1st Phone Call From Our Son, Deployed By Military To GWOT Frontline - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

seretogis · 10-26-2006, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

the link in seretogis's post is from an article by the "heir" to Ayn Rand's estate and to her simplistic and incomplete "objectivism"..

I'll get to this bit of distraction later on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

the sentiments in seretogis's post, IMO, do not take into account the fiscal discipline and reversal of federal deficit spending in the 1993 to 2001 period, a time when the growth of the non-military portion of the federal government was actually reversed...the non-military government employment total grew smaller, in addition to a reduction of 284,000 mostly civilian DOD positions. Annual federal debt increases were reduced from $360 billion, in the fiscal year ending on Setp. 30, 1993, to just $18 billion in the Oct. 1, 1999 to Sept. 30, 2000 budget period.

Wow. In seven years the federal debt increases (the amount that we pile on the debt) was lowered, and that is an accomplishment? Progress, perhaps, but not what we should be expecting from seven-plus years. Add to this the gross over-spending endorsed by both parties involved since 2000 and any temporary gain is negated completely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The actual record that I just described, vs. the last four years of "one party" rule, seems to me a total contradiction of the "broad brush" of dimissal and the lumping of both major politcal parties' flaws, together in seretogis's article. There is enough of a difference in the records of the two major parties' "accomplishments" to justify voting for immediate transfer of control from "one party" that is responsible for a sudden fiscal reversal into disaster, of at least one house of the federal legislature. Following the themes in seretogis's articles would justify leaving the political imbalance in place for at least two more, predictably disasterous years.....because "one party is the same as the other". The record of budget, taxation, and spending management of the last 25 years proves the core point of seretogis's article is wrong.

Since when has our government employed the use of budget, taxation, and spending management? (Before you copy/paste, the previous was tongue-in-cheek.) You are missing the point completely, imo, that being that the government has overstepped its bounds and is no longer serving its primary need of defending its citizens from foreign invaders and criminals but is instead injecting itself into nearly every facet of our daily lives. Democrats AND Republicans encourage this, either "for our own good" or to embolden or justify the "American Way™." Both parties are ideologically antagonistic to the very principles this country was founded on, particularly individual rights, and have been for decades.

As for the "disaster" of leaving Republicans in office for two more years rather than voting Democrats into their place, that is laughable. I myself am prepared for a struggle of 20+ years to restore this country to what it should be -- a nation concerned with the safety and success of its free citizens, not emptying its pockets to foreign dictatorships or treating its people like cattle while granting political favors which lead those cattle to a slaughterhouse. The problem with this country goes far beyond the range of the moment, far beyond the last five to seven years or the next two years. Step back and take a look at what we have become and how terribly we have allowed our individual rights to be violated for the sake of convenience or a false sense of security.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

seretogis's article is largely influenced by the "work" of Leonard Peikoff...his article is the only linked item in seretogis's post. I do not agree with most of the ideas of Peikoff, as this example of his overly simplistic, militaristic and self centered, "work", clearly is the opposite of my understanding of the political challenges of the post 2001 period:

You seem infatuated with my linking to Peikoff's article which -- you fail to notice -- I disagreed with. His suggestion is for conservatives to vote Democrat, something which is not a long-term solution for our needs as a country. I certainly do agree with many of his less-recent essays, but not the one I linked which is why I felt it necessary to link in the first place. Nice try though.

As far as "overly simplistic" views in general, freedom and dedication to espousing its virtues is very simple indeed. It is when issues are clouded with unnecessary [and ultimately immoral] complexity that freedoms are taken away and replaced with conditional "freedoms." Taking earned property (taxing) one group in order to provide for the well-being of another is immoral, and a very simple issue. It is only when the issue is muddled with ridiculous rhetoric ("What about the one-legged pregnant single mother who can't provide for herself?") and induction of guilt (Christianity and other self-destroying ideologies) that those in favor of the infinite ballooning of government can hope to win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

A vote based on the advice and the thinking of Peikoff is a vote wasted. The two major American political parties have nearly opposite fiscal management credentials, and change...away from Peikoff's, and republicans failed and bankrupting foreign policy and restoration of at least some.....any...checks and balances in government must happen now.....not in some undetermined future..... certainly not one that will ever be effected from the signifigantly less compelling, pompous, myopic, anti-intellectual "spin" of the dean of the failed school of objectivism. Rand offered no solutions for "the rest of us", and Peikoff offers no solutions at all.....

For once, I agree with you. Voting for a Democrat in hopes of avoiding a Republican theocracy is a vote wasted. The next two years in the grand scheme of things means little, and so should be used to speak out as individuals interested in true liberty.

Also, we DO need checks and balances, however that balance will not be the "national healthcare" Democratic party, but a third party which has serious intentions to eliminate government waste and simplify its purpose to the most essential services, primary security of our nation and its citizens. That balance must be a party which is opposed to war for war's sake, and opposed to any "military actions" which do not primarily benefit the United States. It must be a party which believes in free, unregulated, trade and not be a slave to various special interest groups. For the above reasons and more, this party of balance can no longer be the Republican or Democratic parties.

roachboy · 10-26-2006, 03:28 PM

so seretogis, i am curious: which militia group do you belong to?

seretogis · 10-26-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so seretogis, i am curious: which militia group do you belong to?

That response is below you. I'm shocked.

roachboy · 10-26-2006, 09:29 PM

just trying to position you from the way your posts work--nothing offensive in it, and my apologies if it gave offense. it is not unreasonable to try to figure out where folk are coming from it is? i am sure you do the same.

you are obviously coming from a very particular position, and your way of using the category of "real conservative" and "individual rights" and a "return to the original principles upon which the nation was founded" indicates to me a very specific political space. a strict constructionist i would imagine. the objectivist dimension fits in the background...

so the question is reasonable.
if there was a problem, it was only that i did not put this post in front of it.
my mistake--i put it behind.
so.....

stevo · 10-27-2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

another reason is that i do not really understand the main verbs that litter the conservative set responses: pride in particular, what it means in this context.

Littered by the conservative set of responses? Host specifically asked

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I'm just asking for reasons why I should be proud of my stepson's service

I know I don't have to tell you this, but pride is that of which one is proud. soooo.....nice try.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

remember that there is a human being behind the name host who is talking about a real problem that none of you are have to face.

Thats kind of smug of you, no? How do you know others on here don't have family members or friends in iraq or afghanistan right now? You don't know. You are wrong. Many of us do.

roachboy · 10-27-2006, 02:43 PM

stevo--i would have assumed it obvious that i was reacting to the posts and not going beyond them. but if it wasn't obvious, then the above should make it clear.

Intense1 · 10-28-2006, 09:22 PM

Yikes, I'm just goin to step in after reading the first part of Host's OP and say this - I don't give a rat's red ass what your political beliefs are, your responsibility is to encourage your step-son and offer him your love and the love of his mother, your wife. It is not to cause him to question what his mission is, Host. It's not to cause him to question his Commander-in Chief, no matter how much YOU may despise him.

(whoooosh) That was the exit of the total loss of respect that I have for Host.

Edit to add: These are the remarks of the daughter of a late WWII vet and sister of a Marine Corps vet)

Paq · 10-29-2006, 04:56 AM

starting a new thread in the hopes of furthering discussion and not bashing host's familial issues.

shakran · 10-29-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Host

....I haven't felt as sincere as I would like to be when I've praised my stepson for his service.

Host clearly said he is offering support to his stepson - otherwise he would be condemning the kid rather than praising him. It would be nice if some of you would read what he actually wrote, rather than reading what you would like to THINK he wrote so you have an excuse to get angry.

It would then be nice if you would back off instead of condemning Host for having thoughts different from yours.

Yakk · 10-29-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

As far as "overly simplistic" views in general, freedom and dedication to espousing its virtues is very simple indeed. It is when issues are clouded with unnecessary [and ultimately immoral] complexity that freedoms are taken away and replaced with conditional "freedoms." Taking earned property (taxing) one group in order to provide for the well-being of another is immoral, and a very simple issue. It is only when the issue is muddled with ridiculous rhetoric ("What about the one-legged pregnant single mother who can't provide for herself?") and induction of guilt (Christianity and other self-destroying ideologies) that those in favor of the infinite ballooning of government can hope to win.

No, suppose you can tax everyone for about 20% of their income, and use that money to generate an additional 5% per year economic growth.

After 4 years, everyone is as well off as if they didn't have the 20% tax. After 5 years, they are better off. Etc.

Or what about a 20% tax that increases the average income by 50%, in a highly distributed manner? (it could easily be the case that 20% of the nation's income could provide for cheap and difficult to meter resources, like high quality roads, water purification, and sewage. You know, "public goods".)

As an aside, what do you base your morality on?

Are your claims about morality based off economics, or off gut feeling, or philosophical thoughts?

Just wondering if you have some useful information for me to learn!

host · 10-29-2006, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

....Owing to the sensitive nature of his "specialty", he asked us, when he received his deployment orders, not to mention where he is or what he does.

With that in mind, I carefully limited my questions to details of his well being and living conditions, I relayed news to him about other family members, reminded him that we were very proud of him and of his service, how much we miss him, and that we were praying for him.....

....I haven't felt as sincere as I would like to be when I've praised my stepson for his service. I know that he is wrong about what he thinks that he is fighting for. He buys into the same line of shit....hook, line, and sinker, that many of you here have posted your support for. He trusts Mr. Bush and his policy pronouncements, and the government.

I'm feeling sick to my stomach, and I'm wishing that my stepson didn't call, this weekend....that I didn't reflexively recite what are becoming empty platitudes to him.

Thank you, Shakran, if not for posts like yours, I might be convinced that thinking it and saying it are somehow synonymous.

I didn't say it.... and he doesn't read this board....he made no effort to record or bookmark the TFP forum url on the one occasion when I asked him to read, over my shoulder, one of my posts here, displayed on the screen of my laptop.

I pray for my stepson, and I love him, and I'm concerned for his safety, and about his relationship with God, just as sincerely and without any reservation as I always have....it's just that I am not as proud and supportive of what he is doing, primarily because of his attitude about it, than I was the day that he graduated from training.

I wish that I felt as sincere as I would like to be when I've praised my stepson for his service.

I read some of the posts on this thread and the thoughts expressed in them convince me that the authors of those posts, have no idea of what it is like to be conflicted about the morality and the merits of the US military presence and actions on the "frontlines" in the GWOT. I'm convinced that our soldiers dying and killing is not making us safer or preserving our "freedom", they are not killing the people who attacked us on 9/11, or who aided the people who attacked us. Almost all of the people our soldiers kill are folks fighting to remove foreign troops from their own countries, just as anyone who reads this would want to do if circumstances were reversed.

The conclusions that I've reached, influence my sentiments and interfere with the reflexive, total commitment to my stepson and his foreign military service, that the stepfather part of me naturally would want to commit to and convey. I can't simply "switch on"
reflexive, total commitment to my stepson and his foreign military service, and recognition of that, made me feel "sick to my stomach"....

Quote:

http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archiv...-without-suppo

rting-the-war.html
Can You Support the Troops Without Supporting the War?

Rob <a href="http://www.robcottingham.ca/20060929/supporting-our-troops/">recently quoted</a>

our Prime Minister:

“You cannot say you are for our military and then not stand behind the things they do,”

said Harper. “We don’t start fights, but we finish them and we won’t leave until they’re done.”

It’s extremely common for liberal politicians to spout some variation on “I don’t support this war, but I do support the troops.” That always struck me as wishy-washy, and seemed to render these troops as unthinking automatons or poor saps who are just doing their job. The latter, of course, is kind of true.

Prime Minster Harper’s comment seems directly levelled at those in the opposition who are floating this idea. I’ve gotta tell you, I kind of agree with him.

What do we really mean when we say ‘I support the troops’? Something like “hey, good job over there, engaging in a conflict I totally disagree with. I’m really proud.” That doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it? It’s a bit like being a Mets fan yet supporting the Yankees as well, because they come from the same city.

How can something be bad at the macro level but supportable at the micro level? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Yes, our troops are over-taxed and under-equipped in Afghanistan...

Quote:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0407-08.htm
Support the Troops
Excerpt from Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity
by Robert Jensen

.....Here's a concrete example: The semester before the Iraq war I had in one of my classes a

student, let's call her Jane, who often stopped by my office to talk about material from the

course, especially concerning media and politics. We shared some views but differed on a

number of issues, and I enjoyed the exchanges. Jane also was an officer in the Army Reserve,

and she expected to be called up for the war. Late in the semester she stopped by to tell me

she would not be back the next term.

Though she was conflicted about the war, Jane had legal obligations to the Reserve, and she

intended to fulfill them. I understood the position she was in, and it was clear she did not

intend to make a political statement by refusing active duty, nor did she intend to ask for

conscientious objector status or alternative duty. She also knew that I opposed the war on

moral, legal, and political grounds. So, there we sat. At that moment, if someone had told me

that I must support the troops -- or in this case, support the one very specific troop who was

in front of me -- what would that mean? Should I have told her that I supported her decision

to go fight in a war I believed to be immoral, illegal, and unwise? Should I have supported

Jane by denying my own conscience? What good would that do her or me, the country or the

world? Certainly I could, and did, tell her that I understood the difficult position she was

in. But if the critique of the coming war that I had been voicing for several months had been

sincere, what would it mean for me to say to her, "I support your decision"? It would be a

transparent lie. I couldn't support her decision, no matter how much I understood the reasons

she was making her choice.

The implicit demand in the "support the troops" rhetoric was -- and likely will be in future

wars -- that even if I am against the war, once troops are in the field I should shift my

focus from opposition to the war to support for my fellow Americans who are doing the

fighting. But to support the troops is, for all practical purposes, to support the war. Asking

people who oppose a war to support the troops in that war is simply a way of asking people to

drop their opposition. If I had believed this war would be wrong before it began, and if none

of the conditions on which I based that assessment had changed, why should I change my view

simply because the war had started?

In a democratic society, the question should not be whether one supports the troops. The

relevant question is whether one supports the policy. The demand that war opponents must

"support the troops" is nothing more than a way of demanding that we drop our opposition to

the policy.

Attempts at rhetorical resistance

Many war opponents responded to the challenge by arguing that they were supporting the troops, first by trying to derail a war so that troops would not have to fight, and later by bringing the war to a close as quickly as possible. The sentiment behind that response is understandable, but I believe it is the wrong approach, in part because it implicitly accepts the legitimacy of the "support the troops" framework. But more importantly, it's a disingenuous answer because it doesn't take seriously the decisions made by the troops themselves. .....

....First, my argument assumes that most people in the U.S. military believe they are serving in a morally sound institution. Of course they have their complaints about that institution, but that typically does not translate into fundamental questioning of the role and mission of the armed forces. The increasing dissension among the troops and their families during the occupation of Iraq, for example, seems to be rooted for most not in a deep critique of U.S. foreign and military policy but in exasperation about a confusing situation and difficult conditions on the ground. No doubt there are members of the military who have come to the conclusion that a specific war -- or perhaps even the fundamental nature of the contemporary U.S. armed forces -- cannot be justified, but that is a minority, and likely a tiny minority.So, if I am to be sincere in my position and <h3>also respect the troops' capacity to make their own decisions</h3>, I can't support them. I can only say that as a fellow citizen, I believe their choice to be wrong, and that while I support them in some general sense -- that is, I don't wish to see harm come to them -- I do not, and cannot, support them in the choice they have made. I can point out that I realize the decision to pursue war was made by others far above them in the hierarchy. I can express solidarity with those in the military who joined out of economic necessity. But because I believe that the consequences of the war will be harmful to others, I am morally obligated to continue my opposition. I do that fully aware that an ongoing opposition movement in the United States will be taken by many in the military as a betrayal, especially as they risk their lives in combat. I could offer a stirring defense of dissent in democracy, but that is unlikely to be compelling to the troops, given their circumstances. Given that, it is particularly empty to tell troops who believe I am not supporting them that I really am but they just don't understand it.

If we are to use the words "support" and "oppose" with their common meanings, I did not support the troops in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. I opposed the troops. And I will continue to do so when I believe they are engaged in immoral, illegal, and unwise conflicts.

Intense1 · 10-31-2006, 11:36 PM

Host, sorry to have condemned you after just one reading of your original post. I should have gone back and read it more than once, even though it (as usual with your posts) has so much crap attached to it that it makes my eyes bleed.

I am with you in your desire to praise your step son, Host. He is serving his country with honor and distinction, regardless of the politics at work. That is what a soldier/sailer/airman/marine/coastguardman is trained to do. That is why he is doing what he is doing, nothing more, nothing less.

I think what you are looking for, personally, is a set of facts that can help you support him, giving you an intellectual basis for your support. Given your political views, my friend, I do not think you will be able to find one. You are convinced that President Bush is wrong and his prosecution of this war is wrong, so it is a lost cause on this front.

The only path that remains for you is to support him on the basis of what is evident:

1. There are those who want to destroy the US and democracy
2. Our military is what keeps these people from succeeding
3. He is part of what keeps us safe

Therefore, he is worthy of our support. I know there are questions about what Iraq means in the GWOT, but Osama himself said that it is the place of WWIII, and since he has pretty much been accurate so far, I think we should believe him. It's best that we (the US) be on top of things there, than be underneath them and lose out in the end.

Host, I know it is difficult for you and your wife to come to terms with all it means for your son to be in such a dangerous place. I remember when my brother was in the Marine Corps when President Carter ordered the rescue of the Iranian hostages, and my brother was next up for getting on a helicopter. It's an awful feeling, that a family might be called upon to give the ultimate sacrifice of their loved one.

But I would like to ask this - what if Iraq becomes a budding, flourishing democracy? What if it spreads to the rest of the Middle East? What if the Middle Eastern countries as a whole become our true allies? How would that translate into world peace, in these days of Islamic Extremism?

Wouldn't your stepson view his service as being "worth it"?

Just a though, my friend.

florida0214 · 11-01-2006, 06:41 AM

I dooubt this will answer your question, but simply put. The fact that America is plit right down the middle with very little political grey area really sucks, for a lack of better words.
The war in Iraq is not just going to go away the second a Democrat becomes president. We have far too much invested in that country to just walk away.
If a Democratic president gets elected, and it will happen in 08, will you say the same things about that president if they choose to not pull out of Iraq?
Hilliary Clinton has already siad that pulling out of Iraq completely would be a stupid thing. I would venture as far as to say that most dems agree with her.
You have to agree that there are probably more corrupt politicans on both sides of the fence, who are more concerned with lining their own pockets then actually empowering the people of America. Human beings in general are flawed and a survival instinct is inside allof us and you simply cannot ignore it or shut it off sometimes. This survival button has cuased politicians to pull for whatever team digs deeper into their pockets.
I really hate to say this but I really think this is how its done now. It makes me sad, but its the golden rule. He who has the most gold makes the rules. I am by no means making excuses for anyone, because both sides are guilty of this and I hope that it simply werent the case.
Iraq may be the result of a very powerful lobbyist or a personal agenda for Bush, but I guarantee Bush os not in this one by himself. He is really not that smart.
Your son is fighting and continues to fight so that places like TFProject can remain open and free from government censorship. His life should be more important than any political agenda or your feelings on why he's there. It simply does not matter. He is there and there is nothing you can do aboutit except support him. Be there for him. He has seen and done things you could only imagine and he will be foreve changed. you will never get him to see things the way you think they are and he will never be able to change your mind. Understand that he is there and he knows things that youwould never understand or believe. we in America are controlled by the media and we believe whatever they tell us. We are not in Iraq. We cannot see things for ourselves and IMO the Media reports only what they want and it is never the whole story. Be strong and love your on, beproud of him. He is standing up for what he believes in, just like you are only he is doing it with his life.

Besides how on earth do we know who is right about the war in Iraq. Every argument has a counter and both sides feel they are more right. Nobody knows why we are in Iraq and it may be better that way.
If we knew every government secret, we would most liekly live in fear for the rest of lives.

pan6467 · 11-01-2006, 06:52 AM

Extremely good points Florida and well written.

10-26-2006, 03:28 PM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so seretogis, i am curious: which militia group do you belong to? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-26-2006, 09:29 PM	#44 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	just trying to position you from the way your posts work--nothing offensive in it, and my apologies if it gave offense. it is not unreasonable to try to figure out where folk are coming from it is? i am sure you do the same. you are obviously coming from a very particular position, and your way of using the category of "real conservative" and "individual rights" and a "return to the original principles upon which the nation was founded" indicates to me a very specific political space. a strict constructionist i would imagine. the objectivist dimension fits in the background... so the question is reasonable. if there was a problem, it was only that i did not put this post in front of it. my mistake--i put it behind. so..... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-26-2006 at 09:32 PM..

10-27-2006, 02:43 PM	#46 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	stevo--i would have assumed it obvious that i was reacting to the posts and not going beyond them. but if it wasn't obvious, then the above should make it clear. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-28-2006, 09:22 PM	#47 (permalink)
Intense1 Crazy Location: Music City burbs	Yikes, I'm just goin to step in after reading the first part of Host's OP and say this - I don't give a rat's red ass what your political beliefs are, your responsibility is to encourage your step-son and offer him your love and the love of his mother, your wife. It is not to cause him to question what his mission is, Host. It's not to cause him to question his Commander-in Chief, no matter how much YOU may despise him. (whoooosh) That was the exit of the total loss of respect that I have for Host. Edit to add: These are the remarks of the daughter of a late WWII vet and sister of a Marine Corps vet) __________________ (none yet, still thinkin') Last edited by Intense1; 10-28-2006 at 10:14 PM..

10-29-2006, 04:56 AM	#48 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	starting a new thread in the hopes of furthering discussion and not bashing host's familial issues. __________________ Live. Chris

10-31-2006, 11:36 PM	#52 (permalink)
Intense1 Crazy Location: Music City burbs	Host, sorry to have condemned you after just one reading of your original post. I should have gone back and read it more than once, even though it (as usual with your posts) has so much crap attached to it that it makes my eyes bleed. I am with you in your desire to praise your step son, Host. He is serving his country with honor and distinction, regardless of the politics at work. That is what a soldier/sailer/airman/marine/coastguardman is trained to do. That is why he is doing what he is doing, nothing more, nothing less. I think what you are looking for, personally, is a set of facts that can help you support him, giving you an intellectual basis for your support. Given your political views, my friend, I do not think you will be able to find one. You are convinced that President Bush is wrong and his prosecution of this war is wrong, so it is a lost cause on this front. The only path that remains for you is to support him on the basis of what is evident: 1. There are those who want to destroy the US and democracy 2. Our military is what keeps these people from succeeding 3. He is part of what keeps us safe Therefore, he is worthy of our support. I know there are questions about what Iraq means in the GWOT, but Osama himself said that it is the place of WWIII, and since he has pretty much been accurate so far, I think we should believe him. It's best that we (the US) be on top of things there, than be underneath them and lose out in the end. Host, I know it is difficult for you and your wife to come to terms with all it means for your son to be in such a dangerous place. I remember when my brother was in the Marine Corps when President Carter ordered the rescue of the Iranian hostages, and my brother was next up for getting on a helicopter. It's an awful feeling, that a family might be called upon to give the ultimate sacrifice of their loved one. But I would like to ask this - what if Iraq becomes a budding, flourishing democracy? What if it spreads to the rest of the Middle East? What if the Middle Eastern countries as a whole become our true allies? How would that translate into world peace, in these days of Islamic Extremism? Wouldn't your stepson view his service as being "worth it"? Just a though, my friend. __________________ (none yet, still thinkin')

11-01-2006, 06:41 AM	#53 (permalink)
florida0214 Crazy Location: South Florida	I dooubt this will answer your question, but simply put. The fact that America is plit right down the middle with very little political grey area really sucks, for a lack of better words. The war in Iraq is not just going to go away the second a Democrat becomes president. We have far too much invested in that country to just walk away. If a Democratic president gets elected, and it will happen in 08, will you say the same things about that president if they choose to not pull out of Iraq? Hilliary Clinton has already siad that pulling out of Iraq completely would be a stupid thing. I would venture as far as to say that most dems agree with her. You have to agree that there are probably more corrupt politicans on both sides of the fence, who are more concerned with lining their own pockets then actually empowering the people of America. Human beings in general are flawed and a survival instinct is inside allof us and you simply cannot ignore it or shut it off sometimes. This survival button has cuased politicians to pull for whatever team digs deeper into their pockets. I really hate to say this but I really think this is how its done now. It makes me sad, but its the golden rule. He who has the most gold makes the rules. I am by no means making excuses for anyone, because both sides are guilty of this and I hope that it simply werent the case. Iraq may be the result of a very powerful lobbyist or a personal agenda for Bush, but I guarantee Bush os not in this one by himself. He is really not that smart. Your son is fighting and continues to fight so that places like TFProject can remain open and free from government censorship. His life should be more important than any political agenda or your feelings on why he's there. It simply does not matter. He is there and there is nothing you can do aboutit except support him. Be there for him. He has seen and done things you could only imagine and he will be foreve changed. you will never get him to see things the way you think they are and he will never be able to change your mind. Understand that he is there and he knows things that youwould never understand or believe. we in America are controlled by the media and we believe whatever they tell us. We are not in Iraq. We cannot see things for ourselves and IMO the Media reports only what they want and it is never the whole story. Be strong and love your on, beproud of him. He is standing up for what he believes in, just like you are only he is doing it with his life. Besides how on earth do we know who is right about the war in Iraq. Every argument has a counter and both sides feel they are more right. Nobody knows why we are in Iraq and it may be better that way. If we knew every government secret, we would most liekly live in fear for the rest of lives. __________________ "Two men: one thinks he can. One thinks he cannot. They are Both Right."

11-01-2006, 06:52 AM	#54 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Extremely good points Florida and well written. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"