Tuesday: 06.February.2007

The War in Iraq: A Voter's Perspective

Can't sleep. Things on my mind. Might be a good time to share my views on the war in Iraq.

In the spirit is civil disobedience, espoused by the likes of Thoreau, King & Gandhi, I offer this protest with a sense of duty.

When I think of the war in Iraq, the first thing that comes to mind is incompetence, followed closely by deception, political myopia and the waste of both lives and treasure.

Makes me ashamed to be an American. Most Americans now regard the war in Iraq as the single worst foreign-policy blunder since Viet Nam, and maybe in our nation's history (we don't yet know how bad it will turn out).

Heck, even the Dixie Chicks could see, back in 2003, that invading Iraq was a bad idea. (As did Bush-41, following the first Gulf war.) And now it looks like we're planning to repeat those same mistakes in Iran. It's déjà vu all over again.

••• today's entry continued here •••

For those who haven't been paying attention, .. our government claims that (basically) they screwed up in Iraq so bad that - 4 years after proclaiming the Mission Accomplished - we now can't leave. Even worse, we actually need to send *more* brave young men to die in Iraq's civil war (they're calling this troop increase a 'surge').

It's generally accepted that Evangelicals put GWB into office (both times), .. cuz I'm sure they felt he was a "man of God" (or at least that's what my hard-core Christian friends told me).

George even claimed to have heard the voice of God, telling him to invade Iraq. I'm convinced Evangelicals were duped by dub-ya, cuz he learned how to speak their lingo.

If it's true what the bible says: Ye shall know them by their fruit, which (in this case) happens to include death, destruction, record debt, lies, deception, torture, poverty at a 32-year high, and (among other things) a military that experts claim is on the verge of breaking .. then whose voice do you reckon George is listening to?

Still, many of my Christian friends won't admit voting to re-elect the president was a mistake. Reminds me of an investor who buys a bad stock, yet refuses to admit he miscalculated, while he watches the price of his stock continue to sink.

Some speculate the last remaining hold-outs in the president's approval rating consist of Evangelicals who are having trouble seeing the light on Iraq. (+ those who earn more than $200K per year) I keep telling them: "Look at the fruit. (The modern translation of this scripture is: Actions speak louder than words.) Do you really believe a God of peace approves of all this unprovoked death & destruction?"

And what does this say about the average Evangelical? .. who I'm sure prayed about his decision regarding who should get his vote?? I can see (kinda, sorta) how someone might've gone along with the war at its outset .. cuz there was tons of mis-information being spread, in an attempt to justify leading nation into war ...

... but now .. it's really clear what's going on .. as we've heard from a wagonload of sources .. to the point people feel compelled to cry out in protest. Ignorance (of the facts) is no longer an excuse.

Anybody else having trouble reconcilling the way the administration used information they knew to be false, regarding "yellow cake uranium from Niger" (and then lied about what they knew) in order to lead the nation to invade & occupy a nation that posed us no threat .. with the bible's description of the salt of the earth. Salt is a preservative, no? Wars destroy.

Even the most pro-Bush evangelical however, should understand that - if it really were "God's will" for us to invade Iraq - then there would be no need for the president to *lie* about the reasons for going to war.

Anyway, I predict it will be a long time before we elect another man who knows how to use the name Jesus , and manipulate Evangelicals, the way George (& Rove) did.

If any of you Evangelicals happen to see the president, do me a favor and tell him to read Mark 4:22: For there is nothing hid, save that it should be manifested; neither was anything made secret, but that it should come to light. If he would've known that, we wouldn't be in this mess.

If someone believes in Armageddon, do you suppose those beliefs might affect the decisions he makes? I doubt the Prince of Peace wanted George to lead this nation into a such a mess, which has wrought so much death & destruction.

I also contend that, in 2001, if you would've asked a group of our best minds to sit down and come up with a strategy to wreck havoc in both our nation and the world, they wouldn't have been able to come up with anything as effective as what our leaders have been able to accomplish these past six years.

Furthermore, my contention has been, following September 11th, 2001, that those in power demonstrated incompetence the minute that first airliner crashed into the World Trade Center, and therefore lost the right to continue governing our country. They should have either resigned or been "encouraged" to step down, because they failed at their #1 responsibility: to keep the American people safe.

Are we even *looking* for Osama bin Laden any more? .. you remember > the guy responsible for bringing down the World Trade Center towers on 9-11. What ever happen to "Dead or alive"?

You hear members of Congress claiming that the current debate on the war in Iraq gives "aid-n-comfort" to the terrorists. Let me tell you what *really* gives "aid-n-comfort" to the terrorists:> the fact that - 6 years after 9-11 - the #1 terrorist in the world (Osama bin Laden) is still free. The United States is unable to bring this man to justice.

Yeah, that's what really gives aid & comfort to the enemy. You can almost hear bin Laden taunting us:> "Nah, nah - you can't catch me .. cuz you have no energy."

The administration now has a clear track record. We know them. The trend is not good and it's not going to get better. Doesn't take a genius to see that.

Most agree the President is in denial about Iraq, which shouldn't surprise anybody, since denial is the very nature of the alcoholic.

As a side-note, doesn't it seem odd that the singular gift of this administration is the ability to divide people? Here in our country, people are divide over things they have done & said. Even his own party is divided over his policies. In Iraq, Sunni & Shia are killing each other in record numbers. Across the globe, the world is at odds with American foreign policy. What is the source of such divisiveness?

My final point today pertains to the Senate's resolution against the surge, and how some claim this goes against supporting the troops. Can't believe anybody is actually trying to pawn off this dysfunctional logic as credible. I contend that sending more troops to Iraq (where they can be shot at, blown up, killed or maimed is *really* not "supporting the troops" .. most of whom don't agree with the war anyway. How twisted the thinking in Washington has become.

All this talk by the government od supporting the troops is baloney. The best way to support the troops .. is to bring them home.

I'd feel better about the war in Iraq if more than a few members of congress had a son fighting there. You could be assured, that if every politician in Washington had to send a son or daughter to Iraq to fight in this upcoming surge, there would be no surge. (And there'd be no war.)

The president came out of the oil industry, and the Veep came out of the defense industry. Funny how those two industries have profited most under this administration. Well, it's not really funny. More shameless than anything. If you build bombs or drill oil, you're sitting pretty.

If I needed a single word to describe our government these past six years, I'd have to choose inept.

When they write the book, Decline & Fall of the United States, I'm afraid chapter 1 will begin like so: The election of George W. Bush, the 43rd POTUS, and son of former president George Herbert Walker Bush, was decided on December 12, 2000 by the United States Supreme Court following a legal battle lasting more than a month....

The really *sad* thing, and the thing we need to keep in mind .. is that there are still boys dying in Iraq. Iraq may be important (especially to the president's legacy) but it's certainly not worth dying for.

And certainly, the president's legacy is not worth dying for. (which bears repeating)

I think it's becoming clearer, what Kerry meant when he said, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" .. especially when you yourself avoided serving in Vietnam. (Takes big cojones to send boys to die in a foreign land when you wouldn't go yourself. Big credibility gap.)

The infuriating thing is that .. we've been thru this bullshit already .. back in the 60's. Remember that old Who protest song: Won't Get Fooled Again? .. with its lyrics (1971):

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Then I'll get on my knees and pray...
We don't get fooled again

Who's gonna pay for this war, anyway? Are we dumping the debt onto our children? It's clear that we'll be paying for the mistakes of this president for generations to come.

Congress should post a large Debt Clock right above the Speaker's chair, so they can see what effect their decisions are having.

National Debt Clock

Does no one remember what happened to the mighty Soviet Red Army when it invaded Afganistan? The returned home 10 years later. Defeated by guys living in caves, who wore towels on their heads. That was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union.

Regarding the proposed "surge" .. does anyone else feel as if the president gave us-voters a political middle finger, following the elections of November 7th? .. when the will of the people was made clear. What kind of public servant hears from the electorate and does the exact opposite?

We have *names* for leaders who follow their own agendas, contrary to the expressed will of the people. And none of them are very flattering. What kind of leader ignores the will of the people to pursue his own agenda ... at the expense of the lives of others?

We can put an end to this .. no matter *what* the Decider says. They're already had this thing 4 years now. If they were gonna turn things around, they woulda done it by now. Heck, even WWII didn't last this long.

My biggest fear is that the president will resent meddling by the Congress and attempt to sabotage Iraq by attacking Iran. Like a boy who refuses to share his bat and ball, he might say, "If I can't have it *my* way..." as he heads for home and ruins the game for everyone.

This video pretty much sums it up, chronicling the long list of mistakes .. begining with the assertion that Iraq had WMDs. (Remember that?)

If there's one thing the 60's taught us, it's that, when we see our leaders committing senseless acts of bullshit on a grand scale, we have a *duty* .. to cry out in protest .. or in the common venacular .. to call bullshit.

And when we see soldiers dying needlessly, and mega-debt being passed on to future generations .. that's a good sign senseless bullshit is being committted. We need a bumper-sticker that says: This War is Bullshit

When the war in Iraq is all said & done, what do *you* think will be the total number of dead US soldiers? Right now, that number stands at 3120.

I think the reason the war in Iraq torques me is cuz I grew up in the nuclear industry, and operating a reactor plant on a nuke sub, .. where incompetence can be deadly. Screw-ups in important matters shouldn't get a second chance.

Anybody remember the 1st Gulf war? Now *that's* how war should be done. Fast & efficient, with the world on your side.

In closing, I will simply add that the money we spent (are spending) in Iraq could've been better spent. Far better .. than on bombs & bullets.

The end. For more along these lines, here's a Google search pre-configured for the query-string: iraq+war


The Nation • Wikipedia • CNN • Russian site • Polls • University of Michigan • Iraq War Timeline • Iraq War pictures (grusome) • Historical background • Iraq War Facts

Iraq War Statistics • When did the Iraq War start? • How did the Iraq War start? • Veterans Against Iraq War • BBC • Aljazeera • New York Times

Why do our leaders feel more military will solve our problems, when it was the unnecessary use of military that got us into this mess in the first place? Does not their reasoning seem irrational? (It's certainly ironic.)

Posted by Rad at February 6, 2007 03:04 AM


Newest Rad Weblog]

Rad Community Forums]

Back-up your PC's hard drive with Norton Ghost]

Back-up your PC's hard drive with Norton Ghost 12/14]

Virtual Private Servers: Guide to VPS Web Hosting]

Rip & Encode CD audio to high-quality MP3]

Hard Drive Partitioning Strategies]

Windows Installation guide]

PC Computer Maintenance]

Radify your Laptop (Notebook PC)]

Favorite Rad Freeware]

Magoo's BitTorrent Guide]

Create Bootable CD/DVDs]

Magoo's guide to Eliminating Spyware

Digital Camera Buyer's guide]

Intro to Linux]

Wireless Networking]

Guide to eBay]

ASPI Layer Drivers]

Boot from a SCSI hard drive]