Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Feb 19, 2007.
first... if funding for these operations is cut off, it will not mean that the soldiers in the field will have to do without ammunition or provisions or that they will have to ask their mom to send them bus fare to get home.
secondly.... let's say I built a horse stable and it cost me a lot of money... and I filled it with the best and most talented show horses in the land...and then one day, much to my horror, it turns out that the stable was built right over a giant sinkhole which, all of a sudden, opened up and swallowed up my expensive stable and all of the prize show horses.
It is sheer and utter lunacy to imagine that I would go out and procure, say 21,500 brand new prize show horses and drive them into the sink hole to their deaths in an effort to somehow validate and honor the stable-full that had already died in the disasterous sinkhole debacle.
although, given the immensity of the disaster that is the war in Iraq, I do understand that there is some hesitancy on the part of congressional democrats to, in any way, be forced to "own" what happens after we leave. It is a situation of damned if we do, damned if we don't and given the fact that this war was NOT the grand legacy-defining scheme of the democratic party, it is easy to see how they might want to make sure that, given the "damned if we do, damned if we don't" nature of the beast, that it is Bush and the republicans who do get damned whichever way we go..... we wouldn't HAVE that particularly onerous dilemma if Bush had waited for Hans Blix to finish his inspections and tell us what we now all know: that the mission of disarming Saddam had already been accomplished before a single shot was fired.
As Woodward said, "they already own their part, they approved the war", it's America's war, not GW's. Those troops are ours too and we owe them and those that have given all. We owe their families.
It is america's war, but I will never let anyone forget that a majority of democrats in congress voted against it. I am proud of them for that.
And what to do we OWE those people? Do we owe pouring more bodies down the pit and that will somehow ennoble the ones who have gone before? I say that they all died heroes...and we ought not to have any more die.
Again MM, I would say that depends on which picture you see. I never saw WMD as the major reason, though certainly a compelling one. It's the location of Iraq in the ME that is in our national interests. That we were involved in a truce that Saddam was breaking daily, along with 17 UN resolutions or so, gave the opening.
we will always disagree on that. Nation building is not what we should be about. And if we ever DO decide to nation build again, I think it is critical that we do so with some degree of competence or we end up with something worse than what we had before we started building - which is the case today.
Yep, I think we will. Funny what a piss poor job the administration has make for it though. Clinton would have sold it, if he'd had the ability to back then. But like GW now, his capital was all spent.
I wouldn't have bought it even from Clinton... the '98 ILA was as far as I think we should have gone...
ILA? Please decode.
Separate names with a comma.