Enter your search terms
Submit search form
Health & Lifestyle
Submitted by John (not verified) on Fri, 03/21/2008 - 7:32am.
You said: "Everyone forgets that all of our political figures agreed on and were convinced that Saddam had WMD's and would use them. They turned coat on our Commander in Chief when they weren't found....cowards." And they are all equally responsible for this. However, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 passed in the House by a vote of 296-133 and in the Senate by a vote of 77-23, so it's hardly accurate to say that "all of our political figures...were convinced that Saddam had WMD's." I, for one, wasn't fooled. There were plenty of commentators and journalists who actually did the work of investigating and knew that this whole WMD story was baloney. You said: "Everyone forgets that Saddam was a very dangerous person that committed genocide on his own people and suppressed the rest." Who was supplying him with weapons when he was engaged in that long, brutal war with Iran? Hint: The United States and Europe. The US looked the other way when Saddam was an ally. Besides, is it the responsibility of the United States to overthrow every dictator? Do other democracies have that right/responsibility? You said: "Everyone forgets that Clinton had the perfect opportunity to shut that bastard down years before and wimped out with his "surgical strikes". All he did was tick them off." Conservatives are so quick to bring up Clinton. But back in the 90s, conservatives hated Clinton for his bellicose foreign policy. in the 90s, it was the conservatives who were antiwar: they didn't want to go all the way to Baghdad because of the quagmire it would cause; they were against the bombing of the former Yugoslavia. You said: "Everyone forgets that Clinton had the perfect opportunity to eradicate Osama Bin Laden, he was too busy seasoning his cigars and redefining what the word "sex" meant. Clinton allowed 911 to occur by his lack of appropriate action." Why stop your historical analysis at Clinton? Clinton is a criminal, just like George W. Bush, and just like Ronald Regan, who armed the Mujahideen because they were fighting the Soviets. The Mujahideen eventually became al-Qaeda. It doesn't matter what party they come from, all of our elected officials are guilty. You said: "Everyone forgets that those troops are over there in the best interest of United States of America and our freedom. The freedoms we have to write here and the right of our media to critcize and belittle what America is trying to defend and protect. This makes me totally sick! Based on the conversations I have with servicemen, what the media prints is completely slanted and inaccurate." First of all, everyone in the military is different. They are human beings, just like us. They have diverse opinions, just like us. It doesn't help to say, "Based on the conversations I have with servicemen, what the media prints is completely slanted and inaccurate," because I could say the same thing. It's just a confirmation bias: if you are pro-war, you're going to give special attention to pro-war voice; if you're antiwar...etc. Second, please define "United States of America." Is the USA our government? Or is it our people? Yes, this war is in the best interest of our government; they've helped their corporate masters become even richer and they've been able to get the media completely under their control. But how has it been in the best interest of the American people? Saddam Hussein was a fourth-rate dictator; his country's infrastructure had been destroyed by bombing and his people were poor and starving because of sanctions. He was completely helpless, and the Bush regime thought he'd be an easy target. You speak in terms of "defend" and "protect," but how are we protected by having our entire army bogged down in one country? It makes no sense. You said: "I rode by one of the public protests on College Rd. and witnessed a protester with a sign that read, "TERRORISTS ARE HUMANS TOO!" This is some more mentality to deal with and proves that those people haven't enough sense to even protest intelligently or effectively. I'm sure as hell glad they didn't make it into our military system!!!" That sign was being held by a particularly disingenuous pro-war counter-protester. He was actually for the war, and he wanted to make us look bad by holding that sigh and standing next to us. By mentioning that particular sign, I am led to believe that you are the one who was holding it. If that's the case, nice try. If it is you, why can't you just be honest? You said: "I was 43 years old when 911 happened. I left work early that day to go to the recruiters station, ready to go and fight, I believed in that. I would rather be totally alone than to have these ignorant cowards people beside me!" Did you know who you were going to fight? Or did you just want to respond to violence with violence? Do you lack the imagination to ponder positive solutions to tragedy, or is it your first instinct to get revenge? It's awfully tacky to mention how brave you were ready to be on 9-11. Just like the president, you're using one of the most terrible things to happen on American soil to make yourself look tough.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
More information about formatting options
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Please re-enter the code shown in the image below.
Tonight on WWAY