Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Are you "unpatriotic" if you do not support Bush's War?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-27-07 03:56 PM
Original message
Are you "unpatriotic" if you do not support Bush's War?
Edited on Thu Sep-27-07 04:45 PM by kentuck
Some say it is more than unpatriotic, it is treason itself, to oppose the President while we are at war? That no matter how we got there, we are there now and we should support the President, the troops, and the mission, no matter why we went in to begin with?

But if it was a mistake to invade a country, should not the President admit it was a mistake before expecting everyone to get behind his "new" mission? If we have such a "mess" that we cannot leave anytime in the near future, should not our leaders admit it is a "mess", rather than create new definitions for success and victory?

As the mission has morphed before our eyes from one of finding and destroying WMDs, to over-throwing the dictator, to setting up a democracy in the Middle East, to defeating the insurgents, to establishing some sort of stability, should not the people expect our leaders to at least admit the truth about the mission, rather than continue to lie about the size and scope of the blunder?

By the way, who gets to define "enemy"? Are the Iraqi insurgents really our enemy? Mayor Bloomberg, this morning said that the "insurgents" are like our "Revolutionary" soldiers. And that we are like the British. We know what happened in that insurgency, don't we?

But because the insurgents in Iraq are killing those that fight for our side and our country, they are defined as the "enemy"? They kill our brothers and sisters. And if they are our "enemies", then it is not possible for them to be fighting for a just cause? But if they are fighting to defend their country from a foreign "invader", would that be defined as a "just cause"?

But, that gives them no right to kill our Brothers and Sisters, right? No one has a right to kill anyone else, except in war, right? Because they hit us first, that does not make their cause "just"? Right?

They are defined as an "enemy" by our leaders, most specifically, the President. So we have a moral obligation to do what our Leaders tell us to do, no matter if everyone knows he was wrong? They will tell us what we should believe. If we do not choose to do that, then we are open to name-calling and worse. We must support our Leaders also, if we are to be defined as "patriotic"? No matter how wrong? Right?

I suspect we had similar arguments as todays during WWI? The only "patriotic" thing to do is to stop this war. We invaded. We are not in the right. We will never be right. So, what is the best option?

There's an old saying about "making lemonade out of lemons". I think it must apply in this situation that we now find ourselves?

Otherwise, we will never extricate ourselves. And this is not Germany or Japan. It is doubtful that the people in Iraq will ever forget what we did to their country. Long after Saddam, they will still speak of the American occupation and will still be looking for Americans to kill.

So, how do we make lemonade? First, we must recognize that the "insurgents" have a right to defend their country and that we had no right to invade. That is step one.

Step two, we befriend the "insurgents", much like we are attempting to do now in Anbar province. The sooner we understand that the "insurgents" are on the right side of history, the better it will be for the rest of the world.

After all, it is the "insurgents" that are the most brave and patriotic Iraqis in that country. They are the fighters for their country.

What that means is that we are on the wrong side in the war in Iraq? The present Shiite leaders are actually closer to Iran than the US. But, we just don't want to admit it yet.

Once we befriend the Sunnis, most of the violence will actually go away, rather than deteriorate into a civil war. Why? Because it is the Sunni that are the fighters and the "insurgents". The Shia will not fight for their country in the same way as the Sunni - they will only fight for revenge against the Sunni.

Therefore, the logical next step is to separate the two factions or put a buffer between them. UN soldiers would be a better buffer than American soldiers, because of the recent history and occupation. The key to bringing Iraq under a peaceful co-existence is to start negotiations immediately with the Sunni leaders. The Shia have proven that they can be bought off.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC