I think anyone on this board, left or right, would agree that regardless of our feelings about Iraq or Afghanistan, (or Viet Nam, or any war, for that matter), we all appreciate and respect the men and women of this country who willingly put themselves in harm's way because our leaders tell them that it's necessary to assure the continuation of our country's ideals.
But ultimately, when you talk to any veteran who's been under fire, they'll all tell you that at the moment of truth, when the mortars and bullets were flying, it wasn't about God or Country, it wasn't about who was right or who was wrong... it was about their friends and fellow soldiers fighting next to them.
I did two tours of duty in Viet Nam... the first because I was drafted; the second because I didn't want to leave my friends behind...
So as Amreicans, regardless of party, don't we have an OBLIGATION to the soldiers we honor, to stand up for them and MAKE SURE that what they're putting their lives on the line for is really necessary to maintain our way of life? Do we really need to be the world's police force?
I truly believe that if we left the middle east alone, they'd leave us alone... Bin Laden's hatred of America was prompted by us having troops in the middle east. No troops, no problem.
Our demand as selfish American's to keep the cost of gas down is the basis for ALL of our problems in the middle east. Europe has accepted high gasoline prices for 40 years, but as always, our sense of entitlement has forced an aggressive middle east policy by our leaders, democrats or republicans.
Remember, we supported the Shah of Iran, a despotic dictator who was just as oppresive as Hussien against his people. We propped him up, leading to a revolt that established a radical Muslim anti-American administration. That was OUR FAULT!!! There are clear indications that the majority of younger Iranians, who make up the majority of the population, WANT reform in their country and are more liberal in their opinions of America. If we leave them the fuck alone, eventually you'll see the establishment of a more democratic, pro-American system.
So as we're pasting the "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker on our car, take a minute and think about what that really means. Support them in war; sure. But also support them by standing up and shouting NO when our government wants to send them somewhere because it's politically expedient or because it's going to save us a few cents on the cost we pay for gasoline.
You wrote, "I think anyone on this board, ...we all appreciate and respect the men and women of this country who willingly put themselves in harm's way ....."
I do not think the left or most liberals really do support or appreciate the military. Most people on the left do not know any soldiers. This is not like WW II, where everyone knew someone. Today, 90% of the people at Harvard or in Bel Air have not met a soldier in 30 years.
They are perceived as the dumb losers who didn't study and ended up in the army because they had no choice.
I have re-organized my charitable giving. USO, groups that send gift to the troops, Semper Fi Fund, etc.
You do too much mea culpa. Yeah, we supported the Shah. If you want to see real opression of Moslems look at 50 years of the USSR. They ruled the southern part of the nation, the "Stans," with an iron fist. They made the Shaw look like a sweetie pie. The Russians did more to oppress Moslems than any group or nation you can name, and there is no anti-Russian feeling in the Arab world.
Our fault, our fault, our fault.
If the rest of the world started to say it was sorry, I would support Obama. Until then, I don't want to wear the hair shirt and cry, "mea culpa."
Here's my starting point. Putin says he is sorry to Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, and the rest for oppressing them for 50 years.
China says it is sorry for Tibet. (China says its sorry to the 50 million Chinese it killed.)
Japan says it is sorry for Naking. Batan death March.
France for Algeria.
Germany for you know what.
Belguim for one of the most hideously oppressive colonial regimes in history.
The Navajos to the Hopi for they way there were treated before the White Man.
The Aztec to the Toltecs, and quit bitching about the Spanish - the best thing that happened.
The world sucks. We put supported a regime in Iran 50 years ago, and it is still our fault.
Yeah, all our fault, our fault.
Finally, we may have supported the Shah. Amazingly, he was a philantrhopist compared to the curent regime. The Iranian people would be better off with our puppet than their master.
Phil, I may disagree with your views, but I usually respect them. But you're WAY off base here. To say that conservatives care more about our kids being in harm's way than liberals do is not only ridiculous but insulting and an affront to any democrat who's son or daughter is serving their country. That comment is despicable!
The rest of your post is smoke and mirrors, a diversionary tactic to avoid my point.
I was talking about the middle east, period. Not the "stans", not China, not Japan, France, Germany, etc. You sould like howard5... everybody else did it, so it's OK that we did. Excuse me, but what parts of the world do those countries still have a military presence in?
There may be no anti-Russian feelings in the ARAB world, but there are plenty if the former soviet satellites, or did you forget the little incident in the movie theater where over 100 women and children were slaughtered by Muslim dissidents?
My point was that many of the probelms we have in the MIDDLE EAST we brought on ourselves, and that we need to take a hard look at our foreign policy there and think twice before blindly supporting any unnecessary military actions that will further put our military personal into the breach. THAT is the true way to honor the people who serve our country; to keep them out of places they don't really need to be.
OK, I'm like fasteddie here, but I am the insulted liberal he's talking about. I'm a retired Army Reservist, a retired DoD civilian with 42+ years of dedicated service to my country & our troops, many of whom I've worked with for years. I have given my life to making our DoD more efficient & more effective, pioneered many initiatives & innovations that saved millions of Defense $$$ that then went to the troops, probably lost my marriage to the long hours I dedicated to this effort, & many times worked harder than you can imagine in this effort.
And I am a liberal, left leaning guy who totally opposed the Iraq invasion, am not sure what we're doing in Afghanistan, & think GWB was the worst ever president by light-years.
One of the things that totally enrages me about most neo-cons is their automatic assumption that a liberal doesn't love his country & doesn't support the war or the troops. I've got the creds on supporting the troops & loving my country. But I love it when it's morally right & doing what's justified & OK by international & World Court standards. I am not attracted to a world bully feeling no cumpulsion to adhere to normal standards of behavior, & invading another sovereign nation that hadn't attacked us, & posed no threat to us. I greatly detest GWB for reducing our stature in world opinion by behaving like a rogue state & making me less proud of the country I love dearly. I can never forgive him for this.
But I more intensely abhor those that question my patriotism because my views aren't theirs. This reeks so much of totalitarianism & police states rather than a free America. I will never concede this point.
I have always supported our troops; for 5 1/2 yrs I was one of them. I spent my life improving their logistics support. For someone to question that is in itself unamerican. The 'If you don't agree with me you can't be a good citizen' position is pretty much what Communist Russia was all about.
If you don't understand that, you are susceptible to it!
-- Modified on 11/18/2009 11:33:55 AM
-- Modified on 11/18/2009 11:34:27 AM
Those on the left that range anywhere from “do not care for or do not care about the military” all the way to “despise or loathe the military.” It is flat out wrong to make any flat assertion that all the left fall into one of these categories. But it is the left that contains almost all of those that DO hold that assertion. This has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with any one mission or another. It is a general attitude towards all of the military, all of the time. I don’t think it’s a majority of the left by any means, but a majority of those just described do reside on the left.
I can relate to your frustration at feeling as if you were included in this group. Being a conservative subjects me to what seems like endless and mindless accusations of other stereotypes such as racism. There is no doubt the right contains more closed minded people concerning race, but both sides contain their share of people holding irrational convictions.
There are people in this very forum, standing to your immediate LEFT that believe your job serving the military for the last 42+ years has done NOTHING to preserve the Constitution.
BTW, I didn't read phil's post as a flat assertion. Maybe stronger than needed but certainly not a flat assertion.
Oh, it was a flat assertion... I don't know how much clearer he could have said it, and then he reaffirmed it in a follow up post.
And to even say that SOME liberals hate the military doesn't lead to assuming they don't care if soldiers get killed. It's just not right to say, or even imply. In my OP, I made a simple statement... I said all good American's, left or right, support our troops in harm's way. I didn't say all American's love the military, nor did I say there weren't those who loathed it; however, I doubt few if any GOOD citizens wish no harm to come to your sons and daughters fighting for our country. Phil's reply was as noted.
It would be the same thing as saying all or most racists are conservative. I could couch it in a apologetic way like you did, saying "It is flat out wrong to make any flat assertion that all the right fall into that category. But it is the right that contains almost all of those that DO hold that assertion.
Oh, and another thing... not ALL conservatives are pro-military, ann even fewer of them would be quick to sign up for a tour in Iraq; probably about the same numbers as liberals. Lest we forget, our last President and Vice President actively sought to avoid combat duty. One by hiding in the National Guard and the other by deferrments. And look at how they "honored" our troops... Covering up the truth about Pat Tillman's death not only from the public but also from his parents; ignoring the need to beef up the armor on the Humvees because of the cost, and ignoring the deplorable conditon of the veteran's hospital where our wounded were sent.
I wonder if we reinstated the draft tomorrow how many so-called conservatives would suddenly decide that they were a lot more liberal than they had thought!
-- Modified on 11/18/2009 5:19:57 PM
Phil said “most liberals” do not support the military. I stated clearly that my view was not that strong and I explained how what I clearly characterized was a MINORITY on the left. I also stated that phil’s characterization was worded too strongly. How can you possibly take that as anything other than what it is?
Plus, how could I possibly address something phil might have said elsewhere? I don’t read everything you know. You can’t hold me to account for words posted elsewhere.
Bottom line. You just proved my point. You think most racists are on the right. I think most military haters are on the left.
The conservatives that do not approve of the military are generally the “down the line” 100% right to lifers and general are hard core Roman Catholics. They are 100% anti capital punishment etc. They might be pacifists as well but they are a different breed from the anti military leftists I know.
legitimate source that will support your statement:
"it is the left that contains almost all of those that DO hold that assertion"
Did it ever occur to you that thousands of soldiers consider themselves to be "on the left"? That rebuts you wild speculation right there.
Just because A = B does not mean that B = A.
Although it’s more probable you are misinterpreting my comment. The quantity of left leaning soldiers has absolutely zero bearing on my assertion.
I even stated that those that loathe the military comprise a minority of the left. Nonetheless, most of them are on the left.
"the quantity of left leaning soldiers has absolutely zero bearing on my assertion."
But I'll have to bow out of this one - frankly, I am lost as to what you are saying and what algebra has do with your first statement that I quoted.
A minority of the Left loathe the military, but a majority or the loathers are on the left.
Now substitute, Right for Left and racists for loathers and I’m sure it will make perfect sense to you.
quarrel with your statement now, although the lack of a clearly identified "left" necessarily requires a large degree of pure speculation no matter which way you portion the loathers with the supporters.
I actually agree the right/race version is true as well. Some on the left accuse all or most on the right of being racists just like some on the right make similarly flat assertions about the left and the military.
Phil's a fucking idiot that pulls these types of generalizations out of his ass on a regular basis, and then scoffs at the suggestion that that's where he got them. For instance, if you were to suggest that he wasn't really qualified to ascertain the way "most liberals" feel about military, he would reply with some bullshit about how there doesn't need to be a citation for everything he states here. Phil knows liberals and he knows troops. That's all we need to know.
to the men and women sent to fight it.
And, as so tragically happened post-Vietnam, others fail to distinguish between the men sent to fight the war and the decision makers who made the horrible decision to send them in (remember the "Domino theory?" the public bought into that with the same unquestioning abandon as the "it's makes our country safer" rationale used by the Bush administration).
The truth is that offensive wars are almost never justified and almost always end badly. And anyone who buys into the
"we are attacking in self defense" argument simply has no comprehension of history.
To his credit, Mr. Obama is seriously questioning the conventional wisdom that we need to keep fighting in Afghanistan. He recognizes that there is no compelling American interest in doing so, certainly not a defensive interest.
Unfortunately, however, there is a legitimate interest in protecting the troops already there with more troops. So it is difficult to square opposing the decision to send in more troops
with support for the troops already there.
It isn't that the left confuses unpopular wars with the troops. They just plain dislike the military.
During Bosnia, when we were just in for humanitarian reasons, people did not "like" soldiers. Donations to USO from zip codes like Bel Air and the Upper East Side did not jump up.
As I said in the post about Ike, the left just does not like the American military. They are percieved as dumb losers, which is why they can ncer recognize that Ike was more than a dottering old general.
You did get off the subject, but I will stray there.
Did you see any justification in going into Afghanistan initially when the Taliban was allowing Al Qaeda to establish training bases for exporting terrorist?
Should we just have negotiated with the Taliban to close the terrorist camps?
Should we have attacked the camps at all?
If you think we were right in going in, if Afghanastan collapses and the Taliban takes over, why won't they allow the return of Al Qaeda, and what do we do?
(If we leave, I think we should say, "If you allow terrorists camps, we will take them out with Daisy Cutters and what ever else it takes. Tell women and children not to go there.")
invaded pure and simply for revenge. We were all furious at the attacks and the Bush admin, lacking an intelligent leader or even a careful planner, heeded to the public outrage to do something right away to get "those guys." A few months later we were invading.
The camps had been there for years and we did not really show any interest until Clinton needed to distract attention from Le Affair Lewinski and tossed some cruise missiles that way.
But after we invaded, the camps closed up, al Queda fled to caves but we decided to invade the entire country and kick out the existing government and set up a puppet government. Now we find ourselves stuck there as the Taliban fight back, and the only justification we have is "gee, they might let the terror camps back again."
Now ask yourself whether operating an open terror camp is at all necessary to conduct terrorist acts. Why can't terror acts be planned in an apartment at Ford Hood for example. Read the 9/11 Commission report and ask yourself whether the same operation could not have been conducted if Clinton had blown up the camps.
Then ask yourself how many terrorist acts have been committed world wide by the al Quada- related groups since the camps closed.
Are seriously going to try to justify fighting the Afghan civil war on grounds of " gee they may start the camps again."?
This is the bottom line of disagreement.
I do not believe we just went in there for revenge. The goal was to close the camps, which we did. You don't believe that, so that is where we disagree, respectfully.
The fact that they were there before is irrelevant. Something happened that made them more significant in our lives, and we reacted to that. Clinton did not have the motive to go into them because prior to a certain date they had a different meaning.
Please tell me that you think 9-11 may have changed the perception of them, or was 9-11 must another day in the life?
Yes, terrorism can be conducted without camps, but it is much harder. They had training facilities and other things that make it easier. No, we may not be able to prevent each and every incident, but the goal is to make it harder.
Yes, there have been attacks since the camps closed, but no one ever said that closing the camps would end all terrorism. What you don't know is whether some plans were delayed or prevented.
And, no, the fact that they might open camps again is only part of the justification. There are other reasons. Here are two:
1) It is scary as hell to me to think of the Taliban establishing any sort of base to destabilize Pakistan. Pakistan is a corrupt dictatorship, but I would do anything to make sure that their nuclear weapons stay out of Taliban hands as much as possible for as long as possible. The thought of the Taliban with nukes is too scary to contemplate.
2) I would hope that in the long run a decent society can be built. I don't expect Kabul to be London or Boston in the next 20 years. But the Taliban created a nation that is record cruel. Women were treated worse than dogs were treated in the dirt poor south of the 1920's in the U.S.
Kill your sister for talking to a man. Why, not?
Whip her til her back bones are exposed because she showed an ankle. Go for it.
Bury her up to her waist and throw rocks at her until she is dead. But make sure the rocks aren't to big to kill her quickly. Sounds like sport to me.
Now, I don't think we go in everywhere where there is evil, although this is unmitigated evil that I can't even imagine.
However, when limiting evil coincides with security interests, as in preventing the Taliban from getting nukes, then you have something.
You said: "1) It is scary as hell to me to think of the Taliban establishing any sort of base to destabilize Pakistan. Pakistan is a corrupt dictatorship, but I would do anything to make sure that their nuclear weapons stay out of Taliban hands as much as possible for as long as possible. The thought of the Taliban with nukes is too scary to contemplate."
So can I assume that if I do a "search messages" on dncphil, I'll find many threads under your name with the angry emoticon soundly critisizing Bush for abandoning Afghanistan to go after Hussein? Surely you were against the war in Iraq, seeing as it took the focus off of Bin Laden and the Taliban...
The fact that it is scary to think of the Taliban coming close to nukes does not mean that Bush "abandoned" Afghanistan. We were attacked in the Pacific and fought in Europe.
Opening a second front is not abandoning the first.
Why do you have to oppose Iraq to think Afghanstan is a good war?
Yes. I would hate for the Taliban to get Pakistan's nukes. Yes. Sadam was a hideous dictator. Yes, we should stablize Afganastan.
There is nothing inherently inconsistent, as long as you can do two things at once.
As you often do, you're deflecting from the issue and comparing apples to oranges to support you assertions.
WWII has nothing to do with the current situation. You're comparing apples to oranges. during WWII, we were in a war mode, the entire production of the USA was geared toward fighting, and we had the men and resources to fight on two fronts.
When we invaded Iraq, we essentially diverted troops from Afghanistan to fight Hussein's troops. With Bush's usual arrogance, he thought Afghanistan was under control and the war there was essentially over. (Hmmm... where did he do that again? - MISSION ACCPMPLISHED).
The fact that the Taliban has resurged in Afghanistan is A DIRECT RESULT of your diverting our attention and efforts AWAY from Afghanistan and TOWARD Iraq. That's not really open to debate.
THAT'S why you should have protested loudly when we invaded Iraq. Afghanistan WAS and IS a good war, Iraq wasn't.
Hussein was a hideous dictator. We did a good thing by deposing him, although that was NOT the reason Bush gave the American people for invading. I have no problem that we kicked him out of office, hunted him down and hung him; we just chose the wrong time to do it.
Let's phrase it this was, a favorite line of conservatives... ask any Iraqi citizen other than the Sunni minority, "Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?". What do you think their answer would be?
Sadam might have been a dictator, but the majority of Iraqi's in the cities had electricity, running water, and didn't have to worry about getting blown up while walking to the store to stand in line for bread.
of liberal thought. I'm not writing to argue or disagree. I'm just pointing out that your thoughts are textbook liberalism. For those who are still confused between right and left, yours is the classic explanation of how liberals see foreign policy:
Ex 1. Leave the middle east alone, they hate us because we're there....surely it has nothing to do with Islam. "No troops, no problem". It's our fault in the first place.
Ex. 2 We're 'selfish Americans' and bring trouble to ourselves when we try to maintain our way of life. It's all our fault.
Ex. 3 The situation in Iran is OUR FAULT (your exclamation) since we supported the Shah 50 years ago. Similarly with the situation in Afghanistan......liberals argue that it was our fault for supporting them against the USSR many years ago. We trained them, armed them, provided funds, etc and that set the foundation for the Taliban. It's all our fault. Maybe we should have "left them the fuck alone" and let the USSR have it's way, we wouldn't have an Afghanistan problem today. Again, our fault.
Moral of the story....it's always our fault. We should live and let live....classic liberalism.
Fasteddie, I have no gripe with you and don't wish to debate. I'm just pointing out that you are the quintessential liberal thinker as you have freely admitted, and your post is the textbook example of liberal thought.
One thing I agree...we shouldn't be the world's police force but guess what....we are. I accept it. When anything goes wrong anywhere, the world comes to us for help. Why? Because we are the greatest country in the history of civilization and most of the world look to us for leadership and assistance. Those who hate do so because we are free and powerful and have the means to ensure and maintain our way of life. We are the world's police, whether we like it or not.
My tone may be of sarcasm because I disagree. But I understand there are many people who think like you, just as there are many who do not. I'd rather read your porn blogs!
I did not read his post as stating literally that the problems in the Middle East, Iran or Afghanistan are " all our fault."
Obviously, that would not be true with respect to the Israel -Palestinian conflict.
I took his point to be that US foreign policy intervention has played a large causal role in the predictments we now face in all of those places. That argument is neither liberal nor conservative but comes close to a statement of fact.
So is the post classic liberalism, or simply an accurate analysis of historical events overstated for emphasis? Kind of like TJ does.
1. The 9/11 attacks were a direct result in our having troops in Saudi Arabia. There can be no dispute about that; but I didn't say leave the middle east alone. After 9/11, I was all for doing whatever it took to catch the people who were responsible for it and for those who harbored them. We had every reason to be in Afghanistan. But we allowed ourselves to be diverted from that goal and drawn into a war with Iraq, and there is evidence that Bush intended to invade Iraq long before 9/11 happened.
2. It's not selfish to try to maintain our way of life; but it is selfish to impose our way of life on others.
3. The situation in Iran IS our fault. Liberal or conservative, you have to see the logic in that. But that was the extent of my blame; I didn't extend it to Afghanistan or any other country. I'm not saying that there aren't other examples, but they weren't pertinent to my point.
But if these are classic examples of liberal thought, I wear the badge with honor.
There was a time in this country when being an isolationist was a conservative ideal; now anyone who doesn't want to rush to war is called a liberal, a "lefty", or if you're Ann Coulter, a traitor.
We aren't imposing our way of life. We are giving them the chance under internationally supervised elections to select their way of life.
Funny, one group tells people,"If you vote, we will kill you." They do everything imaginable to prevent people from selecting how they want to live, and we are the ones imposing our will.
As to Iraq - like the people had a choice there. Of course they did. In the last election under Saddam, over 99.8 people voted for him.
Man, you want to know what the definition of a stupid putz is? The guy who voted against Sadam in 2000. The secret police were picking him up, and he kept saying, "What about the secret ballot?"
Of course, all the liberal papers like the L.A. Times kept saying how the people supported Saddam. Like they like having their daughters raped and their sons tortured.
And again, when it came time for supervised elections where the people could select their government, who said, "If you vote at all, we will kill you."
Granted, I am a simplistic putz, but as long as we are having elections, I don't think were are imposing.
Read Fareed Zakaria's book "The Future of Freedom - Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad". It may change your point of view.
OK, we deposed a vicious dictator... not a bad thing; I'm not sure why we had to do it at that particular time at the cost of losing ground in Afghanastan, but that's a subject for a different discussion...
But just because we removed an evil dictator doesn't necessarily mean that the people of Iraq want a constitutional (aka liberal) democracy. And I'm sure they would prefer not to have a puppet democracy, which is what we're shoving down their throat. Plus, to a great degree, we've excluded the Sunni minority from true representation in Iraq so there's one group of people who may disagree with you saying that we're not imposing.
From Wikipedia:
"Traditional Asian cultures, in particular that of Confucian and ISLAMIC [emphasis mine] thought, believe that democracy results in the people's distrust and disrespect of governments or religious sanctity. The distrust and disrespect pervades to all parts of society whenever and wherever there is seniority and juniority, for example between a parent and a child, a teacher and a student."
So Islamic culture is pre-disposed to mistrust democracy. Just because we are holding free elections in Iraq doesn't mean we are not imposing our way of life on them.
Again, I urge you to read Zakaria's book... it's available in paperback. It's an intelligent, non-partisan analysis of democracy all over the world, including the middle east, and if you're open-minded, it may not change your opinion, but it will give you serious food for thought.
-- Modified on 11/18/2009 12:08:18 PM
Why do you people always put words in my mouth.
I never said the people necessarily want a constitutional democracy along our lines. But they can choose what they want now. In the last elections, the Sunnis could run for office. They could also vote.
And anyway, if one group says, "We will kill you if you vote," by my simple mind, that is the group that is not letting people chose.
In fact, I believe people want freedom. The climb on F'in inner tubes to cross shark-infested waters to leave Cuba. And the liberals say, "We can't impose ourselves on Cuba." Castro opens the doors for 2 days and 10,000 get in leaky boats.
Oh, no. Cubans don't want our system. THEY DIE FOR IT
Elsewhere people walk through Siberian blizzards and jump barbed wire. they die for freedom.
Oh, I remember how the people loved the N. Vietnamese. They got in leaky boats and braved pirates to escape. And, oh, the libs on college campuses were saying how people loved "Uncle Ho." Yes. They loved the murderer. That is why they thought absence would make their heart grow fonder.
Now, Iran. good example. How many Iranians have fled in the last 30 years? A million?
Pre-war Iraq - Why are there so many Iraqis here from pre-war Iraq?
In Afghanastan people smiled and held up fingers dyed in purple, which the Taliban had threatened to cut off. And you are telling me they risked death because they don't want to vote.
Yes, I understand they may not want to adopt an S.F. type city charter. I hate SF
But I really do not believe people want to live in a society where they get their tongues cut out for speaking against the leader.
"as long as we're having elections, I don't think we're imposing". NOW, you're qualifying that statement and COMPARING it to lesser choices...
"if one group says, "We will kill you if you vote," by my simple mind, that is the group that is not letting people chose."
What does that in ANY way have relate to my post and your initial response to it?
I said; "we shouldn't impose our way of life on others", you respended "We're not imposing on others". Now you're throwing all kinds of side-issues into the mix. You even say "Yes, I understand they may not want to adopt an S.F. type city charter. I hate SF" Show me where we gave the Iranians a choice of what system they wanted and I'll agree with you that we're not imposing on them, but if you can't, be man enough to agree with me that we are.
as was stated earlier "most conservatives are not racist but most racists are conservative" I think most liberals don't hate the military but most people that hate the military are liberals. So in a way i agree with phil....Most people on the upper west side would not care at all about the soldiers...As a man who served himself there is a huge difference betwee the way people in the Northeast(and I live in NYC) and other parts of the country look at the armed forces. i have had many fights in my office with all these little white (and some black) professional girls making fun of our troops (i used to work in midtown manhattan).. It seems to go on and on with them and since they live in the smallest world in the world they have no idea abnout the troops and let me tell you if definitely shows.....
You said, "Show me where we gave the Iranians a choice of what system they wanted and I'll agree with you that we're not imposing on them."
When we set up elections that were supervised by the United Nations and a dozen independent observers, we gave them a choice. They go to the polls. They vote.
Jesus. It is the other side telling them they will be killed if they express what they want. It is the other side saying, "If you vote, we will kill you." It is the other side saying, "We will try and disrupt elections."
When we said the U.N. will oversee elections, and when we had our soldiers guard the polling places, we gave them a choice.
Now, be man enough to tell me now the other side is giving them a choice by saying, "If you vote we will kill you."