Interesting perspective on Iraq from a Soldier

[senile1]

Troutfisher stated:

He certainly did make much better decisions than when Clinton was in office.  Have you not noticed the Economy recently?  All time high?  This "all politicians are corrupt" thing doesn't fly with me.  If politicians are only concerned about money, then this country wouldn't have lasted for centuries like it has.

Your first sentence supports one of my points.  To defend Bush, you bash Clinton.  Many who supported Clinton, now bash Bush.  Republicans and Democrats should understand that just because you admit your guy may have made a mistake doesn't mean you aren't supporting him.  It means you are objective.   These guys are both Americans, and the leaders of our country, which isn't an easy job.  I don't hate either one.  Clinton did some good things and Bush did some good things.  Both have done some bad things.  If you disagree with what Clinton did, state that you disagree, but don't state that he is evil.  If you disagree with Bush, again, state that you disagree, but don't state that he is evil.  For all you know you may be the one that is wrong.  Only history will prove who is right and who is wrong.  I stated this in another thread.  People don't disagree respectfully anymore.  Rather than saying they disagree with Bush and Republicans, they want to call him a liar, like Hitler, etc.  It was the same way when Clinton was in office.  

As for my opinion that all politicians are tainted to some degree by corruption, I'm not some uneducated Johnny-come-lately who hasn't studied this problem for years.  Political Action Committees and other organizations are used to raise millions of dollars from corporations, unions, etc. for any candidate for U.S. representative, U.S. Senator, or President.  When a politician reaches the level of running for one of these high offices and he/she is elected, there are a lot of donors to that campaign who expect something in return.  And if these candidates don't repay these donors with favorable legislation for their organization, that candidate will probably not receive money from that organization in the next election.  This is legalized bribery and in many cases, is not good for the country as a whole.  If you deny that this situation exists you are naive.  If you agree that this situation exists, then what do you call it, other than legalized bribery and corruption?

This is why I suggest that the government provide each candidate for these offices with the same amount of money to run their campaign and the campaign should be limited to 6 months or so.  No campaign contributions would be allowed.  In this way, it wouldn't be just those that are rich, and have connections, who could run for office.  Those who claim that donating money to a campaign is free speech make one major mistake.  Those with great amounts of money have great amounts of "free speech" or what should be called undue influence on the legislative process.  Those without these great amounts of money have none of this "free speech."  In essence, those with the most money have the most free speech which makes it not free, but bought and purchased speech.  

This country has lasted over 200 years despite the influence of money on the political process, but now there is more money involved in this process than ever before.  I just want this country to continue to be great.  You can only have so much monetary influence before you reach a tipping point.  

In the words of the great avid, Senile1 has spoken.  

[Dan:]

documents were found that showed that Saddam did want to pursue nuclear weapons.

[Troutfisher]

his is why I suggest that the government provide each candidate for these offices with the same amount of money to run their campaign and the campaign should be limited to 6 months or so. No campaign contributions would be allowed. In this way, it wouldn't be just those that are rich, and have connections, who could run for office. Those who claim that donating money to a campaign is free speech make one major mistake. Those with great amounts of money have great amounts of "free speech" or what should be called undue influence on the legislative process. Those without these great amounts of money have none of this "free speech." In essence, those with the most money have the most free speech which makes it not free, but bought and purchased speech.

I can agree that there should be a limit on how much money is donated to a certain candidate, but I don't necessarily agree with the fact that candidates should only be in office 6 months or so. The Presidents would hardly have time to serve their term, nor would the Senators, Governers, etc.

Back on topic,

documents were found that showed that Saddam did want to pursue nuclear weapons.

True.  Why did President Bush invade Iraq?  Because their was proof that Saddam was building weapons.  At least that's what the U.N. said.  During the 3 day time period allotted, who is anyone to say if Saddam didn't destroy/hide any proof or evidence of weapons.

If they can hide this, who says they can't hide weapons?

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp

And here is something else, not necessarily about the weapons.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/mural.php

[senile1]

Troutfisher stated:

I can agree that there should be a limit on how much money is donated to a certain candidate, but I don't necessarily agree with the fact that candidates should only be in office 6 months or so.  The Presidents would hardly have time to serve their term, nor would the Senators, Governers, etc.  

Hey Troutfisher, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear but you misunderstood me.  I didn't say they should only be in office for 6 months.  I said the campaign for election should only last 6 months (i.e. Running ads, stumping at different locations making speeches in order to be elected.)  I get tired of everybody spending one and a half to two years running for office.  Let 'em run for 6 months, have the election, and be done with it.  I sometimes think those in office spend more time trying to get re-elected than they spend running the country.

[Troutfisher]

Oh, ok, I see what you're saying, and I agree with it.  

[CSB]

 guys who praise Bush and Republicans need to understand there have been a number of errors in judgement that have been made which have hurt us as a country

I have a hard time believing that they have made so much errors.  He certainly did make much better decisions than when Clinton was in office.  Have you not noticed the Economy recently?  All time high?  This "all politicians are corrupt" thing doesn't fly with me.  If politicians are only concerned about money, then this country wouldn't have lasted for centuries like it has.

As for pulling out of the war, yes, now that we have successfully established a country in a place that was once oppressed by the grip of dictatorship, we can begin early plans for leaving the country sometime the end of next year, or even later.  Contrary to what the media will have you believe, we are winning the war in Iraq, and the War on Terrorism.  No matter what the latte sipping, overpaid brats in Hollywood will have you believe, the true heroes are the United States soldiers.  Soldiers who will let you know that we are winning the war we are fighting.  President Bush made his decision clear when he said that the U.S. would be invading Iraq and Afghanistan.  Unlike a certain President who opted not to go after Saddam when he had the chance (cough * cough Clinton), President Bush stayed the course.  Even after being hit with slanderous reports by the mainstream media, and being ridiculed and the such, the President and the U.S. soldiers have not lost their resolve.  We should stand behind them and wish them well until the job is done, and they can come home.

A few facts:

- The president does no control the economy. Consumer spending controls it.

- Heroes cure diseases, fight hunger, and seek to end poverty. Heroes do not "fight" with a third world in hopes of creating democracy in a region filled with religious hate.

- The current administration is seeking $10 billion for economic reconstruction in Iraq on top of the $40 billion in financial aid that has already been distributed to the country. Meanwhile, 37 million Americans live in poverty. Another interesting fact, poverty levels rose every year from 2000-2004. I could place the blame on our president, but I am not that short sighted.

I am not a Democrat, Republican, liberal, nor conservative. The partisian system is a joke - the real issues are ignored and politicians choose to blame the opposing party rather than take action.

One fact that is off topic but interesting indeed: When Bush started his first energy business, a man named James Bath invested $50,000 into the compant. Oddly enough, Bath was the US business representitive for Salem bin Laden - Osama bin Laden's brother.

[Troutfisher]

- The president does no control the economy. Consumer spending controls it.

- Heroes cure diseases, fight hunger, and seek to end poverty. Heroes do not "fight" with a third world in hopes of creating democracy in a region filled with religious hate.

- The current administration is seeking $10 billion for economic reconstruction in Iraq on top of the $40 billion in financial aid that has already been distributed to the country. Meanwhile, 37 million Americans live in poverty. Another interesting fact, poverty levels rose every year from 2000-2004. I could place the blame on our president, but I am not that short sighted.

The President may not control the economy, but he can make choices to influence the economy.  The tax breaks he has given to the middle class and upper class has definetly helped.  People think that raising the minimum wage will help people, and the fact is that it will not.  Raising the minimum wage strains big corporations that pay it out, and therefore, the corporations will end up raising prices on goods they are selling in the first place.

So, you're saying that soldiers who risk their lives every day in the blistering heat of Iraq, fighting to create a democracy for people who have never known any such thing, are not heros?  The very ones fighting to protect you, and giving you the right to a free democracy?  Imagine if Saddam Hussein was still in power.  I can see it now; Iraq would probably be building nuclear weapons, and threatening world peace, as is now Iran and North Korea.  This brings me to an earlier point, where I mentioned that Saddam certainly had nuclear capabilities, and that if the U.S. would have invaded without warning, they probably would have found WMD's or evidence of WMD's.  No, they gave the country a 3 day warning to pack them up, or destroy them.

Those 37 million Americans in "poverty" that you speak of have it better than some of the best in other countries.  I again spoke earlier of the differing conditions of poverty in the United States and that of Africa.  It can be found in earlier posts in this thread.

[Water Dog]

Heh, this is too good to stop

Getting back to the original article by Reservest, Cuney Mayor Oscar Birdow, I guess that he is mayor of some small town in Fla, anyway, I salute his service along with all of our Servicemen and Servicewomen both active and retired.

All of us can take the tiniest bit of information and weave it into a whole story about a person and the "story" that we develop shapes how we react or relate to them or what we say about them. We all do this unconciously, eg. 'kid with long hair goes in one file', 'we see two guys in a pickup with a rifle in the window, another box', and so on. It reminds me of the old game 'Rumor'. By the time the rumor went around the room it didn't resemble the original line in the least.

I would put the story of 'James Bath' in that category.

Political operatives start rumors all of the time and the first thing that you know the press gets it or starts it if it suits their agenda and then it becomes fact for a lot of people.

President Ford was an All American Football Player but he stumbled on a step and the press portrayed him as a bumbling idiot. President Clinton had sex with several women, forced or otherwise, and that made him a womanizer... Oh, wait a minute, that one's true

One thing that is fact about taking down Saddam.

World History Was Changed.

1. The madman Saddam will not kill hundred's of thousands of more people.

Saddam was developing long range missles and the bomb. He had to be taken out.

Mistakes, yes we made mistakes. The first was trying to fight a politically correct war and the second was allowing the press in a war zone. The press has its own agenda.

I don't know that we have learned that lesson.

[Troutfisher]

Mistakes, yes we made mistakes.  The first was trying to fight a politically correct war and the second was allowing the press in a war zone.  The press has its own agenda.

I don't know that we have learned that lesson.  

That's true...the press can twist news stories around to where it's their opinionated story, not the real news in and of itself.