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 Of course the fact that all of those chemicals we gave Saddam were out of date at the beginning of this war and no longer useful because of that meant nothing.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.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
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. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to know when the appropriate time to place blame is. Would it be before the next election?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There has certainly been reason to believe that the intelligence was collected with a specific goal in mind.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.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. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
