Why I will never support Bush
 

This guy sums it up for me more eloquently than I can in my current state of anger...



Dubya's Profound Double Standard
An Open Letter To The President

New York-based Russ Baker is an award-winning journalist who covers politics and media.


Mr. President, in the 2000 Presidential election you promised to enact policies of "compassionate conservatism," but you have failed to honor the classical definition of either term. Recently, some commentators have begun labeling the discrepancy between your professed policies and your actions a "credibility gap." But when promises and actions are so shockingly in conflict, a stronger term is warranted. On the objective evidence, Mr. President, we are forced to conclude that you are, put simply, a liar -- and, given the particulars of the moment, a dangerous one at that. Many of our allies understand this better than we, and that is why they are facing you down.

You yourself have constantly (and justifiably) criticized Saddam Hussein for saying one thing but doing another. The time has come to hold you to the same standard.

How can you condemn the role of one brutal totalitarian Arab regime in fostering terrorism but ignore the more obvious role of another such regime? Saudi Arabia's historic relationship to Islamist terrorism is far more clear-cut than Iraq's. Families of 9/11 victims have filed suit against the Saudis based on long and deep ties with terrorists, yet these ties don't seem to rouse you to indignation, much less corrective military action. Do you not find it noteworthy that 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? Can you assure us that strong Bush family business ties to Saudi Arabia don't have anything to do with this willful blindness?

Why do you challenge "axis of evil" countries that constitute weak threats while accommodating the strong ones? North Korea has long been a grave danger to its neighbors. Yet you work to avoid antagonizing that country's leadership, while hastening to war against Iraq. Could this be because you believe that you can attack Iraq with some hope of success but are afraid of the consequences if you take on North Korea? What does this say about your ability to defend our country and our friends around the world against real threats to our security?

How can you decry the threat of Iraq to our energy supply, yet advocate domestic policies that threaten that same energy supply? Your administration encourages waste of fuel on a scale unequaled in human history. Americans make up about 4.5 percent of world population, but use 25 percent of the world's energy. Despite the availability of a wide range of more efficient, cleaner burning technologies, the U.S. accounts for about 25 percent of carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming. At the same time, the United States refuses to sign treaties adopted by most other major nations to counteract global warming. You even oppose sensible steps to improve the gas mileage of the cars Americans drive, including monstrously gas-guzzling SUVs.

How can you insist that your goal is to introduce democracy into the lives of Iraqis while you move steadily to erode democracy in the United States? Even some conservative Republican legislators now consider your Patriot Act a terrible and dangerous mistake. Broadly expanded wiretap and surveillance provisions and a new proposal to check the criminal record and credit histories of passengers before they board planes don't sound very democratic.

How can you criticize Iraq for its weaponry without explaining the role of the United States as one of that country's chief arms suppliers and ardent associate in its war with Iran? This make-and-break cycle is surely good for the defense industry, but what is the cost for the rest of us?

Why does the United States move to punish only some violators of U.N. resolutions? You cite Iraqi noncompliance as cause for war, yet you do nothing about the main violators of U.N. resolutions -- Morocco, Israel and Turkey, all of which are our close strategic allies.

How can you support the notion of institutional legitimacy only when the institution in question backs administration policy? You call for U.N. action on Iraq as a demonstration of the legitimacy of the institution, yet say that if it does not agree, the United States will act anyway.

Why do you oppose compulsory jurisdiction of international courts when the court could rule against the United States, but recognize that authority when you need it? You support the international trials of Slobodan Milosevic and others accused of war crimes, yet insist these courts won't have jurisdiction over Americans facing similar charges.

Why are some occupations more problematic than others? You correctly cite Iraq's 1991 seizure of Kuwait as a dangerous, destabilizing move, yet refuse to recognize how Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank foster global instability, ethnic hatreds, and feed directly into terrorist activity, including the 9/11 attacks.

Why are some targeted killings okay, but not others? Why is Israel condemned by your administration for "targeted killings" against terrorists specifically seeking to kill civilians, while you adopt targeted killings of Al Qaeda members? Shouldn't there be a standard for this? After 9/11, members of the House International Relations Committee criticized this, but you never did explain the distinction.

Why do you consider it unpatriotic to oppose a poorly-justified war, but not unpatriotic for you to have skipped out on your own military responsibilities during a war you did not oppose? You did not report for National Guard service during the Vietnam conflict.

How can you decry fundamentalist attitudes abroad while promoting them at home? You take every opportunity to foster a fundamentalist view of the world that distinguishes between correct and incorrect beliefs. Religious groups that preach an Armageddon in which all nonmembers of their faith will be slaughtered are entitled to federal funds, and Israeli religious extremists in the occupied territories of Palestine get a warm reception, while fundamentalists elsewhere are condemned.

Why do you argue that the U.S. government should have access to the secrets of ordinary citizens while preventing the American public from learning about the actions of our own leaders? You support new invasive surveillance measures, but decline to release historical presidential materials that were expected to enter the public domain, including many documents relating to your father's presidency.

Finally, you say you are troubled by the existence of a leader who was not elected by a plurality of voters, who exhibits warlike behavior and advocates the right of preemptive attack, who threatens the energy future of the United States and who operates as an international bully and ignores the desperate needs of his own citizens. Has it ever occurred to you that this characterization may be a self-portrait?

I quit reading after I saw that the author spelt the presidents name as “Dubya.”

What a shame, you might have learned something.

I doubt it I don’t put to much stock in liberal rhetoric.

Well, if you put it all into Bush, all I can do is pity you.

Moving on with my life, I find it interesting that we put so much blind faith in our leader. I was talking to my Irish professor, and he had a very interesting observation. There is a fundamental cultural difference between us and other nations in that our national leader is still tied up in symbol as a figurehead. In Britain for example, the symbolic figureheads would be the King/Queen, but now the Prime Minister is the executive political leader, and it is much more accepted for British citizens to vocally oppose and denounce him. Do not let pride in your country blind your judgement of a temporarily elected leader. He is there to serve US, not the other way around, and in my opinion he's done a poor job of it so far.

I did read it all the way through. And I learned something I knew all along: Thank the framers of the United States Constitution for freedom of speech and of the press. Try even writing that in Iraq or Saudi Arabia or any other country that does not have such protections... Russ Baker would soon find himself in some jail cell or facing execution for his beliefs and opinions.

I may violently disagree with Mr. Baker's feelings against the foreign policy of the United States, but I respect his right to express his opinion without fear of reprisal.

That's my two cents' worth... before taxes take it all away!

Ah yes, but unless people like him continue to rally out against administrations like this, how long is it until there is a new addition to the "Homeland Security Act" censuring the media? It seems a long shot (although there is a certain degree of censurship that already occurs - for example, we probably won't know any details of what happens during the war until years after - just smiling soldiers saluting flags), but without people to protest, the whole country would just be following Bush over a cliff like lemmings. America was founded on the waves of dissent, and it is those who are not afraid to speak out against the poor decisions of our President now who are the true patriots. Administrations like this feed on fear and paranoia to control the people, which is precisely why it is important for protest to not only thrive, but paid attention (to an extent, it's not good to become paranoid on the other extreme either)

*edited because I cannot spell while eating

First of all, I don't want to know ALL the details of any war. Not that I want to be clueless and ignorant, but nor do I feel that we need to know everything for security reasons. I do agree that America was founded on the waves of dissent, but I do not believe that the President is making poor decisions, quite the contrary, and I am no less patriotic because I believe in him. Nor am I a mindless lemming. Your statement argues that differing opinions are a mark of Americans (obviously paraphrased) but then you call those who do not support the president the "true patriots". Am I the only one seeing the inconsistency here?

Crystal

No, no inconsistency. With something this important, with so much anger against us by the WORLD...the WORLD mind you, and yes, there is one out there, and it's pretty important, despite our country's overwhelming dismissal of it...with so many obvious bad signs about this decision, with so many POOR reasons for the decision itself. Oppression? Ok, why aren't we eliminating it in the other 50 countries around the world? Weapons? HELLO North Korea...and in case you haven't noticed, the US only goes after countries it believes pose no threat...why the hell do you think the Cold War lasted so long without us running in to disarm Russia? Iraq aggression against the US? That's a good one, I want to know exactly when Iraq troops came marching into America and shooting missles at us. If anyone mentions 9/11 I think I'll scream, it's Osama Bin Laden not Osama Hussein for the love of God!
So. With all of these things, I don't just think opinions supporting the war are just different, they're downright wrong. As obviously wrong as organizations signing up for MTV sorority/fraternity life(for EX-AM-PLE, obviously it's not the same thing). Everyone around them knows it's a stupid decision, but they can't see it, all they can see is the immediate action, like tunnel vision. And that's it. All I hope is to plant some seed of awareness in the minds of people who read this thread, whether or not you argue, just that somewhere in your subconscious you begin to question the situation. Maybe if our citizens wake up and speak out soon enough Bush will be forced to end this foolishness, before it escalates into years of death, hatred, and revenge on America's arrogance.

Cloud9...
 

I could hug you right now. I really could.

When I think of why America was founded -- when I think of the patriots who had the courage to stand up to the ruling party and say "We won't take it anymore" -- that's what makes me proud.

I'm all for supporting the troops who are in the unenviable position of having to carry out this grudge match. My heart goes out to each and every one of them. But I do not support this president, and I do not support this war. I consider dissent a part of my proud American heritage.

I'd consider myself pretty liberal, but I do read things on both sides of the political spectrum. I'm just as likely to peruse a copy of the National Review as I am Utne Reader. It's part of being open-minded and a well-educated person in this country.

I will support the troops. Like I've mentioned before here so many times, I grew up in a military town, and have family members that are affected by this. But I will not, never have and never will, support George W. Bush. There is a difference.

I am infinitely grateful for the freedoms we have here. Bush's presence or absence has no impact on my First Amendment Rights--why should I bite my tongue if I don't like him?

As far as the whole media thing goes, I don't think it would be too bad if the media was told to take a hike. I'm so tired of seeing a bunch of liberal journalist give away military tactics to the enemy just so they can be the first to scoop a story.

Ok, so Iraq is more of a threat than North Korea. Think about it geogrpahically. It would be easier for Iraq to uses weapons of mass destruction on the countires it's around than North Korea. Do you seriously think that North Korea would do something as foolish as actually using those weapons when they are surrounded by China, Russia, and Japan. The U.S. does not have to keep as strong of a focus on North Korea because these other countries can and will protect themselves. North Korea is using those weapons to gain attention. They want to be listened to and respected the only way they know how to do it is to flash around their "dangerous" weapons.

You took the words right out of my mouth! :p

And here you have the crux of the problem. Here's North Korea, waving around its nuclear weapons, and there's Iraq, in which, as all of the war supporters keep repeating, over 12 YEARS there has been no evidence of any such weapons. I mean, it's not like a nuclear weapon is a really difficult thing to hide either, they don't come in pocket sizes. Think about it. Trust me, we have alot more important things to worry about than Iraq, but don't worry, thanks to the war we'll all forget about it until it's too late.

It's all a political game. There is no telling how it will end. There is no way to tell who in the end poses more problems- Iraq or North Korea. It's a guessing game. I personally believe that North Korea doesn't really want to take action- they just want attention. Iraq is a bully towards other countries- they have taken more action than North Korea. Atleast North Korea can say they have nuclear weapons, how long did it take for Hussein to finally admit they had them.

That is why we have to trust our government. They know and have so much more information about these two countries. If they feel that it is more necessary to go after Iraq than North Korea, then that is what we have to do.

Ok, if you can tell me exactly how OUR government knows, and EVERYone else doesn't know what's going on, I'd really like to know. Keep in mind that all of these nations that oppose war know firsthand what it's like to experience war in their own land within the last century. They realize in the most intimate way what war does to a nation, and the domino effects that follow. I would really be interested to know how much war support there would be if we were holding the battles right here in the US, rather than witnessing it in our living rooms...and I believe you claim you don't even want to do THAT...interesting how those who want war can't bear to know just what it is they're asking for...but I digress. I just want to know why you think that we are soooo much more informed than everyone else. I'm not going to trust Bush just because he's the head of the country I live in. That would be the same as the French trusting their leaders just for the same reason. At some point, it has to be more than blind trust. If someone's going to wage a war, spending my money, and my neighbor's lives, I want to KNOW, I don't want to TRUST. As they say, faith is blind.

I don't believe that hussein ever admited to having a nuclear weapon? nor do I believe we ever claimed he did.

As for trusting our government. Well thats a tough one. First of all there is no Mr. Government, we are talking about a whole bunch of individuals that interact and make policy.

Individuals can lie, or mislead to get their way? Can't they?

Governments deal in propaganda. They really don't want to present a fair and unbiased report. They want to shape the report to get the desired reaction froim the people.

In effect, the goverment is a bunch of advertisers that want to get their selling point across.

Don't advertisers frequently gloss over some of the less beneficial aspects of their proucts?

Always listen for what the people are actually saying and what they mean . . .

Ok, I dont' mean that our government knows more than other governments, I meant they have more information that they do not necessarily share with the Ameircan people. There is no way that they are able to keep us informed on every minute detail, and we dont' need to know every minute detail. We elect our leaders to lead us.
I'm a little confused by your comment about me saying i don't want to witness the war. I don't remeber saying anything like that. I have no problem seeing the effects of war. It's sad, but it's gonna happen. As far as battle happening here- yea, i'm sure the war would lose some support because a lot of people are not willing to take a stand and fully support themselves. I would be awful if it happened here, but if it happened it happened. There have been wars fought here before. And who is to say that something might not happen here. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more terroist attempts.

I think what has also been said time and again is that the what the president is claiming as the reasons for War and his approach to going to war has been deceiving.

He might not actually come out and lie, but he will imply things that are not as likely to be true.

Hence the contradictions pointed out in the first post.

I may be a little too trusting, but I don't think it's necesarily so bad if things are glossed over. Sadly there are a lot of ignorant uneducated people out there and they don't need to know all of the details of every little thing. Our government is filled with specialists on many different topics. Don't they know a lot more than a common citizen.

Well yes. I mean we are speaking in generalities here . . . so yes there are definitely specialists that know more about specific topics than the average citizen lol.

And there are ignorant uneducated people in the US that definitely respond to sound bites, emotional rhetoric, and don't remember information from last week let alone last year.

ITs not the details that are being glossed over per se . . .

ITs like, well its like someone you know trying to convinve you to dislike someone they dislike dnd then take actions against them . . .

They tend to give you only one side of the story. They tend to gloss over the details that weaken their arguments.

They imply that you are somehow being disloyal to your friend if you if you don't agree how evil the other person is ..

And then finally, they will use the argument that whatever they might do in the future is very bad so action has to be taken now.

Standard behaviors from lots of people.

[QUOTE]Sadly there are a lot of ignorant uneducated people out there and they don't need to know all of the details of every little thing.[/QUOTE

Don't you see that as a problem? Knowledge is an extremely powerful thing. The best way to control the public is to keep it uneducated. I agree, there are way too many ignorant peple in this country, which makes it very easy to delude them. To me, that's not democracy. If we're really going to say that our country's purpose is to have true freedom for our citizens, then everyone should be well informed as to what decisions the government is making. Being blinded by politicians to their advantage is not true freedom to me. Unfortunately, battling this sort of compliant ingnorance is a task often left to activists and protesters rather than those in power

That is exactly why there are several countries in the middle east where their citizens detest americans! I really don't think all of this action is as one sided as it may be portrayed. Why do you think Hussein wanted to have a debate with Bush? He wants to play the political game.

Are you trying to say in your quote that Bush does not have legitmate actions against Iraq?

I am saying that the point of the statement posted originally is that the things Bush is atributing/implying about Iraq are not always true nor are sufficient reasons in and of themselves for War at this time.

What they seem to be saying is that Bush wants to go to war with Iraq for whatever reason (as you said, maybe information not available to us), but that the reasoning he is using with the US populace and our allies is just a fabric of rationalization to justify something he already decided to do for reasons other than what we have been given.

That was a really long sentence.

Don't you see that as a problem? Knowledge is an extremely powerful thing. The best way to control the public is to keep it uneducated. I agree, there are way too many ignorant peple in this country, which makes it very easy to delude them. To me, that's not democracy. If we're really going to say that our country's purpose is to have true freedom for our citizens, then everyone should be well informed as to what decisions the government is making. Being blinded by politicians to their advantage is not true freedom to me. Unfortunately, battling this sort of compliant ingnorance is a task often left to activists and protesters rather than those in power [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree, that we should keep our people well informed. The bad thing is the media gets into the frame of mind where they have to "inform" the people that they let out valuable information to other countires. With technology being more advanced it is already too easy for other countries to gain U.S. info.
Here is an example( not too clear on all details- something we were talking about in class)
Some top guy in the FBI released classified information to an author but refused to release the same info to Congress. These were classified briefs that under normal conditions would be kept classified for a number of years after the current presidency.( just how we now are finally gaining more info from the Kennedy and Nixon administrations) anyways- the info was the presedential briefings that the president receives every morning. The book is to be about how much info Busy knew about 9/11 before it happened. So this is info that our own Congress could not get, but now b/c of the media it is going to be published for the whole world to read.

:D haha, that made me laugh- about the whole long sentence thing!

anyways, so how do we know what Bush is saying his reasons are, aren't true. How do you know he has other reasons?

( I hope that made sense- It made sense in my head, sometimes the blonde in me comes out :) )

Ok everyone has said their opinion....so naturally I feel inclined to leave mine. Some won't agree, many won't like it, but thats the beautiful thing I live in a country where I can have one....but let me digress. I do support Bush. I feel that this war isn't simply about Oil but also about security. And for those who try to use the oil issue alot and say this is about money, I want you to post here and tell me one war where economics and the economy had no part. Ok so the UN doesnt back us on this issue, France will veto... France built them two nuclear reactors. One of the reactors was destroyed by whom we can only guess was the Israelies. And the other one was badly damaged. Did that stop the Butcher of Bahgdad? No he said fix it we still want it. Saddam has used Chemical/Biological weapons not only on our troops during desert storm but also on his OWN people. Yes the man who says that our president should back down....who says he wants Global disarment...who is also a dictator, terrorizes his own people. When was the last time Bush said I'm not getting support of my people for the war against Iraq specifically from Nebraska.... lets shoot some biological missles at the capitol and other large cities until they agree. Oh yeah that doesn't happen this is America. Another reason I choose to support Bush, is because he is making his target clear. He is not attacking the people he is attacking Saddam. Saddam has many times broke the rules of war by using civilians as shields. Don't tell me the US kills the people of Iraq because this is yet another Example of the leader that loves them also putting them in harms way. France and Germany are Iraqs suppliers of course they are gonna veto. Should their cowardliness stop us from protecting ourselves? Never!!! Is this a war about money no.... money alone was never enough of an issue for war, without a serious threat to security we would still be going through the UN. Hopefully this war will be quick and painless. I have a feeling there will be mass surrenders and an even more intense military program than before. Do I want or like war....NO. But do I realize that it is sometimes necessary....YES. I don't pray for "no war", I pray that it will be over soon and that Iraq will finally taste freedom. Bush has my support and confidence. Thanks and sorry to anyone offended....

To anyone moronic enough to say we should let Saddam be.... who says give me an example of what will happen... um yeah its called North Korea. Speaking of double standards I believe we the "American Liars" lived up to our end of that bargain while they in secret became a nuclear super power. So looking at our track record I would say action is called for....

If you think the rest of the world is so much better do one of three things,

1) change the system; run for office and change things
2) leave obviously if you aren't willing to do #1 and you're still bitching you shouldn't be here...
3) and possibly the best solution....... EDUCATE YOURSELF!!!!!

P.s. I'm a Democrat....moderate but whatever :p :D

edited for spelling

I can say that I'm learning a lot from this thread, but I still have my own opinion.

I definitely feel that people would feel differently about this war if it were going to be fought on our soil. I know I would be scared s*itless!! I'm anti-war as it is...I really feel bad for the people of Iraq. They are who I'm thinking of right now. The women and children, in particular, who are suffering in poverty now and probably more so afterwards if their land is ravaged by war. I feel bad for the men who will die for whatever the cause may be (I really don't know what to believe anymore.) Imagine bombs going off right outside your front door, dead bodies on your street, and death and destruction all around you.

I also feel that this is more of a personal vendetta for Bush: "Saddam tried to hurt my daddy! WAAH!" Or even "Hey, my dad couldn't finish the job, so maybe I will." I loathe this man. He had BETTER not be re-elected....

I do take a more emotional side than a logical side in most "arguments".

But, at least if something does happen here over the next few days, I'll be with my mom....

Don't forget, we had a war right at home over 140 years ago... the Civil War. Over 600,000 Americans on both sides lost their lives. And the bloodiest battles of the Civil War occurred near Washington D.C. -- Bull Run I/II, Antietam, Gettysburg.

Quote:

I also feel that this is more of a personal vendetta for Bush: "Saddam tried to hurt my daddy! WAAH!" Or even "Hey, my dad couldn't finish the job, so maybe I will." I loathe this man. He had BETTER not be re-elected.... I do take a more emotional side than a logical side in most "arguments". But, at least if something does happen here over the next few days, I'll be with my mom....

I disagree on that point... The 'Shrub' finishing off what Papa Bush couldn't finish? That sonofab*tch Saddam has had 12 years to disarm, and yet he continues to give us the proverbial finger? We tried every diplomatic means at our disposal, now we have no other choice but to disarm Saddam by force. If all we did is to appease Saddam just like we did to Hitler back in the 1930s, chances are the next terrorist attack will be with weapons of mass destruction, and Iraqi fingerprints will be all over the device.

BTW I'm a moderate Republican, and I don't care for Rush Limbaugh's bombast. I do support our Commander in Chief, and there will be other factors, not just the impending Gulf War II that will determine whether I will vote to reelect him next year.

That implies he was elected in the first place.

</end hijack>

Ok... I have a slight problem with some of the things I am reading on here. I do not agree with supporting our troops, but not supporting Bush, or the war. They are one in the same. First, President Bush is the Commander in Chief of our military, therefore, supporting our troops implies supporting him. Also, how can you possibly say that you don't support what our troops are doing, but you support them? Most of the people who are going to be fighting in this war are younger. They need our full backing and support as they begin working to protect us, they do not need to feel bad b/c some people don't agree with what they are fighting for.
Just for a personal touch, my biological sister is a Captain in the Air Force, she left for an undisclosed location in the Middle East last week. While she is gone (we don't know how long) she will not be in contact with anyone back home. No email, no telephone, no mailing address. In addition, she's a sorority sister to some of you who have posted on these boards condemning President Bush and his actions. Don't we owe it to her, and the thousands of others fighting over there to be FULLY supportive of what they are about to endure? Seeing the lack of support brings down the moral of our troops. They are simply over there following orders and doing the best they can to protect the American public and help make the world safer. Maybe you should think about them before you go off on why you will never support Bush, or why we shouldn't be over there. That's not a really a decision you get to make. The only decision you can now make, is what type of homecoming our troops will receive when they return to the United States. And honestly, I do not want my sister to return to a country that is not going to appreciate the sacrifices that she will have made by joining the Air Force and pledging to protect people who don't want protecting. I'm sorry if this is rambling, or comes off as rude, but I obviously feel very strongly about having full support for our troops, and maybe if you were as directly affected by this as me, you would feel the same way.

Point/Counterpoint
 

A sort of point/counterpoint argument on both sides of the war issue:

Peter Freundlich's "Logic of War"
http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/seg...l?wfId=1191611

Ken Harbaugh's "A Force For Good"
http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/seg...l?wfId=1192910

(Harbaugh is a Navy pilot)

Worth listening to both.. even if they're from "the liberal media". :rolleyes:

I remember we had war. Do we want to do that to another country? I don't! If all we are going to do is go in there and get Saddam, then fine. But once one innocent civilian life is lost, we've lost our justitifcation, in my opinion.


Yeah, disarm....."Hey, hand back the weapons we gave you a few decades back!" The weapons had our fingerprints all over them first! Yes, he may still have them, but he may not.

Curlyagd, it is because of people like your sister that I don't support this war. No one's child should be in this position. My heart goes out to your sister for living the courage of her convictions. I'm doing the exact same thing by expressing my disapproval of this upcoming military conflict.

You're right when you say that most of the people in the military are a bunch of kids who need support while they're so far away from home. Many of these same kids are poor. They didn't have the benefit of university educations like the rest of us. For many of them, joining the military was the only way they could finance their future education. For those who don't plan to attend university, the military offers them the only job security that is available to them -- especially to those poor kids who live in cities where most of the high-paying labour jobs are being shipped out overseas, north to Canada or south to Mexico. Sure, a lot of people join the military for the glory and out of love for their country. But a whole lot of people also join because there's no other way out for them.

I don't believe anyone should have to sign on the dotted line in blood for the chance at a better future.

I will gladly welcome the troops home when they return. I will also mourn those who return home broken, bloodied, mentally damaged and in body bags.

Is GWB out there on the front lines?
Is GWB risking his life (in a way, he is, but not like the 19-year olds who are out there)?
Does GWB have military training?
Does GWB know what it's like to have to act physically (not "diplomatically") to defend one's country?

He may be "Commander in Chief," but he does not sacrifice the same things that our American troops do every day. Therefore, I can support those people and not give #$@! supporting him. I support these people--many of whom are very young and going into the military was their way out of a dead-end town or supporting a young family--because they are RISKING their lives. I will continue to speak positively about the troops, (if I was religious, I'd pray), and hope for their safe, speedy return. That is different--very different--from blindly accepting what President Bush says.

Sorry, but I just do not buy this. Unless you are prepared to fight in a war and possibly be killed in that war, you should not enter the military, no matter if they're paying for your school, car, home, whatever. I don't care how dire your situation is, there are other ways out.

One of the women I work with has a son who just entered the armed forces last spring and is being deployed. He doesn't want to go, she is upset and everyone is saying how terrible it is. GUESS WHAT? HE SIGNED UP!! If he became a doctor everyone wouldn't be commiserating because he has to stick his hands in someone's chest cavity.

We've become too complacent and too many people think the military is an easy way out. It's not. You roll your dice and take your chances, but if you can't live with the fact that at any minute you could be in combat, you should not enter the military. Period.

I agree with you.

I agree with you too. I was thinking this exact thing the other day. I think the military sells "membership" as a way to financial freedom and reward. "Get money for college!" "Get veteran benefits for life!" I agree with you...I'm not saying that these military personnel aren't smart and weren't aware of a POSSIBILITY of war and battle, but I think the financial rewards were a main selling point....

Oh yeah, I definitely agree that these days the military basically has to whore itself out to people. They have all these corny ass elaborate commercials(paid for with our taxes btw). It used to be that when a cause came, people didn't need to be coaxed, they just joined. I think that also says something. Everyone is rah rah war, but I don't really hear people jumping to be a part of it. And as far as war on our soil, yeah, 140 years ago, that's a pretty long time don't you think? Meanwhile, you can still see the wreckage in places in Europe, and there are still people alive today that remember what happened in THEIR HOME. We're getting way to comfortable with sitting here and sending the troops off THERE, and I think that's a big reason for our easy readiness for war. And yeah, I can support the troops without supporting Bush, who when it was HIS turn for duty was nowhere to be found. Nice, good job Bush, and now you want to send everyone off to Iraq while you stay here again, and look, you even have an excuse this time!