"I hope these come through! I know it seems like a waste of lives to you and others, but to the children in Iraq those troops who volunteered to defend our freedoms and fight for theirs give them hope.That makes those who have been lost in the line of duty true heroes who died with honor. No matter what else you believe, please believe that their sacrifice is justified. I guarantee they bellieved it. So do those that served the first time."
How do you respond to people who attempt to justify the humanitarian aspect of the war in Iraq? This was my attempt...
Dearest {friend},
You aren't understanding our points... if you don't think that a bleeding heart liberal like me wouldn't celebrate helping people in need? But as long as people continue to believe that is why our soldiers are being killed (just like they believed that it was to "protect America from terrorists"), then we will continue to donate the lives of our soldiers to this "noble cause" that some people must continue to believe in order to accept what is going on and to avoid asking themselves the hard questions. Our points are NOT that some Iraqis aren't very grateful for our soldiers... we aren't confused about THAT... our questions are related to the following facts...
- Some soldiers enlisted to protect America after 9/11...
- Our country was attacked and supposedly that is our reason to be at war... "War on Terror", remember?
- The focus at the last election was "PROTECT AMERICA" not "HELP BABY IRAQIs"
- There is NO reason to be in Iraq... except NOW they are saying for democracy...
- If we wanted to do it RIGHT, like it REALLY mattered, when the General requested more troops, Bush would have OK'd it rather than fired him.
- If it is THAT noble of a cause, then how come neither Bush, nor Rove, nor Cheney, nor Rumsfield have children serving?
- Doesn't it scare anybody that of the main people deciding that this "noble cause" is worth having our soldiers die (see above list), not ONE of them served in Viet Nam? They all made excuses... even RUSH LIMBAUGH wiggled out of it.
So, if 2157 lives can be lost (two families are being notified as I write this) for democracy for a country that wasn't asking for our help in the first place, and wasn't the mission until enough people started complaining that the "War on Terror" belonged in different countries, and now we are saying that liberating these poor people is a "noble cause", then please tell me which country we will be liberating next from the horrible leadership of THEIR dictators (read more here): Sudan, North Korea, Burma, China, Saudi Arabia (!!), Libya, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Zimbabwe, or Equatorial Guinea?
Oh, just an FYI... in 2003, Saddam was only #3 on the list -- there were two dictators WORSE than he was... why didn't we go after them? #1 was North Korea, and #2 was SAUDI ARABIA. You remember that country? The same one who provided us with 9/11 TERRORISTS.
If being "noble" means going into other countries, capturing their dictator, and helping them rebuild... and this is NOT a personal agenda for Bush and cronies, then tell me which country is next... and then tell me what happened to the "war on terror" because that is what has been shoved down my throat since 9/11 and I'm still waiting to hear how we are winning that.
Osama bin Laden was more of a threat to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA than Saddam was... how did we get off track?
Tell me again... how does liberating IRAQ help us with the terrorists from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan?
No comments:
Post a Comment