|
I'm confused |
| |
|
Some questions that need to be considered by those that have allowed others to think for them. | ||
|
Why do we keep listening to the same people, persons or groups that have been wrong all along? Why do the defenders of the pro-war debate offer as a rationale to 'stay the course' the talking point; "we can't cut and run"? Doesn't cut and run imply a short term obligation to assist in the repair of an injurious situation we caused? Do they mean we can't cut and leave ? After 4 plus years of not running after we cut, is this term still a sensible argument? And more importantly, are we still cutting or causing injury while trying to fix the initial mistake? Why do continue to refer to the chaos in Iraq as a war? |
| |
Do the Iraqi troops that we are training get the same, less or more assistance?
Are we to assume that the pre-invasion Iraqi Army the Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded was not trained at all, or are they not interested in rejoining under a foreign leadership? How often do our troops engage in battle with Iraqi defectors?
Do we know for sure that we are not in fact training those that plan to join efforts against us, either in the near or distant future?
Does the strategy of kicking in doors, exposing the civilian occupants to non-lethal, short term gasses / concussive ordinances and/or humiliation, help or hinder our attempts to win the hearts and minds?
If or when we 'capture or kill' insurgents to the point that "they" no longer want to pick up arms against us, who do we sit down at the table with to discuss signing a treaty?
Who do we engage with in an effort to end hostilities?
Who or what is an insurgent?
Why, how or when does a civilian decide to become an insurgent?
How do our troops know who is an insurgent and who is a civilian?
What official description do our troops abide by when separating those attempting to protect their home, family or group from those that are engaged in attacking civilians or us? How long can coalition forces expect the civilian population to patiently wait out this occupation?
How long would we remain passive if we were occupied here in the U.S.?
If we were occupied and exposed to the same conditions present in Iraq today, would you allow your children to go to school?
How long
would we wait for the occupational forces to restore adequate clean running
water, 12 hours of electricity and the ability to go work, the market or house
of worship; safely?
In a democracy, should we ask the population if they want a divided country, or should the occupation leaders on another continent decide what they think would be best?
If the American people were told that the financial costs could be above 500 billion, the troops would be exposed to the current infighting, the national guard and military in general would be over stretched and over deployed, that the long term costs for the veterans would be impossible to calculate, and the results of these efforts may not be welcomed, appreciated or visibly beneficial to them or us for at least 10 years; do you think we would have supported this?
|
|
How many more lives will end? How many civilians have been killed so far in Iraq? How many Iraqis' would choose to live in a pre-invasion type society or to live in the society that our President says may prevail for years to come? At what extent do you believe that the inability to understand the culture and speak the language play a role in slow progress? Is this a war or are we engaged in an unexpected set of circumstances resulting from our decision to pre-emptively attack a nation that posed an immediate threat to our nation? Is this war or regime change? Is this a war against this immanent threat or a liberation of an oppressed peoples? |
|
If we asked the Iraqi people before the invasion, how many of them would have chosen to endure the 4 1/2 years of violence? How many would have chose to have a country that is, after 4 years, unstable and without any clear direction or trusted leadership? How many Iraqi people would choose to live in a society that has daily bombings, kid-nappings, death squads, threats and murders of citizens allied with the occupiers, blown up bridges, blown up markets, blown up streets, the lack of predictable services, unemployment, distant sounds of explosions, gunfire, images of distraught families, unreliable policing, distrust of some occupation personnel, distrust of uniformed Iraqi personnel, and after 4 plus years of chaos, irregardless of the risk taken to vote, there would be no clear direction for the future? How much money will we need to borrow to continue the efforts? Can be expect beneficial results that quantify the monies spent, lives lost and emotional scarring? |
|
Who were the U.S. leaders charged with creating the military strategic plans for Iraq?
If we were to go back and watch the footage of the promoters of this pre-emptive attack prior to the war, listen to what they told us as their professional opinions as to why we needed to pull the weapons inspectors, implement a 'shock and awe' attack, the actual numbers projected for how much this would cost the American people, how the Iraqi oil would pay for the war, how the people would respond to us, the length of the post-war occupation ,and low numbers of casualties expected, etc.: how many of their projections have proved to be accurate?
Since the decision to redirect the main military forces from the search for Bin Laden to Iraq, how many of the strategic plans have been successful?
How many of the reasons and oral arguments that we've heard have been right?
Is there at least one thing that you can point to that has been an undeniable accomplishment?
|
|
Will anyone say thank you? How many elected officials in Iraq have been assassinated? How many of the Iraqi parliament are trusted by the those they supposedly represent? How often do they meet? If our present strategy, according to the general our President says he'll listen to, cannot be won by military alone, how much effort or concern should be directed toward assuring a politically sound structure in Iraq? Who is the Iraqi minister of resources (oil), and how much does the distribution of the oil revenues play into the lack of political progress? How much of the violence amongst the populous is connected to oil rights? What companies and/or countries are engaged in influencing their interests on the Oil rights law? What is the current status of the oil production in Iraq? |
Why don't we hear more about the revenues that are supposed to 'pay for this war'?
Will a 10 years commitment to stability in Iraq hinder our ability to redirect our focus on finding those responsible for the attacks of 9/11?
Can our military sufficiently sustain a commitment to the middle east, represent a detour ant to a conventional attack on our homeland and remain flexible enough to react to an unconventional incident on our interests abroad?
Is our ability to respond to a crisis in North/South Korea, Pakistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Iran, Russia and the surrounding region, Darfur, The Congo, Nigeria or the U.S. / Mexican border impacted negatively or not at all?
|
What effect does the multiple and extended tours of deployment have on those contemplating enlistment? What effect does the use of phrases, such as: "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" have on possible enlistees? How many parents that passionately express verbal support for this war are just a passionate about verbally urging their sons and daughters to enlist and actively participate in Iraq? How many of the pro-war supporters are willing to place themselves in the situation that our soldiers experience daily in Iraq? If the 'surge' turns into a prolonged effort, resulting in a mandatory call to service to bolster troop levels, how many proponents of the war would enthusiastically drive themselves or their children down to the recruitment office? |
 |
Who should we trust to present unbiased representations of fact? Those whom have monetary, political or egotistical interests, or those whom have a proven record of truthfulness?
If for some reason, you are in a position where you have to make a decision on a matter that you have inadequate knowledge of the topic matter, would you ask advice from someone that has been wrong 90% of the time, or a person who has been right 90% of the time?
If you were in a decision making position and were unsure on how to proceed, would you call the friend that has a record of making decisions that have had disastrous results, or call the friend that has a track record of results with positive results?
Why do we keep listening to the same people that have clearly been wrong time and time again?
