As was promised by President Bush, General David H. Petraeus went before Congress to talk about the War in Iraq. After Petraeus had proposed his views on the United State's progress, President Bush announced that he will reduce the American troop presence in Iraq (30,000 troops will be sent home by next summer). I was very pleased to see that the needed "surge" of troops had accomplished its goal, and thus the soldiers could return home to their families. Do not be confused though; this is not a withdrawal of American presence from Iraq, but a victory for America's troops in making significant progress. Whatever their mission was, these troops served their country and continued the fight against terror and oppression. This, I believe, is a very promising situation for those who agree that we should continue our presence in Iraq and will certainly help the Republican candidates in the polls. This is a milestone for the war against terror because the public can now see that this war is not necessarily being run by the politicians in suits, but that Generals and war officials in uniform are now commanding the progress of the war.
"An Iraq that falls into chaos or civil war will mean massive human suffering — well beyond what has already occurred within Iraq's borders," - Ryan Crocker.
Hopefully General Petraeus' report will help people remember why we went into Iraq and what we are doing. In reference to what Crocker said, many people have forgotten that we put Iraq into this situation, and it would be morally unjust for us to leave now and allow them to suffer because of our interference. As the hand of justice throughout the world, it is our duty to use our resources and knowledge to help others to the best of our abilities. It has fallen upon us as our duty to make the world a safer place. If anything, it is our duty as an American people to rally behind our President and support his decisions as the elected leader of our people.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
hey cassie
1) love the design of your blogspot- super cute
2) I have to disagree with your comments about supporting the president and standing by him. Maybe I am saying this as a liberal, but I am pretty sure I am just saying this as a person who believes in free speach and free opinions for everyone in America, but I feel if there is something the President is doing that a citizen does not believe in, then they have the right to voice their opinion. Especially concerning war, I think Americans NEED to fight for what they believe in, whether that is supporting or resisting war. The President is here to represent what Americans want, and when he is going against the majority, then it is not very democratic.
Hey Cassie, cool blog, love the candy stuff. I haven't seen you around school but hope your doing well and had a good summer. I respectfully disagree with your post, but here's why.
“Gen. Petraeus responding to a question from Sen. John Warner (R-Va.)
SEN. JOHN WARNER: Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.
WARNER: Does that make America safer?
PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know, actually. I've not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-National Force - Iraq.
As Chris Matthews said on Hardball, “this must be a first.” The General, the head American field commander cannot with certainty say to the families and men of the 4,000 dead Americans, over 1 million dead Iraqi’s, and the men still on the field that he’s asking to fight every day whether or not there dying is worth it to their country or will make it any safer. “Did General Washington not know the answer in the American Revolution? Did General Eisenhower not know the answer in World War II?” Please someone explain to me what in God’s Holy Name we are doing in Iraq if the person who is leading the fight, the person with all the true information, a General of the United States Military can’t tell his own soldiers that the war he’s commanding might not be doing us any good in the future or present, that there sacrifice is “meaningless.” That to me is beyond offensive to hear from a General. As someone with a family member in the military, that is some scary crap. This General has zero idea how long it will take us to achieve the mission in Iraq and he cannot tell me, Chris Matthews, his men (the entire United States Military), or the citizens of the United States of America whether or not the mission Iraq will ever be accomplished, or whether those lives will be worth it because to use his words, he hasn’t had the bloody time to sit down and think about it. When you sit and think about this it does get worse. Our strong, intelligent and powerful president (being incredibly sarcastic) continues to hide behind this man General Petraeus, “a man who admitted late this afternoon that he's given no thought to the Bush policy of fighting this war in Iraq, is not an acceptance of accountability, but a betrayal of it.”
Hi Cassie. You mentioned that "Hopefully General Petraeus' report will help people remember why we went into Iraq and what we are doing."
I'll be honest: I think a lot of people don't know why we went into Iraq. Of course, what we're doing is much more relevant. The problem is, what are we doing?
It would be morally wrong to leave now and let them suffer because of our interference. With that said, I don't know if there's a "moral" solution to this. I'm not quite sure if I agree with what I'm about to propose, but I'll put it out here anyways: If we "interfered" by knocking Hussein out of power, we liberated the Iraqis. They are not now under the tyrannical rule of Hussein - and so, factions are running rampant killing each other, terrorists are killing Americans and wrecking havoc, etc. But is the actual religious faction bloodshed (I am referring now to Iraqi vs. Iraqi) our fault?
What if we were to compare the Iraq War not to the Vietnam War, but to the French Revolution? In some ways, I think that may be a more apt comparison, albeit with religion instead of societal hierarchy.
cassie, my bff
i love the candy blog.. real cute ;)
im going to have to say that im not going to stand by the president as he declared war because i am a pacifist. But i do appreciate the fact that he is reducing the amount of time that the soldiers stay in Iraq, "(30,000 troops will be sent home by next summer)." i think this decision is very wise in the sense that people will see Bush as trying to fix the situation; since many soldiers have been gone for years.
Cassie
you know i love you and we are best friends, but I cannot say I agree with your position. President Bush has been dishonest and brought us into this war for his own cruel intentions. I believe as Americans with freedom of speech we must stand up for our country and fight for our own beliefs regarding the war. At the beginning of this war I think you could have gotten more people to back you in supporting our President, but the truth is we have supported him long enough and now is the time that we need to realize that this war is unjust. Too many of our soldiers are over in Iraq fighting and losing their lives. Yes it is a good thing that they have started to remove men from Iraq, but this is too little too late. We can no longer sit back and watch this war continue while our men continue dying for the wrong causes. We are no longer defending ourselves, but we now are hurting the American public even more.
Post a Comment