Jan 8, 2007

Iraq supporters ignore logic and mounting evidence the invasion was a mistake

After the 9/11 report, the Iraq Study Group Report and admissions by the people who plunged us into this misguided Iraq fiasco, there are still people out there who actually believe the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks have something to do with Iraq and still support this insane mess.

I know it’s amazing, but it’s true. I haven’t posted much lately because I have been wasting my time debating one of our two conservative wingnut bloggers in Livingston County that the Iraq fiasco is the reason we have not had a terrorist attack in the U.S., and that we should invade Iran and Syria next. I normally prefer to write about local and state political issues that have more of an effect on my daily life, but after reading about the funeral of the ninth solider from Livingston County killed in Iraq I would say it has had a huge effect on our lives here in Michigan.

The argument is that because of Iraq, “we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over there,” and the only reason we have not had a terrorist attack in five long years is because of Iraq. They ignore the fact that terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are very rare, and Middle Eastern terrorists have only pulled off two such attacks in our 216-year history. That’s an average of 108 years. Talk to me in 108 years. The fact is they ignore any logical argument they disagree with, and they even ignore the men they profess to have great respect for when they say Iraq was a bad idea, like President Gerald Ford.

They ignore the fact that Iraq has created more terrorists than it has killed. It’s like the Pearl Harbor for them, and how many young men joined the U.S. Military after the attack on Pearl Harbor? A lot.

The latest surprise came from a former soldier from Pinckney, who says,
“So I ask this question: To those who say we shouldn't be in Iraq, who asked the thousands of people who died on 9-11 what they wanted? Who asked them if they wanted to die, if they were ready to serve our country?

So I ask this question: What does the Iraq mess have to do with 9/11?

I would rather celebrate them and their courage and bravery, duty and honor, than to send any kind of message that I don't support them.

I think supporting the troops means a lot more than putting a flag on their graves on Memorial Day. It means ensuring the civilian leadership that controls the military only places them in harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary, ensure they have the proper equipment, ensure they have a clear mission and they know what and how to achieve victory. None of those conditions have been met in Iraq. It also means taking care of them when they return.

Like Mr. Prescott, I am both proud and honored to be called an American, a retired member of the U. S. Armed Forces and a citizen of this great country.

1 comment:

styler61 said...

The Iraq war had nothing to do with 911 directly but a failing middle east which was facing a pinnacle of ante Western ideas during the Clinton years. You can put a liberal spin on this and blame the West for its dealings but this still doesn’t negate the issue. They are governed by a in-flexible ideology which has stifled there progress not allowing them to over come any hurdles in the modern world weather its coming from the out side or in. And I would argue it’s more from with-in.

Look, the American just did something that every country bordering Iraq wanted to see happen (especially Iran). They got rid of Sadom. And you guys did it at your own expense and I’m not talking just talking money. Now look what’s happening, the Middle East if going through an economic explosion at $100 barrel oil. There is not one country in the Middle East willing to help out money wise. The Middle East is getting there pesky extremis issues looked after while keeping a low profile. You can argue there more of them now but now its not just there problem. The numbers who held hatred towards the West was always there but now we are forced to deal with it. The Middle East knows change is not possible until the extremis are contained.

Anyways, I can’t believe the Americans are not wondering were the rest of the Western world hard power is. At some point you have to be thinking how area’s like all of Europe can only have 60,000 people army and not question it. The amount of money places like France, Germany and Canada have saved by letting the USA get there hands dirty for them. You can’t tell me that if we had a Million troupes going into Iraq from the beginning this couldn’t be easily won. On a scale of 1 to 10 this rate s about a 3 in difficulty for the West as wars go (10 being WWII). Years from now they will be talking about were the west was when the USA and Iraq people needed them.

My point is this - if you don’t have the number of people to do the job right! Don’t do it!
- Stop being screwed by your allies and start making them more accountable when it comes to sharing Western military might weather they agree to use it or not. Your allies are not ready to go even if they wanted to. The opportunity was missed in Iraq after an 85% turn out rate for voting in Iraq. The world should have shown up the next day regardless of your feelings towards the decision. But again with what! They have nothing but fear of retaliation on there own soil and what the hell, we have our American excuse.
- One last thing. Stop being duped by Iran. They want the oil field in southern Iraq maybe or at least keep oil up around $100 a barrel. There economy is a shambles. So stop falling for dropping boxes near American war ships, the threat to nuclear power and the killing of the Jews. There manipulating oil prices through your overly hyped media.