Originally Posted by rudedog40
Who was the majority party in Congress when the 'vote' was going on. REPUBLICAN. You think they're going to vote against their party lines? Sure the Democrats followed suit, what choice did they have? If you were in Congress at that time, would you want to vote against a war that was promoted as a retaliation to 9/11? Not if you didn't want to stay there.
I still fail to understand where the president has to solely shoulder the blame here. You titled a thread saying that "Bush is ready to start WWIII" then went on a rant how Bush did this and Bush did that. Now I bring up that congress is the one who approved it, and you go off on policial party lines being to blame.
Even still, I still have trouble understanding where in all this the president is to blame for this?
At the same time, what I continue to find ironic is that these representatives of the people that authorized the war get to trot around the country like their stuff smells sweeter, essentially blameless, when they had just as big of a hand in going in there as Bush did. It's just interesting to me that so many war opponents regurgitate pseudo-clever one-liners like "Cowboy diplomacy" out of once side of their mouth, yet at the same time are ushering in candidates who at the time were just as big of warmongers as our president is.
The only difference between Bush and these candidates (the ones that authorized it) is that Bush has the ethical fortitude to understand that you don't dessimate a country then walk away simply because it's more economically pleasant to do so.
So millions of Americans have to file bankruptcy because you feel guilty for not being "Resonsible"?
The only Americans who are going bankrupt at this point are Americans who foolishly took on morgages that they couldn't handle and racked up credit card debt due mostly to material desires.
Sorry, but I'm not going to allow a bunch of lefts to blame this one on Bush. In this country, you take responsibility for one's self. If people got themselves into a position where they cannot ride out a slump in the economy, shame on them, not on Bush.
the basis of everyone's argument for the Iraq War here is because we went into Iraq to get Sadaam, and his threat of WMD's. As far as the regimes, we'll never get rid of those. Bush wants to push Democracy down their throats, and there's too many dissident factions that don't want to have anything to do with it (Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, etc.). We're nothing more than policemen trying to make gangs get along and work together. Meanwhile, we're practically doing nothing in Afghanistan
This is why I believe we need a change of command, for fresh ideas. I just don't think that cutting and running is a viable, wise, or ethical solution.
>
Excuse me? How am I arguing both sides? I have no ethics on war. I didn't want to go there in the first place.
I still don't understand why you think the US should be the Big Brother and Protector of the Free World. Who gave us the right to do that?
And you bet I could care less about how we leave Iraq.
On one hand, you question the right for us to go in there and do what we did. On the other hand, you have no problem with just walking away from what we did to these people, due to internal economic concerns.
Sounds like arguing two sides to me.
I'm saying the US shouldn't be sticking their nose into every world conflict. Those people have their own way of life. It's 180 from ours. You have these illusions of grandeur... ...That region of the MidEast will NEVER be what you visualize it to be, not matter how much you put into it.
Don't put words in my mouth. I have no such "delusions."
I'll settle for a stable government and control of sectarian violence.
