The cost of a life
I would like to ask one question of Congress. How many barrels of oil is your son worth?
This letter has not been edited.
20 million a day give or take, and rising I might add.
How's that work for ya?
So if ones buys your vailed "War for Oil" analogy, how many barrels a day is it worth to you to keep your present life style? Car? Job? Income? Cost of groceries? Clothes? Anything you need to sustain life as you know it?
Since we can't use our own natural resources to bridge the gaps. We've got to secure it in any fashion necessary. Is that the answer your looking for?
But hey, it's still a volunteer based armed forces. If you don't have the balls to go where ever the President of the USA deems needed. Don't raise your right hand and swear to do so. Keep your pansy ass planted on the couch playing video games...
Posted by on September 25, 2007 02:31 PM2:31-Speaking of "pansy-ass" , you don't even seem to have the balls to SIGN your stupid regurgitation in this blog. Your nastiness impresses no one, and, speaking of balls, having the balls to call this president on being WRONG about most everything he has said and done takes MORE balls than you have.Blindly following him takes no guts.Spouting off like a schoolyard bully just allows you to look like what you are, an angry, pathetic soul.
Posted by Roland on September 25, 2007 02:44 PMSince you asked this question of congress, you sent your letter to the wrong address.
Posted by on September 25, 2007 03:04 PMRoland
How much is freedom worth? We have freedom but it is under attack. We have pursued the attackers, rightly or wrongly, and are fighting them with guns and bullets. Unfortunately they are not fighting according to our rules.
They have failed to face us directly in that war but continue to attack the civilians who also desire freedom knowing that there are those in our society with power and no courage to fight an enemy.
The attack on us was cowardly but effective and the attacks on the soldiers and others are made from what we could call a "shoot them in the back" strategy. In war it is permitted. The only rule of war is to win. We have forgotten that. Until we remember we will suffer at the hands of an enemy we could defeat quickly.
I cannot choose for anyone else. I can and do support those who have made the choice to defend our country and are risking their lives to do so. Many of them are just like us, ordinary people,. As civilians we would not even notice them. As soldiers we hope for their safety and success. As citizens I suggest we continue to question the actions of politicians. Challenge Bush and his supporters for how and why they have managed the war. Challenge his opponents on how and why they have decided to choose defeat and denial along with vocal statements that mirror the statements of our enemy.
Any war is difficult. The length of this one is not going to be measured in political terms because this enemy will take advantage of those who have tired of war and wish to make an end. Another attack will come and then we can either continue fighting where and how we are now or quit then have to decide this all over again. Our enemy will not give up nor change tactics. They will eventually run out of followers willing to sacrifice themselves and the resources to attack us. When and how that happens is unclear to all at the moment. We have to do the most difficult thing of all: wait.
mommy y: "We have pursued the attackers, rightly or wrongly, and are fighting them with guns and bullets. "
This is simply bunk, at least as far as Iraq goes. Iraq had nothing, nada, zip to do with 9-11. Al-Quaeda, operating for the most part out of Afghanistan, and perpetrated for the most part by Saudi nationals, did the actual "attacking".
We started out attacking our attackers in Afghanistan - then for ever-changing reasons we were led into Iraq.
Look, if you support the war in Iraq I'll respect your position. But please don't repeat the tired old Iraq/9-11 connections.
Iraq did not attack us. We attacked them. It's embarassing to me that people still parrot the belief that Iraq was behind 9-11.
Posted by Tim on September 25, 2007 03:49 PMRoley-poley... Speaking of regurgitation... I seem to recall numerous posts with your constant whining about blindly following Bush on every issue. It's a sad old, used, worn argument that impresses no one.
Just because one doesn't subscribe to your side of the argument, it's deemed blindly following...
I've been there, served and don't regret a minute of it. I knew what I was getting into and I didn't need my daddy to whine to congress about MY decision to join.
Sure makes me well up to see that my fellow country men turn tail and get out of dodge when things don't go as planned. Thanks for your support...
Posted by on September 25, 2007 04:06 PMTim
I stated a fact that we ARE fighting. I also included that is might be done rightly or wrongly because there is room for dissent. I believe we need to keep the heat on both sides to resolve this responsibly.
Posted by momma y on September 25, 2007 04:12 PMAmerica isn't at war. Her working and poor families are supplying the funding and body-bags (sitting ducks and targets) for this oil grab and extermination of Arabs. For the past years our rich families have been great at starting wars, however, when the bullets start flying, their "blood and treasure" break for the ski slopes, shopping malls, college, Palo Alto, Tampa Bay, etc. All volunteer military. 55% of the "soldier-draftees" killed in Vietnam (in-country) were black, while we only comprised 12% of the nation's entire population. Since the Vietnam War "all volunteer" is a racist scheme, to pimp and exploit black men. The key trick is to have unemployment rates for blacks, that is twice that of whites. Simple and basic plantation math. Dale Carneige, "can't touch this".
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on September 25, 2007 07:15 PMdraftdodgingisntafamilyvalue watch out they are on to you. No one else has it nearly as bad. It's just you.
Posted by on September 25, 2007 07:23 PMmomma y dodged the question:
"I stated a fact that we ARE fighting. I also included that is might be done rightly or wrongly because there is room for dissent.
What a cop-out. Do you think attacking Iraq is fighting them (who attacked us) wrongly? That's where the bulk of our resources, both blood and treasure, are going. Try taking a position rather than sitting on the fence.
Posted by Charles B. on September 25, 2007 07:33 PMTim,
Concerning Iraq's not attacking us on 9/11, so what?
Hitler and Mussolini had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor either, but we went to war against Germany and Italy anyway.
Bosnia also never attacked us, but, under Clinton, we went to war there anyway.
Tim
I approve of the attack on Iran NOT because they did the 9/11 attacks but because they gave assistance to al Quaeda leaders and because they supported terrorism and celebrated any attack on the US. They were a country where terrorism was taught and preached and encouraged. It was a safe haven for terrorists. We all heard the words, "going to be a long fight" and "if you are not with us you are against us." "We will fight this enemy anywhere. If you harbor these terrorists we will hold you responsible and take the appropriate actions." We don't have to agree on the actions. We must agree on what IS happening.
My loudest complaint is that we aren't fighting a war, we're hosting a tea party. Let the soldiers fight without restrictions. That will make the difference. If not I'll start screaming about pulling out the troops.
Charles B. 7:33-
What part of global war on terrorism and those that sponsor it don't you understand?
4:06-
Thanks for your service buddy, there are plenty behind you.
Grab a screen name and hang around.
Posted by Get Real on September 25, 2007 09:46 PM40acres.... You trotted out the ole 55% of the KIA were black again. How many times do we have to disprove it by the governments own count? 12.6% of the KIA in Vietnam were black. Please stop using this lie.
We did not go into Iraq for 9/11. There were 21 resolutions voted on by Congress. 7 of them dealt with WMDs and the rest for various other transgressions by Saddam. So, the two are not connected, except tenuously.
So, now that we have that established, we can drop the silly bumper sticker slogans and "war for oil" rhetoric and actually discuss the problem.
The government makes mistakes in war, it happens. It happened in every war since the Spartans. Now, we are trying to leave a functioning republic in the middle east. Will it be tough? yep. Is it impossible? nope. Did Bush ever say it was going to be easy? nope.
Like it or not, we are in a war against fascism. I say we win it.
Posted by Dravur on September 26, 2007 08:54 AMNo war is valid or justified by political necessity nor financial advantage. The only justification to commit an army to war is to protect the population of the country from those who would destroy it. In this way the purpose is clear and unquestionable. However, this means that the war must be against the enemies of the country, without complication of hidden agendas.
The enemy of our country is not any other country but a segment within that country. Invading a country to make war upon a segment of it's society is a very questionable tactic in that it must be expected that those in that country that are not the enemies will suffer equally with those who are the enemies. When this is complicated by religious belief nothing is clear, all depends on whether that belief is more important than the wrongs done in it's name.
To overcome the beliefs of people is a generational thing at least and, when children are taught a radical interpretation of that belief from the time they can crawl to adulthood, an unrestricted occupation over generations employing absolutly dictatorial means is the only hope of success, and history has proven this tactic fails more times than not.
Those who think there is a quick fix in Iraq, or for that matter anywhere else in the mideast, are ignoring the thousands of years of social and political customs and teachings instlled in the very psyche of the people of that region. We in this country have lived in freedom, albeit some of which is under assault in these times, and have no way of understanding how dictatorial religious law could possibly exist for so long a time. But freedom of thought and chioce is a unique aspect of American thinking. It must be remembered that up until the time of the American revolutionary war, those freedoms did not exist previously in all of recorded history.
It can only be seen as arrogance to expect those who have twenty centuries and more of the opposite social structure beliefs to drop those tenets of belief and blindly except that which they have no understanding of.
Anyone who thinks we will win simply because we are right is dealing in arrogance and ignoring the truth and that is a mixture that can only insure defeat of the intensions so foolishly thought to be devinely right.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 26, 2007 08:54 AMAccept not except. Just caught that error.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 26, 2007 09:41 AMOne Question I have for the people who claim this is about oil.
Where is the oil and why are we paying high gas prices?
If the administration is taking oil from the Iraq oil fields,where are they hiding it?
If they are getting oil ,good that should offset the war costs and protection and training of an Iraqi police force and army.
I think these are some questions that need to be answered by our politicians.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on September 26, 2007 09:43 AMstevey,When are you liberal idiots going to realize our troops are fighting people who are trying to kill Americans,not for oil?If you liberal idiots would ever spend some time finding out the facts you would know that.
Posted by Keith on September 26, 2007 10:12 AMI'm not a politician Amen, but I'll go ahead and answer that. The oil in Iraq is not being sold or given to anybody in the US. The oil in Iraq is going to China. Which is reason enough for this administration for wanting to control the output and distribution of it.
The reason we are paying high gas prices is because the countries who produce the oil are tired of getting ripped off by it. Think of it this way: A barrell of oil costs the US $86, we take that barrell and turn it into thousands of gallons of gasoline, at which is charged at $3 a gallon. Now if the countries who produced the oil would be getting a fair amount off that transaction, we would be paying closer to about $5000 -$6000 a barrell.
The administration isn't hiding any oil, they're simply deciding how much of it is going to China at any given time. Don't see a conflict building there?
Posted by Larry on September 26, 2007 10:19 AMI should have known common sense and logical presentation of an idea would hold a far off second place to the fanatical diatribes and the rants and raves of zealots.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 26, 2007 10:40 AMJust because it's common sense and a logical presentation in "your" mind, doesn't make your suppositions true or factual...
Posted by on September 26, 2007 11:42 AMIf I counted the times I've seen Keith hurl "liberal idiot" on this blog and set aside a dollar each time, I'd be a rich man by now. I'll buy him a cigar when I see Keith post something besides insults here and actually offer an objective defense of his opinion instead of regurgitating Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Gunny "Goony" Bob Newman talking points.
Posted by Keith and Hank, Sittin' In A Tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G on September 26, 2007 02:56 PMYo Keith, et al...
If "our troops are fighting people who are trying to kill Americans" as you ever so simplistically say - why aren't we at war with Saudi Arabia? Most of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi nationals.
Got news for ya - there's lots o' folks in the world who don't like us. Some hate us enough to kill - and they come from a whole lot of countries. We can't go to war with them all.
We're training and breeding more future terrorists with our adventure in Iraq than we're taking out.
Posted by Tim on September 26, 2007 03:39 PM