Condoleezza Rice, Single, Sending kids to die?
By jfglassworks
@jfglassworks (128)
United States
January 14, 2007 5:48pm CST
I find this interesting and I see both sides of the issue.
On one hand you have the people who beleive that Rice has no ability to trully understand the implications of her actions in sending American kids to die in Iraq. I see this POV and do wonder myself how she can really understand the grief and misery that her actions are causing to thousands of people. Should this be a part of the election procedure, having to have children if you are running for an office that is part of sending troops to possibly die?
Then on the other hand I see the aspect that Rice can understand the implications of her actions. She after all has been having ot deal with this everyday for at least a year. She has been an integral part of Bush's cabinet and has been party to most of the decisions. She has the inside knowledge of what is going on with the war and therefore is in the best position to make decisions based upon that knowledge.
What do you all think? Is it right for Condoleezza Rice to be sending American youth to war when she has no personal (blood) price to pay?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
17 Jan 07
If grief and misery were counted substantially against the necessity of war, there wouldn't be war...
No, you don't have to have kids to understand war. Not only is the concept of losing a child easy to understand, but name one prominent democratic representative that has a child in Iraq? Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi? They don't have kids in Iraq....
I think it was a condenscending and pretentious personal jab at Condi.
2 people like this
@StarBright (2798)
• United States
15 Jan 07
Neither Connie Rice nor George Bush is qualified to send anyone to war. Did you hear Ms. Rice say the proposed Bush plan to send more troops to Iraq was not an increase but an AUGMENTATION? To say Ms. Rice has been party to most of Bush's decisions is putting it mildly. She may well be a minor power behind the throne. She defends her king too vehemently. I admire Colin Powell. He had the guts to step down when he realized just how far this administration would go in fooling the American public for its own agenda. And the agenda is not a good one for the people.
@jfglassworks (128)
• United States
15 Jan 07
Don't you love the way the government uses semantics to bypass laws and morals? Seems all they have to do is reinterpret the meaning of ONE word and they can justify anything they want.
1 person likes this
@AvarianParakeet (55)
• United States
15 Jan 07
I think that I have to look to Patton for the answer to this question. I'm paraphrasing, but this is the basic idea behind his quote.
"I don't know if I can continue to visit these field hospitals, because if I begin to care about my men too much, I can't continue to be an effective general."
It is a rather heartless but true fact that a general or leader can't be constantly afraid of sending men to die. They have to believe that the conflict is worth fighting, and that the fight is worth the cost. I personally don't like it when people judge the leaders when they don't know all of the information that the leader has. The news media doesn't have any of the covert ops information that simply can't be released to the press, so we are always at a bit of a loss for the true facts.
1 person likes this
