Iraqis still ask if U.S. invasion was worth it

[John56{vg}]

A report that shows we were lied into the war came out from the Pentagon today. But, because Bush intervened and called the Pentagon, the report will not be distributed as originally planned, to reporters and the public.

Bush is now playing politics, while laughably accusing Congress of doing so, with the FISA Bill. He says the bill is necessary to save lives, However, he states that without giving corporations immunity from their illegal wiretaps he will veto the bill. SO, does that mean he will make it unsafe for Americans by vetoing the bill. His broken record tactics are a cowardly attempt to keep himself from prosecution for the crimes he has committed against Americans and the Nation.

He has just forced the resignation of a Haddon (that may not be spelled correctly), one of the COmmanders that he says he listens to, because Haddon said he thinks war with Iran would be disastrous.

And Bush is sending Cheney to the Middle East to negotiate a Peace Treaty. Now who thinks that CHeney wants to negotiate peace with anyone.

Bush is a Patriot? He has done more in the last eight years to destroy America and American values than any enemy we have faced. He is setting up a strike on Iran I fear before he leaves office.

And regarding Iraq. Al Qaida did not exist in Iraq until we moved in. Plus, Al Quaida In Iraq is not the Al Quaida that attacked us, the group took that name but have never been associated with Iraq.

These are some facts AND I am tired of the people who try to change this country back into a country we can ALL be proud of being called un-patriotic by the people supporting the men and women who attempt to politicize and destroy this country's values.

[mkemse]

Removed as per request from mkemse-- posted in error (wrong thread).

[mkemse]

A report that shows we were lied into the war came out from the Pentagon today. But, because Bush intervened and called the Pentagon, the report will not be distributed as originally planned, to reporters and the public.

Bush is now playing politics, while laughably accusing Congress of doing so, with the FISA Bill. He says the bill is necessary to save lives, However, he states that without giving corporations immunity from their illegal wiretaps he will veto the bill. SO, does that mean he will make it unsafe for Americans by vetoing the bill. His broken record tactics are a cowardly attempt to keep himself from prosecution for the crimes he has committed against Americans and the Nation.

He has just forced the resignation of a Haddon (that may not be spelled correctly), one of the COmmanders that he says he listens to, because Haddon said he thinks war with Iran would be disastrous.

And Bush is sending Cheney to the Middle East to negotiate a Peace Treaty. Now who thinks that CHeney wants to negotiate peace with anyone.

Bush is a Patriot? He has done more in the last eight years to destroy America and American values than any enemy we have faced. He is setting up a strike on Iran I fear before he leaves office.

And regarding Iraq. Al Qaida did not exist in Iraq until we moved in. Plus, Al Quaida In Iraq is not the Al Quaida that attacked us, the group took that name but have never been associated with Iraq.

These are some facts AND I am tired of the people who try to change this country back into a country we can ALL be proud of being called un-patriotic by the people supporting the men and women who attempt to politicize and destroy this country's values.

Chenney going to the Mid East to negotiate for lower Oil Prices is like Eliot Spitzer going to the Bunny Ranch in Las Vegas

[mkemse]

And if Al Quida was in fact "hiding out" in Iraq before we invaded, as much distrust and dislike as Saddam had or Al Quida he would have had them rooted out by his military
Saddams main Terrorists intrestes were support those who wanted to attack Israel he supported Hamas, Hezbola (excuse me if my spelling is wrong on their names) and similar organizations who main enemey was Israel and their destruction

[wmrs2]

Let's say that all these things that John56 and mkemse say about President Bush are true and exactly like they infer these things to be. We are still left with a national problem that must be dealt with. My statement about Obama saying he would send the troops into Iraq was complimentary towards him. It took a lot of courage for him to admit that he would handle the war in the same manner as President Bush has. Our war is not with Iraq but with Al Quiede. It bothered me a lot to think that America would elect a President that would not defend our national interest. After hearing Obama state his real position on the war, I figured it would not be the end of the world if Obama won the election in 2008.

Patriots need to do the best we can to make things easier for Obama, if and when he is elected. We do not need to prolong the war, witness more of our precious youth wasted on the battle fields, and see our economy wreaked; weakening the support for our army is not the answer. Do you think our enemies enjoy the arguments between the Democrats and Republicans over the war? Is it to their advantage to see this contention among our citizens. Long after Bush is gone, we are still going to be forced to fight Al Queada. I urge all Americans to put the past in the past. Bush can not be re-elected and he can't hurt you anymore.

[mkemse]

Let's say that all these things that John56 and mkemse say about President Bush are true and exactly like they infer these things to be. We are still left with a national problem that must be dealt with. My statement about Obama saying he would send the troops into Iraq was complimentary towards him. It took a lot of courage for him to admit that he would handle the war in the same manner as President Bush has. Our war is not with Iraq but with Al Quiede. It bothered me a lot to think that America would elect a President that would not defend our national interest. After hearing Obama state his real position on the war, I figured it would not be the end of the world if Obama won the election in 2008.

Patriots need to do the best we can to make things easier for Obama, if and when he is elected. We do not need to prolong the war, witness more of our precious youth wasted on the battle fields, and see our economy wreaked; weakening the support for our army is not the answer. Do you think our enemies enjoy the arguments between the Democrats and Republicans over the war? Is it to their advantage to see this contention among our citizens. Long after Bush is gone, we are still going to be forced to fight Al Queada. I urge all Americans to put the past in the past. Bush can not be re-elected and he can't hurt you anymore.

Obamas statement right noe is hypothectical for 2 reasons

Obama has not been elected Prseident and 2 we have no KNOWN plan to invade Iran,
I am not as concerd about Iran as Iraq becaue within the last 2 weeks even Russian Prime Minster Putin told Iran to stop wha they were doing and Russia and Iran are allies, Putin told Iran to stop it's nuculear enrichment program

We are in Iraq we are not in Iran

Our War in Iraq turned into a war with Al Quisa, because they arrived in Iraq after we did, the war in Iraq id not longer a Military War, it can not and will not be won Militarily, Iraq needs all i's Religiou Factions to Unify behin 1 governement, and untillthat happens the War could go no for years
It is a Civil War not a Military War now

Yes I give Obmam credit fo his remarks, but i also feel he would use factual doumented evdicende befroe we went in ans would make 100% sure his efifdence was actualy and not "Faulty" he would demans and righlty so acutaly evidence that we need to go in and make sure it was verfied, he would also go in knowing who are eniies was there, how strong they are andwhat we would need to do to defeat them which BUSH has not done

[mkemse]

before we invaded Iraq we had satitlite photos of "allged" mobil weapons labs, everyone assumed they were loaded with weapns, nobody bothetred to verify if they were infact mobil labs or just models of ones
Maybe all they were, where railcars made ro look liki mobil labs because mobil labs looked like that, when inspectors went in, they said they look like mobil labs but no weapons were found
Your neighbor is outside in fronr of your jouse smoking what looks like a joint, maybe in reality if you got closer you couldtell by the dmell if it was in fact pot, or maybe all it was , was a filterless cigarette i know lots of peole who roll there own smokes they sue no filters and yes they look like joints, but that does not mean they are joins
Never assume or accuse if there is no prooof, ifi call the plice on my neigbor overthis or that, and he says did you see him do it or hearhim do it, no i did not i just assumed he did, the offier will not asrrest his as he has no solid evidence of what i said only my word
The actual Blame ofr not taking out BinLaden falss on Bill Clinton who himself addmitted he has avarious chances to take him out and neer did, if Clinton has taken out BinLaden when the chace was there, is it possible that 9/11 ma not have happened, no way to know since Osama is stil alive, but yes, I blame Clintom for not taking bin laden out when he has the chance but Clinton at least acknowleldge that yes, he blew it and should have done it, that is called taking responsiilty, taking ownership for what you should have done and didn't do

[mkemse]

Clinton has taken ownership and responsisbility for what he should have done and didn't do, BUSH will never do that

[mkemse]

also, this past week 10 of the World Top Economists including Waren Buffet have all said The United States in now in a Recession, Bush says we are not, it seems to me that 10 Of The Worlds Most Renowned Econinists are far more qualified to say we are then Bush is to say we are not

[Ozme52]

I'm reminded more of 1945, following the surrender of Germany. Supposedly George Patton advocated rearming the Wehrmacht and pushing on against the Russians, under the assumption that we were going to have to fight them sooner or later anyway, it might as well be right then when we had the manpower and equipment in place to do it. Would it have been the smart thing to do? Possibly, but probably not. The same holds true for Iraq in '91. In hindsight it might have been wiser to go on and depose him, but probably not.

In hindsight...from our own perspective, No. 1) We needed those troops in the Pacific. 2) No one has ever 'successfully' attacked Russia from the west. 3) Because though the relations were tense, we never had that head to head war Patton was predicting... AND 4) They were our allies. You have to do your best to stand by your allies... even if you don't particularly like them.

True, Iran would probably not have joined with Saddam, but they wouldn't have stood by and let "The Great Satan" move into the region. Iran in 1991 was much more belligerent and threatening than they are now.

That would have been the perfect time to invade, conquer, and leave Iraq's neighbors as occupation troops. No Great Satan. No that would have been the great in-and-out campaign the Shrub was hoping for.

Yeah, and we're having the same problems the Germans did: our troops are not trained or equipped to fight a guerilla war. And the Germans had the chetniks to help them.
BTW, I'm not sure I would qualify an invasion by 21 German divisions as a "minimal force" but I understand your meaning.

Hmmm... the Yugoslav and the Greek campaigns both started on April 6th 1941 and I think the 21 divisions was for both campaigns combined... but no reason to quibble as the point is... It takes far more troops to hold territory than it takes to conquer it.

[Ozme52]

can you really train an army to fight against guerilla and follow the geniva conventions?

Sure. Why not? But the cost is stupendous. It just takes too many troops to fight an effective campaign against guerillas. The Geneva Convention rules can easily be followed so long as you have enough troops and an effective internal intelligence machine in situ to crush and capture guerilla cells.

But better yet... do what you need and leave. Then deal with whomever takes over... and if they put the hammer down on their own people... do it again. I realize that may seem like an endless proposition but after one or two governments are replaced by force, you will end up with one that is more concerned with progress than power... and in the long run, that might be cheaper in terms of human lives lost than the way we're doing it now.

[Thorne]

In hindsight...from our own perspective, No. 1) We needed those troops in the Pacific. 2) No one has ever 'successfully' attacked Russia from the west. 3) Because though the relations were tense, we never had that head to head war Patton was predicting... AND 4) They were our allies. You have to do your best to stand by your allies... even if you don't particularly like them.

#1 - At the time this was believed true, but in hindsight the atom bombs did the job much better. Few, if any, of the regular troops from Europe made it to the Pacific in time to do any serious fighting.
#2 - I agree with you here. But remember, Napoleon did take Moscow, defeating the bulk of the Russian army at Borodino. The remnants of the Russian forces just sat it out in the steppes and Urals until winter drove the French out.
#3 - No, we didn't, and we're all glad about that! I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with Patton. He was a political nightmare, but a remarkable soldier.
#4 - I agree here, as well. Which is why...

That would have been the perfect time to invade, conquer, and leave Iraq's neighbors as occupation troops. No Great Satan. No that would have been the great in-and-out campaign the Shrub was hoping for.

... it would have been the WRONG time to invade. Our allies at the time, Saudi Arabia and the smaller Arab countries, did NOT want Iraq taken out at that time, mainly because it was an excellent buffer against the Iranians.

Hmmm... the Yugoslav and the Greek campaigns both started on April 6th 1941 and I think the 21 divisions was for both campaigns combined... but no reason to quibble as the point is... It takes far more troops to hold territory than it takes to conquer it.

The Italians invaded Greece at the end of October, 1940, because Mussolini was "jealous" of Hitler's successes in Europe. When the Greeks drove them back into Albania, humiliating the Fascists in Italy, Hitler added Greece to his plans against Yugoslavia in order to help Mussolini save face. The bulk of the German forces drove into, and through, Yugoslavia first, forcing the surrender in about 12 days. It took another 10 days to drive the British out of Greece.

[mkemse]

Thorne,

thanks for your reply and post

[Ozme52]

... it would have been the WRONG time to invade. Our allies at the time, Saudi Arabia and the smaller Arab countries, did NOT want Iraq taken out at that time, mainly because it was an excellent buffer against the Iranians.

I still think that's debateable. If anything, and strictly an opinion, the Saudi's would have loved to control Iraq... and buffer states are still buffers so long as you control them.

I think that whole "our allies didn't want us to" thing was a rationalization.

The Italians invaded Greece at the end of October, 1940, because Mussolini was "jealous" of Hitler's successes in Europe. When the Greeks drove them back into Albania, humiliating the Fascists in Italy, Hitler added Greece to his plans against Yugoslavia in order to help Mussolini save face. The bulk of the German forces drove into, and through, Yugoslavia first, forcing the surrender in about 12 days. It took another 10 days to drive the British out of Greece.

True... but... 22 days to conquer. Forever to control.

[Thorne]

True... but... 22 days to conquer. Forever to control.

No question! The German's never really learned that their heavy-handed occupation strategy could never do more than incite the civilian populations to revolt.

[wmrs2]

A report that shows we were lied into the war came out from the Pentagon today. But, because Bush intervened and called the Pentagon, the report will not be distributed as originally planned, to reporters and the public.

Bush is now playing politics, while laughably accusing Congress of doing so, with the FISA Bill. He says the bill is necessary to save lives, However, he states that without giving corporations immunity from their illegal wiretaps he will veto the bill. SO, does that mean he will make it unsafe for Americans by vetoing the bill. His broken record tactics are a cowardly attempt to keep himself from prosecution for the crimes he has committed against Americans and the Nation.

He has just forced the resignation of a Haddon (that may not be spelled correctly), one of the COmmanders that he says he listens to, because Haddon said he thinks war with Iran would be disastrous.

And Bush is sending Cheney to the Middle East to negotiate a Peace Treaty. Now who thinks that CHeney wants to negotiate peace with anyone.

Bush is a Patriot? He has done more in the last eight years to destroy America and American values than any enemy we have faced. He is setting up a strike on Iran I fear before he leaves office.

And regarding Iraq. Al Qaida did not exist in Iraq until we moved in. Plus, Al Quaida In Iraq is not the Al Quaida that attacked us, the group took that name but have never been associated with Iraq.

These are some facts AND I am tired of the people who try to change this country back into a country we can ALL be proud of being called un-patriotic by the people supporting the men and women who attempt to politicize and destroy this country's values.

Play politics! I hate the game also but that is what politicians do.
When Obama, Hillary or Ralph takes over will they use wire taps? Will they have anything like the Patriot Act? I have been trying to find out their plans for national security. Have they released these and elaborated on these as yet?

I would not like anybody calling me unpatriotic also. Hillary said several times she was tired of people saying she was unpatriotic because she did not support the president but yet supported the troops. Several times she said this but I tried to think of a Republican that said that about her but I could not. I have not heard anybody say that about her. Who did it?

Haddon did not say he was forced out but if he disagreed sharply with the President, he should have retired, don't you think? I think Bush thought Haddon was a very important man and was probably sorry to see him go. I agree that war with Iran would be disastrous. Would it also be disastrous if Iran had the bomb? Perhaps we could trust them to not use it on Israel or one of their neighbors. Do you know whether Hillary or Obama has taken war with Iran off the table? I thought I heard both of them say that they did not favor Iran having a bomb but I could be wrong. You sure could not go to war with every country that developed the bomb because all these small countries will eventually have the bomb. Many of them do already.

You failed to mention which values Bush destroyed. Which ones did he destroy? He'll be gone soon. Do you think we can repair all this moral damage he has done? If we all work together, maybe!

God bless.

[wmrs2]

also keep in mind that the above study was FUNDED BY THE UNITES STATES GOVERNMENT

Nice spin.

[Ozme52]

No question! The German's never really learned that their heavy-handed occupation strategy could never do more than incite the civilian populations to revolt.

Let's chalk that up to the Nazis and not the Germans per se.

The Wehrmacht loyaly carried out policy, even those they clearly (from contemporary writings and memoirs) didn't agree with...

Now if you meant the SS (commanders and troops...) they were malignant zealots imo.

[mkemse]

Nice spin.

my error, the other post was govrnement sponsored, my apologies for this, i got your reply here mixed up with another post i made

[Thorne]

Let's chalk that up to the Nazis and not the Germans per se.

The Wehrmacht loyaly carried out policy, even those they clearly (from contemporary writings and memoirs) didn't agree with...

Now if you meant the SS (commanders and troops...) they were malignant zealots imo.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. My apologies to the German people. It was the Nazi leadership which imposed the brutal occupations. And in Eastern Europe, at least, it was primarily SS and Gestapo units which enforced them.

But turning this back to the current situation, as a soldier how do you keep from implementing the leadership's policies if you believe they are faulty? We are seeing military leaders either voluntarily or forcefully resigning over the situation in Iraq. How does the common soldier, who certainly knows more about it than some general sitting in Washington, pull himself out of it? The Wehrmacht couldn't do it in WW2. Our soldiers can't do it now.

[mkemse]

Yes, you're absolutely correct. My apologies to the German people. It was the Nazi leadership which imposed the brutal occupations. And in Eastern Europe, at least, it was primarily SS and Gestapo units which enforced them.

But turning this back to the current situation, as a soldier how do you keep from implementing the leadership's policies if you believe they are faulty? We are seeing military leaders either voluntarily or forcefully resigning over the situation in Iraq. How does the common soldier, who certainly knows more about it than some general sitting in Washington, pull himself out of it? The Wehrmacht couldn't do it in WW2. Our soldiers can't do it now.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure Soldiers have the same options s their Comaders when vocing their opinoin, even if they strongly do not support the WAr, they may feel they need to look andact like they do to avoid a "Dishonorable Discarge" perhaps
Comanders seem to have more flexiblitiy and remarks they make Soldiers do not seem to have that right, or atleast not til they return and know they wil see no further action, but i could be very wrongon this, i would find it very. very difficult to belivethat 100% of all those Figihting aupport the wart, butthey may have limited option and may have even ben advised by the Comanders "If youdo not support the War, kindly keep those feelings private and to yourself" to avoid decsion in the ranks

[Thorne]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure Soldiers have the same options s their Comaders when vocing their opinoin, even if they strongly do not support the WAr, they may feel they need to look andact like they do to avoid a "Dishonorable Discarge" perhaps
Comanders seem to have more flexiblitiy and remarks they make Soldiers do not seem to have that right, or atleast not til they return and know they wil see no further action, but i could be very wrongon this, i would find it very. very difficult to belivethat 100% of all those Figihting aupport the wart, butthey may have limited option and may have even ben advised by the Comanders "If youdo not support the War, kindly keep those feelings private and to yourself" to avoid decsion in the ranks

Yeah, that's my point. The officers, especially general officers, can always resign, if they're not fired. The soldiers who have to do the work, though, are stuck! Agree or disagree, they are there for the duration.

I don't know what you can do about this, though. After all, you can't have a war if the only one's fighting are those who think it's necessary, can you?

Wouldn't that be an interesting sight? GW and Osama facing off together? Rhetoric at 30 paces!

[Thorne]

I've never been in the military, but I've spoken with some who have (Viet Nam) and read accounts by others, from many different wars. Once you come right down to it, very few soldiers are fighting for some nebulous "cause" dreamed up by politicians and generals who are safe behind the lines. They overwhelmingly state that they are fighting for their buddies, the guys next to them in the foxhole, or the tank, or the plane. There sole motivation, besides saving their own lives, is saving the lives of those fighting with them.

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce is a story I remembered about an occurrence in WW1. Supposedly, this shocked and dismayed the politicians and higher officers who feared it could demoralize troops and bring an early end to hostilities! To me, it points out the problems of the common soldier, forced to fight for a cause which he may or may not believe in, which may or may not make for a better life for him and his family, against other men who feel exactly the same way. And the ones who benefit the most are the one's least likely to be harmed.

[wmrs2]

Yes, you're absolutely correct. My apologies to the German people. It was the Nazi leadership which imposed the brutal occupations. And in Eastern Europe, at least, it was primarily SS and Gestapo units which enforced them.

But turning this back to the current situation, as a soldier how do you keep from implementing the leadership's policies if you believe they are faulty? We are seeing military leaders either voluntarily or forcefully resigning over the situation in Iraq. How does the common soldier, who certainly knows more about it than some general sitting in Washington, pull himself out of it? The Wehrmacht couldn't do it in WW2. Our soldiers can't do it now.

Hitler was a master at national psychology. He had the whole German nation worked up into a frenzy perpetuated by total fear of ridicule and punishment for rejecting any part of his party plan. Any military officer who disagreed with the party line could not resign in protest but he could be shot. Can you imagine Hitler saying to his citizens that the army would be a volunteer army and only those who felt patriotic enough had to join? That is one reason GW does not have to worry about disloyalty among the troops now. The troops are in Iraq because they want to implement the national policy and that is why so many sign up for a second and third term.

Today it is not the military that believes the policies of war are faulty but rather many of the political leaders and citizens that remained at home. There can be no doubt that many politicians withhold support for the war without being shot or thrown into prison. Can you imagine a German politician saying to Hitler that his national policy was unpatriotic? Yet, Americans are allowed to stand up to the President during war time and call him a liar, a traitor, as thief, and a cheap thug. Many use the war as an effort to overthrow the President and make political hay out of the President's abuse. Try that with Hitler.

One thing we learn from comparing the situation today to the German society of WWII is the fact America really won WWII. All Americans be proud that President Bush allows the freedoms that our soldiers fought and died for in WWII. Although I am opening myself up for criticism, sarcasm. and personal attack, I am honored to stand up for a man that will go down in history as a great President, a man who stood by his principles and left office while leaving our country with a history.

God bless America and thank God for our great leaders.

[mkemse]

Hitler was a master at national psychology. He had the whole German nation worked up into a frenzy perpetuated by total fear of ridicule and punishment for rejecting any part of his party plan. Any military officer who disagreed with the party line could not resign in protest but he could be shot. Can you imagine Hitler saying to his citizens that the army would be a volunteer army and only those who felt patriotic enough had to join? That is one reason GW does not have to worry about disloyalty among the troops now. The troops are in Iraq because they want to implement the national policy and that is why so many sign up for a second and third term.

Today it is not the military that believes the policies of war are faulty but rather many of the political leaders and citizens that remained at home. There can be no doubt that many politicians withhold support for the war without being shot or thrown into prison. Can you imagine a German politician saying to Hitler that his national policy was unpatriotic? Yet, Americans are allowed to stand up to the President during war time and call him a liar, a traitor, as thief, and a cheap thug. Many use the war as an effort to overthrow the President and make political hay out of the President's abuse. Try that with Hitler.

One thing we learn from comparing the situation today to the German society of WWII is the fact America really won WWII. All Americans be proud that President Bush allows the freedoms that our soldiers fought and died for in WWII. Although I am opening myself up for criticism, sarcasm. and personal attack, I am honored to stand up for a man that will go down in history as a great President, a man who stood by his principles and left office while leaving our country with a history.

God bless America and thank God for our great leaders.

Bush is NOT the only President to have our Freedoms fought for
It was done during the Revolutionary War, as well as others Wars, Korean,
Viet Nam to name just a few, ect But please don't give credit only to George Bush, give it to ALL our Presedients, be they Repubilcan or Democrat And All are Freedoms that ALL our Men and Women have so galanty Fought To defended over all the years
Credit goes to all of all our Presdents over the years no just George Bush

[wmrs2]

also keep in mind that the above study was FUNDED BY THE UNITES STATES GOVERNMENT

I just checked your source out. Did the report say Bush lied or is that just the spin you put on the report? Let's be honest now.

[mkemse]

my error, the other post was govrnement sponsored, my apologies for this, i got your reply here mixed up with another post i made

no as i mentioned that reply was for another thread not this one, i have requested that it be moved to the right thread, it was an post error by me i made a mistake when i posted the reply it was too late to delete it and move it to the correct thread, that answer goes to another question NOT THIS THREAD read my post about it

[mkemse]

i have sent a pm to tan ADm. explaining that i repleid to the wrong post and would they move it to the correct thread

[mkemse]

"also keep in mind that the above study was FUNDED BY THE UNITES STATES GOVERNMENT"

this reply goe to another post and thread not this one

[Thorne]

One thing we learn from comparing the situation today to the German society of WWII is the fact America really won WWII. All Americans be proud that President Bush allows the freedoms that our soldiers fought and died for in WWII. Although I am opening myself up for criticism, sarcasm. and personal attack, I am honored to stand up for a man that will go down in history as a great President, a man who stood by his principles and left office while leaving our country with a history.

I was not in any way trying to compare our President with Hitler. There can be no comparison. If you took it that way I'm sorry. I was merely pointing out the problems with ANY military force when faced with serious political infighting at home.

And I would never use sarcasm or a personal attack just because of your political views. Criticism, perhaps. I just cannot agree with your opinion of the current administration. But I will agree that you have a right to that opinion, just as those who disagree with you have a right to their's.