Soldier: Defense of Bush doesn’t work

[babylonsister]

http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=47402

Defense of Bush doesn’t work

The writer of “Bush isn’t to blame” (letter, June 27) wrote in response to another letter that “our soldiers are suffering not because of President Bush’s decisions, but rather because of attacks by radical Islamists using equipment supplied by groups like al-Qaida and Hamas, or nations like Iran and Syria.”

Al-Qaida had no presence in Iraq before we invaded. Hamas was based in the Gaza Strip and Palestine before our invasion. Where’s the disconnect for the author in recognizing our actions and their consequences in regard to the lack of stability we have fomented, allowing for such terrorist groups to gain footholds all over the nation, and beyond?

He continues with a straw-man argument, acknowledging that Saddam Hussein didn’t possess weapons of mass destruction prior to invasion, and immediately afterward saying “but Saddam did possess WMDs, he used them on his own people” — which had nothing to do with our invasion in 2003. He asserts that the reason why we invaded was not because of the weapons of mass destruction possibility, but rather because of Saddam’s violation of U.N. resolutions. Then the United Nations should have invaded! In the eyes of much of the world, the U.S. has overstepped its bounds, negatively affecting our international credibility substantially.

He then says, “‘Liberals’’ tendency to ignore inconvenient facts in logical arguments in favor of attacking the character of those who disagree with them highlights their motives and tenuous political stance far more than any words of the ‘closed-minded conservatives.’” Note the irony: He used a blanket ad hominem insult to cover all liberals; attaching a negative connotation to a person/group in order to nullify its position is a logical fallacy in itself.

Spc. Benjamin Chambers
Logistics Support Area Anaconda, Iraq

[Phredicles]

1. An excellent letter that took guts to submit;

Doesn't Spc. Chambers risk getting in a lot of trouble for calling out/telling the truth about the Commander Guy and the "mission" he sent the armed forces on?

[acmavm]

2. That's part of what its gonna take to get the hell out of Iraq. The

people stuck there who AREN'T enjoying the killing have got to speak up. Sorry, but there's probably gonna be ramifications. But that's part of standing up for what's right.

[BOSSHOG]

5. I think it was a well written, level headed

letter not directly casting dispersions on he who should be cast tons of dispersions. If there are repercussions against the young man then why not the other or what's the point in even letting them write letters? I know the military is not a democracy but that letter is not a violation of anything that would put the Soldiers career in harm's way.

[babylonsister]

7. His fellow soldiers will probably congratulate him for telling the truth

and being published.

[acmavm]

8. It was. And its sad that when you sign up to serve and defend your

country and the rights and freedoms we (are supposed) to have, you no longer have any freedom.

[BOSSHOG]

3. This is one fucking liberal veteran who has no qualms pointing out the fucking

lack of character of jerkoff conservatives who wouldn't know a logical argument if it hit them in the fucking face. I have a tenuous fucking argument swinging for the flag waving prick right here. The most inconvenient of facts is that jerkoff conservatives are too fucking proud to admit what they know, they have been dead fucking wrong for five fucking years now about bush's war. Ad hominem enough for ya?

[frogcycle]

6. I think you should

tell us how you REALLY feel!

rock'n'roll!

[leftofthedial]

4. kudos to Spc. Benjamin Chambers

:thumbsup: