Everybodies Talkin' at Me, Can't Hear a Word Their Sayin'...
Rabu, 11 Januari 2006
0
komentar
In his latest speech on Tuesday, the POTUS says yet again that criticism of the war is giving our enemies comfort and that criticism of the war might hurt chances of getting to congress during this year of midterm elections.
The president labasting his critics (whom he grouped into the very large and inaccurate set of people who thought we went to war for oil, people who thought we went to war for reasons relating to Israel, and people who think that he manipulated pre-war intelligence) proved that he and his ilk are living in a fantasy world where the minor successes we make in Iraq far outweigh all the losses we are not only causing ourselves but to the people of Iraq. What if we never went to Iraq? It's a question I think about all the time. Would we have been attacked again, this time from an enemy located someplace other than Afghanistan (what ever happened to Afghanistan anyway, looking at the media you would think it never existed) or would we have been more equipped financially to deal with the many blows this country has taken during this useless war? Unfortunately we will never know and we must own up to the situation we are in, hated globally, financially strapped and militarily weakening (relatively). Yes, this war with Iraq was TOTALLY worth it.
Quote from the Article:
He said he welcomed "honest critics" who question the way the war is being conducted and the "loyal opposition" that points out what is wrong with his administration's approach..."
How is this different then the people who criticize the war that he DOES NOT agree with?
"...But he termed irresponsible the "partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil or because of Israel or because we misled the American people," as well as "defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."
(This does not make any sense, he welcomes honest critics but thinks that critics are undermining the war effort and our troops abroad. Which one is it? Apparently there are honest critics and dishonest critics, I guess your a dishonest critic if you say something that blows back all his rhetoric and his own dishonesty)
The reasons for this war have changed everytime the reason for it became invalid. Remember WMD's? That was reason 1. The government said they are going to attack us, they are preparing to build bombs and blow up more of our stuff. They are in cahoots with Al-Quaida and they must be stopped immediately. All these reasons seemed pretty compelling during the time of confusion following 9/11, but as these reasons thinned out like the mists of a sunny morning, new reasons were found that again justified the initial onset of violence we sent there. Now that there were no WMD's to speak of and ties to Al-Quaida proved to be false, we were there to "liberate" the Iraqi people from the evil Tyrant known as Saddam. Did not know we could just go and remove people for no reason. Sure its been done in the past, but in secret with nice and neat assassinations so that people could not be outraged at the US, not publicly at least. Now we are establishing "democracy" and spreading it throughout the Middle East.
The plan itself is not that bad, establish a more fairer government for the people stuck under the thumb of dictator like theocratic law. The problems arise in how we are actually going to do that. For those not following the Iraqi elections, it has been rumored and it's most likely true that the Shi'ite factions won most of the parlimentary seats (there has been talk of voter fraud and intimidation throughout Iraq which would explain a minority of people winning a majority of the seats). Now we are asking a very religious and vigorous group (formerly oppressed by Saddam's Sunni bathist regime, and not very friendly towards America and our noble ideals) to establish a fair government that takes care of those that used to be in the majority. How likely is that to happen? In my opinion not very likely, in fact most signs point to a brewing civil war between the Sunni's, Kurds, and Shi'ite populations of a now free but broken Iraq. Sweet, operation Iraqi freedom is a success, mission accomplished and all that jazzz...
A freind and I were talking yesterday about the inability of the American people to WAKE THE FUCK UP. While all eyes were on us in 2004 we idiotically elected a man BACK into office when it was apparent that we were hoodwinked on the iraq war. This alone should have been enough to throw him out, yet people still voted for him citing other reasons why he should be in office (Gay Marriage, abortion and the economy to name a few). You selfish bastards. Is it really so important to you that gay people not be able to marry that you would keep someone in power who knowingly or not, lied to you? With this whole wiretapping scandal I can't see how there is even a small debate on the question of impeachment. It should be freakin' obvious. We impeach a man because he got a blowjob at his desk and lied about it, but we keep one from impeachment that has led us into a now apparent bogus war, and that would be only one of his many offenses.
Let's take a hypothetical situation which will represent the Iraq debacle and see how you respond to it.
Your family is in great despair when you find out your Dad is dying of Terminal Lung cancer. He is not that sick yet, still ok to walk around and talk and such, but his time is limited, he might even end up dying slow and painful death. One day your dad is out, happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and gets fingered for a murder you and your family know he did not commit. During the trial there is enough evidence to refute the charges, but the jury is furious because the person killed was a mother carrying a child and they need someone to blame. So they convict your dad and sentence him to death. Some months after his is killed DNA evidence proves it was not him, outraged you speak out against the court system, the jurors and anyone else who had a hand in his death. The comeback of these people instead of trying to make ammends to the situation is "well he had the cancer and he might have died a painful death anyway, so its better we killed him now when it was painless". How would you react?
Well in that Situation, your dad is Iraq, the courst system is the American Government, the Iraqi people are you and your family, Saddam would be the lung cancer and that poor pregnant woman is 9/11. This whole administration is a sham, it would be nice if people in this country started recognizing it for that and nothing more.
The president labasting his critics (whom he grouped into the very large and inaccurate set of people who thought we went to war for oil, people who thought we went to war for reasons relating to Israel, and people who think that he manipulated pre-war intelligence) proved that he and his ilk are living in a fantasy world where the minor successes we make in Iraq far outweigh all the losses we are not only causing ourselves but to the people of Iraq. What if we never went to Iraq? It's a question I think about all the time. Would we have been attacked again, this time from an enemy located someplace other than Afghanistan (what ever happened to Afghanistan anyway, looking at the media you would think it never existed) or would we have been more equipped financially to deal with the many blows this country has taken during this useless war? Unfortunately we will never know and we must own up to the situation we are in, hated globally, financially strapped and militarily weakening (relatively). Yes, this war with Iraq was TOTALLY worth it.
Quote from the Article:
He said he welcomed "honest critics" who question the way the war is being conducted and the "loyal opposition" that points out what is wrong with his administration's approach..."
How is this different then the people who criticize the war that he DOES NOT agree with?
"...But he termed irresponsible the "partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil or because of Israel or because we misled the American people," as well as "defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."
(This does not make any sense, he welcomes honest critics but thinks that critics are undermining the war effort and our troops abroad. Which one is it? Apparently there are honest critics and dishonest critics, I guess your a dishonest critic if you say something that blows back all his rhetoric and his own dishonesty)
The reasons for this war have changed everytime the reason for it became invalid. Remember WMD's? That was reason 1. The government said they are going to attack us, they are preparing to build bombs and blow up more of our stuff. They are in cahoots with Al-Quaida and they must be stopped immediately. All these reasons seemed pretty compelling during the time of confusion following 9/11, but as these reasons thinned out like the mists of a sunny morning, new reasons were found that again justified the initial onset of violence we sent there. Now that there were no WMD's to speak of and ties to Al-Quaida proved to be false, we were there to "liberate" the Iraqi people from the evil Tyrant known as Saddam. Did not know we could just go and remove people for no reason. Sure its been done in the past, but in secret with nice and neat assassinations so that people could not be outraged at the US, not publicly at least. Now we are establishing "democracy" and spreading it throughout the Middle East.
The plan itself is not that bad, establish a more fairer government for the people stuck under the thumb of dictator like theocratic law. The problems arise in how we are actually going to do that. For those not following the Iraqi elections, it has been rumored and it's most likely true that the Shi'ite factions won most of the parlimentary seats (there has been talk of voter fraud and intimidation throughout Iraq which would explain a minority of people winning a majority of the seats). Now we are asking a very religious and vigorous group (formerly oppressed by Saddam's Sunni bathist regime, and not very friendly towards America and our noble ideals) to establish a fair government that takes care of those that used to be in the majority. How likely is that to happen? In my opinion not very likely, in fact most signs point to a brewing civil war between the Sunni's, Kurds, and Shi'ite populations of a now free but broken Iraq. Sweet, operation Iraqi freedom is a success, mission accomplished and all that jazzz...
A freind and I were talking yesterday about the inability of the American people to WAKE THE FUCK UP. While all eyes were on us in 2004 we idiotically elected a man BACK into office when it was apparent that we were hoodwinked on the iraq war. This alone should have been enough to throw him out, yet people still voted for him citing other reasons why he should be in office (Gay Marriage, abortion and the economy to name a few). You selfish bastards. Is it really so important to you that gay people not be able to marry that you would keep someone in power who knowingly or not, lied to you? With this whole wiretapping scandal I can't see how there is even a small debate on the question of impeachment. It should be freakin' obvious. We impeach a man because he got a blowjob at his desk and lied about it, but we keep one from impeachment that has led us into a now apparent bogus war, and that would be only one of his many offenses.
Let's take a hypothetical situation which will represent the Iraq debacle and see how you respond to it.
Your family is in great despair when you find out your Dad is dying of Terminal Lung cancer. He is not that sick yet, still ok to walk around and talk and such, but his time is limited, he might even end up dying slow and painful death. One day your dad is out, happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and gets fingered for a murder you and your family know he did not commit. During the trial there is enough evidence to refute the charges, but the jury is furious because the person killed was a mother carrying a child and they need someone to blame. So they convict your dad and sentence him to death. Some months after his is killed DNA evidence proves it was not him, outraged you speak out against the court system, the jurors and anyone else who had a hand in his death. The comeback of these people instead of trying to make ammends to the situation is "well he had the cancer and he might have died a painful death anyway, so its better we killed him now when it was painless". How would you react?
Well in that Situation, your dad is Iraq, the courst system is the American Government, the Iraqi people are you and your family, Saddam would be the lung cancer and that poor pregnant woman is 9/11. This whole administration is a sham, it would be nice if people in this country started recognizing it for that and nothing more.
Baca Selengkapnya ....
Categories:
