Stay the Course
It is a widely accepted fact that we need to stay the course in iraq and support the troops. This will improve the troops moral greatly. Why would you want to be negatory towards the troops? that will cause more troops to die. Why do people hate america so much? Ill tell you. Theyre jealous. 300 years ago when we declared our independence, that was a HUGE ordeal. Nothing like this had ever happened in the history of our world. And now everyones trying to become the same thing we are right now. I look back at our history, and I see a lot of people going through some hard times, but never the less working together to create a nation of greatness. And now look at us. This is the greatest nation in the world, and I am proud to Pledge my Allegiance to it.
Lord, where is our freedom?
When will our hope begin?
Lord, what of the promise you made?
When will it come?
We have waited for the time,
for the truth to live,
when justice will shine.
Too long, those hands of Greed,
Held on, and made us bleed.
When will your people breathe?
Lord, will it come?
posted by Bushcheney08 @ 5:20 PM
23 comments
23 Comments:
It may have started because they wanted to be like us. But if you're talking about terrorism, I'm pretty sure that's not the same reason.
So having more then one reson to be in Iraq makes it bad?
I think he's trying to talk about now. Stop forgeting about when we first went in there and just look at now. We're making progress and our troops deserve more credit than they're getting.
Our troops have tons and tons of support. It's easy to confuse support for the war with support for the troops. To me, supporting them means bringing them home.
I was referring though to the reason that "they" hate us. For some it may be jealously, but not for most. Americans tend to be full of themselves, and the government isn't much different.
Great post!
As far as Americans being full of themselves, I must take issue with that comment. Which is more arrogant, to depose a brutal dictator and give people a shot at democracy or to stand back, watch people suffer and then condemn those who wish to alleviate their suffering? Which is more arrogant, to be the ones keeping the world safe from terrorists or to stand back, contribute nothing to the effort and then ridicule those who are laying it all on the line for the sake of others?
Who is full of themselves? Compared to the Useless Nations, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job.
By the way, are you in the market for another writer?
Nightcrawler, good comment. I absolutely agree with you! I am sick at heart about people condemning us for trying our best to alleviate the suffering of others in this world. Perhaps, if Allisoni lived in Iraq before we went in there, where women were treated as less than cattle, she would have a better appreciation for what America has done for her than she has for what America has done for her in her present life... ya think?
The problem here is that Americans have become spoiled. They take for granted all the great freedoms this country gives them. And they do not understand that their constant complaining about America makes them look like spoiled children complaining about Mom & Dad being too restrictive! I truly don't get it! Americans, with the greatest freedom in this entire world, unapreciative and complaining about everything! And if Bush pulled out of Iraq and we were bombed to hell and back, then they would all begin to yell that it was Bush's fault and we pulled out too soon! He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't, and there is no way around it but to not let them get control of this country ever again.
And I am really having my patience tested with these people who say "support for the troops means bringing them home!" If they would even bother to read www.michaelyon.blogspot.com they would understand that even the troops don't appreciate that sort of condesencion. They are there doing the job they feel is important, not only to Iraq, but to America as well, and people like Allisoni don't get it. They just do not understand that "you cannot support the troops without supporting the effort", and when all you do is yack about "bringing them home" (like Mother Sheehan) you disregard the effort of every soldier over there and of every soldier who has died to keep Allisoni and her like from having her head chopped off, or her family blown up by a murdering, psycopathic terrorist.
When God passed out common sense, these people were standing in the wrong line.
Yes, nightcrawler, we are in the market for another writer. You must leave your e-mail address here, though, in order to be included. If your worried about spam, it will be deleted as soon as the invitation is sent to your e-mail.
Nightcrawler, I'm sending you "the e-mail" right now.
Tara and Walter, if you ever decide to join you are welcome.
"...you disregard the effort of every soldier over there and of every soldier who has died to keep Allisoni and her like from having her head chopped off, or her family blown up by a murdering, psycopathic terrorist."
Good lord, Gayle. Yes, soldiers died for my freedom at one point in history. However, not THIS point. You and all of your fellow Republicans constantly contradict yourself. You start talking about bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, and how we wouldn't be very nice to sit back and watch them suffer. Yet, wait, what about the terrorists? Aren't we battling them (excuse me, making them angrier) for our own sake? That's a jusitification too. PICK ONE. We aren't there because of the people that were suffering, and it is sick that so many people have jumped on the bandwagon thinking that, or at least using it as an excuse. It has to do with US. With the concerns of the UNITED STATES. Not of Iraq. Concerns that weren't even valid, considering the threat didn't exist.
In the past, there has been justification for war. There isn't now, and I will not change my mind no matter what any war supporter tells me. No matter what move Bush makes now, he has already screwed himself, his country, and Iraq a hundred times over. You can admit that yourself, unless you can find a better solution to suggest.
allosoni balloni said...
Yes, soldiers died for my freedom at one point in history. However, not THIS point.
Ever heard of a little incident called 9/11?
Allosoni balloni also said...
Aren't we battling them (excuse me, making them angrier)
Coward. You're afraid of our enemies getting angrier? Coward. I'm not, I believe in the US military keeping us safe.
Yes, September 11th occured because of terrorists, thus the reason we went to AFGHANISTAN. Go back and fight there, find Osama, and I will have nothing to complain about.
You want the terrorists to get angrier? I certainly don't. But it's interesting that you'd like to make them hate us more and continue to create them.
Al-Qaeda is in both Afganistan and Iraq right now. The Iraq war isn't protecting your freedom, but it is protecting your life. We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11. You know why? We did something about them. We got in there and we kicked some butt. Clinton on the other hand did nothing, and that didn't stop terrorist attacks.
You've got to look at the big picture. We are in Iraq now, but we're just taking the first step toward a safer middle east.
I'm not going to argue that going in there was justified, because it may not be although we are making outstanding progress. However, I will argue that going in there was worth it in the long run.
*sigh*... Liberals.
What else can you say?
(word verification: bikwohst- is that really necessary? lol)
I never got that e-mail! my address is saic_guru_79@yahoo.com
Okay, I sent "the e-mail" hopefully you'll get it this time, I might have gotten the address wrong last time...
Clinton had no reason to have immediate concern about terrorist attacks. Neither did Bush, until 9/11. Not really a good attack.
There is plenty of evidence that Clinton had every reason to have immediate concern about terrorist attacks and that he ignored it. I am not going to go to the trouble to bring up links on this, because you will simply ignore them, as you will more than likely ignore the charges made by Mr. Freeh. We should not have waited until 9/11 to confront this problem in the first place.
still no stupid e-mail! Grrrr...
I would gladly read the links if you post them. Yes, action should have been taken earlier, but Clinton was not the one in the White House when warnings were received in August, 2001. Also, Bush didn't act on any of the threat at all until it was reality, which really has nothing to do with Clinton anyway.
I'm trying nightcrawler. I sent it again.
It is NOT "a widely accepted fact" that we need to stay the course in Iraq. It is a hotly debated decision.
I know many of y'all are quite young, but you need to keep in mind when making arguments the difference between facts and opinions. It actually helps your arguments sound more reasonable and sane.
Saying things such as, "It is a fact that America is the best country on the planet," makes for juvenile-sounding arguments. You'd do better to say something such as:
"I think the USA is the best country in the world. We've led the way for many years in assisting other countries, in offering our own citizens the liberty to choose their own paths and state their own opinions and in giving opportunity for our citizens to have a higher standard of living than nearly anywhere else..."
By insisting that something is a fact or 100% true that is objectively an opinion, not a fact, you actually decrease the weight behind your point instead of increasing it.
Food for thought.
Dan said: Saying things such as, "It is a fact that America is the best country on the planet," makes for juvenile-sounding arguments.
So you haven't accutually read my post on that issue huh? We're not all kids either (even if I am). Do some profile viewing.
Post a Comment
<< Home