Frankly, I find this whole episode shameful. This bit really bugged me. I suppose it could be chalked up to "biased" reporting, but if the facts are as stated, I think the GOP is playing a very dangerous and ultimately hurtful game. Washington Post
quote:Murtha's resolution included language the Republicans wanted to avoid, such as "the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress" toward stability in Iraq. It also said troops should be withdrawn "at the earliest practicable date," although Murtha said in statements and interviews Thursday that the drawdown should begin now.
Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) drafted a simpler resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops, saying it was a fair interpretation of Murtha's intent.
I mean, to me Murtha (who is traditionally hawkish) has never said "pull out immediately." He has said that the pull out should begin now, but that's a vastly different thing. It's a proposal that means we'd have to force the Iraqi military and police to take over sooner.
The GOP bill is not a fair representation in anyone's mind, but it is an obvious political maneuver.
Accusing Murtha of political posturing is, I think, rather sick given his history. Especially on this issue.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Murtha is posturing. I can say this, I'm a Marine.
What the media isn't telling you is that Murtha was speaking out against the war six months after it started. Cowards run. Marines don't.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Wow. You can serve in the Marines and be decorated--specifically for valor--and even that is not enough to make your courage unimpeachable.
Pathetic.
If you're a Marine, I would think you would not want to see the name cheapened like that, but what do I know.
"Coward" has become the latest word whose meaning is now "person who disagrees with me."
Well, at least that means dissentors are not traitors anymore, right?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You do realize that when you make exact quotations of talking points, it rather undermines any point you might have (though you wouldn't have much of one even were your statement original)?
edit: just to make clear, this is in response to tern, who is blatantly stealing the rhetoric of one of Murtha's critics
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Maybe tern is the one who allegedly called the good representative.
tern, I have to ask, if you became convinced that a war or order was based on deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, would you as a Marine feel honor bound to do something about it? Or, would your conscience tell you that orders is orders and you should just shut up and do what you're told?
I personally think that attacking Murtha is a cheap shot. If you think he's a coward, could you explain just in what way he's being cowardly. Or is it just that calling for accountability in war is embarrassing?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Murtha was speaking out about how the war was conducted, not about the war itself. He was concerned, as in fact were many serious former soldiers who've been in combat (a quality that is lacking from the people making the descisions about Iraq), that the administration was not directing the war correctly nor showing sufficient concern for the well-being of the troops. I don't see how that makes him a coward. But then tern, perhaps you feel that people being concerned that your life and safety are being put in harms way in an irresponsible manner are cowardly for speaking up.
edit: I only had to add the "who've been in combat" qualification as a nod to the brief and completely stateside service of Donald Rumsfeld. The rest of the adminsitration seemed to prefer the oh so courageous "get out of military service through my connections" when called upon to serve. And the President couldn't even live up to that commitment. The only legitimate combat soldier they had, Colin Powell, was shut out of the decision making process.
[ November 19, 2005, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Icarus, it seems that everyone's credentials mean nothing anymore. Religious leaders with no specific expertise in the biological can influence the teaching of that science by referencing "scientists" who support them. Decorated soldiers are "cowards" if they don't support GW Bush.
While I believe that no-one's credibility is so great as to make them above questioning, the trend has gone so far in the wrong direction that people seem eager to listen to anyone who agrees with them, and completely discount the expertise and credibility of those who do not agree with them.
It has me very worried. If we, as a culture, do not value experience and education -- at least to the point of listening to people who have earned the right to speak on a particular subject -- then why would anyone bother taking the time to gain that expertise or experience?
If all it takes is the ability to tell the largest crowd whatever it is they want to hear...any sociopath can do that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I can't find the text that reflects Murtha's exact words, but from the portion of the news that I caught, Murtha didn't appear to be advocating complete abandonment of Iraq. I believed the words he used were something like "withdraw over the horizon", ie withdraw close to Iraq, to keep an eye on things, but otherwise let the Iraqis fend for themselves.
I think this is rapidly becoming a good idea.
I supported our invasion of Iraq. I hope things work out in Iraq. However, I think the time has pretty much arrived when it's clear that we've done all we can and the Iraqis have to shoulder the burden.
I give it another year. No more.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
P.S. If they can smear Max Cleland and John McCain as unpatriotic, they can do it to anyone.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What the media isn't telling you is that Murtha was speaking out against the war six months after it started. Cowards run. Marines don't.
Tern,
Instead of talking about the issue in this thread, I'll just focus on something very specific. Murtha is a decorated combat veteran Marine, who is known in government as being hawkish.
You've called him a coward. This accusation necessarily means one of a few things. Either you didn't know he was a decorated combat veteran Marine, you believe that his combat experience is overplayed and his commendations cheaply given, or you think that since he was a decorated combat veteran Marine, he has become a coward.
You say you're a Marine. Then you should have some idea of how serious it is to call a combat veteran a coward. So which item on the list do you believe is the truth? You must pick one, or else recant your statement.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Tern I will ignore. To me his words are hollow, and aren't worthy of arguing, I'll let others do that.
As for the suggestion of pulling out. Much as I have always been against the war, I have until recently also been against pulling out. But I'm starting to change my mind. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should cut and run, leaving the Iraqis a bloodbath in our wake.
But I am starting to wonder about some things. Are our troops doing more harm than good over there?
Suicide bombers attack US troops and in the process kill scores of Iraqi civilians. When the civilians get angry, the terrorists say they were only trying to kill the Americans, and everyone else was merely a bystander. And if you have a population willing to believe that, all you have to do is say it, and you'll never lose their support.
US troops make targets out of civilians, not by actually killing them, but just by being there. Maybe we should finish setting up their government, set up their security forces a bit more, and then withdraw to the rim to see what happens. The suicide bombers won't have US troops to attack, or US businesses like in Amman. They will either be forced to commit to all out civil war, or to shut up. If they attack civilains without a pretext of attacking our troops, they would lose the support of the populace.
Perhaps it's for them to form the nation on their own, rather than have it thrust upon them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think offering a timetable is a good idea, but I don't know that focusing primarily on the troops withdrawing is the way to go. Rather, I think our focus should be on building the infrasctructure and Iraq abilities such that, if we're sucessful, they won't need the troops there anymore. The troops withdrawing would be part of the timetable, but tied into the accomplishments of these other things. this way, they're part of the larger whole, with the idea that "They're leaving because they aren't needed.", which I think will have the same postive effects as making the troops leaving the primary focus, but without some of the negative effects.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I don't think that Murtha was a coward when he served. And in combat, I'm sure that he was a good Marine. I'm not denying that. However, this is thirty nine years after he won his medals. Is he a coward now? I have no idea. Do I consider what he is advocating cowardly? Yes. So Rakeesh, I'll go with a modified version of your number three.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:I think offering a timetable is a good idea, but I don't know that focusing primarily on the troops withdrawing is the way to go. Rather, I think our focus should be on building the infrasctructure and Iraq abilities such that, if we're sucessful, they won't need the troops there anymore.
That's a great idea.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's the obvious idea that no one can actually give a timetable for.
Look, until we invade and wipeout that Islamists/anti-American ideologues in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria, that day is never going to come.
Are we ever going to invade any of those countries? Not in the near future, if ever.
We've built up what we can. Things are better now than before we got there.
The Iraqi military, while not quite there yet, is doing well on the Syrian border, and has doen well in Falleujah (sp). It doesn't need the whole U.S. military there to train them and supplement them to bring them up to strength, when there are plenty of jobless young men who would love to join, and we can just leave a small training force to train the rest. Let's go. We've done what we could.
Good luck, Iraq. Your future is in your hands.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:That's a great idea.
Have you examined closely what Murtha is saying? Perhaps you'd find he is full of the very same good idea.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
My concern about pulling out of Iraq is that we won't finish what we came to do. Mr. Squicky's idea of conditioning the troop pullout on completing the mission is wonderful, and combines the best of both worlds.
Last thing I'll say about Murtha, and then I'll give it a rest. I just came from his website, and it seems like he has a genuine concern for the troops and their welfare. It seems like he put forth his proposal with the best of intentions. I still feel like it's a cowardly idea, however. Oh well, good men can still have bad ideas.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Bob, not according to the resolution. You can find it on his entry on Wikipedia. It doesn't give any of his reasoning, nor does it put any conditions on withdrawal. Maybe he has the same good idea, but that isn't what he proposed.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: My concern about pulling out of Iraq is that we won't finish what we came to do.
And that is what?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Heh, and my second concern is that nobody seems to know what we came to do...but whatever we came to do, we haven't finished it - we haven't finished anything over there, except overthrow Saddam.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I don't understand. You say you want to stay until we finish what we came there to do, but, as I hinted at before, if neither you nor anyone else can really say if that will ever happen, are you saying that you're willing to see us stay there indefinitely?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And let me ask another question. Is it not worrisome that...two, three years into Iraq, no one is willing to give a timetable? That no one, it seems, can give a timetable?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think we went there to do something that hasn't been in effect for a few thousand years, to build a stable society not based on fear and religious fantacism.
Good luck with that.
I think maybe it isn't a bad idea to change our mission objective. Bravado and pride aren't helping the situation. Running around saying that if we cut and run it isn't American is crap. America regularly cuts and runs when it isn't in its best interests to stay. I think it is now beyond EVERYONE's best interests that we stay, and that a great many people would be better off if we retreated to Kuwait, maybe Jordan, Turkey, perhaps some in the far north more stable Kurdish areas.
If the insurgents attempt a coup we can always rush right back in and stop them, we're really good at toppling unstable governments. Once their government is set up, let's pull out a bunch of troops and get the Iraqis in there. Let them win the battle for the hearts and minds.
That battle is one the American forces have probably already lost.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Here's what he's proposing:
quote: To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. To create a quick reaction force in the region. To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
I can see how some of his statements might displease a person in the military, though. He has said things like we cannot accomplish anything more militarily in Iraq. He's blasted the continued inability to get the aid money committed and see real progress in things like the unemployment rate, infrastructure repairs, etc.
I'm VERY concerned about those things and I am not convinced that the military is or can get the job done the way it was outlined to the people.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think Murtha is right on the money, though I would be curious whether we would remain in country, and somehow remain neutral if a civil war broke out, or be stationed in, say, Kuwait...and remain neutral if civil war or partisan fighting broke out.
I think my belief is that, unless a foreign power invades, we let the Iraqis sort it out for themselves, up to, and including, bloody civil war.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: And let me ask another question. Is it not worrisome that...two, three years into Iraq, no one is willing to give a timetable? That no one, it seems, can give a timetable?
A timetable for what? Withdrawal? As we've stayed in Germany and Japan for sixty years, I'm not quite concerned yet that three years into Iraq we don't have what we still don't have for our enemies in WWII.
Now, I'd really like to see goals laid out for what needs to be done in Iraq, and a timetable done for that - even though we didn't have such a timetable after WWII.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I don't understand. You say you want to stay until we finish what we came there to do, but, as I hinted at before, if neither you nor anyone else can really say if that will ever happen, are you saying that you're willing to see us stay there indefinitely?
What Bush says is that our goal is to give Iraq a stable democracy. Unfortunately, I've seen too many conflicting signals from all sides, and it doesn't seem like there is a consensus on this goal.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:If the insurgents attempt a coup we can always rush right back in and stop them, we're really good at toppling unstable governments. Once their government is set up, let's pull out a bunch of troops and get the Iraqis in there. Let them win the battle for the hearts and minds.
With as much acrimony as there is in the United States regarding our current presence in Iraq, do you think there is any chance that we could do this after we pull out?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:I think we went there to do something that hasn't been in effect for a few thousand years, to build a stable society not based on fear and religious fantacism.
That's an accurate sumnation of what I hope we went in there to do. I don't think it's impossible, however - we accomplished a similar goal in Japan.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:I can see how some of his statements might displease a person in the military, though. He has said things like we cannot accomplish anything more militarily in Iraq. He's blasted the continued inability to get the aid money committed and see real progress in things like the unemployment rate, infrastructure repairs, etc.
I'm VERY concerned about those things and I am not convinced that the military is or can get the job done the way it was outlined to the people.
The military is the wrong tool for these things, yes. What the military is necessary for is enforcing order and peace sufficient to allow other people to accomplish these goals. As bad as it is now, can you imagine how much worse it would be if we left? Fat chance rebuilding then.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: I think my belief is that, unless a foreign power invades, we let the Iraqis sort it out for themselves, up to, and including, bloody civil war.
Now that I don't agree with. Including a bloody civil war? A civil war there could last decades, and we would be to blame for it. Leaving Iraq in a civil war is leaving it a hundred times WORSE than when we first got there.
Besides, I think it's almost impossible to have a civil war in Iraq without foriegn powers invading. When they break into civil war, the country breaks into three pieces, the same way it was before Britain decided to play Cartographer. Kurdish Iraq goes independent, and leaves everyone else alone, at which point Turkey invades Kurdistan. The Sunnis and Shiites in the south beat the crap out of each of each other for awhile, and then I believe Iran will rush in to help their Shiite brothers. And then what, we get into a fight with Iran AND Turkey? A NATO ally? Right.
Letting them fight out a civil war would be a disaster. Even if only 10% of what I just said actually happens.
quote:With as much acrimony as there is in the United States regarding our current presence in Iraq, do you think there is any chance that we could do this after we pull out?
Yes, I do. A guided missile could do it. A small strike team could do it. A single tank division could do it. Taking out an unsupported leadership is somethingw we've turned into a sick art form. We could do it in a moment, and Bush would just call it an arm of the war on terrorism.
quote: That's an accurate sumnation of what I hope we went in there to do. I don't think it's impossible, however - we accomplished a similar goal in Japan.
It IS impossible for a foriegn power though. Until they can resolve the problems for themselves, there will never be a lasting peace, and as of now, they don't want us to be their power broker. You can't make comparisons like that. Japan was ready and willing to make the changes we made over there. They embraced American culture and our help, for bette or for worse. I don't see how you can even suggest that it's the same thing in Iraq.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
tern -- Japan already had the noted benefits of being a far more advanced society, technically, and being a largely integrated society. Iraq is heavily divided into factions based on religious, social, and ethnic lines, as well as being far behind where Japan was technically (strong technical accomplishment provides economic foundations).
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote: tern -- Japan already had the noted benefits of being a far more advanced society, technically, and being a largely integrated society. Iraq is heavily divided into factions based on religious, social, and ethnic lines, as well as being far behind where Japan was technically (strong technical accomplishment provides economic foundations). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All this is certainly true enough. I'm not sure a comparison to Japan is terribly apt, as the challenge of rebuilding it, and the conditions in which we did, were very different, but I would like to point out that the rebuilding of Japan was probably just as challenging in its own way. We're talking about the conversion of one of the most fanatical and xenophobic militaristic theocracies in the history of the world into a peaceful (semi) democracy. By the "semi" I mean not a democracy as we understand it; Japanese culture produced a very different sort of republic than the one we live in, much more authoritarian yet much less overtly contentious. And much less "democratic" in the sense allowing the demos as opposed to the high-status elites to run things. Iraq is similar in that Islamic culture will likely produce a (semi) democratic government. But that's what happens when you let people build their own government. That's what happens whenever you grant human beings freedom: they'll do stuff you don't like. I don't think that the rebuilding of Iraq is necessarily going to be much more difficult than Japan's was. Of course, in quantifying the "difficulty" of rebuilding Japan you have to factor in what went on before the "rebuilding" began; we had shed rivers of blood in fighting them, firebombed Tokyo almost to the ground, used a new and incomprehensibly powerful terror-weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (of which they thought we had more) and smashed much of their cultural world view and self-image into tiny tinkling bits. It was monstrously difficult. And I think we may be in for a very long haul in Iraq also, for the reasons you've described. I'm especially concerned with the deep and powerful currents of religious, ethnic, and political tribalism that tear at their unity.
But I think it can be done. I think they can survive. I think it's a good endeavor and one worth paying a heavy price for. I think that while it's unwise to recognize all the nasty problems, it's also foolish to underestimate the power of ideas. Like the *idea* of Iraq, Iraq as a unified country, where they are *Iraqis* and not just Sunnis and Shi'ites and Kurds. Like the idea of freedom, and democracy; of having a government that is really *theirs* and not the Ba'athist's or the English Crown's or the Sheikh's, but *theirs*.
Most of the "insurgents"-almost all of them now-are not Iraqis, but carpetbag terrorists thrilled at the idea that there is an American target in the Middle East on which to bequeath their poorly aimed gunfire and singed human shrapnel. Which means they're not really "insurgents" in the usual sense of the word. This is both positive, in that many Iraqis recognize them as foreigners and despise them for coming in and killing Iraqis, and negative, in that as long as we're there, the prospect of an "American" target will be tempting. It's possible that, if we left, these terrorists would be seen by the Arab world as just attacking fellow Arabs. Possible, but not probable; never underestimate Al-Jazeera and Company's capacity for distortion, prevarication, paranoia, conspiracy-mongering, victim-swapping, misrepresentation, pandering, and a thousand other varieties of general whatsit production. It's much more probable that they'd just decide the Americans are cowards (something already very important to their worldview) and step things up a notch or twenty.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Calling Japan at any time a theocracy is a bit of a misnomer, as while there was Empereror-reverence, the country was not governed by a priest-caste, nor were decisions particularly heavily influenced by religious considerations compared to other monarchies throughout history.
As for most of the insurgents being foreigners, I believe I saw an article just recently that debunked that. One figure cited was "between 4 and 10 percent".
I don't want to see any more of our soldiers killed in Iraq. And I think the rhetoric that's being used by those politicians who favor keeping our forces there is abhorrent, and ought to be to everyone. You don't let young people die to "show your resolve", thousands of miles away. You don't keep throwing the deaths of our citizens in our faces, long after it's been disproven that there was any connection between those deaths and the country we invaded. You don't accuse people who are tired of seeing their sons and daughters come back in flag-draped coffins of cowardice and "blaming America first". You don't keep trying to provoke fear and anger in the name of rallying support to your cause, then claim you only want to foster unity. You don't drown out all discussion, all plans that vary from your vision, and then refuse to accept responsibility for the fiasco you created.
The people who are responsible for this war are scum. And I don't say that lightly.
And, yet. <sigh>
I don't want to punish the Iraqi people by letting a regime twice as bad as the one that was deposed take its place. I don't want the desire to punish the fools responsible for this mess to overwhelm the responsibility to deal with the situation as it stands now.
We need to start thinking about how we're going to get out of Iraq. And to have that happen, certain blowhards are going to have to shut up.
We also have to start thinking beyond Iraq, because I don't think it's remotely realistic to say that democracy is suddenly going to flourish in the Middle East because of our showing a willingness to engage in unilateral "pre-emptive" war, and a simple "we kill the people we define as terrorists until they're all dead" strategy is just idiocy.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
One of the many mistakes that the Republicans are making with this war is to define the terms with, "You are either 100% in agreement with all we do, or you are a terrible person supporting the terrorists."
Many people out there feel that something is wrong with the way the war is being handled. From the "handling" of intelligence before the war to the "handling" of armor for our troops, there are questions that need to be answered.
And they need to be answered for the sake of our brave and worth soldiers risking their lives.
However, the public is being told, "You can't ask that question. To question how we are fighting means you want us to be cowardly and run."
If you force the people to choose between leaving Iraq or continueing to fight this un-war in a bad way, sooner or later, with no other practical choice being offered, the people will choose to leave.
And I think leaving, right now, would be wrong. I think refusing to fix what is wrong with how he are handling the war is also wrong.
PS. The main reason the Republicans are demanding this vote now is an attempt to stifle the Democrats for questioning policy. If a Democrat realizes that immiediate evacuation of Iraq is morally wrong, so votes for the bill, then the next time they question the war the Republicans will get on all the conservative media and state, "He's a hypocrate. Why back in November he voted to keep the war going."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tern,
I suppose I can accept that explanation, but there is a problem with it. Advocating retreat, withdrawl, advancing to the rear, whatever you call it, is not automatically cowardly.
The definition of a coward is someone who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain. So if, for example, Rep. Murtha were advocating withdrawl while expressing fear for his career or of the "insurgency", he would be a coward. It is not necessarily cowardly to advocate retreat in the face of unexpected or adverse circumstances in order to save one's soldiers.
I'll illustrate with an example. Would Custer have been cowardly if when he entered the Little Big Horn and saw what was arrayed against him and he retreated (if he'd had that option by that time), would he have been a coward? Surely you'll agree he would not have been behaving in a cowardly fashion, right?
Granted, the situation here is not as straightforward as Custer's Last Stand, by any means. It seems to me that the area has much more gray in a military sense, on top of all the gray political murkiness involved as well. But I'm just trying to say that just because someone advises retreat, does not make them a coward. Similarly, retreat is not always a cowardly option, which is precisely what you implied at first.
I think one should be much more cautious and respectful when it comes to slinging those sorts of accusations to combat veterans of military service.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yes, I do. A guided missile could do it. A small strike team could do it. A single tank division could do it. Taking out an unsupported leadership is somethingw we've turned into a sick art form. We could do it in a moment, and Bush would just call it an arm of the war on terrorism.
I'd be curious to hear when and where we've developed such skills to a "sick art form".
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
A timetable for withdrawl from our enemies point of view is an attack date. The day we set a day for withdrawl is the day the enemy sets for victory. It is that simple, they will hunker down, they will sit on caches, they will amass money and spread the word and they they will lash out at the new government from Syria and Iran and from within.
I cannot believe that you people are too foolish to see this clear and obvious fact, or recognize what a disaster such a date was in Viet Nam.
This war is won, it takes two things to put the cherry on top, us staying long enough for the tree to take root, and us stealing any hope the enemy has to win back the day. That hope comes from the daily magnification of our losses by the liberal media and the self serving grandstanding of Democrates maneuvering for significance as a Lame Duck President winds down his duty.
Both activities undermine the war effort of the United States of America, a thing we used to call Treason.
Is it still Treason if the war is based on false or magnified intellegence? He** yes it is! You play the cards you have, there are all kinds of things back home that I disagree with. Does that mean I will lay down arms and refuse to go out on patrol? He** no!
You can only fight a war to win, you people who are American Citizens need to consider how much more it will cost you individually and as a Nation if you manage to make us lose this thing with your stupidity. Let the soldiers fight, the leaders now have one great thing that the peanut gallery lacks, they have the facts we gather day to day to base their plans on. Let them do the job they were trained to do.
BC
[ November 20, 2005, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Bean Counter ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
BC: I agree with you.
I believe setting a timetable or date is just what the Insurgence have been lobbying for.
I believe that too quickly turning over our responsibilities in Iraq to unready Iraqi defence forces will be a blight on America's name.
However, I believe that the administrations inflexibiity, its demand that we are right and any questioning of that right is treason, and its tendency to blame others will result in the US doing just that.
And when the disaster occurs, the Republicans will blame the Democrats for forcing them to leave, while the Democrats will blame the Republicans for the war to begin with and while everyone in the US, in their nice comfortable arm chairs blame each other, the people of Iraq will suffer ever more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Both activities undermine the war effort of the United States of America, a thing we used to call Treason.
Is it Treason is the war is based on false or magnified intellegence? He** yes it is!
So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that it's treasonous coming and going?
What would have been the ethical, non-treasonous approach?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If you haven't yet, read this speech from John McCain which sets forth real and compelling reasons for staying in Iraq and suggests realistic and sensible things we should be doing to improve the situation. Things we are not doing now. Things McCain, a staunch supporter of the war since the beginning, has been deeply critical of for just as long.
I started from the opposite direction - I felt this war was a huge mistake that was forced upon us by an overeager and incompetent adminstration - but I find I agree with Sen. McCain more often than not. Now that we're there, for whatever reason, I think simply pulling out would be worse than never going there in the first place.
But I'm not interested in "we must keep going" or "we must pull out immediately" arguments, and those seem to be the only ones anyone talks about. How about we talk about the best way to preserve American lives and security AND work to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it? Suggestions? Here's a quick summary of his:
Stop trying to contain all of Iraq. Instead, work to create safe zones, patrolled by US and Iraqi forces, so that life can go on, reconstruction can make some headway and democracy can flourish. Expand as possible, and send out teams to actively find insurgents.
Keep senior officers in place. The Pentagon seems to have the policy of rotating out skilled leaders instead of putting them where their expertise serves us best.
Involve more of the government besides the Pentagon to fight insurgency such as "aid, trade, wells, schools, training" etc. We're not just fighting, we're rebuilding. This is being done, McCain implies, but it's not a priority and it should be.
Build loyalty in the armed forces by diversifying the troops instead of swallowing militias whole. It's good for the troops and for the people they encounter if Kurdish and Shia and Sunni are seen working and fighting on the same side.
Pressure Syria over their insurgent assistance.
Win the homefront by being completely honest about the situation in Iraq. Tell the American people what's at stake and what must be done, but avoid rosy scenarios or doomsday proclamations.
Anybody else? Give me real options, real policy suggestions, instead of vague jingo sound bites. Stop attacking the opposition with the "Oh yeah? So's your mother!" style of debate.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I edited that part to clear it up a bit, my point is that we are at war now against a designated enemy so no matter how we came to be there helping that enemy is still Treason.
We have a great deal of ongoing construction and infrastructure development, it is not slowed by lack of priority, it is slowed down because security has to be the No. 1 priority. Security of the site, security for the workers and security against infiltrators. That is just the way it has to be.
We found a map with distance and directions to the Chow Hall and the PX along with an illegal Cell phone on a LN worker this week. Had to wear IBA and Kevlar to breakfast!
Even the non insurgent locals will steal anything not protected by security forces if you leave it overnight, even if you are building them a water system or power grid or school. They are not up to the moral level that includes the community. Yet every Iraqi you arm is likely to be another thug. So we secure what we can ourselves and the build is slower. The body count is lower.
BC
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Treason is the new communism.
McCarthy, anyone?
Speaking of which, I'm really curious to see this movie. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I believe that when we should pull out and leave is obvious: when the democratic Iraqi government, comfortable with their level of control and effectiveness, asks us to.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Treason is the new communism.
Communism really was a threat, but McCarthy went about it the wrong way. Actually communism and it's related ideologies and their adherents are still a threat.
That being said, I disagree with Bean Counter that what is happening is treason. It's sedition.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He's inciting rebellion? You have a really strange idea of what "bring the troops home so they'll be safe" translates as.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Both activities undermine the war effort of the United States of America, a thing we used to call Treason."
You really should look up the legal meaning of treason within the United States. Cause, what you describe ain't it. And, incidentally, never was. So if you used to call it treason, you were mistaken then too.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:It's sedition.
Our form of government guarantees the right of citizens to disagree with their government and to do so peaceably (that's what the right of peaceable assembly is all about, among other rights we enjoy as US citizens).
If the government now claims that everyone who disagrees with them is inciting insurrection against their lawful actions (the defintion of sedition), then they're going to have to start arresting an awful lot of people.
I'm sorry, but throwing terms around like treason and sedition is just not meaningful in the context of a discussion on a bulletin board.
[ November 20, 2005, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I have to give Bush props for showing a level of class sorely lacking in a lot of the members of his party.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:I'm sorry, but throwing terms around like treason and sedition is just not meaningful in the context of a discussion on a bulletin board.
Er? Are you thinking that we're labeling the discussion on the bulletin board treasonous or seditious?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: my point is that we are at war now against a designated enemy so no matter how we came to be there helping that enemy is still Treason.
I'm not sure how I feel about this one, B.C. It appears to me that you're making two assumptions here that I'm not inclined to immediately accept.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," the president said. "I heard somebody say, well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position. I totally reject that thought. This is not an issue of who's [a] patriot and who's not patriotic. It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."
Looks like the President and I agree on this.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Then again, maybe the Bush team isn't united behind the President? From the same article:
quote:Perhaps the most striking moment came after Murtha's proposal. The White House assailed Murtha, likening him to liberal maverick filmmaker Michael Moore, characterizing him as a newfound ally of the "extreme liberal wing" of his party and accusing him of wanting to "surrender to the terrorists."
Assuming Bush had a hand in writing the earlier memo, I wonder what has changed his mind. He's well known for not paying attention to public opinion once he's made up his mind, so it seems unlikely that his new softer approach has to do with adverse reactions in the polls.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Bob: the "not paying attention to public opinion thing once he's made up his mind" is a bit of hype, created in response to public opinion that such behavior is desirable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: I'd be curious to hear when and where we've developed such skills to a "sick art form".
Has anyone in recent or distant history been responsible for toppling as many governments without actually taking over the country as we have been?
I don't know about you, but I think overthrowing LESS governments rather than more is the best approach to foriegn affairs.
Thus I proclaim the cavalier attitude with which "regime change" is discussed in this nation, and then promptly and efficiently carried out to be something we've perfected to a sick art form. Feel free to contradict me.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy in time of War is still Treason no matter how politically incorrect it is to say so in Blue State Land. The Insurgent's only hope is that we will just lose our will and leave, the only comfort and aid they have is our Left-Wing minority. Not the weapons and money from forgien parts, not the fighters eager to die for the chance at pie in the sky.
It is just as simple as that. If the Democrates want us home so bad let them find ways to help speed things along, like regime change in Iran and Syria, hee hee...
Still did anyone else here we killed Zarquai today? I heard that on patrol and have not checked for the story yet. Cool if we did!
BC
[ November 21, 2005, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Bean Counter ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
As many have already said, dissent against a government we feel is doing wrong is not only our right but our duty. You are just plain wrong.
Also, didn't you say we were boring and you were leaving? Could you stick to that? Go on, now, git.
Some of us like reasoned, well-thought-out discussions.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:As many have already said, dissent against a government we feel is doing wrong is not only our right but our duty.
Yes, and no. Dissent against a government that we feel is doing wrong in a productive way that doesn't detract from the main goals is our duty. Dissent in such a way that it emboldens our enemies is just...vile.
quote:Also, didn't you say we were boring and you were leaving? Could you stick to that? Go on, now, git.
How sweet. Bean Counter is out there, in Iraq. He's put his money where his mouth is. He's in sweltering heat, putting his life on the line, in danger of getting blown up by these "insurgents" that some people talk about here so fondly, and from my experiences, he's expressing the feelings of many of the troops towards the people back here in America who the troops don't feel support them. You're all nice and comfy, in the rear, hating on him because he's upset because he's risking his life and you're making his sacrifice harder. I hope that you are ashamed of yourself.
quote:Some of us like reasoned, well-thought-out discussions.
You have contributed less than Bean Counter has. Sure, he's hot-headed, but he's making some good - if extreme - points worthy of debate. Now you know how the troops feel, but I guess it's much easier to pretend you care about us when you don't know how we feel.
General Giap said after Vietnam that the only thing that kept the North Vietnamese hanging on was their hope that "internal dissent" would weaken the American's resolve and cause them to withdraw. And he was right. How many of our troops in Nam would have lived if we'd won the war quickly? How many NVA wouldn't have died fighting us? How many South Vietnamese wouldn't have been slaughtered after the fall of Saigon if we'd won? All of that, if not caused by "dissent" was certainly contributed to by "protesters". Could this be considered treason? It's arguable.
quote:Still did anyone else here we killed Zarquai today?
It's unconfirmed, and unlikely. Bummer...
What sickens me is the glee on the Left when more of us die. I don't think it's classified as treason, and it's not quite sedition, either - but it's despicable.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
BC, we hit his house, hard, but probably missed him.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Tern.
quote:What sickens me is the glee on the Left when more of us die. I don't think it's classified as treason, and it's not quite sedition, either - but it's despicable.
That comment sickens me. I am a member of that Left. I know many people who are so left they make Marx look like a Reagonite. None of them have ever shown the least amount of glee when another soldier dies.
It is an insult to say that we do.
You may think that we want more deaths as proof that the War is failing, or the President Bush is failing. We don't want that kind of proof, and we don't need it.
You want to lable as Sedition any dissent on the war. You say it only feeds the will of our enemies. It is our dissention that puts the blood of our soldiers on our hands.
How long are we supposed to follow along blindly to policies that are not enough before the continued deaths become blood on our hands?
The armor and under manned, under staffed, under planned policy of the war after the war needs to be addressed, but it appears as if the administration would rather sweep it under the rug.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I do not support the war but I do support doing it right, if it must be done.
I think Bush&Co pushed the data that supported their needs and pushed to convey an urgency that didn't exist.
I think the way we handled the Iraq war weakened our fight against terrorism and blew the support of a goodly chunk of the rest of the world.
I think that Rumsfeld&Co fought the war on the cheap against the urging of many experienced military people, and failed to plan for an extended occupation against insurgents.
I think the treatment of prisoners and the casual dismissal of the Geneva Convention hurts our country and weakens our fight even further.
I think the no-bid contracts assigned to profiteering friends of the administration is a cruel slap in the face to those who want to believe that the war wasn't fought for money.
The casualty numbers are upsetting, but I don't put the emphasis on them that the mainstream media does. Fewer than any other war we've been in by far, and if it results in a stable democracy in the middle east I'd argue they were well and nobly spent.
But I do not think we should pull out on any timetable, certainly not on one decided by people who have not been involved over there. Now the situation is there and of our making, we have a responsibility to make it work.
And while I don't look at 2,000 dead and freak out, I do think this administration shares some responsibility for the casualities that have occurred due to poor planning and insufficient armoring.
Most of all, I can't stand the kneejerk either/or responses I keep hearing. I want earnest discussion and solutions, not whining and name-calling and blaming. I do think this administration should be brought to task for their mismanagement (and the control of the war needs to be in the hands of people who know how to fight a war) but I don't think that should be the highest priority.
So where does this put me on the scale? Leftist? Liberal? Democrat? I've lost track, which one means what now?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Regarding a time table in Iraq, I'm going to repost what I sid elsewhere:
quote:The central goal of our occupation of Iraq should be the building of a strong, resilient nation that can stand without us. Besides creating an acutal standard to measure against, that's exactly what would be expressed by giving a timeline for U.S. troops withdrawing. By such and such a date, Iraq should be a strong enough country to deal with threats on their own.
Stating goals and how we're going to achieve them when the central goal is a strong, stable Iraq does not do any of the things that the President suggests. Rather it tells the Iraqis (and the potential anti-American Jihadists), we're here for these reasons and when they're accomplished we're going to leave. You do not need to fear an indefinite occupation. It tells the troops, we have an exit strategy for you and a well-thought out plan that can also be used as a measuring stick for how successful we are being. And it tells the terrorists, you don't control this situation. At some point, we're confident that the Iraqis will be able to handle you without our help.
Wouldn't having the terrorists think that they need only to wait us out be a good thing, assuming that this means they'd severely ramp down their activities? We'd be able to build much more quickly and securely, while their support should be eroded by both the lack of fulfillment to their impatient members and the demonstrably good effect we're having in the region? Wouldn't a less interefered with environment to build up the defenses further hamper terrorists activities when they decide to resume operations in force?
Or if we're not expecting the terrorists to settle down a bit, then what would the idea of there being a defined list of objectives with an associated timetable do for them really? Having a simplistic "We're leaving by this date." yeah would be an encouragement, but we'd be pretty stupid to implement that. Rather, if we said, here are the things we need to accomplish and here's the date ranges that we think that we could accomplish them by, I think our ability to follow this schedule would seriously dishearten the terrorists and dampen their power fantasies.
Could someone point out to me where my logic is faulty?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The main goal of the terrorists is not to wait out the U.S., but rather to increase their power and sway. They don't care as much about Iraq as in swelling their ranks with recruits who have bought into their extremism.
This is actually directly referenced in Murtha's proposal, that the U.S. troops relinquishing the active role to the Iraqis would severely weaken terrorist recruitment. Do people think that this is an inaccurate claim?
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
Well, I'm not sure about the definitions of all those terms, considering that they based on the people that are either in the party or the people in a termed group. Change your views, change your party... It's all the same. I wouldn't put so much emphasis on what you are called rather than what you have to say or believe in.
On the initial discussion... what does 'over the horizon' mean? Seems sort of vague. I'm telling you now, it takes time to mobilize the military. This isn't your Civ4 game. If over the horizon means that the military will have bases and such scattered across Iraq like in Germany... I'm all for it. However, if this means that we leave troops in the Gulf or in Kuwait (which we should no longer reside in) or in Turkey or worse Germany or Bulgaria... no, I'm not for it. A presence will be required in Iraq until one whole generation has come to pass under the watchful eye of the I.P., I.A., and the U.S. military. As a sidenote: the average Iraqi would much rather be under the scrutiny or protection of the U.S. military, rather than the I.P. or I.A. Sad to say, but it's the truth. And at the risk of being terribly brutalized... perhaps a little cultural hegemony?
Just throwing it out there. Throw it back if you don't like it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well, BeanCounter, since Dubya&Gang armed the insurgency by opening up Iraqi armories to officially-approved looting, I guess you'd be advocating a coup d'etat. Or isn't providing weapons to the enemy worse than talking about withdrawal ?
PoliticallyCorrect: Kissin' the boss's hiney cuz "He's the boss."
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Just to throw this out, but what if the question isn't what's best for Iraq? What if the question is what's best for the world?
One of the things I keep on thinking about is that we're spending in the neighborhood of, what, 2 billion dollars a month on Iraq. I keep wondering if throwing money and men at something that may very well be unattainable is really the wisest course of action.
Squicky says (to paraphrase)
quote: The central goal of our occupation of Iraq should be the building of a strong, resilient nation that can stand without us.
and
quote: Rather, if we said, here are the things we need to accomplish and here's the date ranges that we think that we could accomplish them by, I think our ability to follow this schedule would seriously dishearten the terrorists and dampen their power fantasies.
The first is somewhat objectively verifiable. The second is just so much speculation, I think, and isn't the kind of rhetoric that I've come to expect from Squicky.
To think of the forces arrayed against the U.S. as 'terrorists' isn't, I think, very helpful. On the one hand, you have the pan-Arabist fascists who want an Arabic society free from the west. On the other hand you have the Islamists funded by groups in Iran and Saudi Arabia who want a religious state in Iraq. Neither of these two ideologies, either within or without Iraq, are really 'disheartened' by us staying or going, or give a shit about people dying, just as our belief in democracy isn't really effected by people dying on either our side or the other side. It's a matter of faith. Indeed, some have argued that our presence in Iraq is a great recruiting tool for them. See, the imperialist aggressors will never leave!
Our war is a war of ideas. Inasmuch as our presence in Iraq furthers that war to promulgate the ideas of democracy and freeish markets, we should stay. Inasmuch as our presence in Iraq detracts from that war, we should leave.
I believe that staying in Iraq beyond rebuilding the military and infrastructure is unnecessary because you can't force people into democracy and free markets, you can only hope that they choose to embrace those things. Because of the conditions that I mentioned before, both within and without Iraq, that stir up hatred against us, and because of the nature of the beast, the military is not very effective prosyletizers for democracy. They do nothing to help sell the idea.
We've rebuilt the infrastructure. The military of Iraq is approaching readiness. I think it's very probable that we can have them up to strength in a year.
There really is nothing more the military can do in Iraq once the infrastructure and military are rebuilt. Send them home. Give the Iraqis space to make their own decisions. What would keeping the military in Iraq do to further the war of ideas?
In the final analysis, I think we can take that 2 billion a month and invest it in schools, water, and shelter for the poorest millions in the world and achieve far more in the war of ideas than we can swatting at mosquitoes in Iraq that will never go away.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:I know many people who are so left they make Marx look like a Reagonite. None of them have ever shown the least amount of glee when another soldier dies.
It is an insult to say that we do.
You may think that we want more deaths as proof that the War is failing, or the President Bush is failing. We don't want that kind of proof, and we don't need it
I'm glad that you feel the way that you do, Bob, and I don't believe that the whole Left celebrates. But some certainly do. Furthermore, it's something I see every time the media reports deaths, the whole countdown thing, the constant attempts by the Paper of Record (NY Times, all the news that's printed to fit) to slant coverage of soldiers deaths. Our deaths are not a political football. Whether ten or ten thousand die, if it's a right cause then it's right, if it's a wrong cause then it's wrong.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
quote:The military of Iraq is approaching readiness. I think it's very probable that we can have them up to strength in a year.
What insider's knowledge do you have or have obtained that allows you to make such a statement?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
" In Taji, Alwan, the Sunni army captain, was ready to set a timeline for significant U.S. withdrawal. "Two years," Alwan said. If the Americans pull out before that -- before the government is steady, the constitution set and the army trained -- it "means we would go to civil conflict," he said. " Not suggesting that an Iraqi captain is in the position to know, but I suspect he would be more in touch with the feeling on the Iraqi streets than most of us.
Note that, except for the upper ranks, the new IraqiArmy will essentially be drawn from the personnel of the old IraqiArmy that Dubya&Gang disbanded: the same disbanding which encouraged&allowed the looting of Iraq, including that of the armories.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's an educated guess based on 'stuff' that I've read, the fact that they already had a military before, the fact that we train our basic infantry in about a year, and the fact that there are many jobless in Iraq right now that would be more than happy, I would think, to join up.
That said, I honestly think that the primary threat to Iraq's future isn't going to come from without, but within. As I said, the war of ideas. I have no doubt we'll be around to give assistance if a serious threat of invasion looms. I seriously doubt we would just ignore it if, say, Iran invaded. So, a real big, real competent military isn't going to do a whole lot right now other than to get people employed and to provide basic defense.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In a time of war, any statement critical of the Commander in Chief's prosecution of that war will probably be viewed by our enemies as evidence of internal hesitancy, and rightly so. We are an open society, on almost all things. Very often we wear our heart on our sleeves, so to speak. This is a direct consequence of things like our Bill of Rights.
There is a solution to this, of course. Alter the US Constitution. But until it is altered in such a way as to make such behavior treasonous or seditions, criticizing the Administration or even the military in time of war isn't in itself treason or sedition.
Of course, changing the Constitution in such a way begs many questions. In what circumstances do we legislate that such criticism is treasonous or seditions? In a declared war against a nation state? Just how many of those have there been in the last sixty years, measured against how much actual military work there has been? Or will it be illegal in an undeclared war against a nation-state enemy? There's been much, much more of that over the past three generations, it's true. But then, we're not dealing with a nation-state enemy war right now either, are we?
To make such criticisms illegal, you'd have to change the Constitution to say, essentially, that it is treasonous or seditious to criticize the Government whenever our military is in harm's way. Even there, you'll have to be careful-training is often very dangerous as well, and (for instance) making a night landing on an aircraft carrier is very dangerous as well. So you'll have to change the Constitutution to make it illegal whenever our military is deliberately attacking and killing our nation's enemies.
But even then, let's be real: the public does not always know when that is happening, when it happens.
Tern, Bean Counter, this is just a building block of what our country is. In WWII, when FDR decided to focus on Europe first before the arguably more dangerous enemy (to USA), Japan, people criticized him publicly as well. Was that treasonous, or sedition?
-----
None of this is to say that I agree with Democrats talking about a time table right now for military withdrawl. Frankly I think such talk is terribly stupid, and since I don't feel any member of Congress is outright stupid, I must assume another motive for those who discuss such things.
I believe the people advocating an immediate pullout know that they aren't going to get it, ever. Therefore I believe they're asking for it as a method of playing the game of politics, of wrangling. Demanding far more than you're ever going to get, so that when the compromise comes, when you settle somewhere in the middle, you've gotten something close to what you originally expected to get. I believe such politicians are wrangling with the lives of others, and care very little for the lives of the people in other situations they would mock and belittle.
However, just saying, "I think we should begin pulling out soon," does not meet this standard. I think it's harmful and stupid to say such a thing publicly in a society where news of that statement will reach the leadership of our enemies almost as quickly as it does our own military leadership, but it's not treasonous or seditious, not by a long shot.
-----
Dan,
quote:That comment sickens me. I am a member of that Left. I know many people who are so left they make Marx look like a Reagonite. None of them have ever shown the least amount of glee when another soldier dies.
You are a gentlemen, I think, and therefore your statement isn't surprising. What gentleperson would be friends with someone who did express such a sickening desire?
But just as the extreme religious right has our dear friend "G-d hates Fags" Phelps, so too does the extreme left have those who call American soldiers babykillers, and make mocking phone calls to the families of the fallen.
I don't think that it's very constructive to frame such discussions towards non lunatic fringe citizens as though we were talking to the nutcases, true. But the kooks are out there, on both sides. You know that.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Two problems with your thinking Tern.
1) The "Parties" were only described as "Parties" by conservative hawks. It took me a while to go through the cross links, each story connected to the other so they appear to be more than there are, to come up to the truth.
The "Parties" were quiet and solemn moments of recognition for those who have died. Did some take advantage of those gatherings to push their political agenda for getting troops out? Yes. Did they laugh and drink and party wildly? NO.
2) You are confusing liberals with the media. While some media has a liberal bias, they have a much more pronounced $$$ bias. To sell papers they emphasize things that shock and anger the readers. They do the body counts and the body bags. They are as much war profiteer as Haliburton.
Even so, it beats the alternative, of not talking about the dead and wounded. We don't talk about caring for our war wounded enough as it is. If its a good cause, then yes, 10,000 dead may be worth it. But we need to know of the sacrifice of each of those 10,000. The ennoble us.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm certainly no expert, by any stretch, though, JT. I'm just throwing out an opinion. It could very well be that I'm wrong, which is fine by me. I'm here to see what other people think and to exchange ideas.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I love how the default setting is to jump to the oft repeated lies of the liberal media as if they are the touchstone for truth. I am sure you have two million homeless tucked up your sleeve and Bush's planning the whole thing to avenge the lie Saddam told his friend the Saudi King about not invading Kuwait.
I am often called a fanatic for the Right when the reality is that fanatic has come to resemble hysteric in the sense that frothing and chanting slogans is vogue. It is the practice of the Left to froth and chant, as was seen in the last election, a practice that the majority of us find distastful.
Their are so many weapons and explosives in this country that anybody can get them who wants to risk a tour of Abu Ghraib by being caught. To claim that they were all plundered three years ago during the looting is simply dull.
Also my favorite reason for us transforming Iraq is that it really is getting to all the Islamic nations all around us. They are frothing and steaming and instead of waiting fifty years for their real chance, they are attacking us now while we are clearly overpowering. We will give the world an example of what a Democratic Islamic nation can be and can become, it is nothing more then what Europe wants to do by transforming Turkey into something they can swallow (Hee Hee) but we are doing it by means that they understand far better.
Imagine what they would do if the shoe was on the other foot, if they were so clearly superior to the rest of the world in military might? I for one do not want to wait for that day to straighten their heads.
BC
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In a time of war, any statement critical of the Commander in Chief's prosecution of that war will probably be viewed by our enemies as evidence of internal hesitancy, and rightly so. We are an open society, on almost all things. Very often we wear our heart on our sleeves, so to speak. This is a direct consequence of things like our Bill of Rights.
There is a solution to this, of course. Alter the US Constitution.
There is, to me, a more obvious solution that you seem to be overlooking. That is, the President acting in an honest, competent, and trustworthy manner. I think the people doing bad things are much more at fault than the people who criticize them for doing bad things. I don't think the idea that it's my job to shut up and accept whatever the President does is supporting either America or our troops. If he were, in my opinion, living up to the responsibilities of his office, I wouldn't feel that it was my job to force him to act responsibly and I'd be criticizing the people who were criticizing him. Sadly, the Bush administration (and many who support them) seem to be focused on the power of the office and give little thought to the responsibility that comes with it (and ideally precedes it).
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Japan wasn't even a minor threat to the US, Rakeesh, not even in the mind of the Japanese admiral in charge of the attack on PearlHarbor. Japan had an industrial base about 1/20th the size of the UnitedStates'.
However FDR (and Churchill) did exploit, then had to contend with 60years of Yellow(Peril)Journalism (that drummed up antiAsian fear&hatred in America) to get the US into the European conflict, which did present a clear&present danger to the US.
[ November 21, 2005, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
quote: I believe the people advocating an immediate pullout know that they aren't going to get it, ever. Therefore I believe they're asking for it as a method of playing the game of politics, of wrangling. Demanding far more than you're ever going to get, so that when the compromise comes, when you settle somewhere in the middle,
It is likely that like the "Demand" for a report that was due out in a week anyway the DEM's have caught wind of a large pullout in the Spring and want credit for it. Like the insurgents they too are fighting to stay relevant until the next opportunity arises.
BC
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Aspectre,
I didn't say the people were RIGHT, I said that at the time, it was arguable that Japan was the bigger threat.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yep, there are tons and tons of explosives and arms in Iraq, BeanCounter. Looted from unguarded armories, then openly sold in Iraqi street markets a couple of days after Rumsfeld announced that looting was "just Iraqis celebrating their new freedom."
[ November 21, 2005, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
Aspectre,
Feel free to email me and I will send you pictures of caches we have found that predate the war and ones that occured afterward. I don't think it is in the best interests of the military to publicly unleash the TTP's of the insurgency. I don't think that would be considered prudent.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Mr. Squicky brings up a good point.
Why have we jumped from Pro-War to Time-Table-To-Leave? Why do we want a Timetable when any descent evaluation of the situation will show that will only enhance the insurgent's position.
The answer--accountability.
The presidents trust raiting is at an all time low. Many people do not trust what he is saying, so how can they trust that there is a plan for bringing our brave troops home eventually?
They don't want to put our soldiers, or Iraqi soldiers on a time table. They want to put the administration on one, to prove that there is a plan and not just the vapor-ware of a plan for reconstruction that we had when we went into Iraq.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Having been to I can't even begin to say how many of those "parties", Tern, I can say that, generally, the atmosphere has been rather similar to that of a wake. Usually the names of the dead are read - both US and Iraqi (when we can find them). Most of the time the speakers are men and women who have sons or daughters or husbands who are there or who have been lost there, or soldiers who have returned. I have yet to hear even the most ardent activist express any kind of glee that people are dead or wounded - I can't imagine it.
As for the picture. Yes, it is good to be with and to gather comfort from friends and comrades. And, yes, there is a sense that after three years people are finally starting to pay attention. It helps to fight the feeling that I most often encounter - that if we had just been more diligent, had protested more, written more letters and had just worked harder, that perhaps these people wouldn't be dead.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The problem is, Dan, that doing the one necessarily means doing the other. You cannot "put the Administration on a timetable" without similarly putting Iraqi and American (and many others) soldiers on that same timetable.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I love it when BC posts...I don't really have to say anything to prove he is an idiot, all I have to do is let him ramble....
Aid and Comfort is completely different things than using our Right to Free Speech, no matter how ignorant our own soldiers are, or how deceptive they try to be.
I was a soldier, so I know from experience that not everyone in the military is like BC . . .
Thank God.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Your offer is highly appreciated, JTruant711, but the last time I used an email account was when I decided to register here. Curiosity may get the better of me, and I may open up a new account.
However, your point is inarguable. Saddam's regime had been hiding stockpiles of arms in small caches throughout the country to make them less vulnerable to airstrikes ever since the GulfWar. And during the lead-up to this war, Saddam ordered extra large disbursements of arms to his personal SpecialRepublicanGuard as well as to his personal fedayeen.
And my points still stand:
IF Dubya&Gang hadn't created the need to loot by firing everyone working for the Saddam government -- essentially telling about a quarter of the working population from industrial-scale breadbakers and furniture makers to bureaucrats to soldiers, "Starve while we take a few months to figure out what to do with you." -- most of the insurgency would never have been created. Most of the looting which further destroyed Iraq's infrastructure would have never occurred.
IF Dubya&Gang had kept most of the Iraqi military intact -- standing down the upper ranks of officers, with full pay until a review of their careers was completed -- most of those hidden caches would have been found&secured quickly. The armories would have remained under guard, and the arms looting&sales would have never occurred.
And IF the US had picked up the total tab for paying those Iraqi government employees -- working or not -- the yearly bill still would have been cheaper than an extra month of US combat operations. Let alone the extra reconstruction costs caused by the looting. Let alone the ill will generated by services lost to Iraqis when the infrastructure further collapsed from looting.
Dubya&Gang decided to ignore both the USmilitary's and the USStateDepartment's plans for the postWar occupation: Firing GeneralShinseki for testifying before Congress that twice as many troops would be needed for the initial phase of the Occupation to ensure a peaceful transition of governance; Firing the first Occupation commander GeneralGarner for arguing to implement provisions of those Occupation plans; Then ordering the civilian replacement PaulBremer to not even read those Occupation plans.
And I'm s'poseta buy that the resulting mess was unavoidable? unforseeable?
[ November 24, 2005, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
quote:
Aid and Comfort (are) completely different things than using our Right to Free Speech, no matter how ignorant our own soldiers are, or how deceptive they try to be.
Ignorance, to you, may seem to be an facet of those who don't share your goals or nature. Or rather, you may look at ignorance as some other such device. I look at ignorance as a tool. Take for instance your own comments above. That statement alone is a tool of ignorance used to insight malice in others (or glee in some).
Where my original feeling was none other than malice, I stopped for a moment and decided that in all actuality this comment meant nothing to me. So, I too, am guilty of ignorance. I'm ignorant to your beliefs. I'm assuming that your whole ideological basis is based upon a series of rights that you wish to be innately driven upon the world. I'm ignorant to that as well. Where I would love the world to share in some sort of democratic government (or some such average government - ie. republic, social democracy, etc); I think that most cannot aspire to the responsibility that is required for such a government.
We are all ignorant to something, to most things. I would ask you not to put a label on our soldiers or any other such group, as ignorance is normality. Deception... well, that is a totally different thing. A much more malicious and Machiavellian thing. I applaud those capable of such a device.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
RE: GOP and Democrats in the House of Reps ------------------------------------------------- It seems to me that we are digressing. But then no good discussion sticks to the subject on a BB, eh?
My personal opinion on the Iraq conflict is that we had no right to invade Iraq in the first place. Yes, Saddam was a bad man. There are many nations across the world who are ruled by bad men. We chose Iraq to invade for reasons we were TOLD, and we are finding out what the REAL reasons were long after the war is under way.
Apparently the UN was doing it's job with their weapons inspectors. Those weapons inspectors were proven right, after the invasion. There were no WMDs, so there was no 'potential mushroom cloud' from Iraqi WMDs, as we were told.
Another justification was that Saddam was supposedly in violation of UN regulations. There was no UN resolution asking/authorizing US troops to invade Iraq. The United States did not ask for a vote on such a resolution after behind the scenes polls of the security council indicated that such a resolution would fail.
Preemptive war was a radical change in policy direction for our nation. So many of the things done by this administration have been borderline unconstitutional: the secrecy, the presidential regulations curtailing freedom of information, the "Patriot" Act, Guantanamo, and Abu Graib. Treaties have been broken. FEMA was cut to shreds. The EPA was gutted. Tax cuts have been given to the wealthy, while cutting Social Programs for the poor. Corporations have been allowed to write the regulations for their own industries.
I found the "Wizard of Oz time" opinion piece below an interesting alternate point of view to the flurry of postures assumed after the Murtha speech.
It's finally Wizard of Oz time in America. You know -- that moment when the curtains are pulled back, the fearsome-looking wizard wreathed in all that billowing smoke turns out to be some pitiful little guy, and everybody looks around sheepishly, wondering why they acted as they did for so long.
Starting on September 11, 2001 -- with a monstrous helping hand from Osama bin Laden -- the Bush administration played the fear card with unbelievable effectiveness. For years, with its companion "war on terror," it trumped every other card in the American political deck. With an absurd system for color-coding dangers to Americans, the President, the Vice President, and the highest officials in this land were able to paint the media a "high" incendiary orange and the Democrats an "elevated" bright yellow, functionally sidelining them.
How stunningly in recent weeks the landscape has altered -- almost like your basic hurricane sweeping through some unprotected and unprepared city. Now, to their amazement, Bush administration officials find themselves thrust through the equivalent of a Star-Trekkian wormhole into an anti-universe where everything that once worked for them seems to work against them.
quote:Calling Japan at any time a theocracy is a bit of a misnomer, as while there was Empereror-reverence, the country was not governed by a priest-caste, nor were decisions particularly heavily influenced by religious considerations compared to other monarchies throughout history.
"Kamikaze" means "wind of the Gods" or "Divine Wind". (the word "Kami" is recognized as one of the most fiendishly difficult words to translate in linguistics) Japan was difficult to compare to a Western theocracy, but in Western theocracies it was often possible to distinguish state from religion to at least some extent. In Japan, the Emperor WAS God, or the closest thing State Shinto theocracy recognizes to God. And they did in fact have a priestly caste, installed by the ruling elites.
The religious concept that the Japanese were descended from the sun kami Ameterasu, and therefore VASTLY superior to all other races, was (and to an extent, still is, even though the religious element plays a much smaller part) so deeply held and taken for granted that it can seem to be nearly invisible to the casual observer. They rarely stated that way, much as it is rarely stated that the sky is, in fact, blue. Why state the obvious? Everyone already knows the sky is blue. Everyone already knows we are better.
Eastern religion doesn't fit into the same categories and divisions that Western religion does. In a very real way, the code of Bushido was a huge part of Japanese religion, and it very much affected how they treated prisoners of war. It also affected the decision to bomb Pearl Harbor. Our retaliation would not be terribly problematic, it was assumed, because we were gaijin and not worthy of respect or consideration. One admiral, who had traveled and lived in the States, knew differently, but his opinion was dismissed out-of-hand:
"I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve"
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto Empire of Japan December 7th, 1941
To others, this was ridiculous. Japan is a giant. No one else is. Foreign resolve is always weak. To say differently is to deny the very laws that govern the universe.
Perhaps Japan was not a "theocracy" in the strictest Western sense, but their worldview, actions, and ruling class were so powerfully governed and motivated by religious/cultural/ethnic/nationalistic (to the almost totally homogenous, xenophobic mid-century Japanese, these are all the same thing) fanatacism that I really don't know any other useful word to describe them.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:It helps to fight the feeling that I most often encounter - that if we had just been more diligent, had protested more, written more letters and had just worked harder, that perhaps these people wouldn't be dead.
Huh, wish there was something to fight the feeling I often encounter, that every soldier's death is considered political capital for some of those who are opposed to the war.
Note. I said some. If it doesn't apply to you, fine.
And as far as glee and feelings of happiness, my personal experience with these people (and I just graduated from Cal State Northridge, and there's plenty of them there) is that they're glad we're dead. Again, if it doesn't apply to you - good. I'm tellin' ya, though, it sure looks that way from the military's perspective.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why would we have been protesting this war if we wanted to see people dead? I know a lot of peace activists and have spent a lot of time with them. Their whole purpose is for people not to be dying.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
That's their stated purpose. Of course, they didn't care about all the Iraqis that Saddam killed, but details, details...
Having said that, I don't think it's specifically that they want to see people dead as it is they want to achieve a political goal, and think they can climb to it over the bodies of soldiers. Because, of course, they care.
Of course, they don't care enough to ask the members of the military what we want, but I guess that's because we were stupid to join the military and thus our opinion doesn't matter.
Abraham Lincoln's Civil War was deeply unpopular, and in the 1864 presidential race, it seemed that he was at a deep disadvantage against John Kerry - er, General McClellan. How did Lincoln win? The soldiers voted for Lincoln, and that's what put him over the top. Not coincidentally, the military is strongly Republican.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Don't you think it's a bit ingenious to justify this invasion by saying that 20 years ago Saddam Hussein killed a lot of Iraqis? Without any complaint by the US government, by the way.
You do get that the "using chemical weapons on his own people" line that Jay and now you keep throwing in there refers to events almost 20 years ago.
And yes. As a matter of fact, many of the activists I know did have problems with our government selling Saddam Hussein WMD 20 years ago. And with the sanctions.
But we have more of a responsibility for what our government does. It's that "by the people" thing that President Lincoln mentioned.
Thinking that the peace movement is glad about death so that we can score political points is thinking about us backwards. We are calling attention to that pile of bodies in a desparate attempt to keep it from getting bigger.
No one has said that your opinion doesn't matter and I have certainly not called you stupid. You don't have the luxury of questioning orders. Especially because of that, the rest of us have a duty to hold our government accountable.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I'm still on the fence about this one, a bit.
I watched Murtha's press conference and what he said did strike a chord in me. I do want our troops to come home, safe, sound and sooner than later. But I don't want to see what happened in South Vietnam happen again.
I believe that we must follow through with our end of the deal and help to rebuild Iraq, both in infrastructure and government. We must give the people there a fighting chance at achieving a stable and lasting democracy.
But sometimes, I do wonder, if the Iraqis are as willing to work toward this as we are? Are they willing to earn the gift that can be given to them?
We've struggled and tried. We've given the lives of over 2,000 of our servicemen there. We've also had so many more come back injured and maimed. That doesn't even touch on the number who simply walked away from their lives to sacrifice their time and blood to give other people at chance at a better day. To give people a shot at the freedoms, hopes and dreams we all hold for our families.
We can't walk away, now. It would be the equivalent of leaving your infant in the woods in an effort to teach it survival skills. But, how long will it take this infant to grow up? Or do we have a special needs child on our hands that will take a lifetime of oversight and guidance?
I just don't know. I just don't know.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I'm glad that you feel the way that you do, Bob, and I don't believe that the whole Left celebrates. But some certainly do.
First off, that wasn't me whose post you were responding to (if I read your post and the sequence correctly). Also, ...if you don't believe that I should be painted with the same brush, why do you keep bringing it up? It seems pretty clear that you'd rather address your charicature of "the left" than actually have a discussion.
quote:You have contributed less than Bean Counter has. Sure, he's hot-headed, but he's making some good - if extreme - points worthy of debate. Now you know how the troops feel, but I guess it's much easier to pretend you care about us when you don't know how we feel.
I challenge you to translate BC's "points worthy of debate" into terms that would actually make any of them worthy of debate. The bar is pretty low, so I imagine it shouldn't be too difficult, but I'll have to admit that I haven't been able to do it.
I'm not sure what BC's contributions have actually been. I know what he says they are, but I also recall that he has been caught in lies and half-truths repeatedly on this BB and so I distrust every claim he makes.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I was thinking, I've talked to a lot of the leftists on this forum, and I've talked to a lot of leftists at school, and the majority are good people. Well, on Hatrack at least...
So why do I feel this way about the Left, that they glory in the blood of our troops? It isn't just that I have ideological disagreements, if it was just that then there's plenty of other things that I disagree with on the Left.
So here's what I came up with:
Remember the whole Abu Graib thing, and how the whole military was tarred with the same brush, that despite the fact that the vast majority of us are extremely honorable people, certain people *cough* on the left *cough* tried to make like we were all like that?
So maybe it is a small but very prominent group on the Left that gives the rest of y'all a bad name. Unfortunately, we don't see any public disagreements that the non-bloodthirsty Left has with the fringe left.
Take a look at these sites. Tell me how I can look at these sites and not feel that the Left despises the military.
So I'm sure that some of you will come up with justifications, that they don't mean to come across like that, that they're being misunderstood, that they really have the best interests of the troops at heart. Well, think about how a member of the military would view it. We take things at face value, we're not all into postmodern critique and related nonsense.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Bean Counter's point worthy of debate is that the rhetoric of the left gives aid and comfort to the enemy and thus is treason. Now, I don't quite agree with that, I think it is a bit extreme - Hanoi Jane, now that's treason - but that's his point, he's stuck to it, and I don't think that it has been addressed.
Sure, useful dissent is a good thing in a democracy, and it's hard to separate the useful from the worthless. But tell me this, do you feel that it is possible to cross the line from dissent to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or sedition? Why or why not? Is it possible in these days to charge (in a court of law) people with treason or sedition (I don't think so) and why or why not?
Can free speech cross a line? What do you feel about the saying "The Constitution is not a suicide pact"? Do you agree, or why is it not applicable? Certain forms of speech (such as fighting words) are considered to be prohibited, thus "free speech" is already limited.
Lastly, should those who choose to use their free speech be responsible enough to do so in such a way as to not give aid and comfort to the enemy which would have the end effect of killing US soldiers?
Oh, and my "caricature of the Left" comes from the "activists" on my undergraduate college campus. I've talked to these people personally, read their vile crayonings in what passes for the school newspaper. Perhaps I've encountered the Left's versions of Fred Phelps - and I'll give y'all the benefit of the doubt and assume so - but they are the ones who have shaped my experience of the Left. I won't even mention anything about DailyKos or the Democratic Underground, and some of the creatures that slither there, because I already know that y'all aren't like that. Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
For the record, most of my questions in my previous post are meant to inspire reflection. I don't necessarily advocate actually doing them. For example, I don't think that the government should draw and enforce a line between free speech and anti-government speech. Probably because I'd end up in jail with the rest of y'all. But I do, for example, think that the Left (even the good-intentioned ones) should consider the effect of their words on the military and on our enemies. (Give y'all a hint - they don't think that they're pro-military)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: So why do I feel this way about the Left, that they glory in the blood of our troops?
Who wants more troops to die? Which side wants troops not to die? Which side despises their own citizens, protestors who are exercising their democratic rights as Americans? Who is being anti-American and equating disagreement with treason and sedition and trying to spin the issues rather than address the issues on this board?
Oh, but that's not the whole story is it? It's not so simple, is it? No, it's not. In fact, presenting things like the above constitutes a lie of ommission, a strawman, doesn't it, Tern? So, why are you spinning and perverting the truth, my O so honorable military brother?
"Oooh, not me Mr. Saxon! Eye's jus' tellin' de troof!"
Stop screwing around, Tern, and start engaging in dialogue about the issues instead of trying to demonize your opponents, please.
Edit: Smilies make everything go down more smoother.
[ November 21, 2005, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So why do I feel this way about the Left, that they glory in the blood of our troops?
Part of the problem is the impression many leftists get about the Bush administration and some of the war supporters, namely that they don't care how many troops die as long as the objectives are achieved. And I submit that, just as there are whacko extremists that glory in dead soldiers, there are also whacko extremists that want to see every Muslim dead even if we have to keep throwing soldiers at them to do it.
I believe that releasing classified information that directly causes Americans to be killed -- troop movements, battle plans, security information for American buildings, etc -- would be treasonous.
But do you understand that if I believe our administration is getting our troops killed needlessly because of bad management and intentional obliviousness, I am morally obligated to address it. Silence implies consent.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Don't you think it's a bit ingenious to justify this invasion by saying that 20 years ago Saddam Hussein killed a lot of Iraqis? Without any complaint by the US government, by the way.
You do get that the "using chemical weapons on his own people" line that Jay and now you keep throwing in there refers to events almost 20 years ago.
... and Saddam killed his Kurdish citizens 20 years ago using weapons WE gave him, which is why we had the exact numbers of this and that to read on the podium: we were reading the Packing List. Of course the fact that all of those chemicals we gave Saddam were out of date at the beginning of this war and no longer useful because of that meant nothing. We used that list to claim he still had those WMDs we gave them, to justify a preemptive invasion.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:I believe our administration is getting our troops killed needlessly because of bad management and intentional obliviousness, I am morally obligated to address it. Silence implies consent.
There's a difference between discussing the conduct of the war - which should still be done with propriety - and giving the enemy hope that if he continues the fight, he will win. Psychological conduct of the war is essential - in order to win, we have to demoralize the terrorists. How is bringing up every bomb and yelling "See! We've got to get out!" doing anything other than encouraging the terrorists?
quote:You don't have the luxury of questioning orders. Especially because of that, the rest of us have a duty to hold our government accountable.
There's lobbyist groups for veterans that do a great job of this.
quote:start engaging in dialogue about the issues
Shoot me, but I thought that the issue had become how use or misuse of speech affects the war. I know that's not what the thread started out as, but that's what it's been on.
quote:Who wants more troops to die? Which side wants troops not to die? Which side despises their own citizens, protestors who are exercising their democratic rights as Americans? Who is being anti-American and equating disagreement with treason and sedition and trying to spin the issues rather than address the issues on this board?
When I was in, we were told that there are two goals of military leadership: Mission Accomplishment and Troop Welfare. In that order. Sometimes people in the military have to die in order to accomplish the mission. (That being said, they'd better die for something worthwhile) Now which side wants the troops not to die? Both. At least I'd like to think so. But individuals on the Left point to troop deaths as a reason to pull out. In what equivalent method are individuals in the Right tribe using the deaths of troops? And to the same extent? Which side despises? I'm thinking that both sides despise each other. Furthermore, you are equating some moral value simply with "exercising democratic rights". Well, I can walk up to any random adult and use my "democratic right" to call them an idiot (assuming I won't get beat down) but is that a good thing? My question is, how should the right be used, and how far does it go? And I'll tell you something that concerns me - I've explained repeatedly my concern that some of the ways that the democratic right of free speech are used have the effect of encouraging the enemy. As a response, I've heard "oh, but it's patriotic to dissent, or we're really looking out for the troops" - okay, fine - but are there any concerns that using your "patriotic right to dissent" encourages the enemy? Do you guys factor that in? Or does the mere invoking of "free speech" somehow mean that there are no consequences to what comes out of your mouth? Who is trying to spin the issues? From my point of view, your side. You do know that it goes both ways, right? I assure you, however, that I am aware of my bias, and my posts here to the contrary, I really don't take myself too seriously. Who is equating using free speech in certain manners with treason? Bean Counter, and I've stated that while he's got a point, I think that's a bit too extreme of a characterization. Who is equating free speech in certain ways with sedition? Well, that would be me. For example, Ward Connerly called for troops to kill their officers. Look up the link I provided, tell me that's not sedition. Enforcing it is another thing, but sedition it is. Mostly, however, I just would like y'all to consider the rhetoric that you use in trying to get us to pull out of Iraq a bit more carefully. Treasonous, or seditious, or not, it's not going to be enforced anyway - but words will still have effect. Regarding anti-americanism? I'm thinking that we have different definitions of it, yours that applies to me, and mine that applies to you, but I didn't even bring in "anti-american". Nor did I bring in patriotism. I've never seen discussions about whether the Left is patriotic come to anything useful. I could tell you why...but that wouldn't be useful, either. So who's straw-manning who, now?
Now as far as my characterization of the left as glorying in the blood of our troops, I've stated my sources and reasons, and I've also stated repeatedly that I don't think that the people on this board (for the most part) are that way.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Hah. The sucky thing about these dialogues is that we really do end up talking past each other. I can see your points, but we have different experiences and values, and so I don't agree with them. I'm not certain whether or not my points are understood - plenty of posts responding to them indicate either a lack of desire on the part of the responders or a lack of ability on my part to communicate, probably both - but obviously no connection is made. Are you going to change my mind? Nope. Am I going to change yours? Likely, not. I'm strawmanning you, according to you. You're strawmanning me, according to me. I'm not addressing your issues, you're not addressing mine. I hate sucking myself into these things because after all this discussion, what has changed? Perhaps something has, but I can't see it. Sometimes I feel like these internet discussions are just sharpening my rhetoric skills (believe it or not, I do learn from my mistakes) but have no other use than that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Of course, the right blames our acceptance of homosexuals as the reason for 9/11 and the deaths in Iraq and even protests soldiers' funerals with signs like "Thank God for IEDs".
Or wait, that's not actually "the right", but rather some individuals and groups on the conservative side on some of the issues. Wow, maybe it's not responsible to use labels like that.
edit: See because almost no one on "the right" believes that. And almost no one on "the left" glories in blood of our troops. If we're trying to have a conversation like adults, neither generalization is appropriate. If we want to do the schoolyard insulting of groups though, then you're right on target.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:We take things at face value, we're not all into postmodern critique and related nonsense.
Then you will value the truth and hope to recognize it when you see it. And hate a lie and hope to recognize it when you see it.
Here's the truth: - A pre-emptive war sets a new precedent for this country that I am extremely uncomfortable with. I believe many on the left were shocked to discover that we were going to attack a sovereign state, no matter how odious, without any clear evidence that they were behind the attacks on our people -- the standard justification for war in our history.
- Many of us feel suckered. The reason that war seemed justified was that Saddam was painted as a person who had a history of supporting terrorists like those who did attack us, and that he was on the verge of, or had already obtained weapons of mass destruction. He'd obviously used chemical and/or biological weapons, and so the case became more convincing that he might be pursuing nukes. The problem is that the more we learn about the evidence presented to us, the UN allies, and the American Congress, the more it smells funny. Not just bad intelligence, but selectively altered, filtered and pre-digested. That feels like a lie. And when we hear something that sounds like a lie, we start looking for whether there's any evidence that the persons involved would have a reason for doing it.
And then we get really worried.
Because it starts to look like our country's leaders planned this practically from day 1. If the first words out of the President's mouth upon learning that the acts on 9/11 were deliberate (i.e., as they were unfolding) were really to ask whether Saddam was involved, it's pretty clear they were waiting for this.
But WHY?
Sometimes people get fixated.
And then it looks like the war's spread from Afghanistan to Iraq was really the result of manipulation, not need.
And we feel betrayed.
- In the midst of all of this worry, the sentiment in this country suddenly changes so that debate is not just squelched but actively stomped on. People are called traitors if they ask for time for diplomacy to work. People are called cowards and weaklings if they question the evidence for going to war with Iraq.
And the accusations don't stop. It appears that the right is on a constant offensive against anything that calls any attention to a dissenting viewpoint.
We were accused as a group of being happy that the economy looked like it was about to tank before the last election. We were accused of being sad when the economy recovered in plenty of time to affect the vote. As if we don't live here too. As if we don't worry just as much about how to make ends meet as the average Republican.
Now, I know to your ears this is all going to sound like a mixture of sour grapes, Polyanna-like worry-mongering, or whatever. But to me, the way the country is being run is nearly unrecognizable. And I feel like there's almost ZERO opportunity for an opposition voice to be truly heard.
Instead, it is met with scorn, sarcasm, and comparison to the most extreme views EVER expressed on ANY subject.
Where are the people on the right who have been willing to listen to ANY arguments from the left? Is it any wonder the voices have been getting more strident? I mean, this is our country we're talking about. Not something we can just walk away from without at least having our say.
And we aren't the kind to just toe the line. I'm sorry. But even with leaders from the left, the party line isn't universally accepted.
You can skip this next part, but I really need to get something off my chest...
[LECTURE MODE] Now, I want to tell you about what it was REALLY like to deal with the issue of supporting the troops and hating the leadership and the war.
You have no clue.
If you had lived through the Vietnam era, and I can just tell you weren't around then, you would know that those of us who did live through it know what that dilemma is like. We know what it's like to hate the war and have to support older siblings or parents, uncles, etc. Or, for many in my generation, to go to war and want to be home because the war made no sense.
And we know that there were many who wanted to be there and were proud of their service. Rightly so.
And I want to tell you that I have DECADES of practice at supporting the troops and NOT supporting the war. I can tell you that it IS possible. And any soldier who wants my support has it. I want them to succeed and be safe and come home victors. And if the mission fails. I want them home too. And I still honor their sacrifice, even if I don't agree with their choices, or the government leaders that sent them on whatever mission they were gone on.
Frankly, I don't ask.
And when they come home, I want them taken care of. Their physical and mental ailments treated for a lifetime at my expense.
I have to tell you, though, that I've known a great number of veterans in my day and not only do they know that they have my respect, but they also treat me with respect and if my "liberal" ideas come up in conversation, they are generally positive about it, if not outright supportive.
So, pardon me, as I stand on this soapbox and tell you that I've been there, done that, and don't need anybody to tell me how to support the military. I support them all the time, even when they disagree with ME! But most of the vets I know are not pro-war, and they are VERY pro-soldier. Go tell THEM they are being seditious.
So I'll thank you kindly to consider just who it is you're talking to, or about, before you accuse me or most of the veterans I know of any of this nonsense. Not only is it possible, I think it's absolutely essential to be FOR our soldiers and against war. [/LECTURE MODE]
Now, finally, I'd like to address a few reasons for war. There's been a lot written about what it takes to be a "just" war. I suggest that the war in Iraq might've met those criteria, but we may never know. What I do know is that the current conduct of the war has me convinced that the people who started it had no real plan and scant knowledge of who they would be dealing with. To me, that gets our people killed. And in a very real way. It means we send too few people. It means we fail to properly train and equip. And it means that we end up in reactive mode.
You might buy into a doctrine that says "the liberals" are making it harder for our troops because they "encourage" the enemy. I buy into a doctrine that says knowing the enemy and planning the campaign saves lives. You have some quotes from a retired Viet Cong general. I have our own military leaders throughout history to back me up.
that's at least some of the truth as I see it.
PS: And I did look at the 4 links you have there. I'd like to know what you find abhorrent in each case before addressing them. I think each does require some interpretation, but, if you don't mind, I'd prefer to hear your interpretation so that I can address it specifically.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
Well said, Bob_Scopatz. I very much agree with you.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: ut most of the vets I know are not pro-war, and they are VERY pro-soldier. Go tell THEM they are being seditious.
Yep. Any number of veterans, like my dad, who are against Iraq, but for the soldiers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I can think of quite a few Vietnam vets that I met when I volunteered for McCain who really, really don't like George Bush, too. Of course, they weren't the ones his campaign paid to smear Senator McCain's war record.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I believe that we have invested enough American blood in this effort to foster Democracy and stifle terrorism that we should not make the mistake of leaving before what we have done is guaranteed to be effective. No-one that has taken part in this debate is qualified to make a definate statement as to when that should be. That needs to be left in the hands of our military strategists and our elected leadership, congressional and executive, in a bipartisan way.
My original issue with BC was that he spelled the plural of Democrats like they were a greek philosopher, and then i started wondering why an accountant would sign up for a war. And accept an MOS that involves going on patrols at that. What exactly do you do BC? i'm curious. I've been trying to get over there for a couple of months now and maybe you could share some experiences.
And tern quoted that Marine that called his congressman regarding the alleged cowerdice of a man that has spent the majority of his life serving his country. Where's the honor and brotherhood in that? I don't particularly agree with the man, but i would never disrespect him to a collegue and to bring it up in a forum such as the House floor itself? just recalling it makes me angry.
Stop acting like children with this back and forth nonsense and accept that those that we as a Democratic Republic elected to represent us will do what they have to to seem like they have us in mind. I realize this makes me seem idealistic, but this is how i get through the day, with the realization that as a citizen of the United States I was given the priviledge to help choose my chain of command. Deal with it. Or as a light colonel told a young airman once, "Salute and press on."
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Well Bob, you're right that I didn't live through the Vietnam era. Thank goodness. But we were still recovering from Vietnam during the years that I was in the military. The shadow of Nam still looms large over the military, and there's a lot of bitterness on all sides. Now, my senior NCOs who were Vietnam veterans expressed different sentiments to me, and the vast majority of Marines that I served with felt otherwise about supporting the troops but not the war, or more specifically the methods taken.
I like this post by Blackfive regarding Murtha's idea. Just because Murtha is a decorated Marine doesn't mean that he gets a free pass, just a bit more deference for his ideas than other people.
Oh well, what will happen will happen.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: ut most of the vets I know are not pro-war, and they are VERY pro-soldier. Go tell THEM they are being seditious.
Yep. Any number of veterans, like my dad, who are against Iraq, but for the soldiers.
That would be me as well, for the most part.
quote:Take for instance your own comments above. That statement alone is a tool of ignorance used to insight malice in others (or glee in some).
If you think that then you are ignorant of a few things about me...my history, my families history, my families command positions in your own Marine Corps...my actual feelings about where we are as of right now in regard to Iraq, and finally my actual statement rather than your twisting of my words.
Where did I say all soldiers are ignorant? I said tha some were. Where did I " put a label on our soldiers or any other such group"?
I said they may be ignorant. Some are, for sure, we have seen it within this very thread. I was speaking about their knowledge of the First Amendment, of the actual official position of the President on such dissent, and about BC's knowledge of what the words "Sedition" and "treason" actually mean.
Aid and Comfort means I am housing them, feding them, or helping them carry out their orders/missions. Or that I am acting myself to hinder the action of our forces, directaly.
It does NOT mean I have no right to dissent with the actions of the President, and if anyone says otherwise they are completely ignorant. . of the legal definitions and of our own history. It does not mean that because I disagree with the actions and statements of some politicians that I am un-American...and where the hell does BC (or anyone else for that matter) get to decide what is and is not American, anyway?
Just because someone is in the millitary doesn't mean they are worth a damn, you know...some of the biggest bigots I have ever know were my fellow soldiers.
While I respect the job they are doing over there, for the most part, I know enough about millitary to remember that they are just people. Some are good, some are bad, and not one of them is perfect.
I don't think they get to decide what is right or wrong, or what I do or do not get to say in my own God#$mn country.
Spin that however you want to.
Kwea
[ November 22, 2005, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
Kwea-
I did not spin anything. I used the text that you wrote. I also have already deemed myself ignorant in my post that you refer to. So, what did you exactly want to say to me? Are you upset that I termed something you said as a tool of ignorance? Forgive me, but like I said, everyone is guilty; I refuse to believe that you are an exception. Maybe you just wanted to say this:
'If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.' -J.S.M.
You have any right under our banner to dissent. It is your duty, in fact. However, I believe generalizations are an angry bias that is not suitable to any person.
No, soldiers are not the paramount of civic form. I don't believe that they are. I am glad that you support them; it is most noble.
My true feeling? I have an entirely different look on the war than most, so to be short about it, I don't buy into the 'publicized' reasons for being there; however I agree with the war. That is all I will say.
Anyway, one last thing: no soldier (this includes BC) gets to tell you what is American and what is not, but they are allowed the right to say whatever they want, as is that is your request as well.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Caught in half truths? Hee Hee...
JT you ignorant soldier how dare you correct Kwea's grammer...!
I have said over and over what my justification for the use of the word Treason is, and I have quoted the legal definition, the only debate over my opinion is that it might be a bit too far a stretch, merely calling what was attempted dispicable seems to satisfy most people and that is fine.
Tern had an early statement about cowards running that he backed off of, however I do not think that he needed to, after all he said Marines fight, Cowards run. It seems to me that the good Marine's who are saying this are not accusing the Congressman, they are trying to remind him of who and what he is.
As for what I do in Iraq, I am an Infantryman. I Patrol, I stand watch, I sit in OP's and I hone my infantry skills. I am a qualified Driver, Gunner and Dismounted soldier. Right now I am on a Marine Base called Al Taquaddum where our unit has taken over peremiter security and patrols. We were patrolling in Abu Grhaib for six months before.
Why would I do this? because I am a frigging Hero you dolt! Hee Hee.
BC
[ November 22, 2005, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: Bean Counter ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I appologize for this community to my fellow soldiers, there knee-jerk hostility is not entirely unjustified since I create confusion about myself as a matter of religious necessity. Do not think to badly of them Tern or JTruant711 if they cannot read what I say for what it says. I have been trying to teach them that truth is independant of persona for years but only the most interesting of them apprecciate the effort it takes to undertake such lessons.
If they made half as much an effort to be interesting as I do this would be a fun place to hang out, as it is much of the time it gets pretty dull.
I see that the Iraqi government has jumped out on the 'pull out date' bandwagon, God help us, we know for sure that the Insurgent Lobby (I liked that phrase) is strong and well here!
This popularity issue of W's, to me it is nothing more then a media created story made of sound and confusion signifying nothing. One of the most frustrating things for the Left is always the intractability of the Right, Core Values do not shift about, it is as simple as that. The fad opinion of the moment does not shift the position of the majority of Americans. That is just the way it is. The Left thinks they have a virtue in their ever shifting and wavering causes. We know that virtue comes from values and is ultimately about pragmatism. What works is what you use.
Pragmatically we must deal with the situation at hand, not spend half the energy in the country trying to blame or second guess how we got here. Leaving is not a practical solution. Plus if we pull out now my re-enlistment bonus might drop! Hee Hee (hows that for an Accounting reason to join the military?)
The IA is not reliable, if you want to point to the fact that they were an Army before you might want to consider the total lack of Air Power and Armor that we left them, and the fact that we kicked the dog-snot out of them twice in twelve years. Not a good starting place for a new army.
My rule of thumb is that if they can Goosestep, they are worthless in a fight. The people here are too corruptable, it will take time to find those with integrity to instill integrity in the new institutions. The ones who put themselves forward are almost always corrupt already.
So I do my part and hold firm in my opinions. Someone has too, for liberal as its occupants are this is OSC's house and we all know he stands closer to me in this then to those who want to cut and run.
BC
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: So I do my part and hold firm in my opinions.
Yeah, I've noticed you don't really have a conversation with people so much as grandstand, thump your chest, and wave the flag. Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: (snip) This popularity issue of W's, to me it is nothing more then a media created story made of sound and confusion signifying nothing. One of the most frustrating things for the Left is always the intractability of the Right, Core Values do not shift about, it is as simple as that. The fad opinion of the moment does not shift the position of the majority of Americans. That is just the way it is. The Left thinks they have a virtue in their ever shifting and wavering causes. We know that virtue comes from values and is ultimately about pragmatism. What works is what you use. The IA is not reliable, if you want to point to the fact that they were an Army before you might want to consider the total lack of Air Power and Armor that we left them, and the fact that we kicked the dog-snot out of them twice in twelve years. Not a good starting place for a new army. (snip) So I do my part and hold firm in my opinions. Someone has too, for liberal as its occupants are this is OSC's house and we all know he stands closer to me in this then to those who want to cut and run.
BC
Dubya's recent fall in popularity among his following has more to do with REALITY smacking his constituency in the face, than anything else. George has talked the talk and told people what they wanted to hear so he could get elected. Over the years more and more disaffected insiders leaked what the REAL goings on in the White House were ... as opposed to the talk. As more and more truth leaks out ... like indictments of insiders, and the rampant cronyism that has contributed to the decay and demolition of our federal infrastructure, people who believed those half truths and outright lies are becoming aware that George has deceived them: he has not walked the walk.
Holding firm, against emergent TRUTH, is denying reality.
As for cutting and running. Have you read about what George and Co.'s plans were for the Middle East before 9/11? Plans were already on the table to invade Iraq.
I will never forget the newscast when George W. Bush stood up there and said out loud what I was thinking: Saddam tried to kill my Father. That was one of his justifications for going to war, remember. That cabal chose this war, and used 9/11 as an excuse. It's sad to say this about a leader of the free world, but I believe this was personal.
I read today that the Iraqi leaders have now ASKED us to present a plan for our withdrawal. They also have said that "insurgents" have a right to resist their invaders, but not a right to attack innocent civilians, public and religious gathering places. Whether a person is an "insurgent" or a "resister" is a point fo view. Ask the American Indians if their soldiers were resisters or terrorists.
Maybe it is finally time for a reality check, from Congress. That's what checks and balances are all about. The Vietnam war was ended by Congress. Funding was withdrawn. If that is what must be done to get a timetable for our troops to get home where they belong, then Congress should do what needs to be done.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Why would I do this? because I am a frigging Hero you dolt! Hee Hee.
But, of course, truth is independent of persona, right? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why isn't the leader of one nation-state plotting and attempting the assassination of the former leader of another justification for war?
I'm just curious. I could understand the "it's just personal" argument if, say, Saddam had tried to murder Bush Sr. and he wasn't ever a President, just the sitting President's father.
quote:I read today that the Iraqi leaders have now ASKED us to present a plan for our withdrawal. They also have said that "insurgents" have a right to resist their invaders, but not a right to attack innocent civilians, public and religious gathering places. Whether a person is an "insurgent" or a "resister" is a point fo view. Ask the American Indians if their soldiers were resisters or terrorists.
I don't understand your point. The "insurgents" have slaughtered far more civilians than they have soldiers. The occupation is not "resisted" by killing lots of civvies as publicly and frequently as possible. The "insurgents" are making war on other Iraqis and on American soldiers-but more on other Iraqis. That much is just a simple fact, it's undeniable.
And as for your point about Congress...wow.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, There's a distinction that seems to be held in Iraq between the various types of "insurgents". Many people there distinguish between the foreign people who came in to cause whatever havoc they could and their local recruits and the homegrown "resistors" who have more limited, specific aims. From what I recall, the foreign groups, while making up a smaller percentage of the total insurgent pie, are responsible for an overwhleming number of the attacks on civilians. There was even some noise awhile back about some of the IRaqi insurgent groups telling the foreigners to get the heck out of their country. I don't actually know what came of that.
All that is to say, I don't think lumping all the insurgents into one package really presents an accurate picture of the situation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
tern,
quote: Sometimes people in the military have to die in order to accomplish the mission. (That being said, they'd better die for something worthwhile)
That, honey, is my point. As a citizen, it is my duty to make sure that the awesome gift that our soldiers give is neither wasted nor misused.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree with that, Mr. Squicky. However, that was not the point Silkie was making.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: Pragmatically we must deal with the situation at hand, not spend half the energy in the country trying to blame or second guess how we got here. Leaving is not a practical solution.
It is perfectly relevant to examine how the war began and how Americans and our allies allowed a war to begin without any justifiable cause. In fact, we owe this sort of consideration not only to the Iraqi people, but also to the rest of the global community. This is just the same as the personal responsibility each of us has to recognize and make amends for mistakes that harm others. It would be a sign of true moral rot if we didn't give the Iraqi people the message that we regret killing so many of them. It isn't about posturing and appearing as a strong, united nation anymore.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Y2K
That is the question we are seeking to answer.
Why 2000+ soldeirs gave their lives for Iraq.
This question is not limited to hindsite and second guessing WMD.
Its about how much we, soldiers and civilians alike, can trust those that govern us.
There is a doubt, a shadow on this administration. There are two ways to handle it. One is to face the accusers and fight back. The other is to run away. You run away from this fight by changing the subject, saying that it isn't important, the accusations are disloyal, illegal, treasonous. You fight it by opening up to an unbiased investigation and proving you can be trusted.
Will a time-table for withdrawal help any of this?
No.
Its a straw people are grasping looking for a way to hold the government accountable for its policies.
We need a better one.
Instead of a time table, I would suggest a criteria plan: When the Iraqi police meet the following agreed upon details, we will leave. When power is on in 95% of Iraq. When oil needed to pay for the government, flows without interruption for 3 months. When the bombing has ceased for 3 months. Some list of these that we can watch and measure and prove that our administration is not wasting the lives of our soldiers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
dan, That's what a time table is, or at least, what I have been suggesting it should be. The pre-war predictions from the Bush administration put our involvement in Iraq at weeks rather than months. Even at the time, this was ridiculous. When the their predicted end points came and went, they stopped giving any sort of schedules whatsoever. We're there indefinitely, with no sort of schedule to gauge our progress against. Just saying we'll do this when that happens and so on doesn't solve this problem. You need to have some sort of "We expect this to happen by this date." associated with it.
Giving predictions and projections will, I think, have a positive effect on our relations with the Iraqi people, show that the people in charge are not as disconnected with the reality of the situation as they were at the beginning of things, and give the American people some standard to judge how sucessful we're being.
On that last bit, right now we've got at lot of doom and gloom from the media and near constant claims of "We've just about won." from the administration. Neither side has shown themselves to be particularly worthy of trust. If the asdministration feels that the situation is going so well, I can't see why they wouldn't want to set out a black and white set of goals that they can refer to the counter the claims of quagmire and huge mess.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: Pragmatically we must deal with the situation at hand, not spend half the energy in the country trying to blame or second guess how we got here. Leaving is not a practical solution.
And the main fault for this, in my opinion, lies with the people who have been acting dishonestly, performing poorly, and refusing to take responsibility for their actions. Had the Bush administration lived up to the responsiblities incumbent on them, there would be no need for the severe questioning and skepticism that they've been met with.
They could have acted honestly and competently and responsibily, but they didn't. They have the opportunity to change their ways, but they aren't. And you seem to be blaming the people who are trying to force them to act as they should by blaming them for the situation the administration created.
It is our leaders' job to earn our trust by acting trustworthy. When they fail to do so, it is not our job to give them our trust. The people most to blame for the hinderances over the war all work at the White House.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I just want to know when the appropriate time to place blame is. Would it be before the next election?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan,
I think the criteria plan makes a certain amount of sense except that these goals may not be attainable. And, at least in the case of bombing, our presence may be making things harder to achieve.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Some on "the left" are fighting and dying in Iraq.
Don't dishonor them.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
tern,
Any reaction to the remainder of my post?
I mean, really, I just needed to vent about the Vietnam era stuff. I don't really think you're a punk-@ss chump for not having lived during that time. It is a context for me and you certainly have your own, different context. I don't hold you responsible for knowing the times I lived in. I was just allowing myself to take offense where, perhaps, none was intended.
But I am interested in your reaction to the rest of the post, and I'm still interested in YOUR take on those 4 links you posted at the bottom of the prior page. What aspects of those stories are you most offended by?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by adam613:
quote:I just want to know when the appropriate time to place blame is. Would it be before the next election?
Absolutely not. It's just like you liberal Bush-haters to politicize the actions of our elected officials so close to elections.
*squints at adam*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sterling,
Not sure how you meant that. Are you suggesting that I am dishonoring soldiers by saying that our occupation of Iraq may be contributing to the violence? I would appreciate a clarification. Thanks.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
tern, also I meant to thank you for translating what BC had to say of value to the discussion. I don't actually see where he was saying that. I think he was attacking a bizarre and distorted image that he borrowed from some source I can only guess at. But you have at least raised an issue that we could explore.
I think the relative destruction wrought by "talking negatively about the war" and "conducting the war in an irresponsible and unplanned way" are orders of magnitude apart. I also think there's unlikely to be ways to measure their effects directly.
From a practical standpoint, it's probably better if our military worries more about the things that are (somewhat) under their control, however. For the soldiers, however, maybe griping about liberal comments is easier and more "accepted" within the command structure than griping openly about the lack of planning, training and equipment, or of competent leadership.
I have sense that the latter is responsible for a greater proportion of the deaths in any war than the former.
Would you disagree?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Absolutely not. It's just like you liberal Bush-haters to politicize the actions of our elected officials so close to elections.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sterling,
Not sure how you meant that. Are you suggesting that I am dishonoring soldiers by saying that our occupation of Iraq may be contributing to the violence? I would appreciate a clarification. Thanks.
Sorry, kmbboots. It wasn't really posted in reply to any particular post, yours in particular. It's just that when terms like "The Left" get thrown about, people often seem to forget that people whose political views are considered "left of center" also love their country, also serve, also fight, also die. I wanted no more and no less to remind people of that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks for the clarification, Sterling.
It is a very good reminder.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:From a practical standpoint, it's probably better if our military worries more about the things that are (somewhat) under their control, however. For the soldiers, however, maybe griping about liberal comments is easier and more "accepted" within the command structure than griping openly about the lack of planning, training and equipment, or of competent leadership.
I have sense that the latter is responsible for a greater proportion of the deaths in any war than the former.
Would you disagree?
I would agree and disagree. Incompetant leadership in the military, both within the military and from our political masters, does cause the most deaths. The thing is, we're used to that, and to a point we're resigned to it. It's what we expect.
Comments from the public, however, are something that we feel like we have some ability to affect. We probably don't have the ability to affect it, but permit us our illusions. Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
I can't remember who said it in his/her post, but I have to agree with that person. Mostly, anyway. It was about the fact that bombings will still be an issue in Iraq, and the fact that we are here perpetuates that fact. That is in all honesty, true. I have always believed that the insurgency uses the media as a tool in order to accomplish their goal. Their goal is not a military goal, it is simple. Kill as many civilians and military personnel in order to insight rage and fear in the populace. As long as we remain here, they will attempt to kill us in order to gain a media presence to bring dissention to the forefront. Do I believe that this is a reason to leave? No. I think it is a good reason to make sure our military is fully outfitted with as much protective equipment as possible; right down to every soldier having earplugs and eye protection. I also understand that it takes time to produce this kind of protection, so patience is key. I just think that it will take some time and eventually all the wonderful children we interact with will grow up to be more accepting. The inevitable onslaught of cultural hegemony will pass in Iraq (if we remain there), and soon, we shall call them brothers, as that is the ultimate goal.
That and oil. Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote: It is a context for me and you certainly have your own, different context. I don't hold you responsible for knowing the times I lived in. I was just allowing myself to take offense where, perhaps, none was intended.
I wasn't offended. Nor did I mean to offend. Although I have to say that in a discussion like this, it's almost impossible to avoid offense.
Incidentally, regarding Bean Counter's views on treason, he is wrong. I looked it up on Westlaw, and while the things he is calling treason could concievably fall under the category of "constructive treason", we don't recognize constructive treason in the United States. (And then there's my point, that regardless of whether it is treason or not, it's unenforceable...) Now Jane Fonda, there's an argument for treason.
Regarding the four links, here's a short list of what bothers me:
Replacements needed: First, referring to members of the military as replacements, and secondly the disrespect shown to dead members of the military, and lastly (this is the big one) the use of military deaths to achieve a political point.
Maimed for lies: It's not the Code Pink lady being interviewed that I'm upset with, although her tacit approval of Code Pink people with Maimed for Lies signs is despicable. It's the people with those signs. Outside Walter Reed hospital. It's a cheap and vile stunt to drop the morale of the military. It would be different if they were doing it outside the White House (I'd still dislike it, but it's several orders of magnitude less), but the choice of venue is the telling thing, for me. The amusing thing for me is the reaction of the maimed soldiers - those with fingers left flip them off whenever they go by them. I think it's pretty obvious to the soldiers how the protestors feel about them.
Counter Recruiters - The military isn't perfect (far from it), but an attempt to keep people from joining screws over those of us in the military. Every one of those people "counterrecruited" is one less person in the foxhole beside me.
Get off campus - I remember talking with the Marine recruiters on campus at CSUN, and they said that things like this happen fairly often and they just have to take it. I've stated earlier in another thread that the recruiters are us - there isn't any special Recruiter Corps, they're just average joe Marines (and soldiers, etc) who have been assigned to recruiting duty for a couple years. People might disagree with what they are doing, but the disrespect shown them is wrong, and kicking us off campus like we're recruiting for the KKK is also wrong.
I know some of the arguments that can be made for the other side - Replacements Needed is "trying to raise public awareness" and thinks that extreme methods are acceptable, same thing for maimed for lies, the counter recruiters and get off campus guys, well, we've discussed them in other threads. I can come up with several arguments, claim it's a matter of point of view, etc. I reject those arguments categorically. (I realize that I just used a strawman argument, but I'm close anyway) I do not believe that the ends justify the means, and these are vile means.
quote:Plans were already on the table to invade Iraq.
Plans are also on the table to invade Canada. That's what we do in peacetime, prepare for wartime. Albeit imperfectly.
quote:You fight it by opening up to an unbiased investigation and proving you can be trusted.
Where would we find an unbiased investigation? And how could it not be politicized quickly? I don't mind an exploration into how we could do things better (for example, what went wrong with our prewar Iraq intelligence), but all too soon it would become a political football, and then taken to an extreme. For example, instead of looking at the root causes of the intelligence failure and determining for sure what Bush had and when, and how accurate it was, and what we can do to fix it, people jump right to Bush Lied. Well, I'm not eliminating it as a possibilty - Bush is a politician, after all - but I think that we should not jump to conclusions.
So the extreme polarization of the war leads to naturally becoming defensive. On both sides. And it leads to both sides taking rash and useless positions. Maybe Bush did lie to the extent that he is accused. Maybe the Left is treasonous. But how does slinging these accusations help anything? How does it convince the other side? How does it convince the middle?
quote:Instead of a time table, I would suggest a criteria plan: When the Iraqi police meet the following agreed upon details, we will leave. When power is on in 95% of Iraq. When oil needed to pay for the government, flows without interruption for 3 months. When the bombing has ceased for 3 months. Some list of these that we can watch and measure and prove that our administration is not wasting the lives of our soldiers.
That's another good idea. One thing that I would add is that we should establish a few permanent military bases in Iraq, like we have in Germany and Japan, so even when we pull out, we will still have a presence.
quote:right now we've got at lot of doom and gloom from the media and near constant claims of "We've just about won." from the administration. Neither side has shown themselves to be particularly worthy of trust.
That's a fair assessment, I'd say. The war isn't going as well as the administration claims it is, but it's going nowhere near as bad as the media says, either. Now, I know why the administartion spins things, but why would the media want to make things look worse than they are?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How is the media making things look worse than they are? All I get from the news is at most casualty number. "X number of people killed in attack on X." Are these things not true? I very seldom see footage; we aren't seeing coffins - at least on the usual network news. I am left with the impression that the media and the administration want to keep this war as invisible as possible.
If there are good things going on then they should report that as well. And they have - elections and so forth. But, in general, do you usually hear good news of any sort on network news?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
The media is ignoring most of the great strides we have made to help reconstruct Iraq. They're ignoring the Iraqis that support us, there is little coverage of the elections (at least once they realized that they were going well) and they're playing up the bombs so that Iraq looks like Gaza West. It's not. It's not perfect, either, but it's much better than the media makes it look like.
I actually don't know what they show on network news - haven't had TV in two years, but online news (Yahoo, AP, CNN) don't have anything good. But why do they concentrate on the bad things? I know that bad news sells, but it's far too one-sided. The reports I get from people in Iraq indicate that the media is grossly overrepresenting the bad things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Maybe Bush did lie to the extent that he is accused. Maybe the Left is treasonous. But how does slinging these accusations help anything?
Do you not think it would be important to know if either were true?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Maybe Bush did lie to the extent that he is accused.
I find the idea that "Well, he did lie (this is indisputable), but it's possible that he didn't lie all that much." as being acceptable in a case where the President of the United States pushed the country into war to be really chilling. Leaving aside that if our President isn't dishonest to the level that it seems that he was, the gap is then filled up with his incomptence, I think that's setting the bar absurdly low for just about any presidential action, let alone one as serious as leading the country into an unpopular war.
As I said, our leaders' job is to earn our trust by demonstrating their trustworthiness. Saying "It's possible that he's not as untrustworthy as he's being made out." doesn't cut it with me.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Do you not think it would be important to know if either were true?
Sure. However, there is not enough evidence currently to prove either.
Squicky, every President lies. Chilling or not, that's the reality. There's more proof that Roosevelt lied to push us into WWII than Bush lied to push us into Iraq. Do I think Bush lied about the war? No. Mistaken in places? Probably. But before you can make the jump from mistaken to lie, you've got to show bad faith on Bush's part plus correct intelligence regarding Iraq. Neither have been shown. From what I've seen, the only thing that has been conclusively proven is that our intelligence was inadequate and incorrect regarding Iraq. This tends to support the theory that at worst, Bush was mistaken.
Now when I'm referring to minor lies told by politicians, I'm referring to spin. I'm not referring to out-and-out lies. Not that I like spin, but there is a difference.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There has certainly been reason to believe that the intelligence was collected with a specific goal in mind.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
Was the reason counter-terrorism? Or regular intelligence gathering? I didn't watch all of Farenheit 911...
I'm joking.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I can (and have, in several threads on hatrack) prove that Cheney and Rice lied (excepting the chance both were grossly incompetent in not reading reports sent to them on some of the most important intelligence the US had, sent by very high level officials in the Energy Department who are experts on the subject (nuclear science)).
Furthermore, the information that makes their statements lies was not passed to Congress, and members of the Energy Department were told not to discuss even non-classified thoughts with the media even when the matter (aluminum tubes) was all over the news.
I don't know if Bush lied, and I don't much care, his incompetence in many things shows through otherwise, he fires those in his administration who dare to publicly disagree, and he promotes those who are loyal over those who are competent to a degree unheard of in recent administrations.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
I guess he doesn't subscribe to the 'Sword of Damocles' method... maybe.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Even though you're joking...
quote: BERLIN -- The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say the Bush administration and the CIA exaggerated his claims in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Just as the most recent revelation.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Anyway, one last thing: no soldier (this includes BC) gets to tell you what is American and what is not, but they are allowed the right to say whatever they want, as is that is your request as well.
Yet another example of what I was talking about, using my words to make a point i never intended....
Where did I say he didn't have the right to Free Speech? Of course he does...I even said right away that I like it when he posts, as it reveals his bias and igonorance to anyone with eyes to see...
I just don't that he is the only voice that matters...even when he is calling said Free Speech Treason, and generalizing about anyone who dares disagree with his views.
Perhaps you are tilting at the wrong windmill....
As a matter of fact I am hard pressed to think of one who matters less.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
kmbboots: Interesting article.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Replacements needed: First, referring to members of the military as replacements, and secondly the disrespect shown to dead members of the military, and lastly (this is the big one) the use of military deaths to achieve a political point.
I'm not sure how to respond to the last part -- I think the Administration is using past military deaths to promote future ones; a tactic that never has made much sense to me. The old "if we don't continue the war, all these prior lives would've been lost 'in vain'" rings hollow to me. I'm told their sacrifices made sense at the time they made them. If I ascribe to that, the next death is independent of the prior deaths. It either has meaning or it doesn't. Now that I think of it, that's a lesson from Vietnam, though. We have to make sure every life or death has meaning.
I'm not going to defend the "replacements needed" other than to ask if maybe they got that label from the military itself? I recall the word "replacements" being used to talk about how the soldiers in the Reserves and National Guard were being used to replace regular troops. Of course, the hardship of long deployments overseas on people who joined the Guard especially (not so much the Reservists, I imagine) came as kind of a shock. They anticipated mostly (if not entirely) Stateside duty and maybe being used to fill billets in Command & Control or support operations if a war broke out. Not being sent into combat situations. I think there's a lot of pent up resentment over being used as combat replacements.
Whether that's what the "replacements needed" thing is highlighting, I can't say, but that's what leaped to mind when I saw that first link.
quote:Maimed for lies: It's not the Code Pink lady being interviewed that I'm upset with, although her tacit approval of Code Pink people with Maimed for Lies signs is despicable. It's the people with those signs. Outside Walter Reed hospital. It's a cheap and vile stunt to drop the morale of the military. It would be different if they were doing it outside the White House (I'd still dislike it, but it's several orders of magnitude less), but the choice of venue is the telling thing, for me. The amusing thing for me is the reaction of the maimed soldiers - those with fingers left flip them off whenever they go by them. I think it's pretty obvious to the soldiers how the protestors feel about them.
Yep, I think this tactic is truly deplorable. It may be effective, but they should at least have thought about the feelings of the wounded soldiers and their families that go to Walter Reed to visit them. This is truly nasty and they shouldn't be doing it.
quote: Counter Recruiters - The military isn't perfect (far from it), but an attempt to keep people from joining screws over those of us in the military. Every one of those people "counterrecruited" is one less person in the foxhole beside me.
Um...aren't you basically saying that replacements ARE needed then?
quote: Get off campus - I remember talking with the Marine recruiters on campus at CSUN, and they said that things like this happen fairly often and they just have to take it. I've stated earlier in another thread that the recruiters are us - there isn't any special Recruiter Corps, they're just average joe Marines (and soldiers, etc) who have been assigned to recruiting duty for a couple years. People might disagree with what they are doing, but the disrespect shown them is wrong, and kicking us off campus like we're recruiting for the KKK is also wrong.
I know some of the arguments that can be made for the other side - Replacements Needed is "trying to raise public awareness" and thinks that extreme methods are acceptable, same thing for maimed for lies, the counter recruiters and get off campus guys, well, we've discussed them in other threads. I can come up with several arguments, claim it's a matter of point of view, etc. I reject those arguments categorically. (I realize that I just used a strawman argument, but I'm close anyway) I do not believe that the ends justify the means, and these are vile means.
It may surprise you to hear that I agree with you about this. If a school takes Federal funds, I believe it has ipso-facto opened the door to Federal programs (including the military and the CIA) recruiting on their campus. I don't just mean this from a philosophical perspective. I mean that I think the rules for those grants actually state it. And the protesters are, IMHO, doing a disservice to their fellow students who may truly wish to join the military.
The bit about anti-discrimination is a smoke screen, IMHO. While I abhor the "don't ask/don't tell" fakery and wish our military would just grow up regarding homosexuals who also serve as soldiers (as they have grown up about minority service personnel, and women in combat roles), I don't believe for an instant that the campus protests are really about trying to force that change upon the military. I suspect that if the military were friendly to openly homosexual men and women, these protesters would still not want them recruiting on campus. That's fine, but they should be protesting the schools' acceptance of Federal funds, then.
And that's not gonna happen because no-one could afford ANY education if the Federal money weren't being poured in. Without it most of those campuses just would close.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I agree with that, Mr. Squicky. However, that was not the point Silkie was making.
It was the point, to a point. As I wrote, the council who invited us to leave also made the distinction between legitimate resistance and killing civilians or people who were going about their normal lives. They are telling their resistors to concentrate on fighting the Americans and their allies instead of each other.
In other words, we are no longer wanted there.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] Why isn't the leader of one nation-state plotting and attempting the assassination of the former leader of another justification for war?
I'm just curious. I could understand the "it's just personal" argument if, say, Saddam had tried to murder Bush Sr. and he wasn't ever a President, just the sitting President's father.(snip)
Is a personal family vendetta worth going to war over? Is it worth killing and maiming untold thousands? Over the centuries wars HAVE been fought over such things - but we Americans were presumably more civilized than that.
Our new diplomacy - preemptive war - changes that.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
Yet another example of nothing if you follow a logic stream.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
I would argue that those 'personal' vendettas of the past have shaped our continents, countries, and governments. I would not like to see what would have come to pass without wars based on vendetta.
Preemptive war? It's a good thing if you know it's coming. If...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The WP is reporting the leak of a classified document in which a conversation between President Bush and British PM Tony Blair included Bush expressing the thought the he'd like to bomb the Arab news network Al Jezeera (located in the friendly-to-US nation of Qatar).
Blair reported told him it was a bad idea.
Unfortunately, the document probably can't clarify whether Bush was joking (as the Administration claims) or if he was serious (as others have claimed and as some in the British Government fear since it has implications for re-opening investigations regarding bad things happening to non-embedded reporters.
Tern, as a purely hypothetical at this point, would you support the President if it turned out he actually HAD said this in seriousness? Would you be okay with it if it turned out that past "accidental" bombings or shootings involving Al Jezeera locations were not actually accidental, but deliberately ordered by someone in the chain of command?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Is a personal family vendetta worth going to war over? Is it worth killing and maiming untold thousands? Over the centuries wars HAVE been fought over such things - but we Americans were presumably more civilized than that.
Our new diplomacy - preemptive war - changes that.
Is attempting to assassinate a former president because of what he did while he was president really just a "personal vendetta"? Of course not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is a personal family vendetta worth going to war over? Is it worth killing and maiming untold thousands?
Yes, absolutely. I would supported using that as a formal justification for war. It's a clear casus belli. It's a shame we settled on the wrong reason.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Tern, as a purely hypothetical at this point, would you support the President if it turned out he actually HAD said this in seriousness?
Oh, yes. As far as I can tell, Al-Jazeera is the propaganda wing of Al-Qaeda, which makes it a legitimate military target.
By the way, not to cut and run , but I've got some fairly pressing commitments in RL and I've got to stop getting sucked in to these threads for a while. It's been an interesting discussion, however. When I have time, I'll write up a more comprehensive answer, which I may or may not post. Laters!
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
That is just good marketing since most people are pro GOP. Soon CNN will be just like the BBC!
BC
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
By the way Sen. Joseph Lieberman is in the chow hall! He did not even try to take my Assault Rifle, how out of character! I had Turkey, Lobster, Crab and Apple Pie Al La Mode, War is Hell on all of us, I need some pepto!
BC
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's a little unusual to think that most people are pro-GOP, seeing as how, well, elections are close and stuff.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
BC=!reality
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:By the way Sen. Joseph Lieberman is in the chow hall! He did not even try to take my Assault Rifle, how out of character!
Actually, Lieberman is one of the old-school Democrats. He wouldn't be taking your rifle.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hi tern, Happy Thanksgiving.
Other than the fact that they broadcast tapes sent to them by Al Qaeda, what makes you think Al Jezeera is any different from any other news organization throughout the world?
It seems to me that there's at least a 50:50 chance BBC News would broadcast those tapes if they got them.
I'm pretty sure most of the news outlets in our country would as well. Or at least they'd consider it, or show some edited version of them. (since the obviously have done so with snippets of the Al Jezeera tapes in the past).
So...evidence before we blow up their headquarters?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Attacking Al-Jazeera would be a wonderful way to anger and alienate the entire Arab world even more.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
I missed Sen. Lieberman. D@mn. He was the only good part of the Algore campaign.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Ah, but a man can dream, can he not? Heh, you didn't ask me what we should do with Al-BBC. No, there's a difference between "it would be nice" and what one really can do.
'appy Thanksgivin' to y'all as well.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: That is just good marketing since most people are pro GOP. Soon CNN will be just like the BBC!
BC
As touched on above, the last Presidential election was a neck and neck race, with Bush's so called "mandate" only a few percentage points. Before you classify me as a dyed in the wool Democrat, let me clarify: I vote independently.
Right now MOST people in the US, by fairly large margins, whether Republican or Democrat, or otherwise:
are against the Iraq War
consider both Bush and Cheney to be untrustworthy
don't believe what they were told about the reasons for going to war
are dissatisfied with the performance of the Republican Congress
The atmosphere at this time is very much like the atmosphere during Clinton's second term. If things keep going the way they are going now, the congress could conceivably change majorities in the next election.
In my opinion that would be a good thing. We need the checks and balances of Congressional diversity to keep the extremists in line and to achieve moderation through compromise.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
Politicians, like diapers, need to be changed often, and for the same reasons.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
After a time they begin to chafe and stink....and end up giving me a rash. Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Right now MOST people in the US, by fairly large margins, whether Republican or Democrat, or otherwise:
are against the Iraq War consider both Bush and Cheney to be untrustworthy don't believe what they were told about the reasons for going to war are dissatisfied with the performance of the Republican Congress
Actually, they just did a Pew study showing that 48% of the public still supports the war, and 45% is against it. Hardly a "fairly large margin" against it. Regardless, public opinion is not a measure of whether or not a cause is moral.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I have a friend here who delights in cutting together our little films with elaborate sound effects and cutting to stock images of dead bodies and such to create fake "reality" videos that we all laugh our asses off at.
An ordinary day of us doing a mounted patrol turns into a shooting gallery full of screams and gunfire...
I saw a clip on Arab TV that was almost as bad as that, supposedly an Apache gunship firing on a crowd of peaceful protestors.
My point? With any significant percentage of people protesting the war loudly it is easy to give the impression that it must be everyone. In fact it is to the point where creating a news story full of imagery and meaning that supports an agenda is so easy that there is no need to show anything else. That means that without controls in place to keep news from having an agenda all news is suspect. Until people regain a reverence for truth audiences will hear the news they look for. A daily dose of validation to keep self image intact. It will also leave them pathetic chumps, one more sucker born every minute.
That is news you can count on!
BC
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern:
quote:Right now MOST people in the US, by fairly large margins, whether Republican or Democrat, or otherwise:
are against the Iraq War consider both Bush and Cheney to be untrustworthy don't believe what they were told about the reasons for going to war are dissatisfied with the performance of the Republican Congress
Actually, they just did a Pew study showing that 48% of the public still supports the war, and 45% is against it. Hardly a "fairly large margin" against it. Regardless, public opinion is not a measure of whether or not a cause is moral.
Polls are only as good as the impartiality of the sample group of people, and the unbiased interpretation of the data.
Here are three polls - actually more than that since the middle one is a site which shows a compilation of poll data from many sources - that support my staement MSNBC
quote:"Right now MOST people in the US, by fairly large margins, whether Republican or Democrat, or otherwise"
are against the Iraq War
consider both Bush and Cheney to be untrustworthy
don't believe what they were told about the reasons for going to war
are dissatisfied with the performance of the Republican Congress
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: That is news you can count on!
BC
Bean counter, I am sorry that you are over there, facing enemy fire and terrible conditions. In myu opinion you and your fellow soldiers should be home with your families.
As for honest news, I read most of my news online. I read from many sources, because some of them will have a slant, intentional or otherwise.
Try reading your news at MSNBC or CNN as well as your hometown paper, which probably has an online site. I do that. I also get a compilation of news sent to me, which I admit has liberal bias in their editorials, but it still has - for better or worse - honest news. Much of what I read there never makes it to the Mass Media news, and it is news from across the world, which gives a better perspective of what is really happening.
Pre-digested edited news is propeganda, and we have had too much of that since the current Administration took control.
[ November 25, 2005, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Silkie ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, given that the Iraqis, themselves, have asked for a timetable, it's pretty clear that there's almost no way the Bush administration can't honor that request without stepping on all kinds of land mines.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Well, given that the Iraqis, themselves, have asked for a timetable, it's pretty clear that there's almost no way the Bush administration can't honor that request without stepping on all kinds of land mines.
So far they are ignoring that request, which is a slippery way of not honoring it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Silkie, Google News (news.google.com) is a great way to compare and contrast how various news agencies report the same story. Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I checked out your truthout.org, it seems about as balanced as WND. At least there aren't as many ads, but it's something I would take with a small boulder of salt.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: I checked out your truthout.org, it seems about as balanced as WND. At least there aren't as many ads, but it's something I would take with a small boulder of salt.
I agree that truthout has a Liberal Bias in their editorials.
BUT
IF you click on the "go to original" links you will find that every article is from a completely legit news source. Frequently what they print is news that was "left out" of the corporate mainstream news for political correctness. They also have reporters that submit news from foreign language news sources, mostly european.
I'm sure Google has an excellent news page too. Slate.com is another good source. I read Discovery News too.
My point is to please read ALL of the news, not just the stuff stressed by your favorite political party's choice. Each additional source gives more information, and fills in the gaps left out by the other one's slant.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
The "original" is biased too. I'm well aware of the bias in what I read, on both sides, and I adjust for it.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: The "original" is biased too. I'm well aware of the bias in what I read, on both sides, and I adjust for it.
I'm curious, what do you mean by "biased"? Do you consider the Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, CNN, etc. biased sources?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Yes. I have read the Los Angeles Times for over 12 years, CNN.com for six years. The articles I read in the Washington Post (usually referred by blogs) are also biased.
What do I mean by bias? Simply put, a slant towards one side or another. In the case of these sources, the Left, but in general I would say that the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal are mildly biased towards the Right, but not to the extent that the others are to the Left.
How do I determine bias? Word choices that present a certain point of view, facts included or left out (usually, when I read these articles, I have other sources of information that supplement them).
In general, it seems that the editors and reporters have personal agendas and they slant their articles to push people towards their agenda. One example is how anytime a Republican congresscreature does anything bad, they're always identified as a Republican, but if a Democrat congressthing does anything bad, you've almost got to look it up on the Internet to see what their affiliation is, because you won't find it from the article.
One thing that amuses me is Leftists accusing Fox of being conservative. Well, being conservative, they're not exactly conservative, but they're more in the middle than most. But the frothing attacks on Fox are hilarious. It's like, you guys have CBS (Communist B.S.), NBC (Nothing But C***), ABC (Always Bashing Conservatives), and if that doesn't satisfy your jones for an echo chamber, there is always the Voice of Soviet Union, NPR. (Sure, it's "National" Public Radio...but they don't tell you what nation) So even if Fox was as conservative as it is accused of being by the MoveOn crowd, so what? Let us have our one station, while you guys get the other 4. Well, 5, including CNN (Communist News Network).
I think that one can judge one's political orientation by how one reacts to the major news networks. If you think Fox is a little too much to the Left, you would be a staunch conservative like myself. If you think CBS is a bastion of moderation, you're definitely on the Left. Whatever your affiliation may be, you've got to look for the bias in your news source.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, thank you for showing us the error of our ways.
I must have forgot to renew my "leftist communist relovlt against the US" card yet again.
Silly me. Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Well, thank you for showing us the error of our ways.
I'm always here for ya. Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Although I feel like I've got to issue "hyperbole warnings" everytime I say things like this...
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern:
[snip] I think that one can judge one's political orientation by how one reacts to the major news networks. If you think Fox is a little too much to the Left, you would be a staunch conservative like myself. If you think CBS is a bastion of moderation, you're definitely on the Left. Whatever your affiliation may be, you've got to look for the bias in your news source.
That's interesting, thanks for answering.
I find FOX way too Conservative for me, but I was surprised by their coverage of the NOLA Flood. They told the truth that they saw. That surprise showed me a little of MY bias.
My personal slant (at this time, subject to change as I go along the highway of life) is that they all try, to a point. BUT Corporate interests limit what they are allowed to say on the air, at least sometimes. For instance, I stopped watching NBC Evening news for a long while, because I saw Brocaw being used as a mouthpiece of the Bush Administration. I find all of the network news slanted to some extent toward Conservatism. They have all 'left out' important news stories that I read about online. It's interesting how differently you perceive their news slant.
And while much of the time I don't agree with O'Reilly, sometimes he is right on. Michael Moore is just as extreme, and just as biased, but in the other direction. He has his truths too, and I think they are both sincere. As Move On is also sincere. Whether any of them are perceived as misguided is a matter of personal bias, IMHO.
The main thing I want from a Journalist is the TRUTH, without their thoughts and feelings interspersed as part of the truth. If they are giving me opinion, at least tell me that. In reading many different sources, I hope to wade through the BS and come out with a fair grasp of the story.
This is an interesting discussion, again thanks for your answer.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:One thing that amuses me is Leftists accusing Fox of being conservative. Well, being conservative, they're not exactly conservative, but they're more in the middle than most. But the frothing attacks on Fox are hilarious. It's like, you guys have CBS (Communist B.S.), NBC (Nothing But C***), ABC (Always Bashing Conservatives), and if that doesn't satisfy your jones for an echo chamber, there is always the Voice of Soviet Union, NPR. (Sure, it's "National" Public Radio...but they don't tell you what nation) So even if Fox was as conservative as it is accused of being by the MoveOn crowd, so what? Let us have our one station, while you guys get the other 4. Well, 5, including CNN (Communist News Network).
Wow. Did you cut and paste that from the Free Republic FAQ, or...? Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I must be losing my touch. The only word I can possibly see in "C***" is hardly persuasion to watch Fox News instead...
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
That's (Nothing Butt Capitalists) ; tern just ran out of *s
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Actually, tern, the American "centre" is the rest of the Western world's right wing. America has two right wing political parties; the biggest difference between them is that on social issues, one is conservative and the other is slightly progressive.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: NPR. (Sure, it's "National" Public Radio...but they don't tell you what nation)
This is simply not true. NPR has oversight committees that actually ensure its balance and report metrics of it constantly. Recently some idiots in Congress decided to push issue even further. Guess what:
- NPR is the only news service that actually measures this themselves. - They do a damned good job of doing equal time.
If anything, they blow it by ignoring the most extreme views at each end of the scale and have become sort of non-news in a way.
But I think you're completely wrong and couldn't provide anything like quatitative evidence to actually back up your biased viewpoint.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I think that y'all are unwilling to admit the existance of your echo chamber. Attack me if you will, but the media is biased - depending on which outlet, different ways.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
And by the way, I'm not a neoconservative.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think that y'all are unwilling to admit the existance of your echo chamber.
Most of the echoing I hear, tern, tends to be about the existence of an echo chamber. That makes for an effective delaying tactic, but that's all you can say for it.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I thought this paper was fascinating. Here's your evidence, Bob. Not that you'll accept it, of course... (smiles always make it go down nicer) Media Bias analyzed
Again, however, we're talking past each other. I think that y'all are unwilling to acknowledge the existence (Thanks, Tom, for the spelling correction - minor mispellings always mean that the point being advanced is wrong!) of a liberal media bias, and apparently, I'm an America-hating neoconservative who can't admit that the American media, where it isn't moderate, is actually somewhat conservative and I'm just putting up a smokescreen to hide it. How do I argue with that? You've got me dead to rights. Now you'll have to excuse me while I go beat an illegal immigrant and steal welfare money from people of a different race than myself, because I've got things to do, things to do. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I actually italicized "existence" not to point out the misspelling, but to actually emphasize the word. In other words, a great deal of effort is spent complaining about media bias -- from both sides of the aisle -- for very little reason except to distract from more important issues.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I think that the existence of the media bias is an important issue. We use the information that we recieve to form our views and our plans of action. If our information is faulty, then every conclusion that we make is faulty. Now, for example, the Iraq War a more important issue? Sure. But if we're only getting one side of the information, we cannot make a reasonably informed opinion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think that the existence of the media bias is an important issue.
See, I don't. I think the existence of media bias in general is an important thing to keep in mind -- although it's hardly an issue, per se -- but people spend a lot of time worrying about the media bias as if the media were biased in only one way.
Speaking as a former member of the media, that's laughable. All news media is actually biased at heart in two ways: towards sensationalism; and towards fascism (by which I mean an imagined world in which the common people are ruled by a well-meaning elite, all while scapegoating an evil, scheming underclass.)
Every single tendency of the modern media can be described in this way. Their political bias is largely irrelevant, provided you keep in mind these two philosophical biases -- which, really, ultimately only exist because they're effective marketing.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
That's an interesting perspective. Mind if I steal it? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Go ahead. *laugh* Although the sad thing is that I think Goebbels got there first.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I think other people beat him to it. For some reason, viewing media as a bunch of fascists really appeals to me. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
More people are fascists at heart than generally like to admit it. It's a very compelling philosophy in a lot of ways. What gets creepy is when you start to consider what the "ruling class" and the "underclass" actually ARE in those scenarios. FoxNews and ABC have very different answers to those questions, but neither of them have answers that make me feel good about the universe.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
quote: I am sorry that you are over there, facing enemy fire and terrible conditions. In my opinion you and your fellow soldiers should be home with your families.
You are not really fully aware of what Soldiering is are you? Would you rather the steel workers were home instead of making steel? The nurses home instead of curing the sick?
Do not sit there and pretend you want what is best for me or the world and with the same sentence steal the honor of my proffession as being less desireable then simple unemployment.
Keep your sympathy for the countries that do not have an Army that protects its fools from themselves.
BC
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Keep your sympathy for the countries that do not have an Army that protects its fools from themselves.
I know that's not why I'm paying you, Bean Counter. When more people in the Army start thinking like you -- that it's their job to protect us civilians from ourselves -- I think fewer and fewer of us will feel like giving you our money for that service.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
I seriously doubt that the military would suffer greatly if all taxes died tommorrow. One thing America has learned to love: it's military might.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I seriously doubt that the military would suffer greatly if all taxes died tommorrow.
I dunno. Ask Bean Counter how long he'd be willing to do what he's doing for free, or without regular shipments of ammo and food. There's not a lot out there for them to pillage. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The Army's job is to make America safer; when the Bush Administration uses the military to make America less safe, it is bad for America (and the military is not being used for its intended purpose)
This is the trouble you run into with this line of thought. By suggesting that the military is being used contrary to the purpose of keeping America safe-especially in wartime-you are in essence suggesting that they are dying for no purpose at all, dying needlessly and stupidly.
It is a very difficult thing to seperate a criticism of the civilian and high military management of a war from being necessarily critical of the soldiers themselves, for hinting to them, "You're making a stupid sacrifice."
For the record, I'm not saying that's what you are doing, I'm just pointing this problem out. And the problem isn't helped by the people on the far-left who, despite the protestations of some people in this thread, do sometimes say in very plain language, "You soldiers are stupid."
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I seriously doubt that the military would suffer greatly if all taxes died tommorrow.
I dunno. Ask Bean Counter how long he'd be willing to do what he's doing for free, or without regular shipments of ammo and food. There's not a lot out there for them to pillage.
Haha, yeah, the government would shut down the military, laughable. They would cancel every education program, every social program, NASA, the whole nine, then if the situation was dire, institute martial law and call it a day. No US government is so stupid as to allow themselves to be completely vulnerable.
Of course this is all merely hypothesis because if you stop paying taxes, chances are a couple of things will happen.
One - You will not file your taxes and some percentage of the US that usually doesn't won't either and nothing will happen.
Two - You won't file and you will get pinched in the end.
Either way, the goverment isn't quaking in their boots over an empty threat like that.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
BC, how long would you do what you are doing for free?
To humor you...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just to be clear, Tom was asking more than how long he would do it if he weren't paid for his service. He was also asking how long he would do it if he wasn't getting bullets, gas, and beds.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
tern, a couple of thoughts on the article you linked to:
1) It seems to prove my point in terms of NPR not really being incredibly biased
2) It doesn't address the points that are unique to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in terms of having standardized measures of equal time/coverage to ensure that they aren't biased.
3) The measure of "bias" is sort of strange in your article. As I understand it, the measure is relative to some people in Congress, how much does a particular news outlet cite the same sources. I think that's fraught with all kinds of challenges and I wonder why they didn't use something more common-sense like amount of time devoted to commentary from acknowledged spokespersons from one side of the aisle or the other.
4) Ultimately, since this is a measure based on the outlets' relative "bias" compared to the bias of the American people, the question about hearing your own echo really comes to the fore. What the conservatives seem to be saying is that news programs aren't a good enough echo of their own biases, not that they want reporting that is actually balanced. In fact, I think it's already been said that on many issues finding a truly balanced picture would move the entire spectrum of reporting hard left from what we're used to in this Country.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:He was also asking how long he would do it if he wasn't getting bullets, gas, and beds.
I think Shakespeare said it most incomprehensibly when he wrote "I pray you, how many hath he killed and eaten in these wars? But how many hath he killed? For, indeed, I promised to eat all of his killing."
That is to say, I don't think BC would be at all discomfitted if he weren't getting bullets. Unless we're talking about pretend bullets. I do so wish I could look at the IP he's posting from. I think it might be closer to the Mid-West than to the Mid-East.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:tern, a couple of thoughts on the article you linked to:
1) It seems to prove my point in terms of NPR not really being incredibly biased
2) It doesn't address the points that are unique to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in terms of having standardized measures of equal time/coverage to ensure that they aren't biased.
3) The measure of "bias" is sort of strange in your article. As I understand it, the measure is relative to some people in Congress, how much does a particular news outlet cite the same sources. I think that's fraught with all kinds of challenges and I wonder why they didn't use something more common-sense like amount of time devoted to commentary from acknowledged spokespersons from one side of the aisle or the other.
4) Ultimately, since this is a measure based on the outlets' relative "bias" compared to the bias of the American people, the question about hearing your own echo really comes to the fore. What the conservatives seem to be saying is that news programs aren't a good enough echo of their own biases, not that they want reporting that is actually balanced. In fact, I think it's already been said that on many issues finding a truly balanced picture would move the entire spectrum of reporting hard left from what we're used to in this Country.
Here is an interview with Bill Moyers about this issue. His investigative reporting show NOW was at the focal point of the storm about bias in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He and his show were specificly targeted by Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson as being "liberal" in content. Moyers resigned from his show, and participated in setting up the commission that now polices the CPB. He has a lot to say on the matter.
quote: Bill Moyers became the central figure in absentia in the controversy surrounding former Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson. It was Tomlinson who pointed to Moyers' NOW newscast on PBS as a chief reason for his efforts to bring "balance" to public broadcasting by adding conservative shows. Moyers has since left NOW and is currently president of the Schumann Center for Media & Democracy. He spoke with B&C's John Eggerton in the wake of a CPB Inspector General report concluding Tomlinson had violated the law by dealing directly with a programmer during the creation of a show to balance Moyers' program.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by adam613:
quote:You are not really fully aware of what Soldiering is are you? Would you rather the steel workers were home instead of making steel? The nurses home instead of curing the sick?
Bad analogy. Steel workers making steel helps our economy. Nurses curing the sick, well, cures the sick. Both are good for America. The Army's job is to make America safer; when the Bush Administration uses the military to make America less safe, it is bad for America (and the military is not being used for its intended purpose)
Until this war, we had NEVER preemptively attacked another country. We did not have the authority from the UN to enforce their orders. Using Cowboy justice, the administration took the law into their own hands. To get approval and funding for that effort they lied and manipulated the truth.
Everything that comes down comes around.
Now that the TRUTH about why we are over there is known, most Americans do not approve of this war, and are against continuing it, just as they were BEFORE the Lies about Mushroom clouds and WMDs. Republican Congressional members are jumping ship on the Bush Administration for self preservation: They want to be reelected.
RE: Neocon
If you walk like a Duck and Quack like a duck, odds are you are a Duck, Grasshopper. If you do a little research on Neocon belief systems you might find yourself looking in a mirror.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Or perhaps you are seeing only what you wish.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
News flash, Chief: Cowboys are the good guys.
And while I may share some beliefs in common with neocons, I am not a neocon. I'm probably best described as a Reagan Republican. Except that I'm not a Republican.
quote:we had NEVER preemptively attacked another country.
Hello, Grenada. Oh, and Panama. Oh, and Mexico.
quote:Now that the TRUTH about why we are over there is known
Which TRUTH is that, Sparky? Seems like there's still quite a bit of disagreement. Back in the echo chamber you go!
quote:most Americans do not approve of this war
Depends on the poll you look at, the time of day, if it's that time of the month, etc...
quote:the Lies about Mushroom clouds and WMDs
Eh, I must have missed the Mushroom cloud lies. And the WMD thing was at worst, a mistake. Which all the intelligence agencies of all the major countries agreed on. But it's all Chimpy McHitleribushurton's fault!
quote:We did not have the authority from the UN to enforce their orders.
You might be surprised to know that the American military's purpose is not to act as a police force for the United Nothing.
/irritation
*sigh* I really don't feel like this discussion is achieving anything. Think I'll let this last, mean post stand as my final word on this whole thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:News flash, Chief: Cowboys are the good guys.
At what point does this become untrue? Can the Lone Ranger put Injun Joe's feet to the fire to make him say where he's tied up Miss Clampett and stay a good guy? What if Injun Joe doesn't talk? Can the Lone Ranger order Tonto to cut him a little? Or parade him around naked in front of Madame Martine's place? Maybe have Silver try to mate with him?
At what point does the mythology of the good cowboy looking to do the right thing get lost in the dark miasma of what the cowboy's actually doing?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:*sigh* I really don't feel like this discussion is achieving anything. Think I'll let this last, mean post stand as my final word on this whole thing.
Gosh, if you're going to get all snarky about it, maybe my reply to the above should be:
"is that a promise?"
However, assuming you still want to discuss the things you bring up on a discussion board...
I do think probably people get the wrong idea about Iraq being the FIRST pre-emptive military action by the US. That's true. But using Grenada, Panama and Mexico as "precedents" has not been very popular, and for good reason. Grenada is a spec. It was also extremely limited and had a clearn objective. Probably not something to draw a comparison for Iraq if one wanted to avoid embarrassing questions like "what went wrong this time?" And, in the same stroke, that gets rid of ALL the modern examples of US military pre-emption.
Then we have Panama. A nasty piece of work in many respects including carving a new country out of an existing sovereign state and, ultimately setting the stage for some rather troubling political problems there that echoed into modern times. In short, we don't do well with puppet dictators and probably no-one arguing that we should go into Iraq wanted to bring up Panama as a shining example of how good our track record is in this area.
Although, now that you mention it...
Hmm...
As for Mexico, well, let's just say that the Republic of Texas has not been a lone star for nothing. The history of that war and the "freedom" for people pushing what amounted to a collossal land grab is also probably not the sort of image one would want to bring up.
Also, it's kind of a weird deal to bring that up given the way we entered the war (remember the phrase "manifest destiny" from your history lessons?) and the fact that it was basically just a land grab by a President who was just aching for some excuse to go for it.
There's probably a reason why the Administration would prefer (at least at the outset) to avoid comparisons of their pre-emptive war to the others in our History.
Oh, and you forgot Hawaii... Basically more of the same.
This is why I'm usually pretty careful to describe Iraq as a bad precedent, not as the first and only time we've engaged in pre-emptive warfare.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Yes I am in Davenport Iowa right now with a college Coed and a her mother waiting on me hand and foot... no wait that was a dream, sigh....
Sorry I am in closer to Falluja then you are too common sense.
quote: Until this war, we had NEVER preemptively attacked another country. We did not have the authority from the UN to enforce their orders.
It has been said but perhaps it could do well for being repeated, we are not the enforcement arm for the UN, they have no position of authority above us, the highest authority for the US military is the President of the United States.
I have gone a month without pay a couple times how bout you JT? Assuming I got fed and watered I would go until I found a ride out of here! A starved US Army over here would create order in record time! Mister nice guy would be right out!
I did not say I would keep fools from being foolish, I just create a safe space for them to be fools in. What they do there is their affair.
"You live in peace because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf..."
If you do not think this is honorable duty then at least know it is necessary, steel workers might still go to work every day without us, but they would do so under the lash.
BC
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The conscious, conscientious citizen is just as important to the vitality and safety of the country as the dedicated soldier.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not to mention that quite a few of thoses "fools" happen to be people who served themselves.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: News flash, Chief: Cowboys are the good guys.
And while I may share some beliefs in common with neocons, I am not a neocon. I'm probably best described as a Reagan Republican. Except that I'm not a Republican.
quote:we had NEVER preemptively attacked another country.
Hello, Grenada. Oh, and Panama. Oh, and Mexico.
I stand corrected. There have been a few examples of Cowboy diplomacy besides this one. As mentioned by another, none of them are positive examples of the paragons of Democracy we Americans claim we are.
Ask Native Americans whether their ancestors were 'insurgents' or freedom fighters?
quote:
quote:Now that the TRUTH about why we are over there is known
Which TRUTH is that, Sparky? Seems like there's still quite a bit of disagreement. Back in the echo chamber you go!
quote:
quote:most Americans do not approve of this war
Depends on the poll you look at, the time of day, if it's that time of the month, etc...
Please note that one of the links I presented to you had a COMPILATION of Poll data, showing a steady decline of the Cabal's Poll numbers. Since September. http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm Would that be the 'wrong time of the month' 'wrong time of day' for several months? I doubt it!
quote:
quote:the Lies about Mushroom clouds and WMDs
Eh, I must have missed the Mushroom cloud lies. And the WMD thing was at worst, a mistake. Which all the intelligence agencies of all the major countries agreed on. But it's all Chimpy McHitleribushurton's fault!
Perhaps you were not watching the news last year. ALL of the primaries in the Cabal said those exact words on National Television, repeatedly, as well as using them in speeches in front of the UN: Condoleeza, Rummy, Powell, Cheney, Bush, et al.
quote:We did not have the authority from the UN to enforce their orders.
You might be surprised to know that the American military's purpose is not to act as a police force for the United Nothing.
Again, the propeganda used to justify this war said that we were enforcing the UN orders (among many other reasons that evolved over the time we have been over in Iraq).
quote:/irritation
*sigh* I really don't feel like this discussion is achieving anything. Think I'll let this last, mean post stand as my final word on this whole thing.
Consider the possibility that your irritation might just be caused by the sound of unpleasant FACTS bouncing off your Echo chamber.
[ November 29, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Silkie ]
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
So, Silkie, tell me, what knowledge leads you to believe that insurgents in Iraq are freedom fighters? No matter how many of these guys I throw in jail, etc. - I never seem to get the impression that they fight for anything other than their idea of Allah or God or whatever OR CASH or DRUGS.
Which doesn't make them freedom fighters. Oh yes, that is right, CASH and DRUGS! You heard it here first, Hatrack. If you want CASH and DRUGS all you have to do is make a bomb, bury a bomb, shoot an American, shoot an Iraqi Policeman, or bomb some women or children, etc. Even BARELY coming close to comparing insurgents to Native Americans is farce.
Insurgents are in support of a theocracy, whereas, we fight for the possibility of a representative government with civil liberties...
Tell me again, now, who is the freedom fighter?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Ask Native Americans whether their ancestors were 'insurgents' or freedom fighters?
Now are you comparing them to Iraqis who target military and police?
Or the ones who murder civilians by the score in mosques and marketplaces? Just curious, Silkie.
Incidentally, by modern standards, many Indians were terrorists.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rakeesh: of course, so were many white settlers.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Rakeesh: of course, so were many white settlers.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Ask Native Americans whether their ancestors were 'insurgents' or freedom fighters?
Now are you comparing them to Iraqis who target military and police?
Or the ones who murder civilians by the score in mosques and marketplaces? Just curious, Silkie.
Incidentally, by modern standards, many Indians were terrorists.
Exactly my point. Depending on which side you are on, the American Indians were "insurgents" or "Indian Resisters." Indian "collaberators" were killed by Indian resistance. War is savage.
I am not saying the Insurgents are right. Step back and look at this from an Iraqi's point of view.
We invaded their country. We blew up their homes, their families, their friends. We talk funny, and dress funny and have weird ideas that conflict with what their religious leaders teach. Basic infrastructure is still down... They don't have reliable water, sewerage, and electricity in the cities. The heat there is legendary by now. There are few jobs, and they have families to take care of. Our contractors gouged them and us, and took advantage of the situation, more than they rebuilt. If that happened to YOU, how would you feel?
We call them Insurgents, but they do not call themselves Insurgents. Think about it.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
*sneaks into thread*
Hey, I can't think of any historical bad guys who actually thought of themselves as bad guys. Stalin? Mao? Peewee Herman? Think about it.
*sneaks back out*
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: *sneaks into thread*
Hey, I can't think of any historical bad guys who actually thought of themselves as bad guys. Stalin? Mao? Peewee Herman? Think about it.
*sneaks back out*
Right...they are only freedom fighters if WE support/train/pay for their activities...
Like in Central America, right?
BYW, didn't the US use illegal arms sales and drug money to finance...
Who did we sell those arms to again?
Nevermind.
Not that I completely agree with silkies point, but there is more to it that you are allowing, tern.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Amen!
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
Look at it from the Iraqi point of view: The average Iraqi calls an insurgent 'Ali Baba'. What do you think that means?
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That is to say, I don't think BC would be at all discomfitted if he weren't getting bullets. Unless we're talking about pretend bullets. I do so wish I could look at the IP he's posting from. I think it might be closer to the Mid-West than to the Mid-East.
Look for 2-130 Infantry. You can be proud to know that he's doing good things for you. As am I. Sincerely,
SGT Thomas Stead (Team Leader, Infantry)
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
PS you can find ME on Anysoldier.com if you want to send me hate mail or a care package.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, fugu, I know. And in fact numerically, and measured by their own standards, I believe that European settlers in the New World behaved much worse than did the Indians.
quote:We call them Insurgents, but they do not call themselves Insurgents. Think about it.
Is that supposed to be deep thinking? "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" isn't exactly new, Silkie. It's been around. And you know what I'd do if all that happened to me? There's a good chance I'd start boming police stations and military targets.
But not engaging in the wholesale murder of civilians, like many "insurgents" do. It's those "insurgents" I'm talking about, and you know it. I'm not going to argue about your very slanted interpretation of what happened, but I will say this: none of it excuses deliberate targeted murder of civilians.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Amen!
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes, fugu, I know. And in fact numerically, and measured by their own standards, I believe that European settlers in the New World behaved much worse than did the Indians.
quote:We call them Insurgents, but they do not call themselves Insurgents. Think about it.
Is that supposed to be deep thinking? "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" isn't exactly new, Silkie. It's been around. And you know what I'd do if all that happened to me? There's a good chance I'd start boming police stations and military targets.
But not engaging in the wholesale murder of civilians, like many "insurgents" do. It's those "insurgents" I'm talking about, and you know it. I'm not going to argue about your very slanted interpretation of what happened, but I will say this: none of it excuses deliberate targeted murder of civilians.
Of course you would be fighting the invaders Rakeesh, and so would I.
A mistake that is being made is in lumping every resister together and calling themm the "insurgents". While there is an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq, most of the resisters are Iraqi. There is also resistance based on personally experienced atrocities, and on ancient ethnic divisions. So some civilian casualties are ehtnic cleansing, some are "I don't care who gets killed" and some are collateral damage.
And our government - not our soldiers - is behaving more like a fascist government than one who is encouraging freedom and democracy. It has recently come to light that we have been secretly submitting 'news' through third parties to the newspapers in Iraq, 'news' that is really propeganda. Not a surprise, considering that we do that at home too. And now it has come to light that Bush 'jokingly' considered bombing the independant news outlet, Al-Jazeerah for telling the truth about civilian casualties.
When there were elections, the Shiite religious-leader backed candidates won, overwhelmingly. That same group is expected to win again in December. That's ironic isn't it. We are faced with the strong possibility that we're participating in the creation of another Iran-type Islamic government.
We have become part of the problem, and the sooner we can bring home our men and women serving there, the better off everyone will be. The Iraqis can then turn their anger toward the real threat of a strong Al-qaeda that is now firmly embedded there, thanks to our bungling government.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A mistake that is being made is in lumping every resister together and calling themm the "insurgents".
Actually 'insurgent' is a synonym for 'resister'. The mistake being made is lumping head-choppers and mosque-bombers under that name.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yeah, it's also a synonym for "rebel."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>When there were elections, the Shiite religious-leader backed candidates won, overwhelmingly.
Of course, what's REALLY startling is that this is happening in our own country, too. Almost all of our elected officials are Christian.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:When there were elections, the Shiite religious-leader backed candidates won, overwhelmingly.
Of course, what's REALLY startling is that this is happening in our own country, too. Almost all of our elected officials are Christian.
quote:Originally posted by Silkie:
When there were elections, the Shiite religious-leader backed candidates won, overwhelmingly.
As opposed to those candidates we pushed on the Iraqi people, who were NOT backed by the Shiite religious-leaders.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:A mistake that is being made is in lumping every resister together and calling themm the "insurgents".
Actually 'insurgent' is a synonym for 'resister'. The mistake being made is lumping head-choppers and mosque-bombers under that name.
The use of "Insurgent" is one more example of Orwellian labeling by this administration.
While those words are often used as synonyms, there is a subtle positive (Resistance) or negative (Insurgent) implication in their meaning when they are used.
That is why early in the war the administration prompted the national news to call the people fighting against us in Iraq "insurgents" and not "resistance." I remember when the newscaster (on NBC news) announced that they had agreed to call the resisters "insurgents" in their news. Before that various different labels were used.
quote:Resister n 1: someone who systematically obstructs some action that others want to take 2: someone who offers opposition
Resistance An underground organization engaged in a struggle for national liberation in a country under military or totalitarian occupation.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
quote:in·sur·gent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt) adj. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
n. One who is insurgent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Silkie,
I think it's more than a little ridiculous to label this "Orwellian". Of course the government will try and cast the insurgents in an unfavorable light. You'll notice they're not all being called "terrorists", but let's just ignore that.
Oh, and for the record-your advocacy for using your favored term-resisters-is equally "Orwellian". You want the term to reflect your views of the political reality, just like they do.
And I think it's nuts to be so concerned about a slightly negative word in favor of a slightly positive word for the people who are either actively at war with our military (and others), actively engaging in mass murder of civilians (theirs and others), or even both. Man, your priorities are way outta wack.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Actually, I think that aspect of Silkie's point merits discussion. First, there's a distinction between an individual adovcating or requesting the use of a certain term and a government doing the same thing. For example, what if the Russian government requested that the news media used the term "insurgents" to describe what are most commonly called "rebels" in Chechnya? The Chechen rebels have certainly targeted and murdered civilians. Or the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka? Indeed, why should a single blanket term be used to describe any of these groups? It seems to me that it's basically a convenient intellectual shorthand that makes it easier to lump all of "them" together into a single entity. But as your post on the last page shows, it isn't always intuitively obvious which subgroup is under discussion.
I don't think the fact that the groups in question have all murdered civilians should negate discussion surrounding their reasons for doing so, nor should it give those who oppose them carte blanche. In another thread, someone stated that they would like torture to be explicitly outlawed so that a government agent who decided to employ it would have to make a judgment about the potential merit of any information he might extract under torture -- "is it worth the punishment for breaking the law?." In other words, the law should be upheld, but there are cases where it can be deemed acceptable to have broken it. Sort of like how ambulances and police cars can break speed limits. I think that's a very interesting position. Similarly, if a person thinks killing is wrong and is then presented with a situation where he must kill to potentially prevent something from occurring, he has to make a value judgment about the importance and likelihood of that something, and then live with having committed an immoral act even if the killing was justified. To tie this back to the current discussion: in this view, Government A saying "Government X murdered, tortured, raped, and beat its own civilians" does not in and of itself make it right for Country A to invade Country X. In other words, under this argument, launching a preemptive invasion is still wrong, the question is, rather, is it less wrong than letting the earlier wrongs go unpunished?
From what you've been saying, Rakeesh, it seems like once one civilian is intentionally killed, any subsequent action on the part of the killer's opponents that is punitive in nature is inherently preferred, regardless of context. Is that at least loosely accurate?
At any rate, the question of whether the argument itself is applicable in this particular case depends on your assessment of the Bush Administration's goals for (and motivations behind) the current action in Iraq.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
Glad you could use the dictionary, perhaps now you can figure out what to call all the bad guys that blow sh*t up in Iraq...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know, if I'm an Iraqi of a certain type, how about Americans? Definition and perspective are strongly tied together.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Twinky,
I agree that it merits discussion. I disagree that "Orwellian" is the right word. I think it's hyperbole.
quote:I don't think the fact that the groups in question have all murdered civilians should negate discussion surrounding their reasons for doing so, nor should it give those who oppose them carte blanche.
I agree with that, on both counts. What I disagree with is this idea to keep naming such groups "insurgents" or "rebels" or "resisters"-such connotations ignore actions.
quote:From what you've been saying, Rakeesh, it seems like once one civilian is intentionally killed, any subsequent action on the part of the killer's opponents that is punitive in nature is inherently preferred, regardless of context.
You're wrong about that, at least a bit. For one thing, I think very few actions are entirely punitive, rehabilitory, etc. I think we are facing a host of enemies in Iraq, and against some of the, punitive responses are generally prefered simply because other responses simply will not work.
However my general belief is that negotiating with people who are deliberately targeting civilians (aside from stuff like hostage negotiations) is stupid and counterproductive, because it sends a message everytime, no matter how unfavorable the terms of negotiation are to the killer: targeting and murdering civilians is an effective means to get us to talk to you.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
However, y'all are trying to use "definition and perspective" to achieve moral relativity between terrorists who target civilians and others for whom civilians are at most, collateral damage. You know, the old "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Right, and "One man's child molester is another man's courageous defier of society's oppression." It's still wrong, no matter what you call it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
errr...no, I'm not. I speaking about defintition and perspective and why it's important to understand how they are interrelated. We just had a whole converstaion about how lumping all the people fighting the U.S. into one group of "insurgents" can be very misleading.
Some of the these people are targeting civilians and for others civilians are at most collateral damage, but through the magic of defining them as the same thing, you can say that they are all evil terrorists who target civilians and need to be wiped out.
Likeiwse, from a certain perspective, the Americans fit the description "the bad guys that blow sh*t up in Iraq.", which is a big reason why some of these people are fighting us.
---
Also, I don't know that this distinction is anywhere near as significant to the killed as to the killers. From the point of view of say the family members of someone who was killed, I don't know that the "civilians targeted" versus "collateral damage" difference is a particularly important one.
And then you start looking at relative numbers. If you kill 10,000 people as collateral damage, do you really think that these people are going to think you're better than a group of people who killed say 500 people on purpose?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think again you're hearing things that aren't being said, tern-at least certainly not by Twinky. I've had almost the exact same discussion with him before.
As for killer and killed, obviously the goal for which civilians were collateral damage factors into things.
For instance, an unlikely scenario: let's say that law enforcement and/or the military discovers for certain-say, a threatening videotape-that terrorists have managed to construct and are preparing to arm a nuclear weapon in downtown NYC and will detonate it during rush hour. They've got hundreds of hostages, but since a nuke doesn't detonate if you just blow it up with conventional explosives, the building itself could be targeted and destroyed along with the terrorists, bomb, and all the hostages.
Now of course since I've never died I cannot say for sure what I'd think, I think that in that case, I wouldn't feel nearly so bad if I were collateral damage than I would if, say, I was a civilian in Hiroshima.
But seeing as how I believe those nuclear weapon attacks on Japan saved vast numbers of lives both Japanese and American (as well as ending vast numbers of lives), I think I wouldn't feel totally outraged if I were a civilian there, either.
Speaking personally, I think that people probably would feel a little better if they were collateral damage than if they were targeted for murder. That's just because, frankly, most people all over the world regard the idea of collateral damage as acceptable-when it's their side doing the damage.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I call them all sorts of things everyday when I'm driving and they're being themselves, dagnabbit.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Rakeesh, I'm primarily responding to Silkie.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Slightly off topic, or not.
The difference between a believer and a fanatic--A believer is willing to die for his cause. A fanatic is willing to kill.
There are many causes I would be willing to die for. There are very few I'd be willing to kill for.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Like what?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I'm not saying that to be nasty, by the way. I'm interested in what examples you have of things which you would be willing to die for but not kill for.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Texas drivers. Frickin' idiots! Gosh!
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
I used the Orwellian reference because the current Administration has a habit of deliberately using language that is misleading when naming things. Their terminology is NOT accidental, it is well thought out.
For instance, the Bush Administration's air pollution plan, euphemistically called the "Clear Skies Initiative," actually shredded Clean Air Act protections. I could come up with other examples, but you can look them up if you are interested. The bottom line is that the use of language to mask the actual content of their programs IS Orwellian.
As for the numbers of 'insurgents/resisters/whatever, I came across this article today:
quote:Possibly 100 Different Rebel Groups in Iraq
The insurgency consists not of a few groups but of dozens, possibly as many as 100. And it is not, as often depicted, a coherent organization whose members dutifully carry out orders from above but a far-flung collection of smaller groups that often act on their own or come together for a single attack, the officials say. ... continued ... New York Times Article
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:I used the Orwellian reference because the current Administration has a habit of deliberately using language that is misleading when naming things. Their terminology is NOT accidental, it is well thought out.
Fair enough, but do you admit that both sides are using misleading language to further their goals?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If by "both sides" you mean Democrats and Republicans, I don't think it's even. Bush uses for more misleading language than the Democrats do. Republicans are masters of spin. They get people to not vote for Democrats claiming they vote for tax increases, when in actuality they are voting against tax cuts. Mathamatically that isn't a tax increase, it's keeping the status quo, but people don't know that, because they aren't given the details, just the Republicans smear whitewash.
Sure, Democrats do it too, but they aren't anywhere near as good at it, and they don't even try as often as the right does.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Coming from the other side, I would say that it's the opposite. Perhaps our ideological perspective biases us towards thinking that the other side uses spin more, and better?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Odd.
Murtha called for an immediate withdrawal of troops.
quote:An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.
"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said Rep. John Murtha
Congress voted on whether to withdraw troops immediately.
Is it reasonable to conclude that Congress voted on something Murtha didn't propose?
Or that Congress is in some way obligated to only vote on things that Murtha proposes?
Congress could have ignored him. This would tell Iraqi insurgents that there are calls for immediate withdrawal in Congress, without telling them that there is an overwhelming majority against that happening. Since the only way the insurgents can win is if the US gives up, this would indicate to them that victory for them is possible, so it's more reasonable to keep fighting.
So what does Murtha accomplish, when he calls for a cut-and-run strategy, when such a strategy has no chance (403-3 against)? It isn't to get the strategy implemented, that's for sure. And what do the media accomplish, when they tell terrorists that we're about to buckle? What they're doing is saying, hang in there, terrorists, any minute now you'll win! It's recruitment ads for our enemies.
If there were a chance we'd actually start withdrawal now, it would be worth discussing. Until it is, the best defense our soldiers have, short of their own selves, is for Congress to make it clear that the hope Murtha extends to our enemies is a false hope. Telling the enemy to hang in there is bad; showing them they can't win is a good use of Congress's time.
[ December 02, 2005, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern:
quote:I used the Orwellian reference because the current Administration has a habit of deliberately using language that is misleading when naming things. Their terminology is NOT accidental, it is well thought out.
Fair enough, but do you admit that both sides are using misleading language to further their goals?
I agree with Lyrhawn, all politicians lie. It just seems like this administration has lied more than any other I can think of. They have deliberately turned their back on the majority of the American people, and the basic needs of 'common' everyday working people, while catering to the rich and big business special interests. Recently, while Congress was looking for ways to cut the budget, they didn't even consider ending the tax cuts for the rich. Instead they cut food stamp programs for the hungry, and cut Head-Start programs which are proven to help poor children succeed in getting an education.
Looking at what is said by the Administration, and what is really done, shows a disturbing pattern. The pattern that emerges - the misleading rhetoric, and misleading names - is a deeply dishonest one. The campaign postures and promices were for show, not acted upon. Religion, lies, and prejudice were used to gain power which is being used to fulfill an unknown and unannounced REAL agenda.
If Bush had run on a platform of ending abortion and overturning Roe v Wade, he would have lost votes, so he downplayed that agenda. Bush said he was against nation building - and we are building a nation. Bush was 'for the environment' and then he gutted the EPA. When 9/11 happened, he LOOKED for a way to tie Saddam into that and create a reason to go to war with Iraq. It is hard to figure out WHAT he really is up to, since he appears to say whatever it takes to enable him to have the power to achieve his secret ends.
Meetings and methods of making decisions that were transparent in the past have become secrets. The VP fought for years to avoid giving up the secret of his energy task force that set energy policy. The truth is emerging (from Oil Company records) that the companies who were being regulated were the task force who wrote those regulations, without representation given to opposing opinions. Special interests are running our nation.
We hold ourselves up as examples of freedom and Democracy, we're going to 'bring Democracy' to the Middle east. Yet in this Administration's watch that Freedom has eroded more than at any other time I am aware of in our history.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: What they're doing is saying, hang in there, terrorists, any minute now you'll win! It's recruitment ads for our enemies.
I think a fundamental mistake you are making here is to assume that suicide bombers have the same definition of "win" that we do. They consider themselves martyrs. They don't need the hope of "winning" to be encouraged. A reasonable hope of achieving reasonable goals works against extremists. It makes it harder for them to recruit.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:If Bush had run on a platform of ending abortion and overturning Roe v Wade, he would have lost votes, so he downplayed that agenda.
Point of clarification, not necessarily in opposition, taken from the 2000 Republican Platform:
quote:The Supreme Court’s recent decision, prohibiting states from banning partial-birth abortions — a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide — shocks the conscience of the nation. As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/ I cannot confirm that Bush would have lost votes if he had spoken more about overturning Roe v. Wade.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Suicide bombers don't hope to survive the experience (of course), but they (and other terrorists who don't kill themselves) must hope to accomplish something. It's a little hard to believe that their hope is that they won't achieve any of their goals.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
So far, if Bush really did intend to overturn abortion, he's done a terrible job of it so far. The status quo is pretty much the same. Perhaps Alito will change things, but if so, it has taken Bush five years to do anything concrete.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Their "hope" is to die gloriously (or have others die)to keep the cause alive. While they have a cause, the leaders of the insurgents have power. If they don't have a cause they are nobody.
Look at Ireland for example. 800 years of occupation before Ireland (mostly) achieved independence. They didn't win a lot of battles. They eventually got what they wanted by losing gloriously.
In N. Ireland, the IRA was never going to militarily defeat the British Army. That was never going to stop them from trying. What is working (tbtG) to bring peace is a reasonable hope of achieving reasonable goals. The leaders who fail to understand this are more and more marginalized.
[ December 02, 2005, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B:
I cannot confirm that Bush would have lost votes if he had spoken more about overturning Roe v. Wade.
In an election that was won by a few hundred votes, who can say? I live in Florida - don't get me started on what happened in the elections - PLEASE!
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: So far, if Bush really did intend to overturn abortion, he's done a terrible job of it so far. The status quo is pretty much the same. Perhaps Alito will change things, but if so, it has taken Bush five years to do anything concrete.
He hasn't had the opportunity to do anything (that we know of) until now. Roberts is reportedly covertly anti-abortion, but we will only find out what he really believes when he has written some applicable decisions on the Supreme Court. As for Alito, according to some of his Reagan memos recently released he is staunchly anti-abortion. It should be interesting to watch Congress deal with this choice, with an election looming over them.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B:
The Supreme Court’s recent decision, prohibiting states from banning partial-birth abortions — a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide — shocks the conscience of the nation. As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.
This publicity is a non issue which is meant to erode Roe v Wade. If you do the research, late term abortion is very rare, and is almost always done for the health/survival of the mother, or because of a severely deformed foetus.
I agree that ELECTIVE abortions of late term foetus should not be allowed, BUT you cannot give the same rights to the unborn that you give to those who were born. In doing that you legitimize religious belief systems of when a person becomes a person. Law must use Science in such things, and be quantified and concrete.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
He's still at it:
quote:Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.
Preposterous---and the only effect it can have is to demoralize our soldiers and encourage those that wish to kill them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps you're missing that, if his proposal is successful, it would bring troops home where those who wish to kill them would find them rather out of reach?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Will, it is obvious that you don't agree.
Perhaps that is why I am glad you aren't one of the people in power.
Not that I agree with Murtha, myself...I don't. But there is a BIG difference between your definition of giving aid to an enemy and actully doing so.
What he is doing is giving voice to some real concerns that he feels need addressed. Not trying to help the enemy, not trying to hurt the soldiers, and not betraying American.
He si using his position to speak for the people who voted for him, and while I don't agree with his stance on the current amendment I think he has some good points to make.
And calling him a traitor and claiming he is being un-American doesn't change any of them...it only reveals your own agenda.
Thanks for being so transparent. Perhaps he isn't as stupid as you think he is. Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Those who cannot see the difference between our methods and motivations in this conflict and those of the insurgencey are too mentally myopic to be allowed to have opinions, like passing a basic eye exam to get a drivers liscence they should be required to site at least five morally significant differences before they are allowed to post.
quote: Their "hope" is to die gloriously (or have others die)to keep the cause alive. While they have a cause, the leaders of the insurgents have power. If they don't have a cause they are nobody.
Their hope is to get high, drunk or by food with money slipped to them by paymasters who risk nothing. The character of the insurgent bomber is well understood. Sorry to burst you bubble but you do not get a better class of IED emplacer in Iraq. The ones with the courage to attack openly are nice to have around, they charge us and die, we like them, they are easier to spot.
These are not patriots fighting for their country, they are desperate people trying to stop change from taking place and thier fight against the future is as much an attempt to hold onto prestige they already had as to stop a future they cannot imagine. Women with power? Kurds keeping a portion of the oil wealth in their region? Religious tolerance? Having to work for a living instead of drawing a government check? These are what they fight against and the reality is that if they fight hard enough they will never have to see the change take place....
Because I myself and people like me will see that they die.
"Changing Hearts and Minds... Two to the Heart and One to the Mind!"
BC
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Those who cannot see the difference between our methods and motivations in this conflict and those of the insurgencey are too mentally myopic to be allowed to have opinions, like passing a basic eye exam to get a drivers liscence they should be required to site at least five morally significant differences before they are allowed to post.
quote: Their "hope" is to die gloriously (or have others die)to keep the cause alive. While they have a cause, the leaders of the insurgents have power. If they don't have a cause they are nobody.
Their hope is to get high, drunk or buy food with money slipped to them by paymasters who risk nothing. The character of the insurgent bomber is well understood. Sorry to burst you bubble but you do not get a better class of IED emplacer in Iraq. The ones with the courage to attack openly are nice to have around, they charge us and die, we like them, they are easier to spot.
These are not patriots fighting for their country, they are desperate people trying to stop change from taking place and thier fight against the future is as much an attempt to hold onto prestige they already had as to stop a future they cannot imagine. Women with power? Kurds keeping a portion of the oil wealth in their region? Religious tolerance? Having to work for a living instead of drawing a government check? These are what they fight against and the reality is that if they fight hard enough they will never have to see the change take place....
Because I myself and people like me will see that they die.
"Changing Hearts and Minds... Two to the Heart and One to the Mind!"
BC
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well here's an interesting question:
What do you think it'll take to put an end to the insurgency?
I've heard conflicting theories: 1) The "hearts and mind" theory (this is different from what you talked about in your little quip): This theory is that there's a near endless supply of these folks willing to die for whatever cause they think they are dying for. That disaffected youth, people who have lost everything, and a mixture of garden-variety brainwashed zealots are in plentiful supply. It says the only way to end the insurgency is to show (prove for real) that things will be better for everyone in a democracy. Housing, jobs, schools, etc., etc.
This is believed to require at least a generation to pass before the change will be "accepted."
2)The "kill enough of them" theory This one says that we've already turned the tide. That the "quality" of the insurgents, and their numbers are dwindling rapidly and soon enough the "movement" will be just be represented by a few ineffectual die hards (literally) who can't muster significant support.
3) The "Iraqis self-rule" theory This one says that the insurgency will pretty much lose its great bugaboo when the foreign troops depart. That the thing they've found most useful in recruiting is the very fact of occupation. When that ends, so does the major raison d'etre for the insurgency.
I'm not sure whether I believe one of these or a combination of them. But I wonder if maybe there might not be a 4th or even several other options.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:BUT you cannot give the same rights to the unborn that you give to those who were born.
Sure you can. It is already done in our legal system.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: These are not patriots fighting for their country, they are desperate people trying to stop change from taking place and thier fight against the future is as much an attempt to hold onto prestige they already had as to stop a future they cannot imagine.
Yeah. I feel the same way about people who oppose same-sex marriage. Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
"The difference between a believer and a fanatic--A believer is willing to die for his cause. A fanatic is willing to kill.
There are many causes I would be willing to die for. There are very few I'd be willing to kill for."
I've never heard such a ridiculous statement. (Well, I am sure I have; this is close to the top though.) I don't how many times I have seen the argument you just threw up there get defeated with a child's logic. Please.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Perhaps you're missing that, if his proposal is successful, it would bring troops home where those who wish to kill them would find them rather out of reach?
Not at all, fugu. Any proposal that fails 403-3 is *not* successful, and therefore cannot bring the troops home. That's why I say Congress was right to vote on it. Murtha is continuing to tell terrorists they might win any day now, but Congress proved him wrong.
If his proposal had a reasonable chance, it would be a different matter (as I said).
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
You mean like those French snobs who want to keep English words out of their language? You know the ones who want words to keep the same definition rather then being changed to mean something else?
"2)The "kill enough of them" theory This one says that we've already turned the tide. That the "quality" of the insurgents, and their numbers are dwindling rapidly and soon enough the "movement" will be just be represented by a few ineffectual die hards (literally) who can't muster significant support."
This is in fact all based on real world data and is quite relevant, it keeps our losses down and has created an environment where progress has been steady and will continue.
"1) The "hearts and mind" theory (this is different from what you talked about in your little quip): This theory is that there's a near endless supply of these folks willing to die for whatever cause they think they are dying for. That disaffected youth, people who have lost everything, and a mixture of garden-variety brainwashed zealots are in plentiful supply. It says the only way to end the insurgency is to show (prove for real) that things will be better for everyone in a democracy. Housing, jobs, schools, etc., etc."
This is an ever diminishing problem, the really gullible, vengeful and stupid do weed themselves out faster then they can be recruited. It is expensive to equip and time consuming to make a true zealot. So it is true to say that they will never be out of such, it is false to consider them to be an infinite threat, there will always be more murders in New York City, doesn't mean we need to occupy it.
") The "Iraqis self-rule" theory This one says that the insurgency will pretty much lose its great bugaboo when the foreign troops depart. That the thing they've found most useful in recruiting is the very fact of occupation. When that ends, so does the major raison d'etre for the insurgency."
This is just a misunderstanding of the Iraqi people and the region. Think of them as having the morality of a Kindergarten class and you will have you clue as to why the teacher cannot just leave and not expect to come back to pandimonium. We will need to remain visible and influential with the locals and the Government as an ever present "shaperone" until the habit of responsible behavior takes hold. That is not to say we cannot appoint hall monitors and turn much responsibility to them, but if we do not want them selling drugs for sex in the bathroom and shaking down lower classman for cigerette money we need to watch them carefully and punish them sevearly for breach of trust.
BC
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:And calling him a traitor and claiming he is being un-American doesn't change any of them...it only reveals your own agenda.
Thanks for being so transparent. [Wink] Perhaps he isn't as stupid as you think he is. [Big Grin]
As you know, Kwea, I did not call Murtha a traitor, or un-American, or stupid.
It isn't *my* transparency you reveal when you make up things about me.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:This is in fact all based on real world data and is quite relevant, it keeps our losses down and has created an environment where progress has been steady and will continue.
This isn't really getting any news coverage. I mean, I've heard the thought expressed, but I haven't seen a bunch of reports coming out that present any "real world data."
It's a nice thing to believe, but if it is, where's the data? It doesn't seem like something that the press would ignore.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Will B,
quote:I don't how many times I have seen the argument you just threw up there get defeated with a child's logic. Please.
Well then, perhaps you could lower your rhetoric to a childlike level and explain this crushing logic, please?
Because there are quite a lot of things I would be willing to kill for, and even more that I would be willing to die for-and I think that someone having a larger discrepency isn't unreasonable.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:So far, if Bush really did intend to overturn abortion, he's done a terrible job of it so far. The status quo is pretty much the same. Perhaps Alito will change things, but if so, it has taken Bush five years to do anything concrete.
The worst thing that could happen to the Republican party is if RvW were overturned, or that we actually do ratify a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
If that happens, the fundamentalists may have to give political priority to other religious principles during elections, like combating poverty.
I would truly love to see a nuclear slugfest between the corporate interests and the fundamentalist Christians.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
I put 'I don't how'. I feel sheepish.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I put 'I don't how'. I feel sheepish.
No big deal -- but you can fix it.
If you go to your post and click on the Edit Post button (it's the icon that looks like a piece of paper and a pencil that sits right above the title line in each individual post), you get to change it (only the person who made the post and the moderators can do this). You can even delete a post (there's a check box to delete).
So, if you make a truly important error, you do have the option of fixing it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I've never heard such a ridiculous statement. (Well, I am sure I have; this is close to the top though.) I don't how many times I have seen the argument you just threw up there get defeated with a child's logic. Please.
Why is this ridiculous? Surely you agree that many people are willing to kill for things they aren't willing to die for; why is the opposite "ridiculous?"
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: These are not patriots fighting for their country, they are desperate people trying to stop change from taking place and thier fight against the future is as much an attempt to hold onto prestige they already had as to stop a future they cannot imagine.
Yeah. I feel the same way about people who oppose same-sex marriage.
You are aware that we aren't out bombing civilians to stop same-sex marriage, right? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, to clarify, the issue is not WHY they're bombing civilians, but that they're bombing civilians AT ALL? Their motives could be entirely noble, but the bombing of civilians is still a bit problematic? Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B:
quote:And calling him a traitor and claiming he is being un-American doesn't change any of them...it only reveals your own agenda.
Thanks for being so transparent. [Wink] Perhaps he isn't as stupid as you think he is. [Big Grin]
As you know, Kwea, I did not call Murtha a traitor, or un-American, or stupid.
It isn't *my* transparency you reveal when you make up things about me.
I paraphrased. If that isn't what you meant, but were not brave enough (or were too smart to say) to say it openly then you neeed to revisit your posts, because that is what it looked like and sounded like....
And not just to me.
I doubt you know much about my own beliefs, one way or another, although you probably think you do.
quote:What they're doing is saying, hang in there, terrorists, any minute now you'll win! It's recruitment ads for our enemies.
quote: for Congress to make it clear that the hope Murtha extends to our enemies is a false hope.
quote:Preposterous---and the only effect it can have is to demoralize our soldiers and encourage those that wish to kill them.
So....where was I wrong again? Next time you try to play coy, make sure your previous posts on the subject have at LEAST dropped to a new page....
You implied he was only helping our enemies, you said his opinion only mattered if he could win the vote, and you implied that doing anything other than what your political views are...things like making a stink even if you can't win outright so that people start paying attention....is stupid.
So either you can't read you own posts, you thought I couldn't read them, or you failed to communicate anything you meant to properly.
Which was it again? Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Any proposal that fails 403-3 is *not* successful, and therefore cannot bring the troops home. That's why I say Congress was right to vote on it. Murtha is continuing to tell terrorists they might win any day now, but Congress proved him wrong.
I want to reiterate that Congress did NOT vote on Rep. Murtha's proposal. The House DID vote 403-3 against a bill that was essentially a bastardized and ridiculous version of Murtha's bill proposed by a Republican representative. If the House had voted on Murtha's resolution, it would not have been 403-3 against.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Alas, I've got to agree with Nato on this. I think it was a tactical blunder by the GOP to not vote on Murtha's proposal as it stood. It still would have been shot down, if not quite 403-3, and then everyone would have really been on record, and not had the excuse that it was a ridiculous version of Murtha's proposal.
As a side note, it's interesting how everyone, especially including the Republicans, always point out the Murtha is a war hero, before talking about where his proposal is wrong? Nobody did that with Col. North (also a genuine war hero) or Randy Cunningham, who was guilty - but was also one of only three Vietnam War aces?
OTO, I saw a column which pointed out that the Republicans are angry with Rep. Jean Schmidt (sp?) because her quoting the Marine officer who wanted her to tell Murtha, "Cowards run. Marines don't." allowed the Democrats to focus the discussion on Murtha as a person rather than Murtha's proposal. This, combined with the MSM's fairly successful attempt to cast this as Murtha's coming out against the war (not so, he was against it from almost the beginning, and 18 months ago he called for the prosecution of those who "misled" him into voting for it) has taken the spotlight pretty much off the pros and cons of Murtha's actual proposal.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
With respect to Olliver North, his actions sort of erase his claim to be anything but scum, IMHO. Murtha has served his country honorably, from what I can tell -- although there is that whiff of scandal that he narrowly squeeked through a few years back.
But the big take-home lesson from Ollie North is, really, when asked to shred documents, make copies first and quietly let your "employers" know that they'll be released upon your sudden or suspicious demise.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I remember a LOT of people talking about North's service records...I even remember people saying he was a hero and we shouldn't even think of questioning his actions....
Other than that I agree with your last post though. While I see nothing wrong with putting that bill up for a vote, the Rep did themselves wrong by not voting on it as it originaly was...they had more than enough votes to defeat it after all.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Well, Nato has an interesting argument. In what way is the GOP version a "bastardized" version of Murtha's proposal?
Much better than the tactic of imagining what other posters are really thinking -- which, even if accurate, would be beside the mark.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
IMO, there is only semantic differences, but Murtha's proposal, as it stood still would have failed. Cowardly Republicans.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Well, Nato has an interesting argument. In what way is the GOP version a "bastardized" version of Murtha's proposal?
Much better than the tactic of imagining what other posters are really thinking -- which, even if accurate, would be beside the mark.
Yeah...god forbid we judge someone's arguments on what was actually said rather than what people THINK they might have meant to say at some point, some day....
Once again, read what I said about my opinion...you are reading bias into things where it doesn't exist...I actually disagree with Murtha's plan of action....
But I am completely capable of drawing reasonable infrences based on your statments, and I know it isn't just my opinion of your views, as I talked about it with several Jatraquero's about them and they agreed with me.
Once again, if you didn't actually didn't mean to imply anything of the sort you didn't communicate your points very well.
What were you trying to say?
[ December 05, 2005, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
The GOP's version demanded immediate withdrawal, and Murtha's proposal sought withdrawal at the "earliest practicable date." The Republican bill was designed not to be passed, it was designed to discredit the proponents of withdrawal. The bill was essentially a straw man. The Republicans presented it as if it were the opponent's argument and then shot it down. It had no applicability to Murtha's actual proposal.
Removing our forces from the region is not a victory for the terrorists. The insurgent attacks are largely directed against the US presence, and without that presence, the main target for attacks is removed. Furthermore, the end goal of this war is to remove our troops and leave a stable Iraq behind, right? There will not be a victory until we're gone.
(Strangely, even though the war's planners claim that our goal is withdrawal, KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, is currently building four more permanent bases in the country. How will we ever get rid of the motivations of the insurgency when the occupying army is perpetually there?)
Also... Consider This: It takes roughly six weeks to train a US soldier, plus a little specialized training here and there. How long should it take to train Iraqi security forces? Why has it taken years and billions of dollars?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:It takes roughly six weeks to train a US soldier, plus a little specialized training here and there. How long should it take to train Iraqi security forces? Why has it taken years and billions of dollars?
An army is more than a bunch of boot privates. It takes much longer to develop the officer and NCO corps that will lead the new recruits.
quote:It had no applicability to Murtha's actual proposal.
It wasn't quite that far off. I'm still upset that they didn't let Murtha's proposal get shot down as it stood. You know, for a bunch of supposedly corrupt and conniving master politicians, the Republicans are remarkably incompetent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, Rove's been busy lately. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:You know, for a bunch of supposedly corrupt and conniving master politicians, the Republicans are remarkably incompetent.
The irony is that the reason for their incompetence (when it most displays itself) is their willingness to engage in political strategem instead of actually listening to others. It all comes down to arrogance, a disease which has infected our politicians and political parties to the point that it may well be terminal.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: The GOP's version demanded immediate withdrawal, and Murtha's proposal sought withdrawal at the "earliest practicable date." The Republican bill was designed not to be passed, it was designed to discredit the proponents of withdrawal. The bill was essentially a straw man. The Republicans presented it as if it were the opponent's argument and then shot it down. It had no applicability to Murtha's actual proposal.
Removing our forces from the region is not a victory for the terrorists. The insurgent attacks are largely directed against the US presence, and without that presence, the main target for attacks is removed. Furthermore, the end goal of this war is to remove our troops and leave a stable Iraq behind, right? There will not be a victory until we're gone.
(Strangely, even though the war's planners claim that our goal is withdrawal, KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, is currently building four more permanent bases in the country. How will we ever get rid of the motivations of the insurgency when the occupying army is perpetually there?)
Also... Consider This: It takes roughly six weeks to train a US soldier, plus a little specialized training here and there. How long should it take to train Iraqi security forces? Why has it taken years and billions of dollars?
I agree with Nato. Please take a look at the JFK Vietnam withdrawal plan I posted on another thread. Withdrawal can be in stages. IF a majority of the 'insurgents' are fighting because they want the US to go home, a staged withdrawal to take our people out of harms way and push the elected government to take responsibility for their own people would be a good exit strategy.
We can just move across the borders, temporarily if need be. IF the Iraqis slow or stop the fighting against our presence the Al Qaeda intruders will be easier to spot, and THEIR removal can be accomplished, which is why we are there, right?
quote:If we leave Iraq at its own government's request, our withdrawal will be neither abandonment nor retreat. Law-abiding Iraqis may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we leave; but they may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we stay. The president has said we will not leave Iraq to the terrorists. Let us leave Iraq to the Iraqis, who have survived centuries of civil war, tyranny and attempted foreign domination.
Once American troops are out of Iraq, people around the world will rejoice that we have recovered our senses. What's more, the killing of Americans and the global loss of American credibility will diminish. As Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Republican and Vietnam veteran, said, "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have." Defeatist? The real defeatists are those who say we are stuck there for the next decade of death and destruction.
In a memorandum to President Kennedy, roughly three months after his inauguration, one of us wrote with respect to Vietnam, "There is no clearer example of a country that cannot be saved unless it saves itself." Today, Iraq is an even clearer example.
By THEODORE C. SORENSEN and ARTHUR SCHLESINGER Jr.
There is no reason for us to stay past the time we are welcomed, unless the real reason for us being there is Neocon nation building, and the Iraqi Oil reserves.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: unless the real reason for us being there is Neocon nation building, and the Iraqi Oil reserves
Those are two DIFFERENT reasons, with very different justifications.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>> staged withdrawal to take our people out of harms way and push the elected government to take responsibility for their own people would be a good exit strategy. <<
1) Is the government ready to take responsibility?
2) Do they want us to leave?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I disagree with the "no reason except" part of that, myself.
There are a lot of reasons...some good, some not so good...for staying at this point. Nto for ever, but for now.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are doing so becaise of your reasons. Some people just have a different opinion on it, and that doesn't automatically make them evil, or wrong, or greedy.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: There is no reason for us to stay past the time we are welcomed
So then there should not be any debate about us leaving now or when we should leave since the Iraqi government wants us there currently
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Silkie: We can just move across the borders, temporarily if need be. IF the Iraqis slow or stop the fighting against our presence the Al Qaeda intruders will be easier to spot, and THEIR removal can be accomplished, which is why we are there, right?
The first step in the transition should be moving out of the urban centers. All the checkpoints around the Green Zone--which is essentially our Forbidden City in Iraq--should be dissolved, and the Iraqis should be given a chance to live freely in the country that they supposeedly govern. As it is, it seems like few Iraqis are taking charge of anything. In one of Bush's recent speeches, he highlighted a certain battle where he said Iraqi forces took the lead. However, eyewitnesses to the battle made it clear that US special forces were ultimately in command still.
quote:So then there should not be any debate about us leaving now or when we should leave since the Iraqi government wants us there currently
80% of the Iraqi people want us gone. 45% of the Iraqi people thing attacks on US forces are justified.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It takes roughly six weeks to train a US soldier, plus a little specialized training here and there. How long should it take to train Iraqi security forces? Why has it taken years and billions of dollars?
Wow...tern addressed this, but that's just stunning ignorance, Nato.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:We can just move across the borders, temporarily if need be. IF the Iraqis slow or stop the fighting against our presence the Al Qaeda intruders will be easier to spot, and THEIR removal can be accomplished, which is why we are there, right?
Ummm...whose borders do we withdraw across? Iran's? Saudi Arabia's?
quote:There is no reason for us to stay past the time we are welcomed, unless the real reason for us being there is Neocon nation building, and the Iraqi Oil reserves.
Let's dispense with this nonsense. There are many possible reasons aside from those two, and many of them could in fact have more to do with the welfare of the Iraqi people than with our own Administration's.
A not-unlikely situation: suppose a wide variety of intelligence sources inform us that our enemies in Iraq are in fact waiting for a pullout, preparing for that time, at which they will radically increase the tempo of their attacks against the Iraqi government and its people, in an attempt to overthrow it and take control.
That's obviously plausible, and yet the Iraqi people as a whole would not know of this strategy, and so that knowledge would not be reflected in the polls.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:We can just move across the borders, temporarily if need be. IF the Iraqis slow or stop the fighting against our presence the Al Qaeda intruders will be easier to spot, and THEIR removal can be accomplished, which is why we are there, right?
Ummm...whose borders do we withdraw across? Iran's? Saudi Arabia's?
We have bases in surrounding nations, from which we launched our offensive.
I have an article here that answers the ten most used reasons for 'staying the course' in Iraq. He says it much better than I could:
1. Nothing was mentioned about improvements in Iraq (elections, water and energy, schools).
No Saddam to fear! Water and energy delivery as well as schools are worse off than before the U.S. invasion. Ditto for the state of hospitals (and medical supplies), highways, and oil production. Elections are a positive change, but the elected government does not have more than a semblance of actual sovereignty, and therefore the Iraqi people have no power to make real choices about their future. One critical example: The Shiite/Kurdish political coalition now in power ran on a platform whose primary promise was that, if elected, they would set and enforce a timetable for American withdrawal. As soon as they took power, they reneged on this promise (apparently under pressure from the US). They have also proved quite incapable of fulfilling their other campaign promises about restoring services and rebuilding the country; and for that reason (as well as others), their constituents (primarily the Shia) are becoming ever more disillusioned. In the most recent polls, Shia Iraqis now are about 70% in favor of U.S. withdrawal.
2. Nothing was mentioned about Iraqis who want the U.S. to remain (especially the Kurds and the majority of Iraqi women).
Among the three principal ethno-religious groups in Iraq, the Sunnis (about a fifth of the population) are almost unanimous in their opposition to the American presence, while around 70% of the Shia (themselves about 60% of the population) want the U.S. to withdraw. Hence, even before we consider the Kurds, the majority of Iraqis are in favor of a full-scale American departure "as soon as possible." It is true that the Kurds (about 20% of the population) favor the U.S. remaining. However, they have their own militias and many of them do not want significant numbers of American troops in their territory. (The U.S. presence there is small-scale at the moment.) What they desire is a U.S. occupation for someone else, not themselves. I think we can safely say that the vast majority of Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. troops.
I know of no study indicating that Iraqi women favor the U.S. presence. Perhaps you are referring to the fact that large numbers of women in Iraq are upset and angry over the erosion of their rights since the fall of Saddam. I know some commentators claim that the U.S. presence is insurance against further erosion of those rights, but everything I have read indicates that a significant number of Iraqi women (like all Iraqis) blame the Bush administration for these policies. After all, the Americans installed in power (and continue to support) the political forces spearheading anti-woman policies in the country. Polling data do not indicate that any sizable group of Sunni or Shia women support a continued U.S. presence.
3. Nothing was mentioned about the benefits of the U.S. military gaining valuable experience and knowledge daily.
Certainly, the U.S. gains military and political "experience" from the war, as from any war, but at the expense of many deaths (2,127) and injuries (at least 15,704) to American soldiers. Beyond these publicly listed casualty figures lie the endless ways in which the lives of our soldiers are permanently damaged: On November 26, for example, the New York Times reported on a recent army study indicating that 17% of all personnel sent to Iraq have "serious symptoms of depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder." Since about a million American troops have now seen service in Iraq, approximately 170,000 have gained the "experience" of having a severe mental problem. Moreover, the war experience in Iraq has proved so demoralizing to the military that many of the best soldiers are leaving at the end of their tours, instead of staying on in active or reserve status. This is undermining the viability of the military, long term.
U.S. casualties, of course, have been dwarfed by the damage done to the Iraqi people. Between 25,000 and 40,000 Iraqi civilians are dying each year -- and multitudes are injured. We are wrecking the country's infrastructure.
Certainly there is a better way to gain experience than this.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Have you read about what George and Co.'s plans were for the Middle East before 9/11? Plans were already on the table to invade Iraq. ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
, but I've got some fairly pressing commitments in RL and I've got to stop getting sucked in to these threads for a while. It's been an interesting discussion, however. When I have time, I'll write up a more comprehensive answer, which I may or may not post. Laters!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)