Tired of Politics

It’s true, I’m tired of politics. This is most likely the case because I browse lots of random blogs via BlogExplosion or BlogClicker. No dialogue is being had. All I see is anger and hatred from the left and not much of anything new from the right. The left is especially pissing me off (although that could be because I generally fall on the right side of things). Hatred for the right, and Bush, complaining about the way everything is being handled, and on and on. But it doesn’t seem anything constructive is being done or said.

Do I support everything Bush has done? No, of course not. Do I still support Bush? Definitely. People are upset that we are still in Iraq and that 2000 of our service men and women have died. It seems those on the left have taken freedom seriously for granted. As much as we would like it to be, freedom (at least Eearthly freedom) is not free. Our sodiers have given their lives for the protection and freedom of those who have never had it. Those in Iraq are much better off now than they were. Democracy is spreading around the world in places that have previously rejected it. Humanity is a global thing and not localized to our own country. We need to look beyond our own “needs” (or more accurately “desires”) to the needs of those around the world. I will always stand up for freedom.

Just please stop whining, chances are, you have it pretty good, even if the “evil” Bush is your president. It is because of the help of Bush, and others, that people in Iraq might start to have it better.

-Matt Jones
Ή χάρις του κυρίου ημων Ίησου Χριστου μεθ’ υμων.

PS: I have changed the layout a bit, how do you like it? Any suggestions?

  1. October 28th, 2005 at 00:08 | #1

    I agree with you. Honest debate is important, and sometimes the left doesn’t engage in that kind of discussion. They seem to be somewhat blinded by this hatred of Bush that keeps them from making a reasonable, rational argument for making a change in our Iraq policy or any other policy of this administration. Not that I’m interested in offering them advice, necessarily…but this approach makes more sense than blaming Bush for everything.

  2. October 28th, 2005 at 01:22 | #2

    Exactly, it is just a blinding hatred that prohibits any sort of forward movement. Thanks for the comment and coming by!

  3. October 28th, 2005 at 05:07 | #3

    I’ve witnessed in myself a political evolution. Growing up I was Democrat. That’s because my family was. It was more of a religious thing. You just did it. Then, I became rather apolitical in my teens, 20s and even early 30′s. In my mid 30′s I sought to understand more of the world around me, and I realized that politically, I favored the party that favored character, integrity, and prosperity, since all those things mean more to me than entitlement, big government, and the victim mentality I remember hearing continuously from my family. So I decided I am a Conservative and Republican. For a while it was Yay Team! But the next evolutionary step has come. It’s not about the team, but about the principles and heritage looking back, and about the action in the present that will best position the country for the future. Team is secondary to that. I believe the more people rise to that understanding of American Politics, that America comes before Politics, then we will rise to new levels of dialog. However, I fear that the Democrats and liberals have sunk so low in their leadership that it may take nothing short of some sort of revolution to ever get back to that ideal…

  4. October 28th, 2005 at 10:51 | #4

    Very well said Eric. I don’t feel like I have to vote for the Republican party, but that is generally where my values ideally rest (although not perfectly). I think that both democrats and republicans can offer many things but the hatred of the repubs by the dems has just made the democratic party completely infeasible. I honestly do hope there is some sort of revolution in the democratic party happens so better dialog can exist.

  5. October 28th, 2005 at 13:05 | #5

    Honestly, I think your take on Iraq is naive. I don’t believe for a second we went there because we are on some mission to spread democracy. I might believe that if, for example, when I wake up tomorrow there are American occupying forces in Riyadh or P’Yongyang. But the Saudis feed our oil jones already, and the North Koreans have no oil. So who cares about democracy in these places? We invaded Iraq under false pretenses in order to get access to their oil. We are not noble freedom fighters; we are oil mercenaries. Ask the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have lost a loved one whether or not they are better off with the US occupation. Ask them in 10 years, when we are still there, way more of them are dead, and the place is thigh deep in civil war.

    It is comforting to believe the happy story that reads where we are the good and noble ones liberating a heathen land in the name of spreading democracy. But it is a story that really holds no water.

    Hope you enjoy the dialogue. I can’t see this blog right in my browser so I can’t correct my spelling. So apologies in advance.


  6. October 28th, 2005 at 13:28 | #6

    I’ve checked out your blog a number of times over the last few weeks and I have say, I like it. The new design is pretty cool. It flows really well. It scrolls a bit slowly though in a somewhat disjointed fashion. Don’t know what that’s about.

    Have a great weekend!

  7. October 28th, 2005 at 14:43 | #7

    I am amazed that people still think we went to Iraq for Oil. Firstly, conspiracy theories are not often right. Secondly, if it is the most expensive way to take oil ever. We would have seen the benefits of taking the oil by now (perhaps cheaper gas prices?) and even if the benefits aren’t to come until later, the cost of the operation will heavily outweigh any of the returns from stolen / cheap oil. The real oil scandal comes from the UN, not the US. The oil-for-food scandal there is completely shameful and it is no wonder they didn’t want Iraq invaded, they knew it would be exposed. It would be nearly impossible for the US to somehow steal or get cheap oil from Iraq because of the scrutiny with wich things are being watched because of the oil-for-food scandal.

    Spreading democracy wasn’t necessarily the goal. The goal was to remove Saddam and the evil surrounding him so he/they could not be a threat to their own nation and others.

    Which browser are you using? How is it not loading correctly? I need to know these things so I can (hopefully) correct them! I think the disjointed scrolling happens because of the trasnparency of the side bar and the fact that some browsers take a bit to render it. Not really sure how to fix/help that. :( Glad you like my blog Lauren, I appreciate it! :)

    Thanks both for your comments!

  8. October 28th, 2005 at 17:12 | #8

    Much nicer looking. Good jorb. :)

  9. October 28th, 2005 at 18:43 | #9

    Thanks much, I ‘preciate it Luke… or Fred… or… ;)

  10. October 28th, 2005 at 21:47 | #10

    heh heh. :)

  11. October 29th, 2005 at 07:06 | #11

    Argh! I wish Kofi would resign already. I wish the U.N. would move headquarters to another country so we wouldn’t have to pay for all this b.s.! Man, if only I were in charge. :)

  12. Mom
    October 29th, 2005 at 11:00 | #12

    Like the new look Matt….and also the intro to Hebrew (that was quite interesting)…..so how’s that 5000 word paper on Calvin going???? ……….someone has to keep you focused.

  13. October 29th, 2005 at 13:48 | #13

    I am amazed that Kofi is still around. The UN has been (and will continue to be) such a waste. It has such potential to do good, but has really just been a hindrance. You would get things taken care of! :)

    Glad you like the look :) The paper is… coming… I guess… I work so much better under pressure!

  14. October 30th, 2005 at 06:41 | #14

    The new design is much cleaner — draws the attention to the content, where it should be. The new picture is nice, and I like how it shows a bit through the sidebar.

  15. October 30th, 2005 at 12:54 | #15

    Thanks Marcy, I appreciate the feedback!

  16. October 31st, 2005 at 18:06 | #16

    at this point, we cannot just leave. for me, the problem is how we went to war. purposely or not, out of incompetence or deceit, i believe we were misled. the imminent threat wmd that was hyped didn’t pan out, ties with al qaeda were tenuous at best. the war plan was highly inadequate following the war.

    the war was not sold to us on the basis of democracy, but on national security. the american people allowed this course of action because they believed our country was under grave threat.

    in the same way that america has no monopoly on freedom, it doesn’t have a monopoly on deciding who should be free and how. we are in this mess, in part, because we did it alone.

    finally, i fear that we have devoted a huge amount of resources to an effort that really hasn’t made us safer and could be better spent strengthening our security at home.

    Thanks for the opportunity to comment and keep the discussions coming.

  17. October 31st, 2005 at 18:54 | #17

    I agree that we did not go to war to spread democracy, but that was a positive outcome. The reasons for going to war are often where people break ties and tend to disagree. I don’t think we were misled at all. The intelligence about WMDs were not accurate but that does not imply deciet. Many people (including those on the left) thought that Saddam had WMDs. They were a legit reason to go. We didn’t go because of links to Al Queda, although the links are definitely there (much more than tenuous I would say). The reason we went to war was because Saddam was an evil person who ignore the UN. The UN allowed the US to use the military to force him to comply. The US also waited (after being given permission) to allow more time, again, the UN was all talk. The US finally acted, justly and legally.

    I don’t think the US people allowd it because we were under grave threat (although I have no doubt that was part of it) but because Saddam was a threat to those around him, including those in his own country. I do agree that we should not force freedom on others, that is counterproductive to the definition, but freedom has been given to those who want it and it is up to them to decide what to do with it. Iraq could reject democracy, but at least they now have a choice to do that.

    While things are not as clean as we would like them, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is a mess (and we definitly didn’t go alone, it was not a unilateral action). There are plenty of good things happening in Iraq. Chrenkoff has posted numerous good things happening and are well worth the look.

    Definitely huge amounts of resources have been dedicated to this effort. Is it worth it? If the people of Iraq are better off (which I think they are), then yes, it is. We have had to take hits at home for it, although I don’t think significantly so. I don’t feel any less safe now. We haven’t had an terrorist attacks on US soil since 9.11, I think that is saying something. I don’t think we are necessarily safer from having gone to war with Iraq, but the Iraqi people are and that is important to me.

    Thanks for your input on this Scott, it is definitely good to have multiple opinions and thoughts on these issues!

  18. November 2nd, 2005 at 20:58 | #18

    I can’t resist one quick response to the “We went to Iraq for their oil” folks… Mexico has plenty of oil, it’s right next door, and if we invade them, it could actually have a decreasing effect on all the illegal immigration because Mexico would have to recruit more for their military or have a draft. So, if it’s all about oil, we would have started a lot closer to home. :-) I’m just sayin’…

  19. November 2nd, 2005 at 22:21 | #19

    Indeed! Canada has lots of oil too, we could just “annex” the great white north. ;)

  1. No trackbacks yet.

%d bloggers like this: