Murf76
Senior Member
- Nov 11, 2008
- 2,464
- 593
- 48
Bottom line, the intelligence regarding WMD was either wrong or the shit got moved out. Saddam Hussein was a stupid man, a kill-the-messenger kind of despot who had people shot when they gave him bad news. Hence, he lived in an insular world, never recognizing that his exaggeration of what weaponry was available to him would hurt him instead of protect him. He was an evil piece of shit who had no moral problem with throwing people's families out of helicopters when they pissed him off. And if you've served in Iraq, you have reason to be proud that that motherfucker is never going to hurt a living soul for the rest of eternity.
Now... this whole Iraq strawman has been knocked down again and again. It's like fucking Godwin's Law, part of every single board discussion one has with a so-called "liberal", because when it gets right down to it, they can't defend their dogma. It's so much easier for them to invoke emotionalism rather than logic, because let's face it... everybody hates war. It's an easy target.
An average of 25 Americans, civilians, die every day at the hands of illegal aliens, foreign invaders that neither Democrats nor Republicans have had the courage and moral fortitude to defend us from. So, while it's tragic when we lose even one soldier, the fact is that there's plenty of blame to go around for why this is a dangerous world and plenty of room for criticism towards politicians who either can't or won't deal effectively with it.
Your initial post was about making excuses for the socialist redistribution of wealth. It had nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Problem is... you don't have a legitimate argument for your position, otherwise you wouldn't be reaching for some sort of emotional deflection.
If you actually go back and READ the U.S. Constitution and the supporting documents of the era, you will understand that social welfare is the province of the States. There's nothing in the Constitution which supports taking money from one citizen for the personal needs of another at the federal level. And there's a reason for that. It's because the founders only saw fit to authorize the federal government with 17 enumerated powers. This was in order to LIMIT the power of central government and keep the power closer to the people.
Direct power over the intimate needs of citizens is a dangerous invitation to corruption and was never intended at the central level. It was intended that States and localities be free to deal with these issues themselves. At the local level, our votes are at their most potent... and corrupt bureaucrats are easier to pull down. As we've seen over the course of many decades of increasing Washington influence, our voices have become so diluted that incumbents have a 95% return rate. We can't hardly root them out of there once they're installed because they've got a thumb in damn near every pie.
You're wrong. And it's not because I'm a "conservative" and you're a "liberal". You're wrong because you don't understand what there is in this country worth preserving and fighting for. The "Us v. Them" of it all is not what you think it is. And that's correctable with some study and research. The U.S. Constitution is the natural arbiter of disputes, which keeps us united as a people. Ignoring it and twisting its meaning is the same as taking the referee off the field. Chaos must ensue without it.
Also, dude... if you're over there in a foreign theatre of war, filled with rage and angst, reach out to your buddies and even to your command if you need to. Don't let something so tawdry as partisan politics get into your head, not when you need to concentrate on your situation in order to survive. Partisan politics has been going on, and UGLY too, since the very beginning. It'll be going on long after we're gone too. Check out the Election of 1802 between Jefferson and Adams. It made the 2008 election look like a Garden Party.
