Printable View
I have plenty of upbeat posts in Cat General and General, but you won't find them here. There's not too much to be upbeat about. The war is not going well and I'm especially fearful about what happens afterwards.
You can laugh it up all you want, in fact that's advised, because often the truth is too horrible.
Soledad, I'm not laughing, in my own old lady way I feel you are very mistaken about the role of the U.S. in the Middle East, we are not invaders we are liberators and I think deep down you know that. Whether you agree with the war or you don't agree with the war we all agree on one thing, we care what happens to our soldiers and the people of Iraq. It makes me have tears to see children and women killed and it makes me cry to see soldiers wounded and killed. I'm not a warmonger, I prefer peace
but I truly believe this regime would use these weapons eventually, tomorrow, next week, maybe five years from now. If we allow them to get stronger, who will stop them in the future?
Jackie, Perry and Miss Daisy
I think that people believe, deep down, that we are liberators. I believe the soldiers are there with that intent. With intentions that are honorable and not selfish. I cannot say the same of the men who put them there. I believe that the use of "liberators" is used to boost morale and support for the war, because it works. It works because Americans want to be the good guy.
If we were such liberators to Iraq, why is it that most Iraqis don't agree? The war should be going a lot better according to the "Liberator" theory. They haven't even gotten into Baghdad (where Saddam's REAL supporters exist).
Jackie, I'm not sure the Texans would like that! ;)
Actually, the war is going quite well. (but of course I'm sure I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective) I'm very proud of the men and women fighting. They are being humanitarian and liberators at the same time. It's too bad that Saddam is nuts enough that he uses women and children as human shields because he does have the kajungas to fight like real men fight.
Again, I admire Ann Margaret for standing up for what is not always very popular in Hollywood.
If the war is going so swimmingly, why is Rumsfeld getting pounded by the Army generals for making such crap decisions?:confused:
I guess I'm responding to this because the term "peacenik" comes across to me as negative. theres a big diference between a "peacenik" and spitting on a vet's face. I was only 4 or so when the war ended, I have no actual memories of it. I do know that I may not have supported that one either.... i would probably have been called a peacenik, however, i never would have done such a disgusting thing. And again, the suggestion is that its as simple as "against the war, therefore against the troops". I am not now, nor have i ever been against troops doing their job.
now, on a completely different note, i have heard again, and again, and again, stories that say OUR cia were the spitters, trying to rile folks up, and turn them against "peaceniks". is there ANY evidence to substantiate that rumour? again, i was four, so i have NO idea... just a question, not trying to pick a fight.
(I'm really not much of a fighter at all am i?)
Quote:
Originally posted by jackiesdaisy1935
I enjoyed reading that story and realize not every single actor and actress is mindless in Hollywood. My husband Don, who is 74 now, served in VietNam as well as I know your husband did, Mugsy, and I never understood why these peaceniks would spit on our men coming home after they were willing to give their lives to help other people. I think that is the shame our country lives with, not the willingness of our young men going to war to help other people, but the way the soldiers were treated when they came home. They should have been treated as heros, I don't know anything that these peaceniks have accomplished besides carrying signs and disrupting the peace.
Jackie
Because Rumsfeld is a moron, but over all the war is going well. In less than 2 weeks we control over half the country. That's pretty impressive to me.
We don't have control over one city, Mugsy.
hey wait! no fair! how come you get to call rumsfeld a moron!!! no fair! darn liberal!
(kidding, of course, i dont think he's doing much of a job...)
Quote:
Originally posted by mugsy
Because Rumsfeld is a moron, but over all the war is going well. In less than 2 weeks we control over half the country. That's pretty impressive to me.
Hey!! I'm not a liberal, and I'm not a conservative....I'm in the middle somewhere.;) :p
How do you know they don't agree? The ones in Iraq can't agree without being killed or having there families killed. Did you see the thread about the Iraqis in this country who want to fight on our side to free their country?Quote:
Originally posted by Soledad
If we were such liberators to Iraq, why is it that most Iraqis don't agree?
but how come rumsfeld is fair game? we cant pick on bush, but rumsfeld is fair game?? ;)
sorry, just being sassy.
Quote:
Originally posted by babolaypo65
but how come rumsfeld is fair game? we cant pick on bush, but rumsfeld is fair game?? ;)
sorry, just being sassy.
check out his haircut, you'll understand
Haircut? Don't you mean hair piece?:DQuote:
Originally posted by RICHARD
check out his haircut, you'll understand
You mean he wears a toup??? Say it ain't so!!:p :D