Re: Re: Bush and Politics, In That Order
So I ask again, what's the alternative?
Okay, I'll step up, since you've offered no ideas either. There's only so much running in circles that one thread can make without it becoming tiresome to read (and participate in, for that matter). First off, the Iraqi troops — the ones that we're so effectively training — need to start taking care of policing some Iraqi cities and other important sites by themselves. Hopefully, explaining target dates for turning over such responsibilities will illustrate to the insurgents that we are, in fact, interested in leaving, not in setting up permanent shop for US oil companies.
A fundamental inability to understand causality on your part (I blame a liberal upbringing and public education) does not constitute inconsistency on my part.
Whose liberal upbringing? Mine? Well, whatever. You have plenty of inconsistency, though. I assume we've both had public education throughout our lives, so I guess that does explain why you're exactly half-right in your opinions regarding the Iraq War.
On one hand, your rational view of the legitimacy of the war itself is commendable; you'd probably explain it as being related to conservatism in some way. Whatever, that's fine. But then you still seem to be swayed in the opposite direction, which can be best explained by your lingering mental block of thinking and being overwhelmingly supportive of 'Republican' — not necessarily conservative — agendas. To be a true independent, you really need to let that go.
Steve on all the other inevitable beheadings and other atrocities that are happening right now throughout the world, most notably in Africa: What about them ...it's that causality thing.
How many murderous Hussein-like dictators have been installed worldwide, only to create self-serving kleptocracies while we sat idly by (or even encouraged and aided them)? Do we have a responsibility to help citizens of those nations who suffer from similar results of US causal relationships? I guess so, since Bush's 3rd or 4th reason for invading Iraq was to protect its citizens and take out its murderous leader we supported over the years.
So who's next?
We invaded and occupied their country and assumed responsibility for the defense of innocents. As much as you and I might hate the reasons we did that, it is done and thumping our chests and whining about it solves nothing.
Right. So Bush and his supporters should cease the chest thumping and present some concrete strategies that show the world we're not planning to stay there forever. And calling for real solutions isn't whining, it's asking for something other than status quo, which isn't working. How do we show the world that Iraq will be stable? By letting them take care of themselves. We're doing a great job of training the troops, right?
...there is not a single member of the military in Iraq who is there involuntarily.
So we owe no special consideration to members of the military who prefer to die for just, sensible wars, not to mention to their families? Honoring the members of our armed forces means putting them into harm's way only when necessary to defend our country and/or way of life. I assume that the other side of that would be pulling them out of harm's way when they're not defending our country and/or way of life — we're not doing either of those things right now in Iraq.
One final note, here. According to Bush cheerleader and former Cheney advisor Mary Matalin, some poll says like 80% of Iraqi citizens are confident about their future, while 62% of Iraqi troops feel confident about their future.
I know that Matalin wasn't trying to illustrate this point, but in essence, she did: That's like bizzaro America — the members of the public are usually the comparative pessimists, not the military. Are members of the Iraqi military observing something the average Iraqi citizen isn't, like an unorganized, failing Iraqi army? Or no moves by the US military to turn local responsibility over to them? Or murderous dictators-in-training waiting in the wings to become Saddam Hussein v2.0 as soon as we leave?
That's what I respect about history. If you pay attention to it, you usually learn something. In unstable areas such as the Middle East, Africa, etc., how often have invasions, installments of new governments, and so on instigated by outside forces ever produced longstanding democracies that end up being governed by the nation's own people? And do we really want to have Iraq dependent on us forever? If not, at some point, we're going to have to leave. And after we do (or if we ever do), who knows what will happen. I have a guess, but...
Okay, I'll step up, since you've offered no ideas either. There's only so much running in circles that one thread can make without it becoming tiresome to read (and participate in, for that matter). First off, the Iraqi troops — the ones that we're so effectively training — need to start taking care of policing some Iraqi cities and other important sites by themselves. Hopefully, explaining target dates for turning over such responsibilities will illustrate to the insurgents that we are, in fact, interested in leaving, not in setting up permanent shop for US oil companies.
A fundamental inability to understand causality on your part (I blame a liberal upbringing and public education) does not constitute inconsistency on my part.
Whose liberal upbringing? Mine? Well, whatever. You have plenty of inconsistency, though. I assume we've both had public education throughout our lives, so I guess that does explain why you're exactly half-right in your opinions regarding the Iraq War.
On one hand, your rational view of the legitimacy of the war itself is commendable; you'd probably explain it as being related to conservatism in some way. Whatever, that's fine. But then you still seem to be swayed in the opposite direction, which can be best explained by your lingering mental block of thinking and being overwhelmingly supportive of 'Republican' — not necessarily conservative — agendas. To be a true independent, you really need to let that go.
Steve on all the other inevitable beheadings and other atrocities that are happening right now throughout the world, most notably in Africa: What about them ...it's that causality thing.
How many murderous Hussein-like dictators have been installed worldwide, only to create self-serving kleptocracies while we sat idly by (or even encouraged and aided them)? Do we have a responsibility to help citizens of those nations who suffer from similar results of US causal relationships? I guess so, since Bush's 3rd or 4th reason for invading Iraq was to protect its citizens and take out its murderous leader we supported over the years.
So who's next?
We invaded and occupied their country and assumed responsibility for the defense of innocents. As much as you and I might hate the reasons we did that, it is done and thumping our chests and whining about it solves nothing.
Right. So Bush and his supporters should cease the chest thumping and present some concrete strategies that show the world we're not planning to stay there forever. And calling for real solutions isn't whining, it's asking for something other than status quo, which isn't working. How do we show the world that Iraq will be stable? By letting them take care of themselves. We're doing a great job of training the troops, right?
...there is not a single member of the military in Iraq who is there involuntarily.
So we owe no special consideration to members of the military who prefer to die for just, sensible wars, not to mention to their families? Honoring the members of our armed forces means putting them into harm's way only when necessary to defend our country and/or way of life. I assume that the other side of that would be pulling them out of harm's way when they're not defending our country and/or way of life — we're not doing either of those things right now in Iraq.
One final note, here. According to Bush cheerleader and former Cheney advisor Mary Matalin, some poll says like 80% of Iraqi citizens are confident about their future, while 62% of Iraqi troops feel confident about their future.
I know that Matalin wasn't trying to illustrate this point, but in essence, she did: That's like bizzaro America — the members of the public are usually the comparative pessimists, not the military. Are members of the Iraqi military observing something the average Iraqi citizen isn't, like an unorganized, failing Iraqi army? Or no moves by the US military to turn local responsibility over to them? Or murderous dictators-in-training waiting in the wings to become Saddam Hussein v2.0 as soon as we leave?
That's what I respect about history. If you pay attention to it, you usually learn something. In unstable areas such as the Middle East, Africa, etc., how often have invasions, installments of new governments, and so on instigated by outside forces ever produced longstanding democracies that end up being governed by the nation's own people? And do we really want to have Iraq dependent on us forever? If not, at some point, we're going to have to leave. And after we do (or if we ever do), who knows what will happen. I have a guess, but...
posted by Strother | 9:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home