(no subject)

[shirenomad]

Every act of the US military is put under a microscope. Every civilian caught in the crossfire, every questionable interrogation, and God help us, every Abu Ghraib report is taken seriously. And this is a good thing, so long as it does not discourage them from doing their jobs when the time comes. But I feel the need to remind everyone, every so often, how little the opposition cares about the same matters.

These monsters CANNOT be allowed to dictate policy to the government of Iraq. Period.

Comments

[chubbypanda.livejournal.com]

Are you advocating that we lower ourselves to the same level? That we ignore the basic rights and freedoms that we cherish, and that so many brave Americans have fought and died for? Should we burn the village in order to save it?

We are better than these people. Better than these monsters, who need to learn that although freedom isn't free, it can't be purchased through the blood of innocents.

Iraq is a quagmire; a country tearing itself apart in the midst of a bloody civil war. For the US, this is no longer a war that can be fought through police action or overwhelming force. It's a war of ideas now. It exists in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, a realm that history has proven time and time again can never to conquered by military might. Only the Iraqis can win the war in Iraq. All the US can do is try to keep the bloodshed to a minimum.

[shirenomad]

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<cite.are>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<cite.Are you advocating that we lower ourselves to the same level?</cite>

Oh, hell no. I'm saying this in response to those who think things would be better off for the Iraqis if we pulled out and let those monsters have the run of the place.

[chubbypanda.livejournal.com]

You're in the minority.

The answer isn't as simple as "pull out" or "stay the course". This is a false dichotomy that the president has been offering us for years. However, we can't keep to our current strategy and expect different results.

[shirenomad]

Maybe, but it's a dichotomy that both parties seem to have embraced. I never hear the Democrats offering anything but withdrawal time tables.

However, we can't keep to our current strategy and expect different results.

Oh, I'll agree with that. Hopefully we'll see some improvements there under Gates.

[chubbypanda.livejournal.com]

Dude, I have no fucking clue what we're offering. Our entire strategy up to this point seems to be based on "Bush is bad, mmm'kay?" Have you seen either party offer a truly viable candidate for 2008?

Oddly enough I think Barack Obama has the best chance on the Dems side. Not because he's particularly qualified, although he's a gifted speaker and a conscientious lawmaker, but because he doesn't have all the baggage Hillary and Edwards are carrying. He might win the primary by virtue of not having anyone pissed at him, and isn't that a truly sad state of affairs?

BTW, I like Barack Obama, but let's be realistic about his inexperience.

The situation is even worse on the Repub side, where you guys are scrambling to find someone who hasn't been tainted by all of the recent scandals. McCain seems to be your best shot, but from his speeches and writings, he believes in an imperial presidency even more strongly than President Bush, who has taken the federal government to the largest and most intrusive it's ever been. I find the possibilities quite disturbing.

[shirenomad]

BTW, I like Barack Obama, but let's be realistic about his inexperience.

Same here. He's my "call me back in another term or two and we'll see what you've accomplished" candidate.

[chubbypanda.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'll agree with that. Hopefully we'll see some improvements there under Gates.

Didn't see that comment there. My response: I wouldn't hold my breath.

[zarchery.livejournal.com]

I keep thinking, and it's growing stronger, that we should just leave and let the savages destroy themselves.