News-Record.com

"You can't say you support the troops when things go well, and then when things go bad you want to run like a coward."

Mr Torrente,
Our mission is done in Iraq. Getting our troops out now is not cowardly, it's smart.

You know Democrats that are glad to have a Republican prez? Yea, I'll bet so.

Man, when it comes to war letters, the ignorant come out in droves.(Mr Torrente)

There are some things that come to my mind when I read this letter. Among them are: 1) What is the mission in Iraq? It seems to have changed over time and there is never any clear concensus regarding this issue; 2) What threat was Iraq to the USA? Anyone that believes that Iraq was ANY threat has not been breathing for the last 5-10 years.

Secondly, comparing those who want to withdraw forces from Iraq with those who felt likewise during the Viet Nam fiasco is acurrate. Even a blind person could see the logic here. Amazingly however, the US should have never intervened in either of these situations!

WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER!

Shalom

Darryl - You are correct when you say the mission has changed in Iraq.

I have a simple multiple choice question for you. Would you rather have:

A) terrorists plotting to attack the United States again

or

B) terrorists attacking our armed troops in Iraq

Imagine that we had never invaded Iraq. Saddam would still be in power and would still be violating any type of weapons agreement he supposedly had with the UN. Fine and dandy for us, right? Doesn't affect us here in the good old US of A, right? Besides, he never attacked us anyway.

In this imaginary scenario, since our troops are not in Iraq, Al Qaeda is busily spending its resources (time, money, weapons, lives) to prepare for another attack on our soil. Since they aren't spending these resources preparing to attack our troops every day, they have plenty of time to gather enough resources to make 9/11 look like a visit to the park. And believe me, despite what most of America might think, our borders are no more secure now then they were four years ago.

Darryl,

Did you mean to say accurate or inaccurate?

Personally, I don't think the two should be compared. I view them as completely separate scenarios.

Either way, I'm not sure that we really want to get our troops home. Not saying I don't want to get our troops home. I'm just not so sure our government wants to get our troops home. I think there is a reason besides just Iraq that we have so many troops in the middle east. It just hasn't been revealed yet.

"I have a simple multiple choice question for you. Would you rather have:
A) terrorists plotting to attack the United States again
or
B) terrorists attacking our armed troops in Iraq"

Flag on the play- logical fallacy: These are not mutually exclusive. 10 yards.

Pablo,
You are to be commended for your enthusiasm for war. You and all your children should be considered first in line to fight for Fallujah. You can then wear the shirt with the target on it, for your country. Wear it proudly and let the rest of us know "WHY" we are over there----Of course I mean this week's reason from Karl Rove. And to those who think "W" to be a sincere man, why does he screen all his audiences for only the Republican crowd? Why doesn't he have the guts to face ALL Americans when he visits areas of the country? What is he afraid of? He is obviously afraid of looking weak. A man who will not admit making mistakes is already a weak and severely flawed individual.

I guess you didn't get invited to Bush's speech in K'ville today Deacon.

Why don't Mr. Torrente enlist and help out in Iraq as he seems to be so brave. Easy to sat here and voice our opinions.

First Ezekiel, that is not a multiple choice question; it is an either or situation. And do you honestly believe that somewhere in this world that Al-Quieda (sp) people are not plotting some type of event in regards to the USA? So, with that in mind, I feel that the "multiple choice question" is in valid and therefore I will give it no more of my time.

I still have seen no reasonable responses to my thoughts on the USA's mission in Iraq. At least the one currently being given.

WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER!

Shalom

Denzien - good to hear from you again, I see you've still got the old "cut and paste" down pat.

Daryl - since Deacon wants people to admit their mistakes, let me be first in line. My question to you was misleading. So, let's be clear that I don't think that having troops in Iraq means that we aren't going to be attacked on our soil again. There are plenty of terror cells in our country who are planning another attack. However, I do believe that it is much more likely that we would have already seen another massive terror attack on our soil had Al Qaeda not been using their resources to attack our troops in Iraq. Do you agree or disagree? (Disclaimer: agreeing does not make you pro-war.)

Deacon - simple yes or no question: have you spoken with or met anyone who has returned from Iraq?

"Why don't Mr. Torrente enlist and help out in Iraq as he seems to be so brave."

Do you know Mr. Torrente? Maybe he did serve, maybe he didn't. Last time I checked, miltary service was voluntary. This argument is weak & baseless.

"Easy to sat here and voice our opinions."

Does this imply that no one can voice their opinions unless they have served? If so I guess Mr.P, Brian and a few others can only post here from now on. Try sitting in N. Korea and voice your opinions.

Why don't you "sat" with a few soldiers who have been to Iraq and get their opinions?

Ezekiel, honestly I do not believe that just becaus US forces are being attacked in Iraq keeps others from making attacks on US soil. Considering where the funding originates, I do not see money as a factor in where attacks are launched.

WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER!

Shalom

Demcon Deacon,
I am a democrat, My wife,and I were invited to Raliegh on 2-10-05 to hear Bush, guess what I was blackballed from the liberal democrat party. Real democrats treat me good as always. Come election time I will work for old time democrats that still stand for the average person. If I am every luckie enough to go see a president again, I will be there.

"Upon further review.....the play stands as called."

Good call Denzien!

Ezekiel provided a perfect example of the "either/or" fallacy. By providing only two options to a very complex issue we are lead to believe these are the only two that exist or are possible.

If our presence in Iraq meant we (USA) would not be attacked again, I would agree it is better to have our troops fighting in another country. However, this is not the case. If anyone thinks we are safe because our soldiers are elsewhere, it is because they are delusional.

Our nation has become less safe because of our interference in Iraq. I have heard in the last two days how the military is on alert for attacks here in America. There are major worries about our ability to circumvent such an attack due to the lack of appropriate action re recommendations by the 9/11 commission. Hardly any measures have been adopted and initiated by Bush and company.

The reports I have heard make it sound like we are sitting ducks. Even without their reports I have felt that way for some time. Our military is trotting all over the world trying to stamp out little fires while the bonfire of the century is being prepared right here in the US. I hope God will have mercy on our souls.

Yvonne - let's be clear, if our nation is less safe, it is not because our troops are in Iraq. It is because it has taken this President 6 years to begin to do something about our porous borders. I'm a Bush supporter, but I'm far from an apologist. I do believe that we would have seen more terror attacks in our country had we not invaded Iraq, but we have left the door wide open. Don't think it is just Mexicans sneaking across our southern border, because it isn't.

You can't say you support the troops when things go well, and then when things go bad you want to run like a coward."

Mr Torrente,
Our mission is done in Iraq. Getting our troops out now is not cowardly, it's smart.

You know Democrats that are glad to have a Republican prez? Yea, I'll bet so.

Man, when it comes to war letters, the ignorant come out in droves.(Mr Torrente)

Posted by: Brian Harper at December 5, 2005 08:12 AM

There are some things that come to my mind when I read this letter. Among them are: 1) What is the mission in Iraq? It seems to have changed over time and there is never any clear concensus regarding this issue; 2) What threat was Iraq to the USA? Anyone that believes that Iraq was ANY threat has not been breathing for the last 5-10 years.

Secondly, comparing those who want to withdraw forces from Iraq with those who felt likewise during the Viet Nam fiasco is acurrate. Even a blind person could see the logic here. Amazingly however, the US should have never intervened in either of these situations!

WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER!

Shalom

Posted by: Darryl at December 5, 2005 08:19 AM

Darryl - You are correct when you say the mission has changed in Iraq.

I have a simple multiple choice question for you. Would you rather have:

A) terrorists plotting to attack the United States again

or

B) terrorists attacking our armed troops in Iraq

Imagine that we had never invaded Iraq. Saddam would still be in power and would still be violating any type of weapons agreement he supposedly had with the UN. Fine and dandy for us, right? Doesn't affect us here in the good old US of A, right? Besides, he never attacked us anyway.

In this imaginary scenario, since our troops are not in Iraq, Al Qaeda is busily spending its resources (time, money, weapons, lives) to prepare for another attack on our soil. Since they aren't spending these resources preparing to attack our troops every day, they have plenty of time to gather enough resources to make 9/11 look like a visit to the park. And believe me, despite what most of America might think, our borders are no more secure now then they were four years ago.

Posted by: Ezekiel at December 5, 2005 09:11 AM

Darryl,

Did you mean to say accurate or inaccurate?

Personally, I don't think the two should be compared. I view them as completely separate scenarios.

Either way, I'm not sure that we really want to get our troops home. Not saying I don't want to get our troops home. I'm just not so sure our government wants to get our troops home. I think there is a reason besides just Iraq that we have so many troops in the middle east. It just hasn't been revealed yet.

Posted by: truth at December 5, 2005 09:13 AM

"I have a simple multiple choice question for you. Would you rather have:
A) terrorists plotting to attack the United States again
or
B) terrorists attacking our armed troops in Iraq"

Flag on the play- logical fallacy: These are not mutually exclusive. 10 yards.

Posted by: Denzien at December 5, 2005 09:21 AM

Pablo,
You are to be commended for your enthusiasm for war. You and all your children should be considered first in line to fight for Fallujah. You can then wear the shirt with the target on it, for your country. Wear it proudly and let the rest of us know "WHY" we are over there----Of course I mean this week's reason from Karl Rove. And to those who think "W" to be a sincere man, why does he screen all his audiences for only the Republican crowd? Why doesn't he have the guts to face ALL Americans when he visits areas of the country? What is he afraid of? He is obviously afraid of looking weak. A man who will not admit making mistakes is already a weak and severely flawed individual.

Posted by: DemonDeacon at December 5, 2005 09:36 AM

I guess you didn't get invited to Bush's speech in K'ville today Deacon.

Posted by: Dan at December 5, 2005 10:08 AM

Why don't Mr. Torrente enlist and help out in Iraq as he seems to be so brave. Easy to sat here and voice our opinions.

Posted by: Nathaniel at December 5, 2005 10:36 AM

First Ezekiel, that is not a multiple choice question; it is an either or situation. And do you honestly believe that somewhere in this world that Al-Quieda (sp) people are not plotting some type of event in regards to the USA? So, with that in mind, I feel that the "multiple choice question" is in valid and therefore I will give it no more of my time.

I still have seen no reasonable responses to my thoughts on the USA's mission in Iraq. At least the one currently being given.

WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER!

Shalom

Posted by: Darryl at December 5, 2005 10:38 AM

Denzien - good to hear from you again, I see you've still got the old "cut and paste" down pat.

Daryl - since Deacon wants people to admit their mistakes, let me be first in line. My question to you was misleading. So, let's be clear that I don't think that having troops in Iraq means that we aren't going to be attacked on our soil again. There are plenty of terror cells in our country who are planning another attack. However, I do believe that it is much more likely that we would have already seen another massive terror attack on our soil had Al Qaeda not been using their resources to attack our troops in Iraq. Do you agree or disagree? (Disclaimer: agreeing does not make you pro-war.)

Deacon - simple yes or no question: have you spoken with or met anyone who has returned from Iraq?

Posted by: Ezekiel at December 5, 2005 11:10 AM

"Why don't Mr. Torrente enlist and help out in Iraq as he seems to be so brave."

Do you know Mr. Torrente? Maybe he did serve, maybe he didn't. Last time I checked, miltary service was voluntary. This argument is weak & baseless.

"Easy to sat here and voice our opinions."

Does this imply that no one can voice their opinions unless they have served? If so I guess Mr.P, Brian and a few others can only post here from now on. Try sitting in N. Korea and voice your opinions.

Why don't you "sat" with a few soldiers who have been to Iraq and get their opinions?

I served 20 years and I know what I was allowed to say. Don't sound like you have been there!

Thank you for your service Nathaniel. No I have not served in the military, however thanks to the military keeping our country free since it's birth, I and anyone else has the freedom of speech. I appreciate it and do not take it for granted. For this reason, I do not believe someone has to enlist in order to say something about the Iraq war, the military is voluntary.

It doesn't look like you learned to cut and paste words on a computer screen in the military or elsewhere. When you try to highlight a sentence sometimes it will highlight all the previous posts above(not sure why it does this). Go ahead and do so then paste onto your post. Then highlight the stuff you don't want in your post and cut it.

I served in the military and I consider myself to occupy no higher ground than those who did not. I was paid for my time and received GI benefits as well. I expect nothing more.
Having never served in the armed forces does not exclude one from commenting on it. As long as they are taxpayers they have every right to speak their mind on military matters and anything else. Some in here who have never served makes more sense than some who have. imo of course.

I never learned to cut and paste in the army either. lol