Anhata's post

Submitted by Susannah on Fri, 11/05/2004 - 6:37am.

Something has really stuck in my craw since reading Anhata’s post in the Electoral College thread. I can’t help it. I’ve got to cough it up.

I think the statement that summed up her view of the U.S. and the efforts of our military could be found in sentence 1, graf 3.

"Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan--all of the carnage in these countries before 2001 was caused by U.S. interference in order to destroy the basic rights and capacity of those peoples to construct their own independent, sovereign society. This doesn't even touch the mess in Central and South America or Africa that we caused by propping up dictatorships, etc." [Emphasis added]

If I seem emotional here, pleae keep in mind you’re talking to the daughter of a Vietnam vet.

No, our troops were not over there spreading some sort of American hegemony. They were there fighting for the FREEDOM of all those people. They were combating communism. If you could point to one single example where communism has brought freedom, or even improved the lives of the people who live under it, such a statement might get a pass. But all the examples from real life demonstrate the opposite. People in North Korea are starving to death under a madman. People in Cambodia died horribly after we abandoned that part of the world to the communists. If we had allowed Central America, Afghanistan, etc. to go the same way, what do you suppose would have happened? Just judging from history? There’s not even room here to list the endless examples of the persecution of our Christian brothers and sisters in China--imprisonments, beatings, executions--not to mention the infamous Tienanmen Square. It behooves us to learn from history, so we don’t have to repeat it.

You seem to conveniently forget that the "carnage" was not limited to civilian deaths. OUR MEN died over there by the thousands! Where’s your solidarity with them? You are saying they died to "take away people’s basic rights" and "interfere with their national sovereignty." You even imply that our troops took aim at civilians. All of which would be laughable, if not for the sobering reality that they sacrificed their lives in an attempt to secure people’s basic right to self-determination. You have it exactly reversed. Are self-determination and independence what you think communists wanted for people? Read any Solzenitsyn lately?

I apologize if I seem emotional, but men like my dad had to put up with this kind of slander from prominent people for decades, and to hear it repeated here is almost too much, especially with the husbands of our members here deploying or just returning from deployment. It almost amounts to spitting on the graves of the people who died in those conflicts. I doubt that’s how we want to celebrate Veteran’s day.

Oh, by the way, referring to your final paragraph, does your political philosophy really allow for an overtly Christian foreign policy? Whatever happened to the *strict* line of separation between church and state? Eye-wink Anyway, I do agree that it’s a nice warm fuzzy idea, if only the rest of the world could be trusted to have America’s best interests at heart. That’s a pretty big "if" on which to gamble our national security and economic well-being.

Furthermore, you’ve engaged in a huge theological leap. Jesus’ teaching was directed to individuals, not national entities. Jesus also told Peter that all those who draw the sword will die by the sword. However, Paul in Romans 13 makes perfectly clear that that teaching does *not* apply to civil government, which has the God-given authority to wield the sword against evildoers. A nation’s military is an extension of its civil government. What Jesus meant was that his church was not to be established by any bloodshed but his own.

America may not be "my country, right or wrong." But it is the premier example of the representative form of government on the face of this earth--the first nation in all of history to be founded on the basis of inalienable rights and limited powers of government. It is unsurpassed, in my view, as a haven of freedom and goodness. (Read Dinesh. That has to be my favorite article ever.) Whatever may be wrong with us, this much is true: we are not building a hegemony, we are making FREEDOM possible for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, freedom to determine their own future for the first time since the beginnings of human history. Lovers of freedom and democracy should be able to celebrate the recent elections there. Those who disapprove of "propping up dictators" should have less respect for the opinions France, Germany, and Russia, and a little more respect for our military men and women *and our many allies* who deposed a murderous despot like Saddam Hussein. But that’s only possible if one’s political viewpoint admits reality.

Finally...

HOO-AH!!!

Signing off with a great, big "thank you" to our military,

Susannah Cox

( categories: )

MommaM's picture

:)

Submitted by MommaM on Fri, 11/05/2004 - 10:05am.

I may chew on this one and comment later. But for now, Thank YOU, Susannah. Smiling

Funny how history repeats itself. Some of the same critical thoughts on how we are running the War on Terror (I challenge you to read the book Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror, by Richard Miniter, for a good overview of this) and what's happening in Iraq very closely mirror how post WWII and our actions in Germany were criticized by short minded reporters, etc. How we were wasting our time building the country up while remaining supremists were still killing off our folks over there, POST WWII.

Before anyone personally comments on my thoughts, I have to tell you that I think about these exact things every single day. Open mindedly, looking from every view possible. I meet very few people willing to do that, look at sides that may not be comfortable for them.

My husband just got back from a year in Iraq, we have many friends still there, and many who have just left to go to Iraq. I have personally challenged myself as to what we are doing and why, every day wondering why my hubby was there, is it worth him dying for leaving me alone with three little boys. Although I'm not 100% sold on every single action we've taken, through my readings (Republican, Democrat, liberal and conservative), I do agree with what we are doing in the Middle East as a whole. My opinions are also based on hearing personal stories of soldiers who have lived and worked every day with the folks there. Not from reporters or others who have visited several times, think they are experts on what is going on in Iraq.

It's very easy choosing a "side" and arguing/defending it. It's not easy for somone to take a step back and put themselves in someone elses' shoes and think about a topic from totally different perspective.

--Karin

Shaun's picture

Just one thought . . .

Submitted by Shaun on Fri, 11/05/2004 - 1:21pm.

Susannah, you are very entitled to your opinions and you express yourself well. You're obviously a student of history.

Still, I too get emotional as the daughter of a Vietnam vet. My dad has become increasingly bitter about Vietnam. When he stopped by the Wall in Washington D.C. he was enraged, thinking of all the very young men who died, drafted into a cause they did not support, and feeling he had been decieved by his own government.

So let me ask you to avoid seeming to speak for military families or on their behalf. You can surely make your points well enough without accusing dissenters of "spitting on graves." Men like my dad hold political positions exactly the opposite of yours in part because he feels that being in solidarity with the troops, including the men who died around him, means questioning government decisions.

I was born while my father was in Vietnam, my mother alone in the hospital, my dad alone in the jungle. Knowing what they experienced gives me tremendous respect for the military families in our TNH community, especially since they volunteered for that very possibility. So defend our foreign policy and support the troops however you like. But please stop slandering those who disagree.

Shaun

Susannah's picture

I knew that statement would r

Submitted by Susannah on Fri, 11/05/2004 - 8:44pm.

I knew that statement would raise hackles, and I posted it anyway. I don't apologize for it.

You'll notice I softened the statement a little bit, to keep it from becoming an accusation. I *felt* like accusing, but I did realize that Anhata was thinking of our "satanic foreign policy" as a generality, not specifically of the soliders who carried it out.

Nevertheless, her statements have a direct bearing on our military, and I wanted her to realize that. I wanted her to think through the implications of blaming America for all the "carnage" (as if the Viet Cong possessed no weapons, and had kindly intentions towards the Vietnamese people!)--what it might mean to military families, and how it might impugn the honor of those who fought, and especially those who died.

Do you view your father as a war criminal? Of course not. Your father and mine had to put up with way too much crap after coming home. They were treated like criminals because they had been slandered, every one, and that they are still putting up with it today is astounding. It's time to put that "last man to die for a mistake" garbage to death once and for all. It was political posturing then, and it's no different now.

There's no doubt that the Vietnam war has been re-fought in many an armchair since our defeat there. There's no question that our foreign policy must be open to criticism--otherwise, we'd wind up with a bad case of groupthink. But how many people ask honest-to-goodness questions, like Becky there? I think it's like Karin says, people pick a political side and argue for it, without at least trying to imagine walking in the other fella's shoes. I don't apologize for having a serious problem with knee-jerk America-hating, casting us as an oppressor, and our military as the means of oppression. It simply isn't true. We didn't go over there to cause mayhem. However badly that war was fought, however much criticism the military strategy deserved, the reasons for going there were very good ones, and the dreadful consequences of leaving the task unfinished prove it. There are lessons to be drawn from that for our situation today.

My younger sister was six months old before my dad ever saw her face. But he never stopped believing that we were there for the right reasons. He apologized to her later in her life for not being there when she was born and her response was incredulity that he would even have worried about it over the years...because, after all, she didn't even remember it and has no resentment whatsoever about it.

BTW, he had a hard time forgiving Jane Fonda for the things she did, although he was a Christian and knew he had to. He didn't live to hear her recant.

I think what irks me the most is giving the true totalitarians a pass, then turning around and trying to pin the charge on own country. And "racist underpinnings"! Arg, don't get me started on that. That's a whole 'nother post. We're just bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. We should be ashamed of ourselves. We haven't achieved utopia, we haven't cleansed the thoughts of every bigot over here, what do we MEAN by foisting democracy on other nations? And anyway, don't we know that "those people" can't possibly sustain a democracy?

Sheesh. Yeah, we're racist all right. For believing that inside every human being there is a yearning to breathe free. Well, I still believe.

Susannah's picture

Oh, and one more thing.

Submitted by Susannah on Fri, 11/05/2004 - 9:24pm.

I view the "support the troops but don't support the cause" stuff as equivocation. Yes, even as a dissenter, one can support the troops individually, by sending toothpaste and antiperspirant and stuff like that. One can pray (think-nice-thoughts, whatever) for their protection.

But when one actively, vocally undermines the cause for which they are fighting, by calling it "fascist" or "satanic" or even "a mistake," one is not supporting them. It's better to keep one's mouth firmly closed in that situation. Even if one doesn't agree with it, what's done is done. And if one truly wishes our military men and women come home ASAP, the best path to take is the one that leads to successful completion of the mission. Undermining their morale, and the support back home for said mission, will hardly do that.

I'm not sayin' one must be out there cheerleading, but for gosh sakes, at least zip it, for their sake.

Okay, I did my best to phrase that politely.

MommaM's picture

Hmmm...

Submitted by MommaM on Fri, 11/05/2004 - 3:25pm.

As a military family member of about 13.5 years, my hubby just getting back from the sand box for the third time (9 months in the first Gulf War, 6 months in the Multinational Forces and Observation tour in Egypt), and 15 months in Korea, I really do agree with Susannah's point of view, too. I get what she was saying, I think, and didn't take it as slander of military members and family members at all. This topic is very emotional for a great number of people. Those affected in the past, and the thousands living through this right now.

The guys here have been back for about a week now, and I just went to that promotion, will go to the actual party tonight. I don't know if it's because of my husband's job, or because we are easy to talk with, but I've been having some amazing conversations with the men (infantry unit, no women in this specific group). I can see great pain in some of their eyes already, the medic who treated men, some of whom didn't make it, the company commander who was in a convoy and saw two of his soldiers die after they hit an IED in the road. You can't help but question why we are really there. You have to question. And I catch myself from automatically justifying the action just because my husband is in the military.

But in the big picture, I really do agree that we are over there for the right reasons. Forget about weapons of mass destruction, even without them (and they do and did exist), I think we've taken great actions that have disrupted terrorist networks and saved an untold number of lives.

What WMD? What do you call the Jordanian terrorist, Zarkowi (sp?), who fled Afghanistan when we broke up his terrorist training camps there and went directly to Baghdad when Sadam was there, BEFORE we went there to break his actions and those of others up in Iraq? I'd say he himself is a WMD! If there was no connection between Afghanistan and Iraq, why did Zarqowi, the man behind the beheadings, flee directly to Baghdad to set up camp in Iraq? And if you don't think there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before we went in, what were the trucks moving massive amounts of explosives out of the country doing if not hiding evidence of WMD? What about MIG planes burried in the desert under 10+ feet of sand, but easily enough uncovered and in shape to fly again? What else is burried in the sand, only to be uncovered when the time is convenient? How much WMD made it out of the country with so many of the horrid leaders who fled up through Mosul area and then into Syria? Or how much was put on ships and out to sea before we went into the country? And don't even get me started on the UN. I could rant and rave for hours about how crooked an organization that has become.

My husband saw loads and loads of folks in Iraq very happy to see the Americans. Men lining up to become Iraqi policemen or to get trained in the new Iraqi army, to defend their own country. The change over there will take time, and the Iraqis will have to carry a heavy load of their own self determination. But if a seed of freedom can be planted there, it can grow and spread to other areas of such severe oppression, too. And don't kid yourselves, the Iraqis were seriously oppressed under Sadam. Maybe there were those who thrived under Sadam, but to what cost of the thousands who suffered, were killed?

Now, how long will we be there? That's the question. I don't know how long I could stand seeing us fight there, supporting the Iraqis as they raise their nation. The Iraqis will have to pick up and take over their own country, and we need to keep training them to do so. It will take some time to help them back on their own feet, as it took time for folks after WWII and Korea. But thoughts of Vietnam and the years we were there really do hurt me. Thinking about Vietnam and seeing all the lives that were broken through those years really does bother me. I don't want to see that happen here again.

I can say with some personally deserved feeling, that our soldiers, my husband and so many friends, have done and are doing an excellent job in Iraq. Their work is important. But lets do the job, do it well, then come home. The big picture is to defend our country. Part of that big picture includes breaking up the terrorist network in other countries (Al Qaeda caught in 102 countries so far, and at sea? From the book Shadow War), allowing freedom to spread so there is less opportunity for hate and destruction brought on by terrorism. But we have to end our time there eventually. Letting it drag of forever would be a disaster.

I guess I don't have any other thoughts on this right now. That and the kids are screaming about something. Time to take care of my own family, eh? Smiling

--Karin

Becky's picture

my understanding

Submitted by Becky on Fri, 11/05/2004 - 6:37pm.

My understanding, based on some back-and-forth I read between a soldier and a regular columnist in the Atlantic Monthly, is that the military actually has had a much better idea of what we were/ are really doing over there. The current administration has told the civilian population things that are not quite the same as the real motivations. The sad part is, I think the civilian population really might have rallied around the real reasons which are the ones the military was given (which are, essentially, the ones Karin outlines).

What I'm saying, rather incoherently, is that the debate surrounding Iraq is really TWO debates. First, was the administration honest with the civilian population and our allies, not just the military, about why we were really in Iraq? Second, are our real reasons for being in Iraq good ones? The two debates are often conflated in our discourse (oh boy, I've been in grad school too long already), and they are related, but they are not the same issue.

Becky's picture

oh, yeah

Submitted by Becky on Fri, 11/05/2004 - 6:40pm.

And the third one, which is a doozy: If the answer to the first question is no and the second is yes, where does that leave us? If we go to war for a good reason, but we hide that reason behind a not-so-good reason which is partly trumped-up, is the war still justified? Democrats, especially, are quite splintered on that one.

Susannah's picture

Know what?

Submitted by Susannah on Fri, 11/05/2004 - 8:20pm.

I like the objective way Becky phrases her questions. Those kinds of questions add to the discourse without closing it down.

Becky's picture

it's not a deliberate thing

Submitted by Becky on Fri, 11/05/2004 - 9:51pm.

I'm actually not trying to be objective, especially. I'm just trying to say things that haven't already been said, and usually by the time I get around to thinking of what to say on these threads, Shaun or someone has already said most of it, so I have to work really hard to say something other than just "me too."

That said, I'm happy to take credit for compliments on my posts. Smiling I do think it's very important to tease out what exactly is being debated. Otherwise political discussions end up sounding like one of those marital arguments that devolves into, "Well, maybe I'm always late, but you never picked up the dry cleaning like I asked and we had to pay a storage fee!" if you see what I mean.

Kerri's picture

I'm going to aim

Submitted by Kerri on Sat, 11/06/2004 - 5:37am.

for Becky's lucidity, concise approach and sensible objective stance, but one little thought is niggling me here. I don't however want to have Susannah feel like I'm trying to belittle her beliefs or attack her or anyone else in any way... (fingers crossed now!)

I understand the theory of outwardly supporting the military even if you inwardly don't support the cause. Attacking a leader during wartime can lead to disaster after all. What conflicts with that it seems to me is this... surely we owe it to all the military around the world who are trying to fight for freedom and humanity in other countries, to make sure, as far as possible, that we don't go into a situation when we shouldn't. It seems to me that this is putting their lives at risk unnecessarily, or using their commitment to defend their country lightly. I'm not saying whether that's the case here, because I'm still not sure and glad I don't have to make those decisions, but I just hope that every war is taken seriously in terms of the human cost - that includes the children born when their fathers were away, or wives having to hold the fort together, or mothers trying to be strong and hoping their babies come home. Some wars are important, and some are controversial, but I have a suspicion that most of them are entered with mostly economic and defense issues in mind rather than intensely human ones. Whatever the reasons that are published let's hope the reality is that the war is important enough to justify those human costs.

I think Becky probably comes across as objective partly because she can't quite decide how she feels about this war and she won't deliberately upset anyone on such a sensitive issue. She's also pretty good at expressing herself. I'm definitely undecided about this one... it's not a clear cut case of a country defending its own territory, so I think it's always going to be open to debate. I agree that terrorism should be stopped, but I'm not sure that it ever can be (no excuse for not trying though), that a full-on military attack is the best approach, or (this is going to upset people possibly) that the US (or the UK, since he's supporting it too) should be taking it upon themselves to wade in here. I would have thought that this is the kind of thing we have the UN for, at least in part.

Failed miserably on the concise, but hopefully I haven't managed to upset anyone. I only say something to try and provoke thought, not retaliation, especially if I see something that appears to have been overlooked.

and without sounding poncy (for want of a better word!)... I'd like to add that I think you're a very loyal person Susannah. It comes across to me loud and clear in everything you say and do, so it doesn't surprise me that you would take exception to Anhata's post - I realise it probably sounded very hurtful and disloyal to you, like she was attacking the troops. I don't think she was at all, but I can see how it would seem so to you and others.

Kerri.

Anhata's picture

We are simply never going to agree on this

Submitted by Anhata on Sat, 11/06/2004 - 12:36pm.

This is one reason Bush went to war scroll down halfway if you don't want to read about civilian body counts.

Afghanistan War Crimes

George Herber Walker's War Crimes in Iraq

War Crimes in Falluja

News you won't see on CNN

Effects of depleted uranium on children--warning, graphic photos of severe deformities

Washington's Own Love Affair with Terror

and the list goes on and on and on and on.

I am the granddaughter and niece of Vietnam vets. Let me be clear. Never at any point have I ever suggested that our troops are to blame for our goverment's mistakes. What I'm talking about is our goverment. The civilians in Washington that wage war, using our men and women in uniform as chess pieces in ideological wars.

I understand that TNH members have loved ones "over there". And I have thought twice about posting things that would upset them. But I do not accept your premise that condemning wars is condemning the efforts of our troops that wage them.

I grew up with Vietnam vets and thier families. I was taught to never confuse the nastiness of war with the troops that wage them. I hold the government accountable for 60 years of playing God with the goverments and people of other countries. And have heard countless times questions of those people, "Why are you here, this is none of your business."

Don't assume that you know everything about my opinions, philosophy, ideas, etc, from just a few posts here at TNH. This is a hugely complex issue and I don't think you really understand my poistion at all. If you did you wouldn't have said that about spitting on graves.

This is my last post here on matters of US policy, war, etc. I don't want to continue to generate these kinds of attacks. I don't need to spend the precious time I have here online explaining anymore to people the horrors that our goverment has perpertrated on other countries and civilian populations when people can learn these things very easily themselves if they care to do some keyword searches on their favorite search engine.

To those families here with people in the current conflicts, please know that I never intended to refer to our troops, thus indirectly to your loved ones, in any way shape or form in the post Susannah refered to.

Again, this is the last time I will post on anything not directly related to my own experience of homemaking. I will keep my posts within the context of my home. I ask the members here to respect this and to keep their own posts to me in the same context.

I will not be returning to this forum topic again.

Thank you.

MommaM's picture

Oh, boy.

Submitted by MommaM on Mon, 11/08/2004 - 6:36am.

Heated topic, yes. I have seen and looked at the sites you posted, and many other sites like them in the past. Too bad there aren't sites such as:

Civilian Body Counts in Iraq BEFORE we took Sadam off his THRONE OF TERROR

Civilian Body Counts in AMERICA on 9/11 (and yes, if you haven't figured out, I really do believe our War on Terror includes more than hunting down one person)

Civilian Body Counts, no wait, Civilians Alive in Iraq after Sadam's Fall

Civilians Alive by Terror Attacks Averted in America

The HORRIBLE War AND Peace Time Crimes by Sadam, Zarqawi, OBL, and the thousands of others that follow them

Effects of Chemicals Dumped on Innocent Civilians in Iraq, and the thousands killed otherwise and buried in mass graves

Washington's Love Affair with STOPPING terror, or at least getting rid of its breeding grounds overseas and hopefully stateside

Here are some real sites I'd recommend:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/ Provided extensive analysis of the Fallujah campaign last April, and will likely do the same this time.

http://www.adventuresofchester.blogspot.com/ A former Marine officer who participated in the initial invasion of Iraq, Chester has been providing excellent analysis of the current situation in Fallujah. Start at the top and work your way down.

Those aren't actual news, but blogs. Personal reports and analysis, though, of those who've been there, done that. I've also read from Iraqi resistance sites. Boy, talk about screwing with the truth, though. Far outdo the news you might not see on CNN or Fox News. I found them when they were reporting on "battles with the Americans" in places my DH had actually been involved with. He couldn't tell me what was going on then, but he could tell me that no, we didn't loose three helicoptors in that area...", "No, they didn't kill hundreds of American soldiers here...", you get the picture.

I think this is a part of homemaking, at least in our house. Whether you know someone in the military now or in the past, this affects our lives, our homes. Funny thing is, when I get upset about what's going on (don't assume I have a blanket acceptance of what our Government does, either) things like Flybaby routines and Flinging keep me sane. I do my best Flinging when I'm ticked off about something. Purging of junk I don't need, don't want to see. Helps me calm down, ha ha! Smiling

I'm glad we have a free country and freedom to think and feel and express ourselves in so many varied ways. One of my best friends now is very anti-Bush and anti-current-War-on-Terror. We actually get along very well, and challenge eachother every time we talk. She has a more open mind now, and has kept my mind open, too. Smiling It sure keeps life interesting!

--Karin

Lynn's picture

Re: Oh, boy.

Submitted by Lynn on Tue, 11/09/2004 - 12:03pm.

MommaM wrote:
Civilian Body Counts in Iraq BEFORE we took Sadam off his THRONE OF TERROR

Most of the mass graves we're finding were from before Gulf War I, when Saddam was a client of the United States. We never lifted a finger to stop him while he did this, because we were using him as a check against Iran. Could you agree we shouldn't use civilians as pawns like this?

MommaM wrote:
Civilian Body Counts in AMERICA on 9/11 (and yes, if you haven't figured out, I really do believe our War on Terror includes more than hunting down one person)

Of course it does. Smiling However, bringing terrorists to justice is not generally served by invading countries. Terrorists are generally not part of governments; they're independent, multi-national, and separately organized. Saddam was not involved in 9/11, at all. The 9/11 report is available for free online and I strongly suggest if you haven't read it that you do so--it's actually a good read! I hear it's up for a National Book Award, in fact. Saddam was contained before we invaded. He couldn't do squat against us except rattle his saber.

MommaM wrote:
Civilian Body Counts, no wait, Civilians Alive in Iraq after Sadam's Fall

According to the Lancet (British equivalent of the Journal of the American Medical Association), there are at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead after Saddam's fall who would still be alive today. Imagine wiping out a town the size of Waterbury, Connecticut. It's hard for me to think about it. As for averted American deaths, wouldn't it have been better had President Bush listened to the intelligence community and stopped 9/11 from happening at all? He resisted hearing anything that wasn't about Saddam Hussein.

MommaM wrote:
Those aren't actual news, but blogs. Personal reports and analysis, though, of those who've been there, done that.

Here's one blog, then, for you:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
A young Iraqi woman living in Baghdad. No wild-eyed claims of helicopters downed and troops killed, just daily life in Baghdad. Be sure to read her account of a refugee family from Fallujah. They had to leave the oldest son and father behind.

And another:
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/
Reporter Christopher Allbritton, who's on the ground reporting in Iraq for the AP.

I oppose badly planned wars. We went in without grounds, without a plan for what to do when we won, without adequate supplies for our troops. My idea of support for the troops is planning, armor and ammunition. Unfortunately they're all in short supply in Iraq.

Shaun's picture

Thank you again, Karin

Submitted by Shaun on Mon, 11/08/2004 - 8:30am.

Karin, just want to thank you for your patience, and willingness to share your own experience. I'm sure it would not be so easy for me if I were in your shoes! Though I have many misgivings about our actions in Iraq, I am always glad to hear reports of good things happening, especially schools and hospitals being opened. Hope you are enjoying having DH home!!

Shaun

p.s. I am contacting some mom friends about the formals.

Danna's picture

Susannah, you know that I res

Submitted by Danna on Mon, 11/08/2004 - 10:15am.

Susannah, you know that I respect your intellect and the thought you put into your opinions, but I just wanted to point out that once again, you seem to think that those who disagree with you are doing so because they are uninformed lemmings. I believe you phrased it as "knee-jerk America-hating," which implies that those of us who don't feel that America's war record is stellar haven't given it much thought. I think you know people here well enough to know that isn't true.

Also, the position for which you are arguing, support the troops by zipping our lips, isn't what this country is about. If our foreign policy should be open to debate, but by debating it we are undermining the troops, what are we left with? Waiting until the whole thing is over to try to gently point out where things went wrong? That's not very effective dissent. We need to be actively and vigorously discussing and debating these issues *while they are happening* so that the BEST course of action can be taken. Perhaps after all the pinko-Commie bleeding-heart leftists have had their say, the best course of action will turn out to be the one that has already been taken. But perhaps not. And how would anyone know unless those with differing ideas said them loudly?

One of my very best friends' husbands has been in and out of Iraq several times since this war started. She and I both disagree with this war, but we certainly don't disdain her husband's part in it. We both want him to do his job the best he can, and at the same time we both hope that the mistakes that have been made will be corrected. And we're both vocal about it. And her husband encourages that. He believes the right decisions have been made, but he wants us to be just as vocal in our opinions as he is in his.

At the risk of making this a religious debate, which it's not in any way, how can you love the sinner but hate the sin if it isn't possible to support the troops but not the war?

Danna

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
More information about formatting options