?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

1. Never has there been a war that’s been as confusing to so many as the one we’re in now.

My only concern is for the America and its people. The longer our soldiers stay in Iraq, the more we trigger the fires of hatred toward us. When is it going to end? I honestly believe it never will, because we have ventured into something that we never should have.

This is a war that our soldiers are dying for in Iraq, began since Hagar gave birth to Ishmael and Sara gave birth to Isaac.

When will we finally bring our soldiers back home? Isn’t is obvious that there is absolutely no solution to the violent conflicts the Middle East has been going through since the book of Genesis was written?

I find it ironic that the three major religions, that are suppose to be for peace and tolerance, have in fact always been the opposite.

I believe the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem has had everything to do, since close to the beginning of time, with all the bloody violence in the Middle East, but I don’t understand in what way it has.

I am a true believer of the apocalyptic end of times prophesies. I would ask President Bush who says he’s a Christian, and I’m sure he’s read the Book of Revelation, how in the world does he believe it possible to start a new democratic country in a country that has only know violence, and all in the name of religion. Let those people fight their own battles, battles they have fought always. There is no solution to this problem over there, and there never will be. Our soldiers continue to be slaughtered over there, and all for what?

There’s a great difference between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Islam and Judaism are willing to die martyrs for their beliefs, while the majority of we Christians are not.

2. I was very much for this war, right after 911, because I was enraged beyond belief at how the so many people were murdered in such a cowardly manner. I wanted BLOOD! When I found out that Osama bin Laden, from Afghanistan was responsible, I wanted revenge badly. Never in my life had I felt so incredibly patriotic. But now, I feel I was lied to in so many ways, because suddenly, Iraq was in the picture instead of Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein was captured instead of Osama bin Laden, and in fact, bin Laden has somehow been forgotten because I sure haven’t heard mention of his name anymore.

I can’t bear anymore to hear all these men and women I hear on the news, men and women who continue to demand we continue this war in Iraq. I just can’t bear it anymore because I know for a fact, that if they had a beloved family member over there, they’d be the first to cry out that they be brought back. It’s so easy to be brave when you’re dressed in fancy professional clothes and sitting behind a desk safely, to demand we continue with this war.

Comments

( 36 comments — Leave a comment )
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
prader
Dec. 29th, 2006 11:34 pm (UTC)
So, basically, the Bush administration manufactured, out of thin air, a link between Bin-Laden, Afghanistan, and Iraq in order to invade those countries under false pretenses so that we could isolate Iran and prevent her from moving in on Iraq's oil fields? It all comes back to money and I'd be willing to bet Bush is in bed with those profiting from the deaths of both our soldiers and the Iraqi/Afghanistani people.
tomcatshanger
Dec. 29th, 2006 10:05 pm (UTC)
"The longer our soldiers stay in Iraq, the more we trigger the fires of hatred toward us."

It's always better to have them hate us and attack us here, like they have been in Europe and asia, against countries that didn't attack them in any way. Yep yep.
neo_prodigy
Dec. 29th, 2006 10:15 pm (UTC)
we still had no right bombing afghanistan. it would be the same if an american terrorist attacked china and they retaliated by bombing new york or seattle.
tomcatshanger
Dec. 29th, 2006 10:20 pm (UTC)
If those terrorists were backed by the American government, China would be correct in bombing US cities in response.

But we didn't carpet bomb or go after population centers in Afghanistan, nor in Iraq for that matter. So you're example is lacking.
neo_prodigy
Dec. 29th, 2006 10:26 pm (UTC)
actually you're wrong because it was never established that bin laden was supported by afghanistan. in fact, bin laden has more ties with the bush family than he does with afghanistan. this was a classic case of the u.s. bombing someone so we could feel better about ourselves after such a tragedy. further more, when you bomb a country and send in soldiers, innocent people are going to get killed.

so therefore your argument is lacking (as usual).
neo_prodigy
Dec. 29th, 2006 10:28 pm (UTC)
and by the by
if afghanistan had been funding bin laden, i seriously doubt that the u.s. would be pledging millions of dollars to help them reconstruct after said bombings.
tomcatshanger
Dec. 30th, 2006 02:16 am (UTC)
Re: and by the by
Man, and we funded the rebuilding of Japan Italy and Germany, not to mention Iraq.

I guess we didn't really believe they where in the wrong after all.
hajiomatic
Dec. 30th, 2006 03:15 am (UTC)
Re: and by the by
the (then) Taliban govt gave tacit approval of Al-Qadea and Osama by proving him safe haven in Afghanistan.
Especially in Khowst province.
Our Forward Operating Base Salerno is built on the same ground used to train terrorists. Its a nice place you should vist me here some time....
your lack of knowlege of recent history is really appalling...
neo_prodigy
Dec. 30th, 2006 03:46 am (UTC)
Re: and by the by
first of all, there was still debate about bin laden's involvement in 9-11 at the time of the u.s. invasion. so afghanistan was well within their rights to tell the u.s. to go fuck themselves. and as far as funding and business goes, the bush family has done more willing and dealing with bin laden (and saddam for that matter) than anyone.

in fact it wasn't until after the u.s. had occupied afghanistan, that u.s. confirmed from a video tape that bin laden was involved in the 9-11 attacks. up until that point he had simply been accused and suspected.

get your fact straights before commenting on anyone's knowledge of recent history, much less mine.
tomcatshanger
Dec. 29th, 2006 10:44 pm (UTC)
Who needs bin laden to be supported by Afghanistan? Al Qaeda fighters fought and trained with Taliban fighters.

Grin. Of coarse he does, that's why Bin Laden is hiding in Crawford Texas on the Bush ranch right?
neo_prodigy
Dec. 29th, 2006 10:55 pm (UTC)
i don't know about bin laden hiding in texas or anything like that, but i do know that his family was here when 9-11 hit and the u.s. had plenty of opportunity to interrogate them and find out where bin laden was hiding. that never happened and they let them go. which is suspicious to me considering how "bad" they wanted to track down bin laden. hell, on the day of 9-11 orrin hatch kept going on and on about bin laden was behind the attacks before it was confirmed.

so you do the math.

tomcatshanger
Dec. 29th, 2006 11:03 pm (UTC)
And I do know that his family is not Bin Laden. I have many family memebers whom I don't approve of and care not to see. It's very odd that you hold his family accountable for his actions and beliefs.

I do the math, and 2+2 just don't equal 15.
neo_prodigy
Dec. 29th, 2006 11:12 pm (UTC)
oh that fuzzy wuzzy math
the u.s. has interrogated, imprisoned and even tortured people for less.

i'm not suggesting any of those things but i think the u.s. had the responsibility to hold them for questioning to find out where the hell bin laden was. if they didn't know anything, fine let them go. if they're innocent then of course they shouldn't be held accountable for bin laden's actions.

but the u.s. didn't even question them. investigators question family members all the time when they're searching for a suspect.

it's certainly better than bombing innocent people.
tomcatshanger
Dec. 29th, 2006 11:37 pm (UTC)
Re: oh that fuzzy wuzzy math
And it hasn't done the same for more. You're accusations are groundless.

Within the US, the government doesn't arrest the relatives of murderers to question them.

It's not that hard of a thing to accept.
neo_prodigy
Dec. 30th, 2006 02:03 am (UTC)
Re: oh that fuzzy wuzzy math
no one said anything about arresting. i said questioning. big difference.

the government questions witnesses and potential accomplices to suspects.

the government pulls people over on the road and harass people solely on the color of their skin so this whole belief that the us is powerless to question relatives to the possible whereabouts of a suspected terrorist is absolutely ludicrous.

it's not that hard of a thing to accept.

but i've proven my point and once again you've confirmed as much. otherwise, you would be respectfully arguing your points with facts and wouldn't be resorting to petty insults or obnoxious sarcasm to prove your case as usual.

so i'm bringing this debate to a close, as well as this discourse.
tomcatshanger
Dec. 30th, 2006 02:15 am (UTC)
Re: oh that fuzzy wuzzy math
You used terms like "interrogate" and "hold them for questioning", which you do after you detain people, IE, deprive them of freedom, which we can't do here unless we arrest them.

So you're saying you would have been happy if a state trooper pulled them over and asked them where Bin Laden was? Nice.

I wasn't aware I insulted you. If you find yourself in pain, perhaps you can find help.

Why is it those who lack a grasp of reality always try and end conversations? (PS, I think that could be an insult)
buddave
Dec. 29th, 2006 10:45 pm (UTC)
I believe the correct term is protected rather than supported. The Taliban government which controlled Afghanistan would not co-operate and expell Osama - thus the bombing began.
neo_prodigy
Dec. 29th, 2006 11:00 pm (UTC)
if another country came at us barking demands about something we had nothing to do with, we wouldn't cooperate either and rightfully so.

and after 6 years, countless bombs and u.s. occupation, they still haven't found bin laden.

and like i said before if there was insurmountable proof that afghanistan was involved in the 9-11 attack, then i seriously doubt that the u.s. would be spending money to support a country that attacked us.
marc17
Dec. 29th, 2006 10:28 pm (UTC)
I don't buy the bit about "absolutely no solution to the violent conflicts the Middle East". Same thing could have been said about Europe which has been in constant warfare for just as long up until the last 50 years.
thomask
Dec. 29th, 2006 10:36 pm (UTC)
hmmm....it's maybe a little similiar but the Europe problem was caused by insane nationalism. "my country and way of life is better than you so I'm going to force it on you." But you can squash that feeling with a couple wars against them and beating the pants off them.

The Middle East is one of religious extremism. I don't know how you squash that. You can't kill their gods. :(
marc17
Dec. 30th, 2006 01:29 am (UTC)
Like Europe's never been the hotbed of religious extremism that caused wars and ethnic cleansing including attacks on other countries. From Rome, the Crusades, to the conquistadors, Europe has been no better than the middle east.
ninjaguydan
Dec. 29th, 2006 11:12 pm (UTC)
in god money we trust...
Umm...Vietnam was pretty convoluted...We're like the aztecs now. We'll kill off our best and brightest for our god money.

What's that sound? it sounds like another generation has learned disillusionment...at least there's no draft this time.
-)

I say let the atheists run the world, at least we won't bring about some "end times" to satisfy our own mythology (yes, all religion is mythology!)

-)
prader
Dec. 29th, 2006 11:51 pm (UTC)
Playgirl, if you can get your hands on a copy of "The Creature from Jekyll Island" I'd highly suggest reading it. It does a great job of explaining the things that just don't make any sense if you take either the Democrats or Republicans at their word... like this mess. After reading it you will have a much clearer understanding of why these wars are necessary.
harley1456
Dec. 30th, 2006 12:25 am (UTC)
There is some interesting theories out there about the FAR right (which might include Bush and definitely includes some of his advisors and friends..) are actually pushing for apocalypse, they want the second coming to be NOW>>I mean revalations says there will be hell on Earth for a bit but then Jesus will prevail. I think that Time even did an article about it.
donchep
Dec. 30th, 2006 02:00 am (UTC)
Actually this war is not THAT confusing. The most confusing war in history is the Thirty years war. You have The Holy Roman Emperor of Austria backing one guy to take over territories for the catholics that the Lutherans tookover. You have Dutch Calvinists siding with French catholics against Spanish Catholics to help France fend off power of the Austrian and Spanish Hapsburgs over their own Catholic Bourbon Dynasty.
You have a catholic general with protestant mercenaries helping him take over lutheran towns.
You have Scotsmen signing up to fight for a Swedish King in Northern Germany.
Iraq is very easy to understand. There is a power vacuum created by Saddam Hussein's loss of power. Lots of factions want power fro their side and will fight their rivals to get it.
Iraq is a lot like the Mexican revolution if tyou want to make a comaparison. Saddam Hussein is like Porfirio Diaz. When he was overthrown different groups made a claim to power and legitimacy and all had different agendas. The Nortenos supported Pancho Villa and he was backed by Carranza until carranza got greedy for power. In the South you had Zapata. Then there were the beginning factions that would later become the Cristeros who fought to preserve the power of the church.
hajiomatic
Dec. 30th, 2006 02:42 am (UTC)
Never has there been a war that’s been as confusing to so many as the one we’re in now
Only if you listen to the bed wetting press and the panty-wearing, cut and run Democratic Party.

Isn’t is obvious that there is absolutely no solution to the violent conflicts the Middle East
There is absolutely no solution to ANY conflict here on Earth. This is true...so I guess hiding our head in the sand and doing NOTHING is a better strategic plan??

President Bush who says he’s a Christian, and I’m sure he’s read the Book of Revelation, how in the world does he believe it possible to start a new democratic country in a country that has only know violence

John's Revelation is written to the CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST. Its not a road map for the end of the world,how to make peace in Mid Asia or tell Pres Bush how to get the best out of his Sec of Defense...

When I found out that Osama bin Laden, from Afghanistan

OBL is an Arab from Saudi Arabia.


The GWOT is the LONG WAR. We are paying for years of complacency and hiding our heads in the sand. C'mon SLPG... I expect MORE from YOU.






weathermanphil
Dec. 30th, 2006 05:31 am (UTC)
this is my take on bush's "war on terrorism"
in my opinion, its a war that will never end or be won.
my reasoning is that when we take down a terrorist leader, there'll be many more to take his place. its an endless cycle. there'll always be people in the world that will hate the U.S.
** all this is just my opinion **
mysticpickle
Dec. 30th, 2006 05:46 am (UTC)
I completely agree. I believe they are entiteled to their opinion too.
mysticpickle
Dec. 30th, 2006 05:43 am (UTC)
I won't lie no matter how unpatriotic it may sound when I say I have NEVER been in support of this war. I have friends and family there and home from. Even they disagree with it. The majority of the soldiers I have talked to will tell you they do this because it is their job and that it truly has nothing to do with the saafty and security of America. I think that starting the entire conflict by telling us they were there for Bin Ladin yet it is Saddam who was hanging from the gallows today is crap. As adults and as americans we are entitled to the truth. If they truly never intended to nail Afganastan and Bin Ladin they should have told us so. Sad they knew that telling it how is would have gotten them absolutly NO support. It saddens me that we are killing of our own people by sending them into this type of place to defend the freedoms of the "new government" in Iraq. I think we should tell them hey, it's been nice, protect your own selves from your own people, god luck, god bless, and bring them all home!! What really does our government think they are going to get out of this?? Some oil? peace? Phbtt... there hasn't been peace in the middle east since BC eras. Why do the American people honestly think we are so high and mighty that we can accomplish what Jesus could not?? What ever happened to the ten commandments? Respecting the people?? Seems to me that the over all population of the USA has forgotten that the government should fear it's people and not that the people should fear their government. We put those people there and we collectively have the power to remove them too. Yet for all of us who honestly believe that by uping the death toll from 9/11 to the thousands on thousands by allowing our troops to die in vain few of us will band tougther and speak out. If everyone did the war would be over and noone would be able to continue it. Terrorism has prevailed in the fact it has people to afraid to stand up to their government and demand our troops come home. Sad.... but true!
neo_prodigy
Dec. 30th, 2006 05:56 am (UTC)
amen!!!!!!
very well said....written rather.
moon_shine
Dec. 30th, 2006 10:21 am (UTC)
Oh Savanah I wish there was a way to put your mind at ease, but your right this war is wrong and the dome of the rock in Jerusalem is a way in witch some people try to own god, they think that just because they believe that there prophet did some thing there or if you want there god, so they have to own it and that no one else believes as much or as strong as they do so they are right and everyone else is wrong. You can’t own god and you can’t speak for god you only can live as god would, but there are not very many people that can or even want to try.
And to tell you the truth I doubt if Bush has ever read revelations, and he does not want a democratic country over there!
If he thinks that a bunch of Muslims are going to start a Christian based government
He is a fool, no matter what he wants it is there country and they will make it the way they believe in this case it will be based on the Muslim religion, as it should be it is there country any way. And if we say they are free we must let them fight their own battles as you said.

I was never for this war and you know why. The war we should be fighting is the one in Afghanistan, but they really don’t want bin Laden. If they did, we would have him… and yes you have been lied to as we all have!
Now Saddam Hussein is dead Now. And not much will change it will get worse and if we don’t get out we will be in the middle!

I want you to know Savanah that your brother and all our soldiers are in my prayers
Every night and we are all here for you !!!! I don’t know if that helps but I want you to know that.
fourcorners
Dec. 30th, 2006 10:54 am (UTC)
Peace will never really occur, since both muslim and jew consider the location of the Dome of the Rock a holy place. Neither one will ever completely give up their holy claim, and that means, they'll fight until one side is completely demolished
uglyface2
Dec. 30th, 2006 02:24 pm (UTC)
We didn't go into the Middle East "to catch Osama bin Laden." We went in to break the backs of the terrorist organizations that want to see us die. That means that the plan was to remake the face of the Middle East, a long, painful task that was going to take a very long time. (See the State of the Union address for 2002.)

Afghanistan was the first target, because the organization that had most recently caused us so much difficulty was pretty well entrenched there, complete with the support of the Taliban. Remember, it wasn't the Taliban that caused 9/11; they were simply sponsoring terrorism.

So we broke the Taliban.

Next move was into Iraq. There were quite a few reasons to go into Iraq: Saddam financed terror, he had a weapons program that was doing some not-so-nice things, and frankly, taking down two Islamic theocracies in a row might not be a good idea in a region that has such a heavily Muslim population.

So we broke Saddam.

As you may have noticed, a lot of people got upset over that, not all of them people who read your journal. They realized that Iraq was a pretty important region to their operations, so they moved into Iraq and tried fighting. Only thing is, they're not so much "fighting" as they are "committing random acts of terrorism".

To get this Iraq thing over and done with, those people have to be stopped somehow. The options are all kind of crappy. If we try killing them hard and fast, we'll kill a lot of civilians in the process. (See the recent Etheopia/Somalia conflict.) If we nation build, which it seems we're doing, then you run into the lunacy we're getting now. If we leave, then... well, recent history shows us that's going to make a lot of people dead. (Witness Cambodia and Iraq I.)

There's more to say, but I'm tired and this is boring enough as it is.
(Anonymous)
Dec. 30th, 2006 06:22 pm (UTC)
right war right time
Yes you could say it was wrong to be there but you would be wrong we must take this the full road all the way to the end if you dont want to die in war dont join armyie's.We will find bin laden and he is not from afghanistan he is from sudia arabia he made his money on the stock exchange of new-york,as for the people in suits sitting their offices not careing where they not the vigtims of the twin towers in their place of work next to the same stock exchange he made his money and most likely still is make money you get my point if you dont go to them they will come to you.
( 36 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com