http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...tweaponssearch

 

So, you think that there were no WMD's ever?
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

My opinion surrounds his choice of presentation.

I have no opinion as to whether our endeavors over there are for naught or a subterfuge or what. I do think that there's something over there, I just don't know what, how much, nor validity. Remember we had discussed quite a while ago about the thousands of Iranians that Saddam is accused of killing with bio or chem. So yeah, I believe there's stuff over there, but don't know anything general nor specific.

I am just saddened that the efforts, sacrifice, and loss can be forgotten and trivialized by anyone, let alone their boss. Seriously, it's a heavy-type saddening. Man, soldiers can be so callous and juvenile and offensive, but if you only got to know them and could truly emphathize with the profound honor, risk, and extreme sacrifice (which no non-vet civilian will ever be able to do), you'd love them as deeply or maybe even deeper than you do family.

I sincerely hope that my comments aren't construed as treasonously critical of the Commander in Chief. We all have our opinions, we all make mistakes, we have all been quoted/taken out of context.

All I'm saying is that I have undying love and respect for the 17/18y/o Private (of Infantry) who is scared and misses his mother, is experiencing conditions that animals shelter themselves from, and is being overworked, living on little sleep, food and water, and doesn't know what excitement/terror may come tomorrow.

 

I personally believe there is or even was WMD here. But I dont think it helps when you tell a dictator we are coming if you dont get rid of them and then the UN BS's for weeks about approval to go in and all that does is buy time for the bad guy to hide or even destroy his stuff. but when it is all said and done i believe in the cause here as much as i miss home i feel i am doing the right thing saddam as inflicted much pain and suffering to the people here especially the kurds who he gassed in the late 80's and early 90's. and to those that feel we should not be here think about this saddam or any terrorist that would want to do any of us harm would not hesitate for one moment if they had the chance to stick a nuke in your living room.

 

If you ever followed politics, the president always presents a humorous speech on that yearly Radio & Television Correspondents Association event. I didn't feel like he directly insulted any of the military who died in the Iraq conflict. He was just joking about the search for WMD, not the Iraqi Conflict. Theres a big difference between those two.

I can't stand when there are people ragging on our president. Think of it this way, our president receives intelligence that we're not allowed to even know about, he bases his decision on what he and his aides feel best to do FOR the country. Do you think he does it because he "wants" to? Of course not, he'd be impeached easily. Sure its a tough choice to make, sacrificing lives for the sake of ANOTHER country but we made the world a safer place. Isn't that what superheroes are all about? Quit being selfish, the USA, being an ultra developed country, has the responsibility to make the world a much safer place. We did make Iraqi better than before, and thats what matters. It was a tough thing to do, but it had to be done anyway.

Today, due to the "pussification"(see Richard's post earlier re of the people here in the US, we became a country who forgets easil. It was about 3 years ago when we got attacked by the terrorists, why are we forgetting that Saddam's a terrorist also? Read your history books, he tried to assassinate OUR former president, killed and terrorized millions of people, and made a public mockery of our country. Guess what, theres evidence his regime trained terrorists also. So are we gonna let him go do his will on his own people and train those who want to harm us? Why do we loathe the war on terror now? Do we want another attack to make us remember that the terrorists are a threat we have to take out before they take us out?

and my last rant, I'd rather vote for a straight talking tough president than a two faced hypocrit who doesn't know what his policies are.

 

John,

I think that if you and I were face to face, the conversation would be civil and you and I would more than likely realize that our views are probably pretty parallel with little disagreement; but maybe I'm not catching the jist of your written word. If I'm not understanding your context, then disregard the following.

... to respond to the written word, I'm not being critical of the president's policies, so if that's what you're saying, just back the **** up. I'm not saying that what he was 'joking' about is callous. I can't because I wasn't there. I didn't hear his context. I couldn't even tell you what he said at this point without going back and looking up what he said again.

I can tell you, though, that as a soldier, as a friend to many soldiers over there, and a generally patriotic person who feels even more grief the the parent who's child/soldier is forever maimed or forever dead than I do for the soldier himself...it's hard for me to tolerate the Commander in Chief trivializing our efforts over there with jokes surrounding the main justification and legitimacy that sends us there in the first place.

The sensitivity arises among the American people not only for percieved callousness, but also because he's treating the whole endeavor lightly; no matter where he stated the 'jokes', his arena is ALWAYS the entire world. It seems as if America and the world is generally with him so long as his main intents of finding and destroying WMD and finding and destroying all terrorists are proceeding along as planned. If we're over there for a year and find no WMD, then are we going in the right direction? I think so. I think we just need a little bit more time, but I'm only one American. The rest of the American people, his boss, may not be as patient and as forgiving, especially when he seems to treat the 'search' so lightly.

Sure, ensuring stability and restoring peace are tantamount, but if that's the case then why aren't we in every country where there is hardship, torment, hunger, genocide, lawlessness, illigitimate dictatorships, legal drug agriculture and trade... PALESTINE! (aren't they terroristic towards Israel?) Israel (on their use of military force against the syrian civilian residents of Golan) Ireland up until recently? Syria? Yemen? Pakistan? Chechnya?

I don't know. There must be good reason.

If the 'search for WMD' as the president's main major intent goes away because, for whatever reason, it's generally held that there aren't, weren't any there anymore or never were (yeah, right); the American opinion could change as I believe it's starting to now. The esteem that you hold for him is great but don't forget that he works for us (and some of us work for him). That's the way that the Constitution is built. He is our main representative, therefore is our 'voice', our 'chief of police', our '#1 general', but all of his efforts must be legitimate by us. 1st check is congress on the legitimacy of what he's doing. 2nd is the Supreme Court on legality. And 3rd check is us. It's inherent that an incumbant wants to stay in office for as long as he can, and keep his party in office even longer. This may not be such a strict 'check' as the first two, but it is there and somewhat influential over him and his decisions.

Stating fact, the president has a certain amount of freedom of movement and is legally justified in deploying us to countries in order to undertake military action. He has 6 months to do as he feels necessary before he even has to 'ask' Congress to pass a bill waging war. He also has quite a bit of clout in persuading them.

In this case, the president went to Congress fairly early and was able to get that bill passed. He is now 'legally' justified to have us over there, although some congressmen are starting to publicly state that they are regretting their 'yea' vote authorizing the war declaration to be passed.

So is what we're doing over there right and just? I don't know but I think so. Since we're over there already and have taken the largest number of losses since Vietnam (a perfect example where Congress never passed a bill declaring war on the country where we were undertaking military action), and since this is a declared war; the losses we've taken should dictate, in my mind, that NO ONE should trivialize our efforts over there.

You see, Jess (who's actually there doing his job) like most soldiers I know, believes we're doing what's right and just. The soldiers over there are potentially facing an early end to their young lives and still seek to continue on in doing what their Commander in Chief has asked them to do, and what congress has authorized them to do, regardless of who or what comforts they've left behind.

 

Wait a minute, maybe I wasn't clear about what I was talking about. I was basically referring about the left wing pundits who are making this a big deal, not you. If you are liberal then I apologize. If we actually go into Israel and "pacify" the Golan heights or into Palestine, then its a bad step for us, do you not agree? The justification of the Iraq war was WMD's, not because we want to make the world better. I do not believe the American people, who diversely are split right the middle on issues, would agree to go to war just to make the world a better place but regardless, in my opinion we have the responsibility to. I know how due process works regarding declaring war. I was a politicial major when I was still in school


I have two close cousins of mine in the army reserves who just was deployed to Iraq 2 days ago, 3 of my immediate family members veterans of recent conflicts. If you're saying I don't give a "****" about the military then you're wrong. The only reason I wasn't in the military was because of my knee, which is the same reason I can't drive manual.

 

With that being said and reading your post, yes we pretty much agree on the same general scope.

I'll look for the whole video of the speech if you're interested. He basically joked about Cheney, his aides, his pet, himself, but you probably missed the ending of the speech that he gave regarding the time spent with the troops overseas and how he has a large picture of him and troops hanged up on his private study.

 

I had a feeling that you and I were of the same mind.

I'm not liberal. I'm not conservative. And while I seriously don't want to sound cliche, I'm a soldier. My political feelings, at any given time, are to go where I'm told.

The only belief I reserve for myself, no matter who the president is, is my feelings about the American service member. As a matter of fact, you'd probably not be surprised to hear how badly most soldiers freely spoke about how much they hated Clinton during his tenure.

Bottom line, I guess what I was reacting to was that I was perceiving you as saying that President Bush should be able to joke about this whole situation; especially if it's at that media conference that is historically a time for the president to unwind a little bit.

In my mind, the President can be light-hearted about most any issue. Not this one.

John, this isn't an internet fight. I'm not....wasn't, pissed off at what you said. I just felt that you were calling me a liberal. If there's one thing I can't stand is liberals...I hate conservatives, too. Issue by issue I find that I'm extremely conservative at times, extremely liberal at others, and excruciatingly middle-of-the-road again at others. The only issue my sentiment never changes on are the military.

I don't question your patriotism, neither.

 

Wow. Civility. That's rare in a political discussion. Bravo, fellas.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

Think I shoulda been trying to ethug intimidate and stuff, y0?

I thought that all of his points were spot-on, I just felt like I must have misunderstood his context on one.

 

I totally agree with you about how he shouldn't of made such a comment. It was inapproiate. Here is a Nasioc link that is relavent to this topic. I think Maco hits it on the nail of what my point of view is so enjoy. Shrug he words it better than I could ever.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...hreadid=529024