I want a parade.

[liberalogic]

Assuming that people who support the war effort, our troops and the president just do it out of blind patriotism is getting to be a pretty weak accusation. They can back up thier beliefs quite nicely without having to resort to just saying "It's the Republican thing to do". You may WANT to believe that people who support this effort as a war on terrorism simply because they are "sheep" but these "sheep" can make thier case better than you can without having to resort to partisan politics.

The problem is that I see a difference between the war on terrorism (which implies that we are attacking those who have attacked us) and the war in Iraq. By morphing the two into one, the President is making you believe that they are one in the same, which is why i would consider you a "blind patriot."

 

[dilloduck]

The problem is that I see a difference between the war on terrorism (which implies that we are attacking those who have attacked us) and the war in Iraq. By morphing the two into one, the President is making you believe that they are one in the same, which is why i would consider you a "blind patriot."

Just because you are too stubborn to see the connection doesn't mean they aren't one in the same. The terrorists are Islamo-facists and that's who we are fighting in Iraq. (or hadn't you noticed)

 

[liberalogic]

Just because you are too stubborn to see the connection doesn't mean they aren't one in the same. The terrorists are Islamo-facists and that's who we are fighting in Iraq. (or hadn't you noticed)

Why are we fighting insurgents there? They are there because we are there. Our presence in Iraq provoked the insrugents, to pawn them off as terrorists doesn't make sense-- they were'nt the ones who originally attacked us.

If we're fighting a war on terrorism, we should be fighting the terrorists who attacked us so that they can't do it again. What I mean is that all of our attention should be focused on capturing Bin Laden first and foremost, not those who did not attack us.

 

[dilloduck]

Why are we fighting insurgents there? They are there because we are there. Our presence in Iraq provoked the insrugents, to pawn them off as terrorists doesn't make sense-- they were'nt the ones who originally attacked us.

If we're fighting a war on terrorism, we should be fighting the terrorists who attacked us so that they can't do it again. What I mean is that all of our attention should be focused on capturing Bin Laden first and foremost, not those who did not attack us.

the ones who attacked us are DEAD. They can't do it again. Do you have a problem with terrorists going to Iraq to be fight and die or should we just chase em down individually--one country after another ?

Your belief that all terrorism will end if we capture Bin laden is absurd.

 

[liberalogic]

the ones who attacked us are DEAD. They can't do it again. Do you have a problem with terrorists going to Iraq to be fight and die or should we just chase em down individually--one country after another ?

Your belief that all terrorism will end if we capture Bin laden is absurd.

I never said all terrorism would end, but as we all know, Bin Laden was the one who attacked us. ALL of our resources should have gone to finding him because he was the bigger threat. With that out of the way, then you evaluate where you are and what the next step is in the war on terror. Iraq was not a retaliation-- it was a war that we started on our own.

 

[Gunny]

I never said all terrorism would end, but as we all know, Bin Laden was the one who attacked us. ALL of our resources should have gone to finding him because he was the bigger threat. With that out of the way, then you evaluate where you are and what the next step is in the war on terror. Iraq was not a retaliation-- it was a war that we started on our own.

It was a continuation of hostilities stopped only be a cease-fire, nothing more. One of the conditions of the cease-fire was that Saddam had to comply with all the conditions of the cease-fire or risk resumption of hostilities.

Saddam didn't comply with the terms of the ceasefire at any point and time. He should've had his ass kicked in 92-or-93 instead of Clinton continually pretending he didn't exist.

 

[kurtsprincess]

The problem is that I see a difference between the war on terrorism (which implies that we are attacking those who have attacked us) and the war in Iraq. By morphing the two into one, the President is making you believe that they are one in the same, which is why i would consider you a "blind patriot."

LL.....some of us are able to differentiate between why we went, and why we are still there. Some of us are able to understand that original decisions made, for whatever reasons, are not always the reason an action/project remains in effect.

Do you really think that the original reasons we got into WWI or WWII are the reasons we continued to fight for the long term.

You said something earlier about establishing a base in the Middle East from which we can operate. If you truly believe that, and believe it is a good thing for the US, why wouldn't you be supporting the war? and the troops who are over there trying to make this happen.

Could it be that you are so angry with this administration that you cannot be open to even thinking that one good thing might be accomplished?

Who cares at this point why we originally stated we were going to war with Saddam/Iraq? Only the liberal left Dems .......who just want something they can hang on to to feed their anger at losing. The point is that we are there, we are helping them establish a democracy and hopefully help the country keep from falling under another dictatorship. Hopefully this ideology will spread and other countries and their citizens will take heart that they don't have to live under oppression and cruelty and will effect changes in their countries. Our troops are willing to sacrifice their lives to help others experience what we have here in America.

Try to let go of what we were told were the reasons we went to war and think about why we are there now. For example: I might tell my husband that I'm going to take Route 66 to Kansas City because it was the best route; but I might change my mind on the way about why I'm taking that Route. It might not really be the best route, but I'm seeing a part of the country I've never seen before, I'm meeting great people, and so on and so on. Do you think it is appropriate for my husband to be angry that I'm not taking that route for the original reasons I stated? Do you think it's appropriate for him to say "but you said you were taking that route because it was the best"?

Regardless of why we went, or why we are still there, our troops deserve to be honored for their sacrifices. If you want to be angry with the administration then protest the administration. Call it being patriotic if you wish, but don't accuse those of us who support our troops as having "blind patriotism".