missing text image: sites/all/themes/obs_2007/img/reply.gif
Ross Odom (not verified) says:
To those addressing me in this thread:
I nowhere said or meant that the U.S. should not have entered WW I or WW II, or even Vietnam for that matter. Fact is just the opposite.
And Van Gogh or anyone else can list the negative aspects of the War in Iraq, or any other war. Costly blunders and unintended consequences are products of all wars. We know this.
My only question is why this particular war? Why is this war singled out for ITS blunders and consequences with such paroxysmal opprobrium? At the time we entered it, the country and congress were behind it, for the most part, behind the president. And the cause is, and remains, as noble as that for which all the other wars of the last century were fought--to stop tyranny.
My theory is that the majority of people who oppose this war, those on the left, are simply engaged in what they're always engaged in--their quest for power. They need to feel powerful because they're innately power-less. It's not war they're against, it's this war. And it's this war because it's not their war.
And, to my point, it's ideologically-based. When their guys are in power, the use of force is justified; but let a Republican or other conservative wield that same power, and they want to burn them at the stake. And don't think these peace-lovers wouldn't.
To those addressing me in this thread:
I nowhere said or meant that the U.S. should not have entered WW I or WW II, or even Vietnam for that matter. Fact is just the opposite.
And Van Gogh or anyone else can list the negative aspects of the War in Iraq, or any other war. Costly blunders and unintended consequences are products of all wars. We know this.
My only question is why this particular war? Why is this war singled out for ITS blunders and consequences with such paroxysmal opprobrium? At the time we entered it, the country and congress were behind it, for the most part, behind the president. And the cause is, and remains, as noble as that for which all the other wars of the last century were fought--to stop tyranny.
My theory is that the majority of people who oppose this war, those on the left, are simply engaged in what they're always engaged in--their quest for power. They need to feel powerful because they're innately power-less. It's not war they're against, it's this war. And it's this war because it's not their war.
And, to my point, it's ideologically-based. When their guys are in power, the use of force is justified; but let a Republican or other conservative wield that same power, and they want to burn them at the stake. And don't think these peace-lovers wouldn't.