|
|
Here we go again:
In Strong Words, Bush Tries to Redirect Debate on Iraq
Just ... just shut up already. Whatever type of debate people want to have about Iraq, why the U.S. invaded Iraq, why we're still there, whether or not we should draw down the troop levels - LET THEM HAVE IT.
People aren't debating whether or not to support the troops who are over there; I think most people realize that the soldiers/airmen don't have a choice in the matter. But one of the hallmarks of democracy is the freedom - really, the RIGHT and the OBLIGATION - to question the choices made by the government.
Isn't that one of the things we're over there trying to instill? How can we hold ourselves up as an example of the kind of society that Iraqis should aspire to when we're hypocritically not walking the walk?
But we DID act in Iraq in part because of oil. The Bush administration believed that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States and our way of life, and not just because there were Iraqi-funded terrorists (ostensibly) who were out to kill Americans. Oil fuels - literally - our way of life. When the price of oil goes up, it impacts the U.S. economy in ways that most Americans are not willing to accept long term. We're simply not willing to pay $5 for a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk for any length of time.
When the price of oil goes up, the prices of consumer goods follow because the trucking/distribution companies have to pass along their cost increases for fuel to the consumer.
Well first - Dick Cheney is in league with Satan. I used to think that Bill Frist was the worst of the lot, but I'm back to thinking that honor goes to Dick. I'll bet if you examine his scalp you'll find a "666" somewhere near the back of the head.
Second, I have no concept, really, of what's going through the minds of the insurgents over there. I can make guesses as to what motivates them - hatred of the American way of life, religious zealotry, etc. - but at the end of the day I don't really know.
However, I'm not seeing the correlation between debate over the war and inciting the insurgents to further violence. I'm not sure they're tracking the polls, you know? I don't see how it might comfort the insurgents if people debate the war, insofar as it changing their modus operandi. Sure, they're probably delighted to know that their acts are frustrating American citizens and, in part, causing us to reassess just what the hell we're doing over there.
But so what? We should periodically reassess the situation, if only because members of our military are still dying and being injured (physically and mentally) by our continued presence in Iraq. Isn't that something worth discussing? Are we really going to hold our tongues because, oooh, Mr. Insurgent might be happy about that and continue planting his IEDs and strapping bombs to himself and blowing up soldiers and civilians?
That sounds like fear to me. In that case, I guess the terrorists really have won.
Perhaps we could start by giving them the option of better body armor. A secret Department of Defense study has shown that a more extensive type of armor, available since 2003, could have saved the lives of around 80% of the Marines killed by upper body wounds in Iraq between 2003 and 2005. That's just Marine deaths; think of the number of Army deaths that 80% would represent.
The ceramic armor plates in question cost about $260 a set.
Any effort at finding what the White House calls a "common ground" on Iraq strategy, he said, "has to be coupled with a cessation of calling people who disagree with the strategy 'unpatriotic.' "
I'm a little distracted by the fact that the representative has the same name as the beloved (former) district attorney on Law & Order, but I agree with his last statement wholeheartedly.
We'll end with a crockpot full of irony:
He added, "A country that divides into factions and dwells on old grievances cannot move forward and risks sliding back into tyranny."
*cough*
Sound like any country/government you're aware of? Maybe one a little closer to home than Iraq?