't matter than the Islamic militants are keen followers of the news in the US, as well as public opinion. After all, that's THE ENTIRE GOAL OF TERRORISM IS TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION AND WEAKEN THE ENEMY'S WILL TO RESIST!!!"
In a sense, you're right that the war on terror is about influencing public opinion. But take a look at the world press. Bush's war has been the worst thing for aligning world public opinion against the US since Vietnam.
And if you think that refusing to acknowledge our casualties would have stopped the Iraqis from rebelling, you're just ignoring the simple facts of history. It always takes a few months for resistance movements against occupations to get started.
During that initial phase, the resistance put out reports that they were killing dozens of US soldiers where there was no damage at all. These reports were broadcast by Al Jazeera and probably believed by many of the people they were intended to influence (i.e. those that were thinking about fighting the US, but weren't certain whether or not it was hopeless).
The simple fact is that what the US media reports doesn't mean crap to the Iraqis, who don't even speak much English. Instead, they get their news from Arabic sources, and just like the moron who leads our nation, they believe pretty much what they want to believe. And they want to believe that the US can be beaten in Iraq.
The simple fact is that the US can not only be easily beaten in Iraq, but that the US hasn't even tried to pacify the country. We have not gone door to door and confiscated all weapons. We did not shoot looters on sight. We did not massacre (more or less peaceful) protesters.
In short, we did nothing to prove to the Iraqi people that we are ready to kill every single one of them if they don't knuckle down to our power. Instead, we make a pathetic attempt to buy their love with schools and money, LOL. Is it any surprise that they revolt?
At least when Hitler invaded Poland he didn't start building schools and hoping that the Poles would start loving Germans, LOL. Any half witted Nazi could have told Bush that what was required to pacify Iraq was either at least 500,000 troops (more or less) following the Geneva Convention, or 100,000 troops in butchery mode.
Bush chose neither, because, like Clinton and many other politicians, he has a deep insecurity, and he has to prove that the people love him. Even people halfway across the planet, who don't speak English, aren't Christian, and have suffered the attacks of Americans for a dozen years. What a loser.
And here you are, with the war that you were so proud of getting going (do you want to see your posts from March?), and all you can do is to complain about the people who simply pointed out to you that Iraq was rebelling.
And your response? To write: "The reality is you are trying to play politics with dead soldiers.. And that's utterly contemptible."
Maybe there are people who are playing politics with the war. I'm not. I supported the war in Afghanistan. I vote for Bush. You're the one who supports throwing away our soldiers lives in a losing war. Admit that the war is over. Stop the slaughter and bring our kids home. Start dreaming of another war, one that can be won.
-- Carl
P.S. I understand that some of the corporations responsible for rebuilding in Iraq are having difficulties attracting suitable employees for in country operations. Maybe there's a place over there for you, one where you can show how much you care about the war on Terror. |
