Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Zimbio Debate Part II

If you are reading this you should first look at the first part of the debate as this whole article would make much more sense.

4-8-07
Jason: Yes, yes it is very hard to sway a person who holds very firms beliefs one way or another. And while I agree that this debate has been productive my endstate is always to win...that is let the other person say "you're right" it happens to my wife all the time. I generally take offense to those who say they support the troops but not the war although I think you are sincere and that your anti-war stance is taken more from a compassion for us than a hatred for them viewpoint. In the end I do not want a warmonger in charge either (I don't think Bush is one), but I want someone with enough guts to stand up to the likes of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and especially al-Queada. This era of blogs and internet postings has certainly given a voice to those of us long silenced by big media. The problem with big media is that you can fill volumes with what they don't report. By the way, I do respect other opinions and ideology. I just can't accept them as having any influence on the direction our country should go.Jason
4-8-07
P.R.: As much as I would like to let you "win" this debate, I am not your wife. Although, I feel that we have a mutual respect for each others' opinions and that is what matters in the end. I too want a president who will be tough against threats to America. I can only hope that our next one creates fewer. And like it or not, other people's opinions and ideologies do have an influence in the direction our country will go. That's a democracy. Good luck in Iraq and I wish you the best for a safe return home and the same goes for all of your fellow soldiers. America and I are proud of you.P.R.

This concludes the zimbio debate. I hope that it helps clarify the views of some Americans today and gives a new perspective to the war in Iraq.

Zimbio Debate Part I

On a seperate website called "zimbio" under the category "war in Iraq" I have been posting my most recent articles as a means of reaching more people. One of my articles, "Bush: The Boy In The Political Bubble" recieved some feedback from a very conservative blogger. I will include our humble debate here on my blog because I think it is valuable in the sense that it reveals a little bit about some of the conservative views in America today and how I respond to them. I would suggest reading the article posted on my blog before reading the following debate.
4-5-07
Jason: Didn't anybody tell you not to drink the Kool-Aid? Wake up and face the facts. President Bush did not lie. If he did so did numerous members of the now anti-war left. Just to break it down for the slow among us, Saddam and his regime had nothing to do with September 11th, 2001. But that is not the point, the point is that we realized who we were up against and we began to take action 1 regime at a time. Remember, Germany never attacked us either.
4-6-07
P.R.: First of all, for the slow among us, Germany did not attack us but Japan did which was part of an alliance known as the axis of evil. Sound familiar in modern times? Second of all, what gives the United States the right to "take action 1 regime at a time"? That must be some kind of prick with his hand on the red button. Also, President Bush did lie and it is a poor defense to say, "well if he did so did the anti-war left". This war is a joke and those who support it need to wake up and face the facts. And the Kool-Aid pun was a flop.
4-7-07
Jason: PR, Just listen to what you are saying. Yes, of course we all know about the tripartrite treaty and the flow of world events there after. Also, it is not a poor defense to say that President Bush along with the leaders of 6 other major, industrialized countries and numerous members of the US Congress all saw the same intel reports. Great Britian was the largest contributor with dossier that was over 200 pages in length with intel as recent as FEB 2003. Now, I will assume that you have not been to Iraq and are thus blissfully ignorant as to what is really happening there. I have been twice and will be returning in mid-2008 so I have just a bit of first hand knowledge. What was the lie, specifically? WMD? Ties to terror groups? Paying the families of suicide bombers? All facts and all true. Wait, wait, wait, you say we found no WMD. All that I can speak to is what has been declassified. Abu-massab Al-zarquawi was operating a terror camp in northeast Iraq before the war SF troops took it out in the opening minutes of the war. Terror group ties? Proven. Saddam paid the equivalent of $25,000 to the families of every suicide bomber to pull the cord in Isreal. Proven fact. Now as for the WMD. No, we did not find it. But in the last several weeks, there have been at least 4 attacks using...gasp...chlorine gas. Also, I was a part of a special security mission in which we had to wear all of chemical defense gear to secure a certain site in a remote area of Iraq. So far as what is declassified there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Check with Syria, they should know more. In fact maybe Speaker Pelosi could have asked while she was consorting with our enemies. So you can read what you will in whatever left wing rag you choose, or as I said before, get actual factual information before making such inflamatory remarks. Also, some new lines of criticism would be nice the "Bush lied and soldiers died" crap is pretty old.
4-7-07
P.R.: First, I would like to address that I am proud of your service to this country. Second of all, I never used the term, "Bush lied and soldiers died" so pin that line on someone else with limited rhyming capability. Yes, there have been ties to Saddam and suicide bombers in Israel. But that wasn't what this administration and others used to as the main point for going to war, was it? The chlorine gas wasn't used in Iraq until we invaded. WMD's, the reason we went to war, were never found. The intel wasn't what was bad unfortunately. The way it was interpreted by those with war agendas in the White House, though, was bad. As for being blissfully ignorant, I wish I had that luxury...but I don't. And though I haven't been to Iraq it does not mean that I am wrong. My opinion is as valid as yours and the only difference is ideology and not facts. And to answer your question, "What was the lie, specifically?" the answer is WMDs. Whether other reasons for invading Iraq are noble or not, what remains undisputed is that this administration used WMDs to convince America to go to war...not links to Palestinian suicide bombers...WMDs. I do not believe that we have the right to play political God and decide who holds power and who does not. The entire argument for war with Iraq has holes in it and I don't think that we should be there. Saddam was an ass, yes. But was he a threat to America as Bush claimed, no. Perhaps the reason Bush lied was because he knew it wouldn't strike a patriotic cord with Americans to have brave soldiers like you dying for oil profits? Either way, if you feel that being in Iraq is where we belong then I am glad you are there fighting for America and I wish you the best of luck and a safe return.P.R.
5-8-07
Jason: I appriciate the fact that you find my service to our country noble. I have decided that no matter what proven facts I write here or which clear inferences should be drawn, there will always be those on the left whose ideology differs a great deal from mine and is therfore used to spin inaccurate and even made up information into "truth". Try as I may I can never convince such people that what they are saying and thinking is actually wrong and even damaging to our country. Those who think being blissfully ignorant is a luxury. So having said that I need to go talk to my accountant about the obscene profits I am making from this "oil war" thanks to a President who "lied for me" and his gang of co-conspiritors who also "misinterpreted" very clear intel reports. In all seriousness though, I truly hope that those on the left see the light before it is too late and terrorist pacification leads to destruction of our country. I will pray that those who will defend us are eventually elected to all governmental offices. Let's not repeat history by not learning from it. I love my country and I want it around for several thousand more years.
4-8-07
P.R.: It is true that convincing people of something they do not believe in is difficult and sometimes even impossible. I have remained as open as I can for some time and I am yet to find information persuasive enough to deter me from my beliefs. I am sorry that you feel that any ideology that does not match yours is used to "spin inaccurate and even made up information into 'truth'". And unfortunately for you, your accountant will have some bad news because those in power making the profits care little for those giving their lives for them. I, too pray that people will soon see the light but with so many differing views, I'm afraid they will be blinded from all the bull crap floating around. And if we are not to repeat history, perhaps we should not elect those with war in their veins to "all governmental offices". I believe we have already seen what that can accomplish. If America is to survive for several thousand more years then we should focus less on making distant enemies and more on waging peace. Either way, this debate has been productive as far as I'm concerned and I wish to thank you again for your service to our country and while I may not support this war, I support you.P.R.

Continued...

Biting The Hand And Freeing The Heart

Tuesday was a productive day for insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. A female suicide bomber killed 16 people and injured 33 in a town northeast of Baghdad. Six people were killed and 21 wounded in a gun battle in some of the neighborhoods within Baghdad. A car bomb exploded at the University of Baghdad killing 6 and wounding 11. And a Katysusha rocket killed a six-year-old boy and injured 17 others. This all came one day after Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr told his people to double their efforts in pushing the Americans out of Iraq but at the same time not killing each other. No American soldiers were reported as being killed in today's fighting.
Now I feel the need to explain the difference exactly between the insurgency in Iraq and the terrorism. While many of the tactics are the same, the ideology behind them are certainly not. The terrorists such as al-Qaeda wish to attack the U.S. and other coalition forces from western civilizations because they feel that their religious beliefs conflict with the west's sociological values. The insurgents in Iraq fight the occupation forces to drive them out so that Iraqis can govern themselves as a sovereign, independent nation. Muqtada al-Sadr leads the insurgency in Iraq and for the sake of progress in a war that is already confusing enough, should not be confused or linked to al-Qaeda.
If anything, today's violence has shown us that the security crackdown in Baghdad is only somewhat working with stiff resistance and the Iraqis have more at stake in this than we do and are thus far more willing to go to extremes if necessary to expel the "American occupiers". Diplomacy requires an open mind and that is something this administration has lacked in.
One of the main issues dividing al-Sadr from the Iraqi government is that he opposes the presidential administrations because they were forged from American hands and then voted on by Iraqis. The Bush Administration opposes al-Sadr because he opposes the government that they have backed. This Iraqi presidential administration is more closely allied with Bush than he is with Iraqi leaders. Iraq has adopted a Bushonian Democracy in which democracy is based on all parties supporting the presidential administration being accepted while anyone who disagrees with certain policies set forth by the administration is considered a threat to national security. Someone with al-Sadr's credentials and public backing has every right to be a part of Iraqi government and could probably be a valuable if not fundamental figure in stabilizing peace within the country.
But the Iraqi presidential administration will not allow this because he threatens their power that has been backed by the U.S. military. The system seems to be that the Iraqi government controls the use of its oil and so the U.S. protects those interests via the military so that that doors to the oil fields remain wide open. And why would the Iraqi government bite the hand that feeds it by allowing an opposing view to enter the political ring? In Iraq, they are enjoying the same sort of democratically-veiled dictatorship that the Bush Administration enjoys here in America.