Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- From: "Evelyn" <evelyn.ruut@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:40:35 -0400
"El Castor" <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ndrp55lcfctagugamrhm1vdt0shpkv4b1g@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:44:04 -0400, "Evelyn" <evelyn.ruut@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6s4p55d39vs0h2m8aggcm4u5o9e1hl0u07@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:46:37 -0400, "Evelyn" <evelyn.ruut@xxxxxxxxx>"El Castor" <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Check out a reply I just posted to Earl in this thread. Back in May of
2007 he (disguised as "Jake") commented that we needed an exit
strategy measured in months not years -- and I not only agreed with
him, I added that Iraq was doing to us what Afghanistan did to the
Soviet Union. I might add that in July of 2009 I'm beginning to wonder
if Afghanistan is doing to us what Afghanistan did to the Soviet
Union.
Well, write this day down. I agree with you completely in that statement.
2007 was too late. The time to oppose would have
been *before* the damage was done.
Sorry if I seem to be harping on this, but I find it annoying
that El Castor is now posing as an opponent of the
adventures in Afghanistan and particularly in Iraq. When
the invasion of Iraq was coming up and I was opposing it,
he would give no quarter in his support for it. Nor would
he give any quarter in his support for the Republican
ideology that has now broken the USA. I don't feel like
letting him get away with rewriting his history now: it's
just too appalling.
His hypocrisy has been well noted. Have no fear. He may have changed his
mind since way back then, but I drew my conclusions on more recent
discussions with him.
I supported the invasion back in 2003, but by somewhere around 2005
(?) I gained a new understanding of Islam and the history and ethnic
composition of Iraq and freely admitted that I had been wrong. Rita is
well aware of that fact, even if she is too warped to admit it now. At
any rate I no longer supported the war, and for years been a strong
opponent. If that isn't good enough, or if you consider that admitting
that I was wrong is unacceptable, or if my reasons for opposing the
war are not the same as your reasons for opposing the war, does that
make me a hypocrite or a liar? Please let me know if I have failed to
pass some litmus test. I am anxious to understand how your mind
works. As for now, the war is essentially over, and I believe that it
is what it is, and we may as well make the best of the current
situation, and in fact we have an obligation (within reason) to the
people of Iraq to at least try to help them make this situation work.
I doubt that in the long run the outcome will be favorable for the US,
but what the future might bring is hard to say. Obama seems to agree
with me on that.
Here is a conversation I had with one of my fellow conservatives
concerning my lack of support for the war:
From June 8 of last year -- "Was The Iraq War Worth It".
"Billy, you and I are both conservatives, but that doesn't mean we
have to drink the Koolaid and endorse everything George Bush says or
does. I supported the invasion for probably the same reasons you did,
but that was then and this is now. I'm not ashamed to admit that I
believe I was wrong and we made a huge mistake."
Here's one for you. Do you support or oppose Obama's troop surge in
Afghanistan? Whatever your current position, do you reserve the right
to later change your mind or decide that you were wrong? Will a change
of heart make you a hypocrite or a liar?
Of course not. We are always entitled to change our minds based on new information. That is why we have brains! As for Afghanistan, I haven't really made up my mind about it. This WAS the country of origin that sent us Bin Laden's evil minions to blow up innocents in our streets. But as far as I am concerned their entire f**king country isn't worth one American life.
Obama must know something that we don't, is all I can assume. He didn't seem inclined to continue these foreign wars when he was campaigning, but changed his mind about it apparently, after election.
They all seem to do that when they get elected and have that first big intelligence briefing. I am assuming that there are things that come to light during that briefing that would curdle our blood if we all were privy to them. Every president seems to renege on some things after election. I can only assume that it is due to the more detailed information which is made available to them.
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- From: Thumper
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- From: El Castor
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- References:
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- From: Evelyn
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- From: El Castor
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- From: Hal Hanig
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- From: El Castor
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- From: jim
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- From: El Castor
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- From: Evelyn
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- From: Evelyn
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- From: El Castor
- Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- Prev by Date: Re: Cheney Is Linked to C.I.A. Concealment of Terror Program
- Next by Date: Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- Previous by thread: Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- Next by thread: Re: 4 Baghdad churches bombed in 24 hours
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|