How can a patriotic person wish for defeat for their country, regardless of who is President?
Completely assumptive "Rush" style fallacy filled question. The question assumes 20,000 troops will bring stability to Iraq.
Put down the Coulter and get a hold of yourself AAA. Please use that educated brain of yours.
Not wishing further death to American troops by increasing troop levels in a country that is in the civil conflict Iraq is in, is not unpatriotic.
Please, just this one time, detach yourself from the neocon Bill Krystol point of view and think purely logically.
Tell me if the following is both logical, accurate, and makes a lick of sense:
The reason people are dying in Iraq due to the levels of violence we see, the reason Iraq is unstable, the reason for civil unrest, the reason the Iraq Government has not trained enough police and military to defend themselves is that we are shy 20,000 US troops.
Only an idiot would think the reason for the quagmire of Iraq is that we are shy 20,000 US service men/women.
You could at least possibly make an argument, a logical argument that the problems in Iraq, the instability in Iraq is because we are shy 500,000 US troops or more. That would give you a fighting chance at sounding rational.
But 20,000 troops?
This is why it is so illogical to send in another 20,000 troops when we both know it is futile, and putting more soldiers in harms way for no logical reason.
This has become a US political battle between Bush, who is still pissed off that the American people flipped him and his Iraq policy the bird in November of last year. Nancy Pelosi has to succumb to such childish action by Bush, a man who ignores the will of the people to put more US servicemen/women in harms way by agreeing not to with hold funding for this meager troop increase, maybe or maybe not because she cares about the troops, but because if she does with hold funding, and this plan of Bush fails, then he will turn around and blame her for lack of funding.
It is absolutely patriotic for any American to express dissent. Where you get this notion that Americans should support what the military does at the request of the president without any dissent, any question, any careful analysis, any input by Congress...is just plain horse shit.
This country was built on the foundation of dissent, even violent dissent against a government that was believed to be tyrannous and did not listen to the people being governed. I can understand if you have a different point of view about the rightness or wrongness of the US being in Iraq, but this brandishing of Americans as unpatriotic because of their lack of support for Bush's plan is born of a weak mind, when those in dissent actually care about what is best for America.
Really AAA, time to come out of denial and think logically for a change.
Completely assumptive "Rush" style fallacy filled question. The question assumes 20,000 troops will bring stability to Iraq.
Put down the Coulter and get a hold of yourself AAA. Please use that educated brain of yours.
Not wishing further death to American troops by increasing troop levels in a country that is in the civil conflict Iraq is in, is not unpatriotic.
Please, just this one time, detach yourself from the neocon Bill Krystol point of view and think purely logically.
Tell me if the following is both logical, accurate, and makes a lick of sense:
The reason people are dying in Iraq due to the levels of violence we see, the reason Iraq is unstable, the reason for civil unrest, the reason the Iraq Government has not trained enough police and military to defend themselves is that we are shy 20,000 US troops.
Only an idiot would think the reason for the quagmire of Iraq is that we are shy 20,000 US service men/women.
You could at least possibly make an argument, a logical argument that the problems in Iraq, the instability in Iraq is because we are shy 500,000 US troops or more. That would give you a fighting chance at sounding rational.
But 20,000 troops?
This is why it is so illogical to send in another 20,000 troops when we both know it is futile, and putting more soldiers in harms way for no logical reason.
This has become a US political battle between Bush, who is still pissed off that the American people flipped him and his Iraq policy the bird in November of last year. Nancy Pelosi has to succumb to such childish action by Bush, a man who ignores the will of the people to put more US servicemen/women in harms way by agreeing not to with hold funding for this meager troop increase, maybe or maybe not because she cares about the troops, but because if she does with hold funding, and this plan of Bush fails, then he will turn around and blame her for lack of funding.
It is absolutely patriotic for any American to express dissent. Where you get this notion that Americans should support what the military does at the request of the president without any dissent, any question, any careful analysis, any input by Congress...is just plain horse shit.
This country was built on the foundation of dissent, even violent dissent against a government that was believed to be tyrannous and did not listen to the people being governed. I can understand if you have a different point of view about the rightness or wrongness of the US being in Iraq, but this brandishing of Americans as unpatriotic because of their lack of support for Bush's plan is born of a weak mind, when those in dissent actually care about what is best for America.
Really AAA, time to come out of denial and think logically for a change.