Idiotic Phrase III – “Against the War in Iraq”
I’m serious, I don’t have any clue what a person means when they say or write, “I’m against the war in Iraq.”
And, I don’t know what it means when a person is described as “against the war in Iraq”.
And, I cannot hang this on just liberal extremists though I’m certain they are all “against the war in Iraq”. But, I have no clue if Sen. John Warner (R, VA) is “against the war in Iraq”, too.
But let’s explore what the phrase can mean:
Does the phrase means the person was always against the war as Sen. Barak Obama claims he was always against the war. Mind you, Sens. Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and many others who saw the evidence, voted for the war. So, based on evidence that convinced these liberal extremists to vote for the war, Sen. Barack Obama was still against the war? I’ve written it before: I’m quite sure I don’t want Sen. Obama to have the responsibility to protect Americans and the United States of America. As President Clinton said as he announced a series of cruise missile attacks on Iraq in December 1998, “And mark my words, (Saddam Hussein) will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them . . . .”
Or, does the phrase mean the person is against the war now? As in, the cost of staying is greater than the cost of leaving? As I’ve written before, I regret the loss of U.S. servicemen and women. But that is the job they chose. I regret the loss of 9 firefighters in South Carolina not too long ago and two more from New York City just two weeks ago. But those are the jobs they chose. I think fires that may take human life should be extinguished. I think murderers should be arrested. Because I think these things, does not mean that I should be the one to fight fires or arrest murderers. People volunteer for these jobs. They are tested, accepted and then trained. I believe more innocent Americans would have been killed if we never went into Iraq than the 3,800 Americans that have been killed in Iraq to date. I cannot prove this but nor can anyone prove fewer Americans would have been killed if we did not go into Iraq.
Or, does the phrase only mean “I’m against U.S. troops getting killed”. Is the expression “I’m against the war” immediately followed by some lip-biting lament about our lost “treasure”. Yes, the loss of American life is tragic, but what is the option? What is the option? (Blogger’s Note: Sen. John McCain is the most prolific user of the word “treasure”; he, of all people should not be question on the use, but it just sounds so cheap and pandering every time I hear it; Sen. McCain does support the war effort, though.) My goodness, how long until our enemies get jobs cleaning airplanes at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport like a recently deported, high-profile, illegal immigrant had? What is the option for surrender in Iraq? To sit and wait for the next terrorist attack on our soil? Gee, I wonder where the blame for that is going to go if we suffer such an attack before January 20, 2009. Actually, I’m quite sure the blame will always fall on President Bush even if the attack occurs after he leaves office; “they wouldn’t have attacked us here if we didn’t go into Iraq.”
Or, does it mean you want to defeat terrorists but the tactics are all wrong. I’m simply not going to look it up but it took President Abraham Lincoln many tries before he found a General willing to win the Civil War. People that did not expect casualties in the current war remind me of the civilians who took picnic baskets out to the very first Civil War battles, thinking a little wine and cheese would go well with all the fun. In war, people die. Even the good guys. And, all battle plans need revisions as soon as the ink has dried on the original.
Anyway, I started this piece by writing I had no clue what the phrase means; I don’t know if the phrase equally describes Republicans and Democrats. What I do know is that during the last Democratic Presidential debate, of the serious contenders, the earliest anyone would have the troops out of Iraq was 8 months from now. The “mandate” to bring them home, according to the liberal extremists, was 10 months ago! Who on the Left is “against the war in Iraq”? Could it be less than I think? Do the loud-mouths on the Left give me the wrong impression?
If anyone has a more precise explanation of the meaning of the phrase “against the war in Iraq” than any of the four general meanings I’ve mentioned above, I’d love to read it.
I’m serious, I don’t have any clue what a person means when they say or write, “I’m against the war in Iraq.”
And, I don’t know what it means when a person is described as “against the war in Iraq”.
And, I cannot hang this on just liberal extremists though I’m certain they are all “against the war in Iraq”. But, I have no clue if Sen. John Warner (R, VA) is “against the war in Iraq”, too.
But let’s explore what the phrase can mean:
Does the phrase means the person was always against the war as Sen. Barak Obama claims he was always against the war. Mind you, Sens. Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and many others who saw the evidence, voted for the war. So, based on evidence that convinced these liberal extremists to vote for the war, Sen. Barack Obama was still against the war? I’ve written it before: I’m quite sure I don’t want Sen. Obama to have the responsibility to protect Americans and the United States of America. As President Clinton said as he announced a series of cruise missile attacks on Iraq in December 1998, “And mark my words, (Saddam Hussein) will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them . . . .”
Or, does the phrase mean the person is against the war now? As in, the cost of staying is greater than the cost of leaving? As I’ve written before, I regret the loss of U.S. servicemen and women. But that is the job they chose. I regret the loss of 9 firefighters in South Carolina not too long ago and two more from New York City just two weeks ago. But those are the jobs they chose. I think fires that may take human life should be extinguished. I think murderers should be arrested. Because I think these things, does not mean that I should be the one to fight fires or arrest murderers. People volunteer for these jobs. They are tested, accepted and then trained. I believe more innocent Americans would have been killed if we never went into Iraq than the 3,800 Americans that have been killed in Iraq to date. I cannot prove this but nor can anyone prove fewer Americans would have been killed if we did not go into Iraq.
Or, does the phrase only mean “I’m against U.S. troops getting killed”. Is the expression “I’m against the war” immediately followed by some lip-biting lament about our lost “treasure”. Yes, the loss of American life is tragic, but what is the option? What is the option? (Blogger’s Note: Sen. John McCain is the most prolific user of the word “treasure”; he, of all people should not be question on the use, but it just sounds so cheap and pandering every time I hear it; Sen. McCain does support the war effort, though.) My goodness, how long until our enemies get jobs cleaning airplanes at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport like a recently deported, high-profile, illegal immigrant had? What is the option for surrender in Iraq? To sit and wait for the next terrorist attack on our soil? Gee, I wonder where the blame for that is going to go if we suffer such an attack before January 20, 2009. Actually, I’m quite sure the blame will always fall on President Bush even if the attack occurs after he leaves office; “they wouldn’t have attacked us here if we didn’t go into Iraq.”
Or, does it mean you want to defeat terrorists but the tactics are all wrong. I’m simply not going to look it up but it took President Abraham Lincoln many tries before he found a General willing to win the Civil War. People that did not expect casualties in the current war remind me of the civilians who took picnic baskets out to the very first Civil War battles, thinking a little wine and cheese would go well with all the fun. In war, people die. Even the good guys. And, all battle plans need revisions as soon as the ink has dried on the original.
Anyway, I started this piece by writing I had no clue what the phrase means; I don’t know if the phrase equally describes Republicans and Democrats. What I do know is that during the last Democratic Presidential debate, of the serious contenders, the earliest anyone would have the troops out of Iraq was 8 months from now. The “mandate” to bring them home, according to the liberal extremists, was 10 months ago! Who on the Left is “against the war in Iraq”? Could it be less than I think? Do the loud-mouths on the Left give me the wrong impression?
If anyone has a more precise explanation of the meaning of the phrase “against the war in Iraq” than any of the four general meanings I’ve mentioned above, I’d love to read it.
posted by Zack at 6:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home