A few years ago I didn't vote. I was in my own world, safe in the mid-west, not worried about my government. Then Bush was elected and the Twin Towers fell. My life as so many of yours, changed forever. I started paying attention to the news and to who was in office and I didn't like what I saw; more so since I am married to a soldier.
I never understood why we would be in Iraq if Bin Laden came from Afghanistan and I quickly began disliking Bush. But 4 years into this war and with thousands of our troops dead and even more wounded, I am afraid to vote on Tuesday.
I actually thought of not voting, but quickly realized I can not leave my vote out in the wind. But what do I do??
Do I vote republican and honor the dead soldiers, continue the fight in Iraq just because it has gone on so long and would be a waste to stop?
Or do I vote Democrat and give congress back after more than a decade? Will democrats make anything better? I don't know.
I am sure I am not alone in my confusion. So I am asking my fellow Americans on Gather to weigh in. Tell me why you think I should vote republican or democrat.
Please don't go on a tangent and keep it civil, but I truly would like to hear opinions.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 117
For example, here in Mich. the Dem Governor hasn't done much to help with the unemployment/jobs situation, but the man running against her is a Rep and BIG business man. Not sure if he would be able to do much for the bad job situation in Mich. He'll probably be more interested in business than the middle class.
Thanks so much for reading and commenting. I thought of voting independent, and hand pciking a few runners who I thought would do a good job.. but I realized that this race is about the mass that will run congress... so it has to be democrats or republicans... I hate it but....
I also feel that our economy is making steady progress in the right direction and that the tax cuts are the reason. If democrats get a majority, all they have to do is not bring a vote on the tax cuts and they will expire - and that would be a reversal of the Bush tax cuts. So, they don't even need a vote - they just need a majority to prevent a vote.
The last thing we need in this critical time of war is a lame duck president. Keep a Bush majority in power till the end of his term - now is not the time to change course.
henthabox said:
"well trained and well lead armed force in Iraq"
I have so much issue with this... my husband is in the army.. 23 years now.. 4 combat misions in those years... our army has sub standard equiptment, no real body armor other than what is being bought for them through bake sales.
And the army just put out a statement saying that if a soldier is killed in action with non issue body armor on they will not pay out life insurance to the family of the soldier.
Most of the troops are kids who don't want to be there like Maxwell said.. they are scared, depressed and home sick. They are being killed by the day...
not to mention the billions upon billions of dollars that have ben lost into Iraq... all that money unaccounted for and wasted.
I do not believet any amount of years in Iraq will make a difference in that country... this generation of Iraqies hates us and they are raising their kids to hate us.. does anyone really believe there will ever be an end to this war??
How do you explain soldiers having to piece together metal over in Iraq to cover their Humvees?? How do you explain soldiers eating one meal a day because supplies don;t arrive? and what about the army unti that didn;t have an axe or saw to cut down trees causing a chopper to crash and kill several soldiers?
Do you honestly believe that our soldiers enjoy their time in Iraq?? A year gone and then they come only to to go back a few months later for another year or more!
Have you served or had a wife serve? Trust me you would not want to be there for years on end.
I just want to say that I support our troops but not our government officials. Our troops are dieing for Bush's agenda and it is a travesty.
thanks Maxwell for your opinions and for helping me to make my voting decision.
Unfortunately, I believe those with the aforementioned conscience and guts are getting scarcer in politics -- people who truly want to serve are such at a financial disadvantage to those who want power, that the former almost never make it into office.
I've considered not voting, for that reason, but whether my vote makes any difference or not (I am no longer completely convinced that it does), I have no right to complain if I have not cast a ballot.
Amen to the second paragraph in your last comment!
little note.. I was a year old in 72 ;-)
I say that cronies of the isolated and wealthy should vote Republican, while everybody else should vote Democrat. I honor the soliders who fight, it is OK to honor troops and still be a Democrat. I don't like war, not this one, not Vietnam, nor anyone. But anyone who chooses to fight, or is trying to go to school on the Reserves, like my uncles did, way back when, and find themselves fighting, maimed, or killed, or their spouses or friends killed, I say we should honor them, for they have given of themselves in a way nobody else can.
Remember also that Bush never served in Vietnam while John Kerry (damn his mouth) did serve. Dems do serve, too.
I appreciate your service to our country. I am glad that you feel our equiptment and body armor, etc are enough and adequet to protect YOU when you return to war.
It seems to me we caused more destruction to Iraq than Saddam ever did.
Maxwell... I thought you were more rational than this...
Under republicans we have the highest taxes, high unemployment, more kids and familes with out health care, more seniors eating cat food...
In the first 20 months of clintons presidency he lowered unemployment and raised the minimum wage... since republicans have been in pfice we have not had one pay raise.. think you could survive on less than 6 bucks an hour with a few kids?
that would mean 45,000 thats 45 THOUSAND young able soldiers have died here??
you have lost your mind.
It is not only American deaths in Iraq that I speak of. We have killed many Iraqi civilians. I have read more than 100,000 but I am willing to hope that is not true. At least to that extent, but it probably is.
Why are you telling everyone to watch Fox news, when it is biased as well? As a liberal it is hard to find a liberal media out there.
As for Iraq, it's pretty obvious that the Bush administration policy there is a failed policy. How many generals have come out and said this? How many are complaining that this administration simply does not listen to them? In the first place, we're not in a war there now, even though Bush keeps calling it a war. We won the war. We wiped out the Iraqi army, which was then disbanded, Saddam was deposed, An interim government was set up in Iraq, then an election was held there that established a democratically elected government. We are in Iraq now because we are conducting an occupation. Are we conducting this occupation as though we're still fighting a war? If so that wouldn't necessarily be very bright, would it?
We have plenty of brilliant military strategists with plenty of experience! But this administration manages to ignore them. What we obviously need in Iraq is not a debate over whether to pull out or stay, but INTELLIGENT strategies for accomplishing what we want to accomplish there. It seems to me that this administration hasn't even really defined what it wants to accomplish. Set up a democratic government? Been there, done that. So what do we need to do now? Set goals and meet them, and that's just not exactly "staying the course" without even defining what that "course" should be! We need change. We need experienced, intelligent people with military know-how in charge. Will the Democrats accomplish that? They couldn't do any worse than the Republicans have been doing, could they? Failed policies tend to keep on failing, don't they?
Not that this mid-term election can accomplish much about Iraq. It would take a change of administration to accomplish that, and this administration is determined to just "stay the course" and keep repeating its mistakes. But maybe if they see that their backs are up against the wall if they don't wake up, they'll at least start taking the experienced members of the military a bit more seriously and maybe listen to what they say about getting the situation under control. If they're not capable of doing that, we'll just keep killing more Iraqis while more of our own troops die.
There has been so much said about this on my article and on others, it is hard to come up with the RIGHT answer. But I can say this:
Democrats may want out of Iraq as more than half of Americans, but that does not mean they are going to half hazardly pull all our men and woman out.
Our country is in a worse state than it has ever been. Our minimum wage is less than 5.50 an hour, unemployment is sky high, especially for woman raising kids. Millions of seniors are choosing between eating and taking meds or heating their homes. Millions more kids and families don't have health insurance and have to choose death over cancer treatment, because the cost is out of reach. Our schools are a joke, we have fallen down the list of countries with smart kids, year ater year after year since republicans have taken over. Taxes are higher, savings are shrinking and frankly it is embarrasing and deplorable. We have dumped billions upon billions of American dollars into Iraq at the cost of our own country.
Maxwell, you can go on and on about how Hoo-ah you and the army is and how we have to kick all Iraqies to the moon and get it done at any cost.. but in the end the numbers don't lie.
My husband's best friend just came home from Iraq and he is not for this war.
phew.. i am just tired now.. good night all!
marc, thanks for the insight!
This is going to be really long - so let me apologize in advance. I'd have preferred to keep it much shorter, but just couldn't figure out how...
A RESPECTFUL RESPONSE TO KEVIN TILLMAN
Here is a recent commentary by Kevin Tillman, brother of Pat Tillman, who died in service to his country and to the cause of freedom:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601019_after_pats_birthday/
Pat Tillman made a commitment to his country AND to freedom – a commitment that, tragically, cost him his life. Sadly, his family is left to bear the consequences and the pain of that commitment. America is left with another dead hero…and with the truths, understandings, misunderstandings, distortions and outright lies that follow the deaths of Pat and so many others like him who stand, and have stood, for freedom.
As a veteran, I think I can understand a little of what's in Kevin Tillman's heart – as I believe I understood, and greatly respected, what was in Pat Tillman's heart. I have known too many who have died or have lost loved ones in wars (and otherwise, in service to their country), and I have known some of the pain Kevin must feel. I grieve for Kevin and his family.
But Mandi, freedom isn't just for Americans. It isn't just for those strong enough to secure it for themselves. Freedom is every human being's right. So this isn't just a question of honoring soldiers – though that matters greatly. It's many questions, centered around whether America should stand up for freedom and human rights…or not.
If we want to keep our freedoms, if we sincerely seek those freedoms for others, someone must stand up for us, and for those who cannot stand up for themselves. If we ignore those who need us, their numbers will continue to grow until there are none left but "us". And "us" just isn't enough.
I cannot speak to what's in Kevin's mind, but it seems clear (to me) he is either unaware of, or is ignoring, much of the following. Others here on Gather have also refused to address the comments listed below (or they simply dismiss them as irrelevant – and they surely are not), as they have refused to address many other facts that categorically refute much of what Kevin had to say.
War is an ugly, terrifying, yet sometimes necessary undertaking. One that is not without some pretty sizeable pitfalls.
Lies are told in war, secrets are kept, cover-ups are attempted, and personal rights do sometimes get suspended – by those who believe they are acting in the best interest of this country. And…sometimes by those who put personal agendas above all else.
And, lies are told, issues are ignored, politics are permitted to take precedence over the common good, and national security is sometimes intentionally compromised – by those who believe they are acting in the best interest of this country. And…sometimes by those who put personal agendas above all else.
Bad Republican politicians and their personal agendas aside (and we all know they have theirs, too) for a moment, let's look at some recent remarks by Democratic leaders who, apparently, also have personal agendas. Please note that several were made before president Bush took office; before 9-11; before we entered the War on Terror.
DOCUMENTATION (for those who might prefer to ignore or deny the facts):
("Standoff With Iraq," The New York Times, 2/18/98)
Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program."
("Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack," Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)
Former President Bill Clinton: "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq… Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors… The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again… I have ordered a strong sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors… The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of this region, the security of the world… He will make war on his own people. And mark my words; he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them."
(Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
(Seth Borenstein, "U.S. Officials Plan Next Move," Aberdeen American News, 12/9/02)
Senator Bob Graham (D-FL): "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10174)
John Kerry: "When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security…."
(Kerry Quote, Democratic Presidential Debate, Fox News Channel's "Special Report," 12/15/03)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror…"
(CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/14/03) Kerry Interview with Doyle McManus:
John Kerry: "If you read my speech, I was very clear. Saddam Hussein could not be left to his own devices based on everything we learned about him for seven and a half years while we were inspecting in Iraq. People have forgotten that for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction."
(Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)
John Kerry: "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
("Remarks at The Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies," Federal News Service, 9/27/02)
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA): "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
("Statement On U.S. Led Military Strike Against Iraq," - Press Release, 12/16/98)
Representive Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region…a mockery of the weapons inspection process. The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people."
("Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary Of Defense William Cohen And National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Participate In Town Hall Meeting," Federal News Service, 2/18/98)
Madeline Albright (Clinton's Secretary of State): "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face, and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."
(Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10305)
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
("Kerrey On Iraq And The Democrats," The New York Sun, 12/29/03)
Former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE): "I think [Iraq is] going well. It breaks my heart whenever anybody dies, but we liberated 25 million people who were living under a dictator. It puts us on the side of democracy in the Arab world. Twenty years from now, we'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who says it wasn't worth the effort. This is not just another democracy. This is a democracy in an Arab world ..."
(Here, I'll offer a cut/paste link to a very interesting article on Gather, by an Arab)
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976825002
There are, quite literally, hundreds more just like the above, from almost every democrat of stature in the party.
My question to you, Mandi, is: don't you think these statements AT LEAST warrant some serious consideration? Or is it ALL just politics, hate and being blindly led around by the nose?
I suggest a much more even-handed approach is needed, by whoever is viewing/supporting/criticizing those currently in power AND those who seek to gain that power.
It should be noted here:
President Bush did not authorize the war in Iraq:
- The UN Security Council UNANIMOUSLY approved resolution 1441 (the last in a LONG string of previously meaningless resolutions)
- The American Congress – to include most member democrats – authorized the war.
- Congress – not the president – funded, and continues to fund, the war in Iraq.
The EVIDENCE – should we choose to look for it, rather than relying solely on personal feel-good sources – is out there, and it IS clear and unequivocal:
- Claims that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction prior to the war are false.
- Claims that he wasn't actively seeking more (and more destructive) WMDs are false.
- Claims that he did not harbor terrorists; that he permitted no terrorist training facilities; that he had no connection to bin-Laden's al-Qaeda, are false.
- Claims that he posed no real threat to his neighbors are ludicrous.
- Claims that his people were better off before the war are simple insanity. Countless first-person accounts of husbands, fathers, mothers and children being taken, tortured, murdered are readily available. Mass graves, many already opened and surely many yet to be discovered, are mute testimony to the horrific conditions that existed for decades before the war. Conditions for most Iraqi women and girls were barbaric, to say the very least.
- Claims that he posed no immediate threat to America suggest a gross misunderstanding of (or a foolhardy disregard for) the disastrous consequences, in both economic and human terms, of a Hussein-like figure controlling Mid Eastern oil supplies OR striking Europe (a la Adolph Hitler, though the effects would be much more immediate today).
Why war in Iraq? History is an excellent instructor:
A regional threat can become so grave that it does become a global threat, both in terms of actual war, and that the threat may have serious negative impacts on the economies of America's allies, her not-so-well-allied economic partners, and even those with whom we must trade, but do not consider allies. Whether we like it or not, whether we approach our international relationships on level footing or otherwise, we (humans) have become an interdependent, global economy. Interfering with the free flow of oil (as was clearly Hussein's intention; as is most certainly Hugo Chavez's intention) would gravely impact virtually every nation on earth – not just America.
As "free" economies suffer, their individual and collective ability to pursue charitable assistance, "humanitarian missions" AND calls for military interventions around the world (a la Europe and Asia in WWII, Korea, Kosovo, Somalia, Darfur and other African regions/nations, South Asia, etc., where fundamentalist Islamic-sponsored genocide is RAMPANT), is significantly diminished, if not choked off completely.
Hussein was an immediate threat, as surely as Hitler was; as Stalin and Khrushchev were; as Jong-il and Amadenijad are. Ultimately, he has been personally responsible for the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis and countless others in the region. He used WMDs in Iran. He invaded and devastated Kuwait, and massed his forces on the border of Saudi Arabia, clearly intending to invade that neighbor next. He then set fire to hundreds of oil wells – the environmental consequences of which may never be fully understood or corrected. He actively sought to kill American servicemen and coalition soldiers patrolling the no-fly zone – every single day – for over a decade, in unambiguous violation of the UN cease-fire agreement at the end of the first Gulf war. Shortly into that decade, he poison-gassed five thousand Kurds, intending to murder them all. He then ordered the draining of the great marshes that lay between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (an act of destruction environmental groups compare to the devastation of the Amazon rainforests) – marshes that were the home, and the livelihood, of a hundred thousand people. He actively encouraged homicide bombings in Israel, and paid the families of homicide bombers for those acts of war. And he was actively seeking more and deadlier WMDs.
Hussein's crimes were not just crimes against America, Kuwait or Israel. They were crimes against humanity on a massive scale. America had a decision to make – a HARD decision: turn a blind eye, or stop this brutal, imperialistic murderer. Ten years is a LONG time for the families of his myriad victims to have to wait for diplomacy to work - especially in view of the fact that he had NO motivation, NO intention whatsoever, to change.
Much as we'd like to believe diplomacy, or even strong economic sanctions will "save" the world, Mandi, they too-often won't. Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Aminijad, Castro, many African, South American and Asian dictators: all offer ample evidence that there ARE times when we cannot cajole, bribe, threaten, sanction or love the bad guys into seeing the error of their ways. To ignore the threat they pose, or worse, to deny it, ALWAYS ends in the horrors that accompany invasion and subjugation. There ARE times when we must fight. And, if we must fight, we should either fight to win ("stay the course", as it were), or be prepared to submit to the terror, the murder, the genocide…and, ultimately, to the end of freedom.
Have we made mistakes in Iraq? We have. Some big ones, and they need to be corrected – but not abandoned – as those Iraqis who are depending on us should not be abandoned. Are there unnecessary deaths in war? Uncivilized acts committed in war? Of course there are, and they are deplorable. People of conscience SHOULD protest such deaths and acts, and should expect those responsible to be held accountable, so that, when we must fight, our leaders understand that we expect every effort be made to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage, and that prisoners be treated as humanely as can be rationally expected.
Protest, however, becomes something else – something particularly unsavory – when, for example, the "freedom of speech" some of us crow so loudly and so self-righteously about gets lost in a shout-down, when the "opposition" wants to speak. Freedom of speech is for ALL of us, Mandi, or it's not. The oppressor, the uneducated/small/closed mind, the man/woman/child who hates-for-the-sake-of-hating; these are the ones that refuse to listen to all sides. And they are every bit as dangerous as the ones who abuse power.
War IS war, and unintended deaths and damage WILL occur. But no nation on earth strives harder to limit collateral damage than America. NO nation on earth treats its prisoners more humanely – to INCLUDE the varying techniques and degrees of interrogation we employ. Do we work hard to educate, embarrass, intimidate, scare and break down prisoners who hold information potentially valuable to the war effort? Have we hidden prisoners considered "high-value" and treated them more (perhaps much more) aggressively than others considered less valuable? When the lives of tens, hundreds, or millions of innocents hang in the balance? Yes, and rightly so, in my humble opinion. But, as policy, we do not intentionally kill them. We do not chop off heads or limbs. We do not beat them to bloody pulps. We do not starve them to death, or deny them medical treatment.
Can ANY nation or group that we have had to fight make the same statement? The simple answer is, no. Are we perfect? Are we without self-interest? Clearly we are not. We all (liberals AND conservatives AND oppressors) act in our own self-interest all the time.
So, then, an important question is: do we have the intellectual capacity to distinguish between less-than-desirable tactics and what torture/murder really is? Underwear on the head vs. a severed head? Standing nude in front of an interrogator for hours vs. lying in one's own excrement for years. A slap in the face vs. horrendous beatings day after day? Sleep deprivation vs. life deprivation? Or is it just easier (or more politically efficacious) to call some segment of ourselves the "real evil" purely for political advantage?
Mandi, there are some REALLY bad men on the march these days, with some brand new, REALLY scary toys already in-hand or just over the horizon, and they've made it abundantly clear they don't intend to stop – at our border, or anyone else's… We're going to have to stop them ourselves – because WE can. No one else can.
Some have asked how this administration can justify denying due process and/or legal counsel to enemy combatants in wartime. Clearly, such decisions fly in the face of the principles this nation was built on, and they are not arrived at easily or lightly. But they are sometimes necessary.
First and foremost, it is difficult-to-impossible, in most every circumstance, to produce credible witnesses from either a battlefield encounter or a closed-cell terrorist operation. That does not alter the fact of the guilt.
Second, the lives of those (including families and friends) who provide information that results in battlefield successes or terrorist arrests are in grave jeopardy. Allowing enemy combatants, common terrorists – and some in the media – access to information about their accusers greatly increases the risk to those accusers. "Humint", or human intelligence, is absolutely critical to both battlefield and other anti-terror efforts. If we are to continue to recruit credible humint agents, they must have some sense that we are able and willing to protect them.
Third, as Lynne Stewart, defense attorney for Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (who was convicted in plots to blow up five New York landmarks and to assassinate Egypt's president), has recently, repeatedly and all-to-clearly demonstrated, the potential for a conventional defense attorney to compromise the safety of an informant, or soldiers in the field, is very real. Yeah, some will argue that she did no tangible harm (though that is, for all intents and purposes, unverifiable – at least for now). The judge in her case, while handing down what many consider far too light a sentence, disagreed, indicating that she was not without culpability, pointing to what he called "an irreducible core of very severe criminal conduct." And criminal conduct IS criminal conduct, boys and girls, whether or not her supporters choose to accept it as such.
Last, were conventional legal processes (mind you, there are other credible legal processes on the books and being used, and new ones being constructed as circumstances dictate) applied to enemy combatants or common terrorists, many, if not most, would surely "beat the system" on technicalities, lack of eyewitness accounts, or via the "gifts" of certain attorneys for whom "the win" will always mean more than truth or justice. The result is a terrorist free to kill again – perhaps one of your family members, perhaps one of the families of those who assisted in his capture. That simply makes no sense at all.
Will a few be unjustly held? That is an unfortunately possibility in war. Will more than a few? Almost certainly not, because the circumstances under which they were captured tell the truth, for those who will look with an unbiased eye. War isn't waged on playgrounds (well, unfortunately it is, but not here…yet…), and there will be mistakes and injustices. We can hope, and should demand, that they be held to a minimum.
I know that, for some in America, it never will be enough that a combatant was captured weapon-in-hand on the battlefield, or in a Boston brownstone surrounded by bomb-making materials…because "America is to blame." I find it very difficult to know what to say to those folks. Perhaps, "Study a little more, if you REALLY care about the truth." Or, perhaps, "If America really IS the root of the world's evil, maybe you WOULD be better off living in Paris with Johnny Depp, or in Hollywood with Sarandon, Penn, Glover, Franken, Ms. Garofalo, et.al……if you can afford to." I believe it's safe to say most of us cannot afford to. Just a couple'a thoughts, here, Mandi. I'm NOT saying "love it or leave it". I AM suggesting that a little more informed THOUGHT is essential.
As technology races forward at breakneck speed; as countries bent on conquest, oppression and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction continue to ignore the essentially toothless "demands" of the so-called "United Nations"; as more and more weak nations and weak HUMAN BEINGS fall victim to fundamentalist Islam and assorted other genocidal dictators, the threat to you and me races forward every bit as swiftly.
One man, one bomb… Have you ever REALLY thought about what the impact of several million dead in Houston might mean? Essentially, our only refineries are there. No gas; no trucking. No trucking; no bottled water, no food, no refrigeration. Medicines don't arrive – or get there so slowly and in such limited supply that thousands, if not millions, will die, some killing each other to get what IS available. Electricity, city water, sewage and trash removal services will be unavailable.
Where will the survivors go? They'll have no choice but to flood the surrounding cities, consuming everything – and I mean everything. Thousands, if not millions more will then have to flee in search of food, water, medicine. Picture the ripples of a stone dropped in a pond. While the consequences of poisoning a water supply, or carrying a disease across an insecure border might not be as devastating, the results would still be horrendous. Whatever the popular "feel-good" theory about 9-11 may be, that single, relatively small-scale event, and the unprecedented human and financial crises that followed, are ample evidence that WE need to THINK!
And we're not just talking about America. Imagine, if you will, London or Paris devastated by a plague or a bomb. Either would collapse its country into chaos almost immediately. Without its second largest trade partner (either's source of revenue on so many levels) Europe's economic viability would plummet, if not crumble completely, followed shortly, I dare say, by a hugely negative impact on ours. Recovery might well be counted in decades, rather than months or years: never mind the immediate death toll. Want a job after "the economic fall"? Where do we imagine we'll find one?
Mandi, though I don't want these very real possibilities to be thought of as scare tactics (and some WILL claim that's all they are), they ARE scary possibilities that we all need to face. They're not so unlikely as many of us seem to think.
Some here desperately want Democrats in power. Fine. Elect them. I'll accept them, whether or not I agree with them. I'm preparing myself for that possibility, and will be watching very closely to see what they'll do. Watching to see if they will take responsibility for our safety, or simply play political games, lob a few missiles at a terrorist training camp now and then, make self-aggrandizing, worthless deals with the Kim Jong-ils, play the appeasement game with the Chavezes, park our troops on Guam and ignore the Husseins of the world for another decade or so. Many will also be watching to see if the Democrats will raise taxes through the roof…and they've said, in no uncertain terms, that they will. Charlie Rangel, for example, has publicly stated he believes EVERY SINGLE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TAX CUT – not just those that "benefit the rich" – should be permitted to expire.
Has this helped? I hope so… Whatever you decide, whatever the outcome of the next few years' elections, if you count yourself independent, liberal, anti-Bush or some other label/non-label, I believe you should EXPECT at least the minimum from democrats that "we" expect from republicans:
- Protect this country and its sovereignty.
- Protect other free nations.
- Help those who cannot help themselves in the face of terror and oppression.
In deciding who we'll vote for, I believe we simply must begin to try to look past the rhetoric, the hate, the coldly calculated lies and the partisan politics - on both sides - to the security of the free world, and to the needs of those already being ravaged by dictators and terrorists.
Regards,
Steve
I took my daughter to a political rally today and that helped even more.
I will write another article after I vote tomorrow.
;-)
YOU ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT AND YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.
I truly hope you enver have any of the issues I discussed touch your life.. I hope that you never have to have a kid alone or go with out health care (by the way vets out of the military only have the VA. Good luck with that)
I hope you never have to watch your grandparents die in a horrible nursing home becasue you can't afford to take care of them. And I truly hope you never have to work for 20,000 a year with a family to feed.
I hoep you come back from war in one piece and with none of your buddies souls on your conscience. I hope you live a long life arguing your side til you are 100.
good night.
"cut and run" Democrats are the
Republicans. Bush has been milking
that line ever since the invasion.
It's a taunt, really, consistent with
The Bush, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Rove
approach to politics. But that's all
beside the point.
I can appreciate your enthusiasm
for combat operations, Maxwell.
I'm inspired by your courage.
I think the American public has been
patient with the Bush administration
and very supportive of the war on
terrorism. There are a few points
that have eaten away at support.
1) There's something a little
annoying about an administration
that labels critics and all Democrats
as cowards and traitors.
2) When top field commanders
start speaking out against, that
carries some weight. In my time,
that's not been the norm, and
those generals are courageous.
I haven't heard Rush call them
traitors.
3) The consensus around
Washington is that the commander
in chief has his head up it. The
Middle East is a very complicated
place.
4) There are a few nagging
points about the attack on the
trade center. The way the
buildings came down, especially
building number seven, remains
very curious. Investigations were
blocked.
5) There are some major conflicts
of business and political interest
on the parts of the principal
decision makers that suggest
a change in management might
not be a bad idea.
6) When you consider the
expense and the fact that the
terrorists seem to be handling
this thing, you wonder if
there might not be a better
way to deal with it.
7) Classic military strategy
discourages deploying in
urban areas. The longer
the army is in the city, the
more the odds favor the
guerillas.
8) America's religious screwballs
seem to have a lot of influence
in this administration.
9) The right wing of the
Republican Party is insensitive
to the concerns of many Americans
that our own rights are going
down the tubes, in the name of
domestic intelligence.
------
Those are a few of the factors
that seem to have no easy
answers. I think our leaders
in Washington are a pretty
sorry bunch. The Democrats
don't seem to have a plan,
but at least they have shown
themselves open to debate
and willing to listen to the
experts. I'm a registered
Republican, but I'm not into
this current bunch.
Fudd would have asked Wepubwican oah Democwat.,
2) The generals feel the
civilians in control won't
listen to reason.
3) The President has the
(lowest approval rating of
the past 100 years.
4) Google "Controversy
surrounding 9-11"
"The 9-11 videos"
Last week the BYU
engineering prof who
has been public took
early retirement to
pursue the topic.
5) It started with
VP Cheney's top secret
energy conference
in 2004.
6) If this administration
won't listen to the highest
field commanders, what makes
you think they want my two
cents. I'll be glad to put my
thoughts out. Give me a moment.
Basically, I'll take it from the
principle of (7)
8) We agree on that.
9) This is a President who
has issues with the Geneva
Convention.
10) Domestic spying is
the hot button issue.
The suspension of
Search and Seizure,
Reasonable Suspicion,
(I could go on) and other
basic constitutionally
guaranteed rights
is the things that
raise concern, long
term. The administration
is already preconditioning
us to regard drug users
and street criminals as
domestic terrorists. Do you
really think turning the police
loose is the answer? Pre war
Germans did.
Mandi - I hope you made the right decision for you today and I look forward to reading your update later.
Every war this country has fought has gone badly for years. Democracies do not do wars well.
Always remember that the most unpopular war in this country's history was the revolution, followed closely by the civil war.
Think back to 1975, or research it. Imagine those Vietnamese, dripping from the final U.S. helicopters- some falling to their deaths-as the United States pulled out of South Vietnam. Think of the genocidal hordes from the North...swooping into the vacuum, and the MILLIONS of South Vietnamese butchered, with us their only hope. Think of those fleeing, and being cut down. Think of the boat refugees-
It will be that very disgrace on the United States, replayed, if Democrats are victorious, and pull out.
We are certainly a more honourable country than that.
I really shouldn't waste my time, but I was just thinking how Maxwell kept accusing me of being too influenced by the media and to look to Fox for answers. First of all, here in NYC, Rupert Murdoch owns the NY Post and I get to see that rags headlines everyday which is enough propaganda for me. I am more liberal than any media I have found. But I will never change his mind. If you want to learn something, Maxwell, read Dickens. That is where we are headed with the economic policies started by Reagan and Thatcher and continued by this administration.
Republicans are making us hated throughout the world. That does not make us safer. And they have squandered soldiers lives that we might need when a real enemy shows up, not one we manufactured.
Only Republicans blame the mayor or the governor for what happened in New Orleans. A real president, a smart president would have taken action much, much sooner instead of looking to blame people beneath him. What he did and did not do was a crime.
No one here was rude to you or acted like you have acted. You are nothing more than a little boy in a big body throwing a fit because the majority don't agree with you.
You have done nothing but hype the war and terrorists. You completely ignore the state of the US as "media hype."
You completely dismissed everything I told you about the real world, because you are too busy playing with your rifle.
You have no one to be responsible for but yourself and have no clue what it means to have kids in this world.
You have the brain and mouth to make an argument last as long as you like, but do you have the commom sense to see when it is time to shut up?
"You think, "leave Iraq and the war is over"
I never said I voted democrat becasue of Iraq. You just don't listen to anyone but yourself.
next issue:
"Mandi, you are blind to the world around you"
My grandparents survived world war 2, read my articles entitled "imagine"
I traveled to Europe 3 times before I was 13.
I am married to a soldier who has been to combat 4 times. FOUR TIMES.
I have been a single teen mom with no health care.
I have been single for 22 years and married for 13 years
I have had an abortion
I have raised a child to adulthood
I have had money and not had money
I cared for my grandmother by myself for 8 years, and was with her when she died.
Just because you are a reservist doesn;t mean you know it all.
When you have a long marriage and kids and some maturity you will realize what a blow hard you were in your youth.
next issue:
"The media has spent years putting misleading information into your head, and you soaked it right up"
Before this year the only time I watched the news was during an election and when the twin towers fell. All of my knowledge of our country is from living it. LIVING IT>> I have only said that to you how many times??? But you just don;t hear it. You just keep hyping on the war and the media.
The democrats have the house, a woman is the speaker of the house and the senate will be come after the republicans hold our country hostage once again and see they have truly lost.
I am done with debating with you, someone who may be world wise (IE: war) but has no clue what the state of America is.
By the way, all of my comments that you coppied were written to a child after he said:
Spider Woman, I know. But some people just aren't worth it. I enjoy an intelligent debate with people I respect, and I'm sure you've read some of those debates I've participated in. This is not an intelligent debate, I'm just goofing on these idiots. If they were able to make good points, or even give good reasons for being wrong, I'd be more respectful and try to change their minds, or at least try to find a compromise. Even a good understanding of each other's position is satisfying. The people here just aren't worth it. They aren't smart enough to understand a good point if it pricks 'em in their _______(be creative). I hope you don't think I'm an idiot just because I'm participating in some banter.
Is a real jerk....
Emma, thanks for the laugh!
You are the good soldier. Had you been born in Germany, during Hitler's time, you would be defending Hitler. You like to follow and never question authority. I always wondered how the soldiers and officers of despots throughout history justified themselves. But you have explained yourself clearly here.
You say you have no mercy for the enemy. You say you want freedom the media so you won't have to worry 'about being politically correct' for six months in a war. You say you have participated in things that most Americans would consider immoral. Well, so have the nazis, so have the roman soldiers who fed Christians to the lions. I never understood till now how such people live with themselves.
Pretty scewed up situation George got us in, huh?
I am glad to see you can finally admit democrats have won.
By the way Webb has 7000 more votes than Allen.. there are only a couple hundered votes not counted... didn't they teach you math in basic?
And now you are in my husbands head and know how and what he is thinking.
You claim the media is all a lie, yet your information is all correct.. so where do you get your info?
You are pathetic and lonely and grasping at straws.
Your argument is weak and you need botox hon!
Maxwell, do you really think anything you say means anything to me? The more you come to this article or any other article of mine, just increases my cash. You were mildly entertaining in the begin, but now you just show your true colors over and over...
You won't last here...
cha-ching
cha-ching
Perhaps this will not change your opinion - but being a journalist who has worked for some of the largest news organizations across the world for years, I can attest to the fact that the media IS A LIE!!! My oldest and dearest friend is a wartime correspondent - he was embedded in Afghanistan and then Iraq up until last year. His network - MSNBC... We have had NUMEROUS discussions on this topic- he has witnessed first hand, so many positive events occurring in Iraq. The gratefulness of the Iraqis to the US. The enormous progress our initiatives and troops are making. How the troops support this mission wholeheartedly (though am sure there are a handful who disagree). Positive story after positive story that he reported on; MSNBC pulled the plug on - and would not air even ONE of them.
Basically, good news- is NO news, according to network standards.
On top of it, both I and my brother currently work with many soldiers and high ranking officials just returning to the States from Iraq. They ALL mirror Maxwell's sentiments. All are PRO war, all BELIEVE in this mission. One high ranking officer that we know, has SEEN the WMDs with his own eyes... These men and women are not liars - they are the most honourable among us. If this does not suit your position, feel free to take your shots at me. It changes naught. The truth is the truth and does not change due to one's inability to stomach it.
I said very plainly (twice I believe) that I don't watch the news. All of my feelings and knowledge come from my own life...
Maxwell is the one with a hard about "news"
Journalists should really get the facts before spotuing.
cha-ching
cha-ching
how smart can maxwell be.. hmmm...
cha-ching
cha-ching
poor little maxwell, has nothing left but to call people names....
litle maxwell runs home to think of more names to call people.
"you people are dumb, WAAAA!!! you don't agree with me... You're stupid... WAAA!!!" litle maxwell runs home to think of more names to call people.
cha-ching
yeah that really sounds like a great fight for republicans..
CHA-CHING
My husband being a senior NCO says it's not a problem at all to do with a few phone calls.