Tuesday, March 25, 2008

GOP - Bad for the Military

A man owns this wonderful tool that does all sorts of things and is much cherished. A neighbor asks to borrow it promising the proper care. The man catches this neighbor seriously abusing this favorite tool of his. He’s understandably furious at this person. However, he doesn’t suddenly hate his tool because he’s upset at the way it’s being used.

Likewise, the military is a very precious tool of our government owned by us. The Bush administration is the bad neighbor that is doing the misusing and abusing. We still love the troops but we all have a right and responsibility to let our displeasure known when they are being treated badly by this or any administration that only has temporary custody of them.

Paul Rieckhoff on Military Readiness

Supporting the misguided Bush Administration has nothing to do with supporting the troops. The Republican party has made it very plain to every person that has served in the military, is currently serving in the military or ever will serve in the military that no act of heroism for your country or act of heroism for your home or act of heroism for your brothers and sisters in arms is worth ‘a hill of beans’ unless you submit to a particular agenda masquerading as conservative Republican.

Even the soldier who falls on the grenade is un-American if he’s found out to be a suspected liberal. After all if he’s Democrat it must have been some cowardly liberal plot that led that person to commit self assisted suicide.

The sad thing is they’ve made very clear to any soldiers, airman, seaman, or marines that may have been tempted to tell the American people the truth, whether it’s about the war, lack of proper military equipment, or their own mistreatment through sub-par states-side medical treatment, to keep they’re mouths shut except when regurgitating the Neoconservative talking points because they’re testimony is worthless and threatening to the Bush administrations public image.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

Sooner or later you get fed up enough with the Stooges that it’s time to fire them. You don’t decide to keep them because they’re the ones that began the job so they should be the ones best able to complete it. After enough pies thrown, eyes gouged and things broken when they respond to your misgivings with, "Well what would you do?" sounds a bit lame. The most logical answer would be to say, "We’ll figure it out without your incompetent help" and "Don’t let the door hit you in the rear on the way out".

Some guys, like our president and his administration and the Bush-hugging McCain, just beg to be fired. To do otherwise would be ignorance surrendering to stupidity in the name of gullibility.

Forewarned Is Forearmed: Bush On Iran

I’m greatly concerned that given the Bush administration's abysmal track record on world diplomacy any war like action in Iran will blow up in their faces bringing great harm not only to the innocent men, women, and children in Iran but also to our nation.

I worry about Russia’s closeness to Iran; they are joined by the Caspian Sea and they have sent defensive missiles to Iran. Will they be drawn into this war?

Saudi citizens are sending money in the millions to the Sunnis of Iraq. Will they be drawn into the war?

Will they be igniting the spark, similar to the flash that lit WW One, which causes nations to divvy up sides for another world war?

Will the world view us as the aggressors and retaliate economically if not militarily against our interests?

Are we just using questionable evidence of Iranian involvement, at whatever level, as an excuse for war with Iran?

Are we seeking support from both Saudi Arabia and radical elements among the Sunnis, loyal to Al Qaeda, for an attack against Iran?

Are we doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia?

Are we going to attempt to replay the old Iran-Iraq war?

It sure seems we may be heading in that general direction.

Seymour Hersh On Iran

Where is the national debate?

Where is the congressional authorization?

Where is the Bush administration credibility on intelligence leading to military adventurism?


ElBaradei: Military Strike On Iran ‘Would Lead Absolutely To Disaster’
Posted by Satyam October 28, 2007

Some common questions about Iran's nuclear program
By Warren P. Strobel McClatchy NewspapersPosted on Sunday, November 4, 2007

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed
Last Updated: Tuesday, 20 February 2007, 10:28 GMT

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.


I worry about this powerful and arrogant man being in such a weak position politically. All the issues were arguing about, the corruption investigations, bringing the troops home from Iraq and even his very low approval rating will all be on the back burner once he decides to attack Iran. Once war is begun it may be seen as tying the hands of the next president also they may also view this as a huge plus for McCain.

John McCain and his 100 Years War

The more over burdened our military becomes the more attractive nuclear weapons look to the war merchants of the GOP.

from The Union of Concerned Scientists...
Nuclear Bunker Buster for War in Iran and Fallout

"Mini Nukes" - Bush's new dangerous weapon

Physicians for Social Responsibility
Medical Consequences of a Nuclear Attack on Iran

David Robinson, Executive Director of Pax Christi USA


No comments: