?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Still more soldiers against Bush. - Adventures in Engineering — LiveJournal
The wanderings of a modern ronin.

Ben Cantrick
  Date: 2006-01-24 19:21
  Subject:   Still more soldiers against Bush.
Public
It all comes down to weapons of mass destruction, for me. And they weren't there. Dick Cheney's going around accusing all of us of being revisionist now. But if you're trying to say that the war in Iraq was about anything other than WMD, that's revisionism. I don't care how many times Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, whoever, says that this war was about anything other than WMD, or that we were given a justification or rationale other than WMD.

I've got a long memory, and it was only a couple of years ago. I know why I was sent to Iraq; I know why I went to war. And when that proved to be false, I think that's when we lost our credibility and our world standing.


http://www.uruknet.info/?p=19785

Let me emphasize: this is a decorated veteran of the Iraq invasion. He was there at the very moment it all happened. And he hates the Bush Admn, and says the reasons he was given as justification for the invasion of Iraq were dead wrong.

If this guy is not credible, NOBODY is credible.

How many more soldiers have to come forward before all the war cheerleaders get it? Or is it perhaps that the war cheerleaders don't, in fact, actually care about our soldiers?
Post A Comment | 5 Comments | | Link






osmium_ocelot
  User: osmium_ocelot
  Date: 2006-01-25 02:19 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Of course they don't care about the soldiers.
All they want is the oil in Iraq, and to keep Iran from opening their international oil exchange.
As far as they're concerned, if some people have to be sacrificed to meet those goals, then so be it. Who cares if they're some of our best, brightest, and bravest? So long as they're not related, it's okay.

I want "Tac Nuke. DC. Now." for a bumpersticker.
Reply | Thread | Link



Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2006-01-25 02:48 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
I think maybe I can arrange that...

After the circuit board layout is done and send to the fab house, I'll go check Cafe Press out.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2006-01-29 21:43 (UTC)
  Subject:   Just trying to point out what I see as a big contradiction...
Why, if someone claims to support the troops, do they simultaniously claim to support a policy that puts those troops at risk for what appears to be no reason? I can't understand it. How can I reconcile these two claims? They seem to be mutually contradictory on their faces.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2006-01-30 00:23 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
And also a reason for which there doesn't appear to be much, if any, real justification.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2006-01-30 21:02 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
No, just a justification that you don't accept.

Again, if there was any seemingly good evidence... You wanna go over the Bush admn's evidence for Iraq being an imminent threat again? I do not believe that your case has not gotten stronger with time.

Maybe the fact that people who are over there serving (the vast majority) are willing to put their lives on the line for a justificaiton you don't believe in might cause you to re-examine that justificaiton?

Having re-examined it multiple times now, I find this an extremely unconvincing line of argument. Sounds almost exactly like "Hey, everyone ELSE is jumping off a cliff..."

Let's also not forget that there are at least some examples of soliders who are coming back and saying, "This is senseless. We were lied to." Remember the story in the LJ entry we're commenting on here?


I would like to hear from some actual soldiers who support the war effort as to why they want to be there. The one person I know who wants to be there doesn't seem to have much of a factual basis for why he thinks we should be in Iraq, and doesn't have any answer to me when I present him with facts that contradict his position.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



browse
May 2015