Conservative & Patriotic t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, buttons and more! RightNation.US Conservative & Patriotic t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, buttons and more!
Conservative & Patriotic t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, buttons and more!
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: The Liberal Dilemma and the WOT - RightNation.US

Jump to content

-----
The Liberal Dilemma and the WOT

stickin_damud

Listening to Rush Limbaugh address a caller this morning, something profoundly simple came to light. Something that I know to be true, but had never really sunk in.

Who attacked us on 9/11?

We all know it wasn't Iraq. We hear this continuously from the liberals.

But, a-ha, we all know it wasn't Afghanistan either, was it?

The Taliban didn't attack us, did they?

The truth is, no one country attacked us.


Yet, the left seems to be ok that we invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban, and still yet, have a real problem with us fighting the WOT in Iraq. Even though we are dictating the terms of the battle by being there (and not here in our country), the left cannot accept even to a small degree that we are doing the right thing in Iraq. Liberals are all for human rights all up until the person is an Iraqi. They have no use for an Iraqi's human rights.

Iraq is where a whole helluva lot of our enemy has come to engage our military, and likewise we are in Iraq to engage the enemy because they are drawn there. WE control the field of battle, not the enemy. Iraq is a keystone in the transition of the middle east to democratically run governments.

Afghanistan, to a lesser extent, is where our enemy has been neutralized and has more or less been transformed into a peaceful ally. The same goal has been set for Iraq and then the hope is the middle east will start a quantum transformation over time.

The left IS vested in our defeat in Iraq. They NEED it for their own political sake. If we succeed in Iraq, it only makes them wrong on so many facets. Worse yet for them, it makes the president right. But don't forget, they support the troops.

That's their dilemma.


And this business about the "non-binding" resolution has me fired up as well. Why are these people, whom we employ and whose salaries we provide, wasting money and an incredible amount of time on a "non-binding" resolution? This is how they wield their newly acquired power? It serves no purpose, other than to keep the drum beating against our President and the Iraq policy. Why can't they move on to serious issues? Why are Republican's beginning to cave-in?

The more I understand our politics, the more I want to tune it all out and spend more time with my family.
0
  Like

4 Comments On This Entry

It frustrates me to no end that somewhere along the way public service in an elected position has ceased to be about serving the public, and become about serving one's own interests. There's a reason that representatives and senators used to be paid nothing or almost nothing. Service used to be seen as a tour of duty, where a man would serve and then go home to his family and his own business. Now it's a career and an overpaid one at that. I'm sure that having a law degree helps to give an official some useful insight, but there's no requisite for that. That's problem #1.

Problem #2 falls under the umbrella of "feminization of America." Not even a hundred years ago, it was still unheard of that the government would "take care of" people. The Church and community centers and voluntary giving were the entities charged with caring for the needs of people. Now that the government has taken on that yoke, it's all the more difficult to wean it away. While it is good and noble to help and want to help people, it's not the government's job. Think of the reduction in taxes we could ALL expect if we got the government away from things it was never supposed to do. Under this umbrella, I could also write about gun-control, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, environmental regulation, and others. "Feminine" laws that exist to protect idiots from themselves.

Problem #3, if I had to articulate it, is a general lack of respect for life in America... and that is a spiritual issue. The lack of respect for life is express in many things: Roe v. Wade, the existence of a welfare system (cynicism), crime rates, you-name-it.
0

Guest_Willie Tubbs_*, on Jan 26 2007, 09:16 AM, said:

The attack was planned by an organization whose leader was living in Afghanistan, whose members openly trained there and the government of Afghanistan was unwilling to bring them to justice. It made perfect sense to attack them there.

Is the same true of Iraq? Nope.
Yeah, the government in Kabul is an ally, the rest of the country is a mess and getting worse. Too bad we didn't commit a large number of troops to Afghanistan where the enemy really was, we had to send them off to Iraq where they weren't.


Nice twisting job. The planner of the attack was a Saudi. Shouldn't we have attacked Saudi Arabia? The government of Afghanistan was the Taliban and you say they were unwilling to bring OBL to justice? THE HELL YOU SAY!!!!

Who is our enemy in this war? Organization, you say? An organization that perhaps had ties in Iraq?

OK, general Willie, what is your plan to defeat this organization which is present in almost every populated country in the world? Surely you would have just attacked Afghanistan and left it at that, right?
0

KenpoDude, on Jan 26 2007, 08:20 AM, said:

It frustrates me to no end that somewhere along the way public service in an elected position has ceased to be about serving the public, and become about serving one's own interests. There's a reason that representatives and senators used to be paid nothing or almost nothing. Service used to be seen as a tour of duty, where a man would serve and then go home to his family and his own business. Now it's a career and an overpaid one at that. I'm sure that having a law degree helps to give an official some useful insight, but there's no requisite for that. That's problem #1.

Problem #2 falls under the umbrella of "feminization of America." Not even a hundred years ago, it was still unheard of that the government would "take care of" people. The Church and community centers and voluntary giving were the entities charged with caring for the needs of people. Now that the government has taken on that yoke, it's all the more difficult to wean it away. While it is good and noble to help and want to help people, it's not the government's job. Think of the reduction in taxes we could ALL expect if we got the government away from things it was never supposed to do. Under this umbrella, I could also write about gun-control, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, environmental regulation, and others. "Feminine" laws that exist to protect idiots from themselves.

Problem #3, if I had to articulate it, is a general lack of respect for life in America... and that is a spiritual issue. The lack of respect for life is express in many things: Roe v. Wade, the existence of a welfare system (cynicism), crime rates, you-name-it.


I tend to agree, especially point 2. We are a far more advanced nation than 100 years ago. Yet, we (some or most people) rely on government more now than ever. The war on poverty has been going for 40 years now. No pull-out in sight. And poverty means you only have 2 TV's, basic cable, one microwave, and 2 economy cars in the garage. Yet we throw more and more money into the hole. Where schools were run by communities and churches, now they're in the hands of government. What can we do? I can't see reversing any of this....ever.
0

Guest_Willie Tubbs_*, on Jan 26 2007, 06:52 PM, said:

Nothing more than the stating of facts. What did I say that isn't true?
Why should his nationality matter? Anyway, they had revoked his citizenship.

?? Not even sure what you mean. If you need to brush up on recent history I suggest you do. That is exactly what happened.
No, not really. Despite all the efforts of our government they've never shown any ties, and certainly not to the Iraqi government.
No, that was the obvious target. I think we should be concentrating far more on Afghanistan and Pakistan which we are ignoring. That's where a lot of the jihadists are at, where they get training, where the planning goes on. Too bad we're so distracted with Iraq. It's a fiasco that everyone in the world sees except a few weirdo Republicans. Even the Republicans are coming around though, as seen by their opposition to Junior's escalation plans.


And do what to Pakistan? Invade? You really haven't said WHAT you would do. You show you don't know what you are talking about because you have no idea what we actually are doing behind the scenes. Intelligence gathering....oh, but wait, the left wants to destroy how we do that, so maybe you're right. We are going to lose the war afterall. I hope you're happy about that.
0
Page 1 of 1

Stuff

Posted Image

Recent Entries

0 user(s) viewing

0 Guests
0 member(s)
0 anonymous member(s)

Search My Blog