The Tea Party, Bush supporters, I'm not in the Military so I Don't Know Shit.
...Love how the GOP tried to change its name...the Tea Party! Ha! Knowing that the republican party had lost all credability. George W. Bush having sapped every last ounce of energy the party had left, a few of its members make a last ditch effort to salvage the values of the republican party by reiterating the fact that republicans hate government spending and intervention, the so-called Tea Party emerges. The thing is, when Bush and the republicans blew a large amount of money bailing out the bank industry during the end of the Bush term, these Tea Party members were no where to be seen. And when wall street execs gave themselves large bonuses with that money, the Tea Party was not around. But notice as soon as Obama took office and there was talk of another bailout, that's when they all jumped to action. They can say they're a new party all they want, but its the same old shit if you ask me, otherwise they'd have been protesting Bush's reckless spending in the Iraq war. Where were these anti-goverment spending people then? They were there, but they were all okay with the spending for some reason. For some reason, spending money to kill people is okay, but spending money to salvage a broken economy is bad as long as democrats are the ones doing it, as opposed to doing nothing (which is exactly what the republican party said during the first bailout, we just don't want to do nothing, we don't know if it will work, but we simply can't just do nothing) Let me also add, that while the democrat's plan wasn't a great one, it certainly was more of a plan than the bailout under the Bush administration. And so, if the TEA Party thinks the bailout is reckless, I simply ask, what their solution to the issue is, I should hope it isn't to simply twittle their thumbs.
I recently had the extreme displeasure of talking to some co-workers who turned out to be die hard Bush lovers. I didn't think they still existed north of the Mason/Dixon but much to my surprise, there are still people around that think George W. Bush was a great president. The one man's disdain for the Obama presidency, how he said the TEA Party was gonna vote Obama and the dems out, and that after this term we'd NEVER HAVE TO BE SUBJECTED TO THOSE ASSHOLES AGAIN, WE'RE GONNA DRIVE THEM SO FAR AWAY and so on. Such anger he had for this administration, they've not been in that long, certainly that's not an excuse for them to waste time doing nothing, but sometimes I get the feeling that people think if they yell Obama Sucks! loud enough, we'll all forget about what Bush did.
I told him how we created more terrorists by pissing off the moderate muslim population, how they weren't angry at us until we invaded Iraq, he said, "What do you mean they weren't angry at us, they took down the twin towers?" I said those were muslim extremists, not all muslims are like that. But we pissed off a lot of the normal ones, and now it's easier for the extremist recruiters to convince young moderates to join the extremist cause. Sidenote: notice that before america invaded iraq, the terrorists had to hit us in america, now they can hit us in Iraq and afghanistan. Many have joined the cause, and the cause is to hit american troops, troops that weren't targets until Bush made them targets by sending them there. For some reason, this was a topic this man couldn't grasp. It kept going around in circles, he would say that's why we have to wipe them out, and I would say we wouldn't have so many if we fought them with intelligence and not by invading random countries. We just got no where, he refused to let me get my point across, he kept confusing the issue.
A few days later, I spoke with another guy that was complaining about Obama. While I agreed with his complaints, I told him I certainly didn't believe that the Obama administration was anywhere near as bad as Bush. What's wrong with him, he was a great president! Said the man, and the fellow from a few days before who was there along side him affirmed it. I said, "what about the Iraq war? The other man from the first discussion said, "you actually said we created more terrorists by invading Iraq! I said, "Yes we did." We pissed off the moderate muslim population, who didn't give a shit about us until we invaded Iraq. They both screamed about how the terrorists killed over 2,000 of our citizens in 9/11. I said that those were extremists, who were a very small percentage of the actual muslim population. Again we went in circles, it was impossible for these men to grasp the fact that there are moderate muslims (M), that don't want to do harm to america, and extremist muslims (E), that will kill themselves to do america harm, and that by invading iraq we pissed off the moderates (M) and they are now easier for (E) to recruit. Because lets face it, (E) needs to recruit and brainwash as much of (M) as it can, and it's a lot easier to do that when america is stepping on toes invading countries loaded with (M) who aren't happy to have us there.
I went on to say about how we dismissed Saddam's troops without pay, and that some of the insurgency came from that, but I was cut off when the man asked if I had ever served in the armed forces before. I said no, and he said, "then you don't know what your talking about." The other man went on about how in between Afghanistan and Iraq was Iran, and how it was all about surrounding them. I said I had thought it was about getting Bin Laden, and that if we were really after Iran, we shouold have gone after them from the beginning, but I though we were after the terrorists.
I also stated that one of my best friends was from Iran, and that his family was a decent family that celebrated christmas. That the people over in Iran didn't like their president, that it wasn't a place filled with hatred for america and that the people had rioted when their president was re-elected. The man told me that I needed to stop paying attention to the media, (nevermind the fact the I saw the picks of the rioting on my Iranian friend's facebook page) and that he had been shot in Iran when he was serving over their, that all of the muslims were bad, and that they should all have been wiped out, and that hehad had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his sights, and should have taken him out back then when he'd had the chance, but that he was shot by another muslim and that, "trust me, they're all bad"
That was about it, I mean I've never been shot, but certainly getting shot by one muslim doesn't mean they're all bad, and certainly because one guy served in Iran many years ago doesn't mean that because he supports Bush then it must be the right thing to do.
Is there any point in arguing with these people? I certainly don't claim to know all of the facts, this is just my opinion of the situation. Our troops are getting killed, and I don't think it's by the the same people who are responsible for 9/11, it's new people, people we pissed of when we invaded Iraq, opeople we pissed off when we invaded afghanistan. Sure, some of the originals are probably attaking us in afghanistan, but there's sure to be a whole new group of people that simply don't want their countries being occupied by foreign forces. That's my opinion, that we should have concentated more on picking off the people responsible, through intelligence, rather than invade whole countries and pissing off mass populations. But I admit, I am not in the armed forces, so maybe I haven't a clue what I'm talking about, anyone care to add? Am I off base here?
Note that recalling the past conversations brings about great anger and frustration in me, and that I do not wish to spellcheck that section so just deal with the typos. Be it known that I respect all of the armed forces, but not the people who are sending them there.