Thread: Senate rejects timetable for Iraq withdrawal

Well no I can’t relate to eminent domain or the crime rate issue because I live in a rural area. It is true that our rights are in jeopardy because of various laws trying to be passed in Congress. And yes the US military is to defend our freedom.

But the war in Iraq has nothing to do with our freedoms. Our freedoms haven’t been at stake since the civil war, maybe WWII. So when people (in general) run around talking about the war in Iraq and yell it’s about our freedom…that’s a crock. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with our freedoms and our civil liberties being in jeopardy. Congress is doing that quite fine (along with the Christian Coalition).

Look at the Bill of rights and tell me which one of those rights we are so close to losing because of Iraq. Which right were we so close to loosing if we didn’t take down Saddam?

None of them; we haven’t really had a scare like that in a long time.

Would I defend my home…yes. My family….yes. But I don’t need to die in a foreign country to show that I believe in my rights as an American.

It isn't our "rights", it is our freedom. There is a difference here. Let's say that the intelligence had been correct and Iraq could in the near future use it's weapons against us or sell them to the highest bidder. Do you not believe that this would have made Iraq a part of the war on terrorism? And is not the war on terrorism to protect our freedom?

Get over the fact that the intelligence on the WMD was faulty and incorrect. The problem here is the fact that no one wants to get past pointing fingers and making accusations that we have no way of knowing for sure what is correct. I personally do not know what the truth is, I only know we cannot pull out of Iraq until the job is complete. (I have already posted my definition of this) Democrats and Republicans alike wanted to take out Saddam Hussien, that is a fact and there proof of this. The time for questioning the intelligence was before the votes were cast, not after we are committed.

Recently there have been calls for Bush to do "fire side" chats or town hall meetings to keep the public informed as to what is going on. This is something that I believe would be a very good idea. On one hand I see the reason for not doing these things, but on the other, I think the more information put out there would go a long way in reassuring the American public. I think it would make all of us feel a bit more involved.

But I for one, would not want for us to leave Iraq at this time because they do not have their new government established and this takes time. Do I worry that after all is said and done that they will end up in a civil war? Yes, I think that is very possible. We were not asked to go into Iraq, but we have been asked to stay. If we pulled out now, what would that make us in the eyes of the world?

After the Gulf War, daddy Bush was bashed because we didn't go to Baghdad then, but we went and did what we said we were going to do. If we had gone ahead and taken Hussien out then, we would have been bashed because that is not what the world agreed to. So we run into the never ending problem of being stuck between a rock and a hard place, danged if we do and danged if we don't. Right now we must stay steady and accomplish what we went to do.

I see what you are trying to say. But I have to disagree. Even for argument sake if Saddam had a nuclear device; that is still not a threat to our freedom. Why; because he would not have had the capability to launch it. Look up the number of sorties that had been run from the end of the first American Gulf interaction and the beginning of this one. There is no way that Iraq would have been a big enough threat.

My second point is that the only country that would have an effect on our freedoms is the one that would be willing to invade. The last country to do that was England. Only an invading country has any real affect over whether or not our freedoms are in jeopardy; the same freedoms that fall under the Bill or Rights.

Bush can do all the fire side chats he wants. In fact he could do the rest of his term beside a fireside and it would not have changed the fact that we should not be there. There were no terrorist training camps there before and now it’s a terrorist haven because of our being there.

I agree that we should stay till the Iraqi can stand on their own but that’s it.

Bush Sr. didn’t go into Baghdad then because there was no guarantee that we wouldn’t be pulled out prematurely by the following president. Plus he had no real plan on what to do if they went that far into Iraq. Remember we only went in the Middle East to protect Saudi’s Oil. So there wasn’t time to plan for and overthrow of the Iraqi government. That is why Bush called for the Shia to stand up to Saddam after we left.

Excuse me, England was not the last country to invade us. If you remember correctly, Japan attacked us. And all during WWII, there were Germans off our coastlines and if Hitler had played his cards right, he definitely would have invaded. Thank God for his grave mistakes.

Originally Posted by tngirl

Excuse me, England was not the last country to invade us. If you remember correctly, Japan attacked us. And all during WWII, there were Germans off our coastlines and if Hitler had played his cards right, he definitely would have invaded. Thank God for his grave mistakes.

Japan attacking Pearl Harbor is not an invasion. And Germans in U-boats are not an invasion. These are preludes to possible invasions that never happened.