Let’s just quit all
So some want to stop the war in Iraq. Let’s put that in perspective.
How about stopping the war on drugs? That’s not working. Or what about stopping the war on crime? That’s not going well. And unwed mothers — shall we just drop that cause? School dropouts — how about stopping that war? Etc., etc.
Americans take up causes to win and it’s not always easy, but we need to stay in the race.
Betty Wallace, Cedaredge
The war on drugs is not working because like the war on terror it is taking place in the wrong place. The people who are planning to attack America don't live in Iraq. And the war on drugs needs to take place in America where the market is.
It's not a matter of quitting but a matter of changing from failed tactics to successful ones. You got a problem with that? You can't win a race unless you are on the right race course.
Posted by Truth on May 7, 2007 06:49 AMBetty, it is not a "war in Iraq". We are occuying Iraq. We have chosen puppets to take the resources and enslave the people in Iraq.
I think enslaving people and stealing their property in immoral, and very bad. I think tranfroming US soldiers into murderers and thieves is bad. We should leave Iraq now.
I would legalize drugs and allow adults to buy inexpensive, pure, known strength drugs, just like we do with alcohol. I would let unwed mothers chose whatever they feel is best for them ( though I would not grant them government subsidies to raise their offspring).
Law enforcement is not a "war" on crime and I would vigorously and fairly enforce the law. Imagine returning the 11 million illegal aliens to their home countries. Imagine recovering from those countries the billions of dollars thier citizens cost the US.
Jump out of your WAR mindset. Put down your mindless Jingo emotions. Grow up and stop being cheated by Do-Gooders, Big Oil, and the New World Order.
Posted by Dave on May 7, 2007 07:03 AMYou can't win the race...
Precisely! And the race is in the middle east. If we quit we will merely end up bringing the race home. Anyone who doubts that should remember 9/11/2001. But too many want to forget and they will until the next time. The media and the liberals want to kill that memory so they won't show the pictures we were bombarded with for a week because they are too traumatic.
May the next attack also be confined to one small place so those who prefer to ignore reality won't be bothered. Iraq is and was place where terrorists felt safe until we got serious about this fight. Witness the one terrorist leader who hightailed it to iran when we changed some of the rules so soldiers could fight. Now get ready for the congressional cowards on both sides who will try to find defeat and doom in any way they can.
Just wait. It will happen if we don't take care of this now.
Bush is guilty of not letting them fight. Someday we may have a president who doesn't try to fight a war by following Roberts Rules of Order. That is one thing he can and should change NOW.
momma y,
"And the race is in the middle east. If we quit we will merely end up bringing the race home."
Of all the pro-Iraq slaughter rhetoric, this is the most blatantly stupid. Why would Iraqi's follow us home? How would they get here?
Momma y, you continually prove that you know NOTHING about Iraq or the Middle East. You are as ignorant as they come.
Posted by Charles B on May 7, 2007 07:35 AMBetty,
What do YOU suggest we do?
We are never going to win the war in Iraq because we can't afford to take the only action that would end it...drop a nuclear bomb.
We will never win this war on the ground.
And, I'm sure that as far as hundreds of millions of muslims around the world are concerned, we lost this war the moment we started it.
We need a president who has the courage to admit that this war was a mistake. It takes a hell of a lot more courage to admit that your country did something wrong that it does to keep fighting a war that we have already lost.
Yes...already lost. Iraq is in civil war. The removal of Saddam created a power vaccuum and dozens of men, women and children are being brutually murdered or blown up every day by factions that are fighting to take his place. That is CIVIL WAR.
We didn't win anything in Iraq. We didn't defeat terrorism. We just created misery and chaos for the people that live there and more enemies for ourselves.
Walking away from this war may be hard to swallow, but in the long run it may be the wisest thing we can do.
Charles B
Of all the anti-Bush rhetoric, this is the most blatantly stupid. As long as we have a military presence in the middle east much of the terrorist assets will be directed there, which means those Bombs are not available for use here or in other places. That is good fror us. I chose a safer USA over a safer Iraq.
Charles B, you continually prove that you know NOTHING about Iraq or the Middle East. You are as ignorant as they come.
Posted by Charles B on May 7, 2007
Posted by on May 7, 2007 08:08 AMWhat this letter-writer fails to acknowledge is that a lot of people in this country never wanted us to start a war in Iraq to begin with, including myself. So, you can't call us quitters for something we never supported at all.
In fact, I would call supporters of the war in Iraq quitting the cause against terrorism - because they support an administration who deems bin Laden "irrelevant," who caved into him by removing our troops in Saudi Arabia after 9/11, and who limited the amount of troops we should have in Afghanistan to once and for all wipe out terrorism and the Afghanistan drug trade that funds them.
Posted by mytwosense on May 7, 2007 08:09 AMThe removal of Saddam created a power vaccuum and dozens of men, women and children are being brutually murdered or blown up every day by factions that are fighting to take his place.
No kidding. Did anyone see the news report about the video circulating of a 12 year old Kurdish boy slitting the throat of a suspected "traitor"? These are brutal, barbaric people who kill at random, commit "honor" gang rapes of their women, and generally terrorize each other.
Why are we putting American men and women's lives in dangers and spending billions of dollars trying to "stabilize" that mess? It seems their citizens are just as brutal as the political factions who want to rule them.
I know, I know...it's the oil. But if we were using those same resources to come up with alternative energy, we would be so ahead by now and closer to a day where we never had to be dependent on foreign oil ever again.
Posted by mytwosense on May 7, 2007 08:14 AMmomma y: "You can't win the race...Precisely! And the race is in the middle east. If we quit we will merely end up bringing the race home."
Poor momma y. She apparently has the mistaken impression that Iraq and the Middle East are synonyms.
The problem in Iraq is primarily the insurgency in which the two sects are killing each other, not planning to attack America. It is in other parts of the Middle East that that there is a race to attack America.
But in devoting so much of our resources to Iraq, we have significantly reduced our ability to deal with those parts of the Middle East from which we are threatened.
Posted by Truth on May 7, 2007 09:39 AM
its so nice to see chas b and druth showing how concerned they are for thier fellow americans. NAME CALLING IS ALL YOU CAN DO.
druth it is so nice to see you have the IQ of 3 points below plant life. war on drugs belongs here because of the market? why not destroy the business and that will eliminate the market, but as a lock step moron you would rather act tough and talk mean, than ever do anthing to prevent something from happening. if your tax loving libreal left socalist in office really want to get a lot of tax money have them ligalize pot and sell it and tax it. so long drug dealers.
now please show your childish beavior and beging the name calling. if you need help chas b is always around.
Posted by on May 7, 2007 10:17 AM10:17AM:
I have a name for you: "hypocrite".
Th only "name" I called momma y was: "ignorant".
As for the rest: Truth Hurts?
Posted by Charles B on May 7, 2007 10:43 AM"What this letter-writer fails to acknowledge is that a lot of people in this country never wanted us to start a war in Iraq to begin with"
Except the dems in congress who voted for action in Iraq. But as the popular opinion changes with the wind, now they claiming they were "tricked" into voting for action.
Now why again would you want to elect people to congress who are tricked by (what the left describes as) the "most stupid president ever?"
Posted by KW on May 7, 2007 11:58 AMIn the last few episodes of violence in Iraq, our troops were almost collalteral damage in "their" war. If we left, would they even notices?
There is no shame in being short on information, but willful ignorance, when you can learn the truth, is disgusting.
Think Mommy, think. The Iraqs are church mouse poor, how will they afford to get here?
They don`t speak anything close to English.
They look to be skinny and missing teeth, so their health isn`t so good , yet they can get here?
And they can get bombs here, unless they explode over there.
Mommy use your head, just stop listening to whoever makes you think this stuff.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 7, 2007 12:03 PMExcept the dems in congress who voted for action in Iraq. But as the popular opinion changes with the wind, now they claiming they were "tricked" into voting for action.Now why again would you want to elect people to congress who are tricked by (what the left describes as) the "most stupid president ever?"
KW, I am in full agreement with you about dems who switch their positions based on what is politically safe.
But when are you going to acknowledge that Dennis Kucinich didn't and doesn't? In fact, he called out all the other candidates during the debate and said, "You had the same information I did, so why are you saying you'd do it differently if you knew then what you know now?"
I know you hate Kucinich, but would it kill you to acknowledge he does not fall into that category of legislators you mention? He voted against the war from the beginning and has always voted against its funding!
Posted by mytwosense on May 7, 2007 12:28 PM"KW, I am in full agreement with you about dems who switch their positions based on what is politically safe."
Unfortunately, this is about 75% of them, so we get to choose between a spineless political party and a bullheaded stupidity political party. Such wonderful options.
Posted by No use on May 7, 2007 02:05 PMMTS - I think it's great for a candidate to have courage of their convictions, standing up for what they believe regardless of political fallout.
The problem with Kucinich is he's a bit out of touch with reality. This combined with supreme power could put us in a worse position than we are at now.
Posted by KW on May 7, 2007 02:09 PMAnd the part that nobody is talking about..
After that tornado wiped out a small town in Kansas this weekend, the governor was on TV this morning saying that one of the biggest issues they have in responding to it is that more than half of their national guard..and their equipment..are in Iraq so they're going to have to rely on other states and private companies, at a much higher cost to taxpayers, for assistance in the search and recovery efforts as well as reconstruction.
Posted by Thomas on May 7, 2007 02:10 PMMTS - I think it's great for a candidate to have courage of their convictions, standing up for what they believe regardless of political fallout.
The problem with Kucinich is he's a bit out of touch with reality. This combined with supreme power could put us in a worse position than we are at now.
Not exactly the direct acknowledgement I was hoping for, but I'll take what I can get! :)
You know, everyone said he was out of touch with reality when he refused to vote for the Iraq war the first time. Now the rest of the dem candidates are trying to play catch up, the weasels.
Posted by mytwosense on May 7, 2007 02:24 PMThomas - You need to stop relying on mediamatters to get your news. Your news source apparently forgot to mention:
"The president has declared parts of Kansas a disaster area, freeing up federal money to aid in recovery.""Bush said Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., briefed him on the destruction."
And why is it important to keep the Govs party affiliation a secret, yet Sen. Roberts being a Republican is clearly identified? I guess it always depends where you get your news from.
Posted by KW on May 7, 2007 03:23 PM