Poll: Has dicussion on the High Road changed your opinion about the Iraq war?
- Thread starter SkunkApe
- Start date
- Status
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Too much of the discussion is same ol', same ol'.
The anti-war, anti-Bush crowd have generally been so stupid, dishonest and contemptable that their flailing about only entertains the true belivers and annoys the rest of us. Enough of them are outright anti-American and anti-military (not merely anti-Bush, anti-Republican or anti-War) to give the whole movement a foul smell.
The pro-war crowd shouts down every possible negative interpretation of events in Iraq as a lie, treason, etc., and they often are inarticulate and contradictory.
The anti-war, anti-Bush crowd have generally been so stupid, dishonest and contemptable that their flailing about only entertains the true belivers and annoys the rest of us. Enough of them are outright anti-American and anti-military (not merely anti-Bush, anti-Republican or anti-War) to give the whole movement a foul smell.
The pro-war crowd shouts down every possible negative interpretation of events in Iraq as a lie, treason, etc., and they often are inarticulate and contradictory.
HBK
member
Hell no.
So now on THR if you question or have any other opinon except the ones that are for the war in Iraq and for Bush you are either dumb or anti-American. This reminds me of the Vietnam eria, but of course history proved that war was also necessary. "Sarcasm off".
Nope. Hasn't changed my mind a bit. I've been against this war since the beginning in Desert Storm.
As to the discussions here at THR, I must say that they generally have a more civil tone than at similar sites on the web. Furthermore, the opinions expressed here are somewhat more articulate indicating that they are more thought out. Though I enjoy reading the many thoughts on the war and they have served to broaden my understanding, I still cannot in good conscience support the actions of the US government in the prosecution of this war in Iraq.
Chipper
As to the discussions here at THR, I must say that they generally have a more civil tone than at similar sites on the web. Furthermore, the opinions expressed here are somewhat more articulate indicating that they are more thought out. Though I enjoy reading the many thoughts on the war and they have served to broaden my understanding, I still cannot in good conscience support the actions of the US government in the prosecution of this war in Iraq.
Chipper
I find myself rethinking an earlier position of unbridled support for this war.
Not as a result of discussion here, but rather observation of current events.
I am neither a military expert nor strategist, but I always thought the purpose of the military was to overwhelm the enemy with superior force and cause their surrender. When I see our military engaged in restraint; ie ceasfires (which allow the enemy time to regroup), deference for enemy positions (mosques), and the statement by Kimmit that "we are the most compassionate fighting force ever assembled", I get queasy
I am of the opinion that war is a last resort and when it is time for war it is time for unrestrained violence against the enemy. If the "political' or "public relations" component is allowed to direct the course of the military strategy, we have already lost the goal-to win.
Whether or not the U.S. should have preemptively attacked Iraq can be argued convincingly both ways. None of us have access to the intelligence that prompted the decision to invade. Now that we are there, we need to win, win decisively, and leave. George Bush's "reasons" for going to war, the existence of WMD's and the "imminent threat" posed by the Saddam regime, have been eliminated. I am unwilling, in good conscience, to support a military presence in Iraq into the indefinite future. GWB seems unable or unwilling to articulately demonstrate compelling reasons for continuing our occupation. I am not willing to support the killing of our military men and women in ones and twos, and certainly with no more reason than "stay the course".
The "Axis of Evil" speech included Iran. What about Iran? They have a huge shiite population and would love to form one islamic nation with the shiites of Iraq. Any stated goal for "democratization" of Iraq cannot happen with such a hostile environment right next door.
Peace can only come from victory, from one side's surrender to the other. Victory can only come when one side has been so utterly militarily defeated so as to cease hostilities. I don't see that happening anytime soon in Iraq.
Not as a result of discussion here, but rather observation of current events.
I am neither a military expert nor strategist, but I always thought the purpose of the military was to overwhelm the enemy with superior force and cause their surrender. When I see our military engaged in restraint; ie ceasfires (which allow the enemy time to regroup), deference for enemy positions (mosques), and the statement by Kimmit that "we are the most compassionate fighting force ever assembled", I get queasy
I am of the opinion that war is a last resort and when it is time for war it is time for unrestrained violence against the enemy. If the "political' or "public relations" component is allowed to direct the course of the military strategy, we have already lost the goal-to win.
Whether or not the U.S. should have preemptively attacked Iraq can be argued convincingly both ways. None of us have access to the intelligence that prompted the decision to invade. Now that we are there, we need to win, win decisively, and leave. George Bush's "reasons" for going to war, the existence of WMD's and the "imminent threat" posed by the Saddam regime, have been eliminated. I am unwilling, in good conscience, to support a military presence in Iraq into the indefinite future. GWB seems unable or unwilling to articulately demonstrate compelling reasons for continuing our occupation. I am not willing to support the killing of our military men and women in ones and twos, and certainly with no more reason than "stay the course".
The "Axis of Evil" speech included Iran. What about Iran? They have a huge shiite population and would love to form one islamic nation with the shiites of Iraq. Any stated goal for "democratization" of Iraq cannot happen with such a hostile environment right next door.
Peace can only come from victory, from one side's surrender to the other. Victory can only come when one side has been so utterly militarily defeated so as to cease hostilities. I don't see that happening anytime soon in Iraq.
nero45acp
Member
Calling someone stupid, dishonest, or anti-American because the don't have the same opinion as you do is itself....... un-American.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
nero
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
nero
bountyhunter
member
No Change
No change here because nothing that has come out has been a surprise to me. The major "points" of discovery that are now mainstream (no WMD's, Iraq not involved with Al Qaeda, saudi Arabia being their main support, Iraq war planned a year before the admin disclosed it) were actually out and known on the net for a long time. It just took a while for them to get into the mainstream media. It's discouraging how little of it gets into people's heads even when it is covered in major publications.
I just want to live long enough to see the majority of people actually realize what's been going on. IMO, if most people knew that the admin has been helping cover up saudi Arabia's ongoing deception (that they cover up for Al qaeda and frame innocent people for their acts of terrorism), there would be calls for Bush's impeachment. The man who said he would hold any country accountable for enabling terrorists to kill Americans is in bed with the worst one of all. See the thread in the Political forum for the latest disclosure on this fact.
No change here because nothing that has come out has been a surprise to me. The major "points" of discovery that are now mainstream (no WMD's, Iraq not involved with Al Qaeda, saudi Arabia being their main support, Iraq war planned a year before the admin disclosed it) were actually out and known on the net for a long time. It just took a while for them to get into the mainstream media. It's discouraging how little of it gets into people's heads even when it is covered in major publications.
I just want to live long enough to see the majority of people actually realize what's been going on. IMO, if most people knew that the admin has been helping cover up saudi Arabia's ongoing deception (that they cover up for Al qaeda and frame innocent people for their acts of terrorism), there would be calls for Bush's impeachment. The man who said he would hold any country accountable for enabling terrorists to kill Americans is in bed with the worst one of all. See the thread in the Political forum for the latest disclosure on this fact.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
