<p>
</p>
<p>I already stated, military members are the last ones to want to go to war, and we actually look for non military solutions. Do you actually think I want my love of my life in a war zone?</p>
<p>Here is from my post 39
</p>
<p>So my Dh and DS are both warmongers according to your definition:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Afterall, any military member by your definition endorses war by following orders.</p>
<p>"The term warmonger means: “a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.” </p>
<p>By this definition and by a quick count, the following people are war mongers:
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, … and the rest of the founding fathers</p>
<p>Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, Al Gore and the list goes on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given Iraq’s proclivity to develop & use dangerous weapons, Saddam’s misbehavior, as well as his ability & inclination to support terrorists, it WAS better to eliminate him from the equation and neutralize Iraq’s ability to wage war on its own. This is apart from the strategic advantage its location gave us to engage the enemy on the battlefield of our choosing rather than in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan.</p>
<p>I also want to emphasize that McCain has TWO sons on active duty - one is at the Naval Academy, and one is an elisted marine who is serving / has served in Iraq. Of all the candidates, he is most keenly aware of what is at stake in this situation.</p>
<p>Furthermore, it bears repeating that the Jihadists declared war on US - NONE of us are “in favor” of war. We’re in it NOT by our choosing, Bush or anyone else.</p>
<p>
Swatparent, why won’t you admit that Hillary Clinton is a warmonger just like McCain. Why won’t you admit that Bill Clinton is a warmonger just like George Bush? If you can’t be consistent in your views, your views appear to be driven by your political bias rather than an objective standard.</p>
<p>“I am not saying that I support any of the current candidates, as they are all flawed in my mind, and none of them have the statesman or stateswomanly qualities that I would look for in a world leader. These are a rare breed.”</p>
<p>I wrote this above in post# 40.</p>
<p>By the way, this is not “MY” definition of the word “warmonger” It is from a dictionary.</p>
<p>It is far more difficult to negotiate peace than to start a war. </p>
<p>There is also a big difference between defending an ACTUAL militaristic attack on one’s country or military, such as Pearl Harbor, than to be the first party to attack. The US did the latter in Iraq, using admittedly very flawed intelligence. You can defend this war as necessary, but I don’t regard it as such, and remember reading Sen Byrd’s speech opposing the Iraqi war to my children when the debacle was beginning.</p>
<p>That is why I don’t want to support any candidate who supports this war.</p>
<p>However, given the current choice between these candidates (and I am not a Republican or Democrat), I want someone who appears to be mentally intact.</p>
<p>I have doubts about McCain and his curent physical and mental fitness to serve as president. I am not the only one who feels this way. Do an internet search on this. </p>
<p>Maybe 10 or 15 years ago he would have appeared differently to some of us.</p>
<p>One of the great things about the US is that we can all have our own opinions. If so many of you support the Iraq war, the surge, and fighting there, then good for you. You probably feel like your loved ones are fighting in Iraq to defend that liberty.</p>
<p>I see this war as a giant waste of some very precious people’s lives, US and Iraqi. I also think we are robbing Iraqi children of their both their childhoods and their futures. Bless their souls and those of the US servicepeople who are involved there in a bloody, useless war.</p>
<p>Wikipedia has a better explanation of “warmonger”:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>By etymology a warmonger is literally a seller of war, from monger used as a transitive verb, meaning a peddler.>>>></p>
<p>Based on the above usage I would say the term applies best to the President and certain members of his administration especially Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.</p>
<p>I don’t think McCain or Hillary are warmongers. Despite his involvement in misleading the United Nations, I would say even Colin Powell was not a warmonger. By all accounts he tried to dissuade the warmongers in the first Bush admin. I agree, most of the people in the military know the human cost of war and are less enthusiastic about it than civillian vermin like Cheney.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I submit that McCain’s ability to “reach across the aisle” and craft solutions to some of the great problems facing our nation demonstrates his “statesmanship”. He takes a lot of heat from Ultraconservatives for the “gang of 14” compromise which halted the dems fillibuster, prevented Republicans from using the “nuclear option” and ultimately forced a vote on Supreme Court Justices. That was some brilliant statesmanship. Even the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill was an attempt to actually DO something to solve one of our great problems. It was a step in the right direction - was NOT “amnesty”, and is much better than what is actually being done NOW, which is NOTHING - and thus, by default, amounts to defacto “anmesty”.</p>
<p>Most people don’t know this, but one of the first things McCain did when elected to Congress was expose & eliminate the special parking priveleges congressmen had at the airport. He didn’t think that congressmen needed to get to their planes any faster than doctors or other important people. Do you think this won him any friends in Congress? It’s been the same for all the earmarks & pork barrel politics ever since. Romney tries to paint him as a “Washington Insider”, but that’s pretty far from the truth. Sure, he’s been around, and he’s knowlegable & experienced, but he is NOT your “typical politician”. </p>
<p>Do you think that his vote against the Bush tax cuts makes him a “liberal”? Quite the contrary. He wanted to take it one step further toward conservatisn, that is smaller government & LESS SPENDING. Consequently, he took a stand against his own party! That’s STATESMANSHIP - doing the right thing, regardless of one’s own political future, merely because it is the right thing to do for the future of our country. (See also McCain’s stance on the “surge” and the prosecution of the war). Now they try to say it’s a “flip-flop” because he wants to keep the tax cuts permanent (to eliminate them, in his view, amounts to a “tax increase”). All of this shows that he is one politician actually more concerned w/ our country than his own hide - wow! Imagine that!</p>
<p>Yes, we need 'statesmen" - fortunately, McCain is running!</p>
<p>
In other words, you will gave Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton a pass since they are democrats but you single out McCain and Bush for your term “warmonger” because they are Republicans. You are simply not consistent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In case you didn’t notice, the primary role of the military in Iraq today is to protect the lives of the Iraqi children that you pretend to care for. Take away the US military presence and more civillians will die. I believe that we need a perjorative term to describe people who are willing to let innocent people die. “Uncaring” just is not adequate.</p>
<p>Personally I don’t support any of these candidates, and part of my beliefs have to do with all of their support for this war. McCain is the most militaristic of them all. I believe he was in the military for many years, and I think the military fights wars. </p>
<p>My main criteria in making a decision as to who to vote for in the general election (and my state is a huge swing state so maybe the vote will count), will be who I think can be trusted to make the most cogent decisions that I will agree with on the greatest number of issues.</p>
<p>I am not a Clinton supporter, far from it. I have a close friend who votes in NY for her just to annoy me.</p>
<p>But again, if it were Clinton vs McCain, I will consider voting for Clinton only because I have huge doubts about McCain’s physical and especially mental competency to lead this country during these crucial times.</p>
<p>A lot of what he did in the past was done during a different era of his life, when he was younger and hopefully more fit for office.</p>
<p>That is how I view this election personally. I have huge doubts about McCain’s abilities to be a world leader at this point.</p>
<p>And I don’t think exposing who has what parking spaces is how I would judge great leadership. The security guards do that where I work.</p>
<p>When will any public figure admit that the war was a mistake that caused unnecessary devastation in Iraq AND that we have a moral obligation to clean up our mess.</p>
<p>I fault the Republicans for the immorality of getting us into this war and the Democrats for the immorality of wanting to walk away from our mess, leading to more death and destruction in Iraq.</p>
<p>“In case you didn’t notice, the primary role of the military in Iraq today is to protect the lives of the Iraqi children that you pretend to care for. Take away the US military presence and more civillians will die. I believe that we need a perjorative term to describe people who are willing to let innocent people die. “Uncaring” just is not adequate.”</p>
<p>More children have died or become unsafe since Bush started this war then in the 5 years prior. So the US destabilized the region and now it has to protect them?</p>
<p>I work with some Iraqi refugees who have managed to make their way to the US since the war began, after suffering many years through the bloodshed there that was precipitated by Bush. They did not feel their lives were better there once the US began a war. </p>
<p>Now that the US has destabilized Iraq, yes it is a very unsafe area. But you cannot say the avearage child is safer there then before the US plopped itself down there. </p>
<p>It is incredible to have wandered onto a group of people so pro-iraq war on this thread. Now I know why it is being fought!</p>
<p>When I think of the lost lives & futures in Iraq under the present circumstances, I can’t help but wonder what the situation would have been had Saddam not been eliminated. </p>
<p>Yeah, he sure didn’t ruin anyone’s life - right.</p>
<p>Yeah, and Al Qaida wouldn’t be in Iraq either - right.</p>
<p>Yeah, gas prices would still be under two bucks a gallon - right.</p>
<p>I see a very different picture than what we have today, but the “above” sure isn’t it!</p>
<p>How about a fully funded al qaida w/ Saddam pulling strings behind the scenes while he wages all out war on Kuwait & any other neighbors, maybe even gassing some Kurds while he’s at it. Holding the world by the testicles while he gains control of more oil reserves. How many more people do you suppose would have seen the inside of his torture chambers in the meantime?</p>
<p>Geez, I could go on, but the thoughts are just too horrible to dwell upon…</p>
<p>Especially on my birthday! :)</p>
<p>Let me reiterate - NONE of us are “in favor” of war, but we’re in it. That is a result of al qaida’s actions, not OURS! This is about DEFENDING our country and the lives & futures of Iraqis. Aggression and “empire building” has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.</p>
<p>If you believe otherwise then you need to lay off the kool aid.</p>
<p>I’m appalled at the left-wing rhetoric that has been thrown around by all those people who hate Bush JUST because he got elected & their man didn’t. And I’m even more appalled by others who buy into it. I’m no “Bushevik” who thinks the guy is infallable, but I have to applaud his efforts to keep America SAFE, while simultaneously bringing FREEDOM to an otherwise oppressed country. This is bad??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You must be kidding. I literally felt physical pain when I blackened the ballot box for John Kerry.</p>
<p>bz2010: Saddam and AlQaida were sworn enemies. Saddam was secular and pretty much all the Islamic jihadists hated him. That is why the Iranian regime hated him. There was ZERO chance of Saddam funding or pulling strings of AlQaida.</p>
<p>BTW, Happy Birthday.</p>
<p>“There was ZERO chance of Saddam funding or pulling strings of AlQaida.”</p>
<p>Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report (the report, not coverage of same) or Tom Kean’s comments on this issue?</p>
<p>OK, so maybe there was a chance that he would write a few checks, just as our good friends the Saudis and Kuwaitis wrote checks that ended up with Al Qaida.</p>
<p>Were there contacts between Saddam’s government and Al Qaida? I am sure there were some contacts. So also there were contacts between our own government and Al Qaida. So by your logic just because we once supported Osama should we have bombed Washington DC?</p>
<p>“Now that the US has destabilized Iraq, yes it is a very unsafe area. But you cannot say the avearage child is safer there then before the US plopped itself down there.”</p>
<p>Whether I can say that or not is NOT the issue at this point. Getting out of Iraq now will not turn the clock back to 2002. Any decision made now must be made based on the current situation. The current situation is that the US military is there to save Iraqi lives. Taking them out will cost Iraqi lives. People wanting to bring the miliatry home should at least be intellectually honest that they don’t really care about innocent Iraqi lives that will be lost if chaos excaltes and perhaps spills over to neighboring countries.</p>
<p>Sorry to jump into y’all’s riveting discussion, but I wanted to get views of what happened this weekend where the al qaida strapped bombs on those two women with down syndrome and blew them up by remote control in the two bazaars killing around 90 innocent men, women and children. </p>
<p>I think it is pure evil, plain and simple. Why is there not outrage from imams and muslims? This method of killing is beyond despicable.</p>
<p>Back to topic: I am concerned that if we leave Iraq, it will be taken over by these types of lunatics. I was originally opposed to the war, I thought it was a mistake at the time (and still do), not because I didn’t believe that Sadam was a horrific individual, but that I was afraid that, with the power vacuum, a worse person or group would try to attain power. That is what seems to be happening, but now that we’ve opened Pandora’s box, we have to stay to try to stabilize things.</p>
<p>And btw, I don’t think McCain is a “warmonger” he almost died while serving his country. He, more than anyone running, has a true knowledge of the ugliness of war, it’s not just a book or briefing to him.</p>
<p>don’t know if I’ll vote for him yet, but I think the person calling him that is way off base.</p>