Why We Went to Iraq

I think this view would only be possible from the right. The rest of us see him as commander and chief of our military and his accolades mean much to our folks in uniform. As commander and chief, he is one of them which makes him part of WE.

 

None of this has much to do with the point made but, of course, there's no doubt Obama holds the position of Commander in Chief (not "commander and chief") as every President has. That's not denied! It has, however, little to do which how much one appreciates his comments or not. If it did not then all those not on the "right" would have liked the last Commander in Chief and found no fault in his "congratulations" as they surely did at every juncture. As for Obama's "accolades" and the military, I suppose a few will applaud his most likely actions as related to his "civil rights" agenda while most, and especially current and past warriors, will cringe with disgust and disappointment.

 

Those in the military did appreciate Bush. Did you see the pictures when he went to Iraq over Christmas? I don't recall the military criticizing Bush.

Again, I think that's a view only the right could have. Many in the military voted for Obama and was glad to see a new chief... What's this about a civil rights agenda? I haven't seen anything???

 

The "cut drill" taskings started this morning....

 

What does that mean? Do you have a link?

 

I certainly didn't state otherwise!

The "right" has the right view. Certainly there are differences of political opinion within the military. You ought to participate in some of those debates some time!

However, back to the point, most warriors do not approve of symapthy heaped on top of condemnation of the objectives for which they fight. They're proud to fight and have fought for just causes and want to be recognized for it. They don't appreciate a back handed complement for their "service" when that "service" is labeled as being wrong or hopeless or motivated by an improper agenda. That's what liberals have tried to do with nearly every modern war we've had and yet they still claim to "support the troops". That's what Obama has done.

You can not and do not support the troops unless you first support the cause for which you ask or tell them to go fight for. I thought maybe our nation had learned that lesson but apparently not yet.

The "civil rights" agenda includes things such as the inclusion of homosexuals by revocation of the "don't ask - don't tell" policy. Obama is more concerned with things like this than the combat readiness of our military forces. That's why it's so high on his list of things to accomplish.

 

A comments like these could make a man wonder about why they serve couldn't it?

 

Are you in the military? If not, how do you participate in those debates?

 

You don't have to be in the military to participate in those debates. There are plenty of military forums on the Internet. I won't link to them because the language can be salty at times, but a liberal (such as our CIC) wouldn't last on there very long. Just Google. You'll find them. There is probably a handful of disgruntled ex-soldier military boards out there, too. They will give you a platform.

You want to know how those serving right now feel about their mission? Invite your local National Guard chapter to come and speak at your church. You'll find out soon enough, Dragoon is right.

 

And the president, their commander in chief recognized them but you said he has no right.

You're painting with too broad a brush, the only war I've heard anyone speak against, the left or right, is the one in Iraq. To say "every modern war" is waaay off base... We know why and support Afghanistan to include Obama, I supported the first gulf war and it was Nixon, a Republican who won on the anti-Vietnam war platform. That war was called LBJ's war and he was a Democrat.

 

Point of order: The war in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan, are the same war -- the Global War on Terror. They are different fronts (operations) of the same war.

 

No, they aren't. If you take this perspective then every war in the future will also be a part of this one. The war in Afghanistan was fought for different reasons than the war in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan was justified if you believe that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Somehow nobody including the FBI and the CIA can prove that.

 

Oh, my bad. I forgot. Bush killed all those people. It wasn't bin Laden at all.

If you wish to have a shred of credibility with rational, sane, clear-headed people, you will drop these absolutely baseless, ridiculous, and delusional claims.

 

Wait a minute, Just Christian has said he supports Obama's war in Pakistan, because that's where the terrorists are. But if they didn't do 9/11, what exactly are we bombing them to accomplish ?

 

It is quite clear that JC and the rest are here to only serve their messiah. Else they would deplore this incursion just as much as they did with President Bush's decision to go into Iraq.

 

Who did. Go to the FBI web site (www.fbi.org) and look at the charges against bin Laden. Nothing relating to 9/11 is listed. An FBI spokesman said that if they can prove that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 they will charge him with that. Who was really behind 9/11? Nobody has proved anything.

 

I do serve my Messiah every day. His name is Jesus Christ. Do you serve Him? or do you believe that constitutes "works" and is forbidden?