Been a while.
Well if you were really interested, you could look at the blog....
HA! I didn't know you were a Freeper! Funny you should pop in just now. I just visited that looney bin about a half hour ago for the first time in quite a while.
"Well if you were really interested, you could look at the blog...."
I stand corrected. I see you've done quite a bit of looking today.
See anything you'd care to discuss?
Bring 'em home now!
Uh - what's a Freeper?
It's slang for a poster at FreeRepublic, a fundy, Repugnican website.
Pam, at Pam's House Blend (link in the sidebar) often posts some of the best quotes from the idiot asylum over there. Funny stuff
From the Wikipedia article...
"The Free Republic community is largely united on certain political staples of the conservative movement, such as opposing liberalism, promoting conservative candidates for various elected offices, abolishing or editing some gun control laws and stopping the creation of new ones, lowering taxes, reducing personal welfare, ending abortion, and opposing what its members consider to be part of the "homosexual agenda", particularly same-sex marriage and the repealing of sodomy laws. On some issues, however, the Free Republic membership is divided. Three main groups can be observed on the forum: neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, and libertarians, with neoconservatism being represented in the large majority of posts. Libertarians arguably remain almost negligible in their numbers on Free Republic, as they are not banned by policy, but widely ridiculed by users with terms such as, "liberal-tarians". A particular example can be found during the Terri Schiavo court battle, when a Libertarian poster argued against George W. Bush's interventionist actions, and was unanimously condemned by hundreds of posters for it -- and ultimately banned for his views. Similarly, opposition to U.S. support for Israel is not tolerated. Divisive issues, which if a conservative is on the 'wrong side' could get them banned from Free Republic, include immigration control and immigrant cultural assimilation, free trade, the defense of the Theory of evolution, the state of the Catholic Church (on the religion forum), and the legalization of drugs."
The "Free Republic" isn't really all that free, and supports the Bill of Rights, as long as you agree with them.
Ahhh. I'm familiar with the Free Repubes.
Not much I want to say.
Just to say hi.
Speaking as a non-American, it worries me somewhat that you'd value a single American over an entire country's worth of foreigners...
Your comments are quite on the mark. I believe that in striving for eloquence, I may have given short shrift to all the non-Americans who have died or are in danger in this fiasco, military and civilian, foreign and indiginous.
Of course, the war is now a very complicated issue. Much more complicated than is indicated by the short-form rhetoric most (including myself) have engaged in.
Allow me to amend and eloborate, if you will.
I truly feel remorse for the inhabitants of Iraq. I feel for their situation. Innocents are dying by the truckload, and nothing is being done about it.
I despise despots like Sadam Hussein. I have no qualms with his having been removed from power.
It's the method by which he was removed that I truly decry. The United States was party to setting up an international governing body, by whose laws we demand all others abide.
Yet, when it served the interest of the President (note - I didn't say the country), this nation chose to ignore that international governing body in toto.
This president lied, cheated, stole, whatever he had to do in order to grab some oil. He intentionally disregarded the judgement of the United Nations and instigated a war without provocation. This is a war crime, for which he should immediately be handed over to The Hague for prosecution. He thinly disquised his aims by lumping Iraq in with Osama Bin Laden's terrorists. Bin Laden is where our sights should be set. I have no quibbles whatever about tracking that scumbag down and publically executing him in Times Square in the most grotesque and tortuous of ways.
But having said that, we are now there. We are a foreign occupying force. There is a power vaccuum, and anarchy and civil war are taking over that country. We have turned what was once a small movement of terrorists into a vast network of people who see themselves as freedom fighters.
I do not for one second believe that the situation will improve there by an immediate withdrawal of American troops. But I also do not for one second believe that the situation will improve there by leaving those troops in place.
What are we to do? We created this monster, and now it is on the loose. We have no power to stop it. None. Shall we continue to feed it? I say we should get the Hell out of its way, and live to fight another day. Live to fight the diplomatic war in the future, because the military war has already been lost. It was lost before we sent the first soldier there.
No army, no matter how great, no matter how large or well-trained, or technologically advanced, will ever stand long against people who are fighting for their homeland with sticks and stones, let alone C-4.
So again, what should we do? "Winning the hearts and minds of the people" didn't work in Viet Nam, it didn't work in Iraq. What should we do?
It has become a choice of the lesser of two evils. We remain and feed the monster of our own making, or we withdraw and work stridently to undo the immense damage we've done, allowing millions to suffer in the meantime. I don't care for either choice, quite frankly, but withdrawal seems the only option with hope for a future.