Absolutely!!

When did the idea that freedom had a price limit become so popular among the left? For decades we've listened to a message from the left that we should be doing something to fight oppression and now when we do so, the issue becomes the money?? Does freedom mean so little to you that you would deny it people because it cost too much?? Don't get me wrong, Iraq is now at a place where they need to start paying some of their own bills, but they could not have gotten to that place w/o our help. The millions of Iraqis who lived in enforced squalor would still be living there, afraid for their lives, afraid to spreak out, afraid to fight against their oppressors if we hadn't stepped in. When did the lives of people become a dollar figure to the left??? When did they lose their roots of sacrifice for the greater good and turn to this new focus on the dollar cost of freedom??

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

That is part of the reason Republicans are taking such a big hit lately.
Their unwillingness to realize that Americans are not willing to shell out HUGE dollar amounts.

Why do you think Bush pushed the exaggerated and inaccurate version of "WMDs" instead of simply saying "We're going to liberate Iraq."?
Cause he KNEW it wouldn't work.

Why do you think Rumsfield blocked post-Iraq-invasion analyses to see exactly what would be needed AFTER the invasion had succeeded?
Cause he KNEW Americans would balk if they knew the truth.

You may be willing to pay a couple trillion to "liberate" a group of people at the expense of higher Iraqi casualties, and over 4,000 U.S. soldiers, but the rest of us are viewing the situation with more pragmatism now that we know the truth...



It's a false presumption that it was ever NOT an issue...



This drivel may play well to the kool-aid drinking, republican fanatical, hugging Bush's leg base, but it's getting old and transparent to too many of the rest of us.

You are trying to fixate on part of the picture, while ignoring the whole.
Our children and grand-children are going to have to pay for the folly of this war, and you don't give a crap because of partisan party politics.

Like I said, there is a reason that Republicanism is on the way down. There is a reason why Republicans are losing political seats that should have been their slam dunk.
You're a living example of the reason.


How about we replace that word with "food" and ask you about programs to feed the poor and homeless?
If Democrats had asked for $1-2 trillion to feed Africa, would you say "yes "?

Freedom means a LOT to me. I've served in the military to protect this country's freedom.
But at the same time, pragmatism exists.


Talk to me about it in 5-10 years.
Over and over again, the U.S. has a history of involving itself in the Middle East affairs, supporting figures only to have it bite them in the ass later.
Like we supported bin Laden against the Russians.
Or our support of Saddam.

Tell us how great of a job we did in 5-10 years, while at current time the Iraqi government is insisting that they don't have to pay us a dime cause we were never invited, and that they want us out.
Already, they are turning on us...

Keep telling me then, and if your party is still singing your tune then you'll still be asking why people aren't supporting Republicans.

Allow me to make clear that I am talking EXPLICITLY about Iraq.
I whole-heartedly support sending al Qaeda back to the stone age.

It's one of the reasons that Bush saying he was unconcerned over the whereabouts of bin Laden just turns my stomach.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

President Bush Holds Press Conference

We should have kept our eye on the ball and continued pounding al Qaeda. Our invasion of Iraq upheaved that nation, and actually INTRODUCED al Qaeda to a new area that it was not previously. Invading Iraq CREATED new terrorists according to the U.S.'s own intelligence reports.

All that blathering and you never answered the key question:

Why did the left suddenly get so fixated on the dollar cost of freeing people from oppression?

You diverted attention from this question and tried to turn the discussion a different direction to avoid it. How about dealing with it?? How about taking an honest look at exactly what it is you are saying? What I hear from the left is that our cheap gas is more important than the lives of millions of people. That our big screen TVs take precedence over the oppression and torture of millions of Iraqis. The left is great when it come to carrying signs and walking in circles, but ya'll stink up the place when it comes to actaully taking action to accomplish what your signs are asking for. When did freedom from oppression stop being so important to the left that they were unwilling to sacrifice for it? When did the concept of sacrifiing for the good of your fellow man become such an anathema to the left? C'mon, give a nice direct answer to my questions. Avoid the side-stepping, the attempts to reframe the questions and the general refusal to take this issue on directly and just ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

I did answer the question.
It's a false assumption to put the word "suddenly" in there.
I see history behind your deception that the left's interests in other countries doesn't involve some pragmatism on the $$$.
There is no "suddenly". It's always been that way.

Now, you can keep repeating the same question which has been answered, or you can address what I ACTUALLY said.


I'm sorry.
Are you the boss of this conversation? Are we only supposed to talk about what YOU want to talk about?
Can't take it when people talk about the WHOLE picture instead of playing in your fantasy land of false dilemma questions and strawman arguments?

Tough noogies.

The thing you can't seem to comprehend is that the MAJORITY of the country is in the same bucket as me.
Trying to lie about what our position HAS supposedly been is just plain foolish.


Reality check.
Right now, the death toll in Iraq is HIGHER than it was in the years preceding our entry, and we STILL have expensive gas.


If you keep talking this b.s., there is no point in continuing this conversation.
You're just making up stupid junk at this stage.



No matter how many ways you try to dress up the same ol' LIE, it's still a lie.
And furthermore, it isn't an issue of not willing to sacrifice.
The amount of sacrifice is TOO MUCH.

You dodged my entire response with the assessment of "blather", only to repeat the same nonsense I had just talked about.
Why do you think Bush pushed the exaggerated and inaccurate version of "WMDs" instead of simply saying "We're going to liberate Iraq."?
Cause he KNEW it wouldn't work.

Why do you think Rumsfield blocked post-Iraq-invasion analyses to see exactly what would be needed AFTER the invasion had succeeded?
Cause he KNEW Americans would balk if they knew the truth.

You may be willing to pay a couple trillion to "liberate" a group of people at the expense of higher Iraqi casualties, and over 4,000 U.S. soldiers, but the rest of us are viewing the situation with more pragmatism now that we know the truth...

It has ALWAYS been this way and deep down the people like Bush's crew KNEW that to be the truth.
Otherwise, they would have TOLD the truth from the start, TOLD us that we were JUST going to "liberate" and that it would be VERY costly, and then (in your imagination) we would have said "yes".

Except in the real world, the real world that has ALWAYS been this way, GW and his crew KNEW they needed to lie and exaggerate. They KNEW they couldn't tell us everything, otherwise we wouldn't go for it.

It has ALWAYS been this way, including the point BEFORE the war.

It has ALWAYS been this way, and Bush's crew KNEW that.

Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."

...."In his own mind he thought we could go in and fight and take out the regime and come out. But a lot of us planners were having a real hard time with it because we were also thinking we can't do this. Once you tear up a country you have to stay and rebuild it. It was very challenging."

The Washington Monthly

Note! He didn't say "the leftists" or "the rightists".
He was talking about the ENTIRE American public. Left AND right.

It's only the people who still insist on drinking the Bush kool-aid who don't have the pragmatism on this issue right now.
This whole "when did this change" b.s. is a "spin" question which paints a false reality.

America WOULD NEVER have gone to war if Bush had painted an ACCURATE picture of what WAS going on in Iraq, and what would be REQUIRED for Iraq.

And instead of addressing that fact of reality, you lamely respond with an assessment of "blather".

Just when have I ever said we belong in Iraq, Mikeyy? In fact I have repeatedly said we need to leave. But Afghanistan, yes we belong there killing the real terrorist.

And I do support our troops where ever they are. No matter if I agree we belong there or not. Why. Because of the freaks that threw sh*t and balloons of pi** on us Viet-Nam veterans. Who the country turned its back on us for over 20 years. Enjoy your day at the beach what do you need to fear or even break a sweat for. What sacrifice have you mad efor your country. na it would require some time and effort and most of all some belief in something bigger than you!