Back                                                             The Debates:

I have followed the Congressional debates over the past couple of days and though I have heard many inspirational speeches, (On both sides of the Isle) I have also heard many talking points. I have lost track of how many times I heard mention of the Alamo and how William Travis would have felt if he had called Congress and they had told him that though they backed him and his troops they wouldn't support him

I'm sorry but I just can't figure out how in the world the Alamo has anything to do with the conflict in Iraq. Sam Houston couldn't have faced Santa Anna's army at that time. The only way he could defeat him was by stretching his supply lines.

Should we have had the debates? In my mind's eye we should have and are better because of them. If nothing less, we at least heard how our representatives came to their conclusions and maybe came to some of our own.

Maybe, just maybe, if we had had the same kind of a debate during the early part of the war in Viet Nam, we might have a lot less names on that sad wall in Washington, D.C. More then half the names on the wall were added after it was known that we had no chance of winning. Oh, don't get me wrong, If we really wanted to do what we had to do, there was no possibility of our not winning but we know the cost would be too great.

It would have meant going into North Viet Nam and probably confronting China and possibly the Soviet Union. We would have had to confront Cambodia. So instead we held to the same failing policy and donated more blood.

Another of the Republican talking points was "The killing fields" on Cambodia, as if our leaving Viet Nam was the cause. I'd like to point out that we weren't in Cambodia and the reason for the killing fields wasn't out leaving Viet Nam but the bombing the Viet Cong in Cambodia and the crossing the border of the Cambodian border in hot pursuit of the Viet Cong that gave Pol Pot the power and influence he had.

They also brought up the massacre of our allies in South Viet Nam after we rushed to get out. I have to remind them that if we had had a debate at that time, we well might have had the opportunity to rescue many more of them then we did.

They, the Republicans say that leaving Iraq is a retreat from the war on Terrorism. To this I say "Bull S**t!"  Iraq isn't now, nor, never was a front on terrorism. The front on terrorism is the entire world. From Bali to London, Spain to Norway.  The war in Iraq is a Civil war, a war between two religions who both want power. We have to start looking at the big picture. There are many different groups of terrorists, fighting for many different reasons and each has to be fought in different ways.

The I.R.A. Fought to get Great Britain out of Ireland: The P.L.O. fought for the right of return and land; Hamas (Shia) is fighting for the destruction of Israel; Hezbollah (Shi'a) wants a Islamic government in Lebanon; al-Qaeda (Sunni) is our real threat. It wants to convert the world to Islam. Here is a web site that may open your eyes, (It did mine.)

The debates gave us information and information is an important tool. We the people (As is said in our constitution.) have the right and duty to know how and why our leaders form their opinions and also the duty to let them know how we feel and what we feel they should do.

Let's start to be more involved with our government and let's learn the facts. Our lives and the lives of our children depend on it.      Al