Why I will never support Bush

[Sistermadly]

Originally posted by sigmagrrl
I loathe this man. He had BETTER not be re-elected..

That implies he was elected in the first place.

</end hijack>

[curlyagd]

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.

[Sistermadly]

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".

[sigmagrrl]

Originally posted by AlphaSigOU


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.

[/B] ]

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.

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. [/B]

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.

[Sistermadly]

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by curlyagd
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?

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.

[33girl]

Originally posted by Sistermadly
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.

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.

[sigmagrrl]

Originally posted by Munchkin03
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.

I agree with you.

[sigmagrrl]

Originally posted by Sistermadly

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 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.

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....

[Cloud9]

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!

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by curlyagd
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.

I am affected: half of my PGE class is missing and our TKE chapter lost 8 members. Let's just leave it at that so there isn't an argument at who is affected more.

My friends overseas will receive my support through emails and letters and care packages when possible. They know that I stand behind them in their actions and that I admire their convictions.

I can do all of this while still thinking George Bush is making the wrong decision, because I think he is. I can stand by my friends and disagree with him every time he opens his mouth, and I probably will. Why? It's my God-given right, and America has chosen to make it a national right too. If people didn't speak out against their government a couple hundred years ago, there wouldn't be this great country.

If you don't like the fact that I am supporting my friends while maintaining their "commander" is making the wrong decision, too bad. It's America, and I GET TO. If you don't like it, move to France. That's what those of us who support free speech and cultural differences are still calling it these days.

[agger_rob]

Originally posted by Cloud9
This guy sums it up for me more eloquently than I can in my current state of anger...

If "eloquent" is considered a condescending attack, this guy is no better than Rush Limbaugh and his daily attack on all the "Libs."


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? [/QUOTE]

First off, if anyone thinks this war is about Bush and Cheney's business partnerships or a personal vendetta to get the men that tried to kill Bush's father, take a minute and honestly ask yourself if Congress, the House, Colin Powell, Karl Rove, Condaleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge and the Office of Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI, and any and all other people and organizations this has gone through who know more about this than we do, would have stopped this? Would Colin Powell honestly go toe to toe with the UN so Dick Cheney can keep his business interests in tact?

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? [/QUOTE]

How many times should our country change gears and focus on a new problem? Look how long it's taken to build up momentum to achieve military action against Iraq. Should we simply just walk away and start all over with North Korea? I will agree that North Korea is a threat, but to keep leap-frogging between Iraq and North Korea not only kills the momentum of this action, it also kills the American's resolve to accomplish the task at hand.

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. [/QUOTE]

The finger should be pointed to every president over the past twenty years for this one. I don't defend Bush and his abscence of pushing alternative fuels. But I don't feel it's fair to blame him solely when there has been hardly any movement in the field in a national scale under any other president.

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. [/QUOTE]

I would be interested to see his stance on the Homeland Security Act a year ago when the fear was new and the images of the attack were still fresh in everyone's mind.

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. [/QUOTE]

How many fronts in a war are we expected to fight at once? Let us not forget the ongoing War Against Terror which is in need of American military support and now the numerous forces facing a deadline in Iraq.

[Sistermadly]

Originally posted by 33girl
Sorry, but I just do not buy this.

Good, cause I'm not selling anything.

I don't care how dire your situation is, there are other ways out.

Hypothetical (but not far-fetched) situation:
A young man lives in an inner city neighbourhood. His grandfather moved north because there were lots of manufacturing jobs at automobile plants in the 1940s and 1950s. His father worked in the same plants, but around the 1980s and 1990s, the plants started laying off workers -- including his father --because they were moving their operations to other countries. Other high paying labour jobs have done the same thing, or have relocated to the suburbs where there is no access to public transportation (the working poor are the greatest users of public transportation in the United States).

The young man has hopes for college, and studies hard, but doesn't quite qualify for scholarships. Because his father lost his job with the plant, they can't afford for him to go to college. There are no jobs in the inner city that would pay him enough money to finance his education.

He goes to a movie with friends and sees ads from the US Military that talk about giving him money for college. They use phrases like "the toughest job you'll ever love" and "The few, the proud, the Marines" or "An Army of One". They show lots of shiny and cool technological equipment. They don't talk about post-traumatic stress disorder, or having your limbs blown off when you step on a land mine in a jungle or some desert battlefield.

He's sold - here is a way for him to finance his education without having to take out student loans (that will put him and his family into an even deeper financial hole). He can sign up for four years and then he can go to college. He signs up during a time of relative peace -- thinking that the worst thing he'll ever have to see is Columbus, GA -- all because of his limited access to educational and financial resources.

(Now flip the script and change it from a young man in the inner city to a young man in the rural Midwest who has seen the collapse of the farm economy. Same problem -- different demographic.)

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!!

I sure hope he comes home mentally and physically sound. I'd hate to think you'd be this callous if he didn't.

We've become too complacent and too many people think the military is an easy way out.

I never said it was an easy way out. After all - they do say it's "the toughest job you'll ever love". What's to love about bombing innocent citizens from thousands of miles away? What's to love about sticking a bayonet in someone's chest? What's to love about seeing your best buddy from down the block lying on the ground with his guts spilling out?

What's to love about giving your blood, sweat, tears and mental health for a job that pays so poorly that you might end up living on welfare (this happened to a friend of mine who was married to a regular joe in the Army). Oh yeah - you'll get a free college education, but your family is on food stamps! Gee, thank you Mr. Army Guy for protecting our liberty -- we're sorry your family is on the dole.

My father-in-law was a POW in a German war camp in WWII. He very nearly gave his life for his country, and to this day is one of the biggest critics of the military and military action. I'd much rather listen to his take on what war does to people than to some President-select who never served a day in his life.

[33girl]

I was thinking that probably sounded harsher than intended. Of course I feel for any woman who has to be away from her children - but if she didn't want to run the risk of him being in war she should have made those objections known before he signed up. Yes it sucks that he had to go, but I'm still laying that decision at his feet.

I agree that the military's recruiting tactics play to the desperate - but guess what, they are succeeding in winning recruits so I doubt they will stop soon. Caveat emptor!! We'd say the same thing to someone who went to Bob Jones U and was upset that they couldn't pierce their privates and play Marilyn Manson records in the middle of the quad.

Oh, and NOT EVERYONE needs to go to college, there are trade schools and vo-tech programs in high school that are probably far better suited to some students. fuzzie and I are originally from the same area, and I'm sure she will agree that there are people who went to our Vo-Tech and are making MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE MONEY than a lot of the college grads from their school. I blame a lot of this on the dumbass high school guidance counselors who make kids feel like college is the ultimate goal, to be achieved at any cost (even risking your life) and you're somehow lower if you want/have a job where you get your hands dirty - but that is another thread.

[curlyagd]

I'd also like to point out that not everyone who is in the military is attempting to get out of a bad situation, although I do agree with those of you who state that some people are. My family has a long line of military involvement, with my father and grandfather (who fought in 4 wars between the two of them) joining the military in order to better their lives. However, my uncle, who fought during Desert Storm and is currently stationed at the Pentagon, did not NEED to join the army to have a good life. He did it out of a sense of patriotism. My sister, who is currently in the Middle East, received a degree in engineering from Vanderbilt University. Yes, she was on a ROTC scholarship, so was required to serve for four years, but she could easily now get another job with her degree and work experience. She has now been in for about 6 years I think, and within the last month, signed on to extend her requirement for another 3 years. So, there are people in our military who do join and stay in because of patriotism. When she decided to join ROTC, my dad had a long talk with her about the real possibilities of war, and she fully understood. These kind of talks do need to happen before people sign up for the reserves. I know several people in college who are being called up and are upset about it. Nervous... scared... I completely understand, but when you agree to have the military pay for college, you know that this is a possibility. So I do agree with whoever said people need to take more responsibilities for their actions when making a life altering decision such as joining the military.