posted
What I am teaching you is that to a soldier it matters not at all that you are splitting hairs in your own mind, when you break on the mission the soldiers do not feel supported reguardless of the PC rehtoric, so just make your choice, support the troops on their missions or be the other thing. We will police up our bad soldiers, we will provide feedback to the policy makers so they can adjust the mission.
In the end we always hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct then any soldiers in history, the end is this, our soldiers are on a mission against evil, and we have leaders who believe in both good and evil and try to fight on the side of good. That is where I place my blood and bone and that is where I vote.
quote:What I am teaching you is that to a soldier it matters not at all that you are splitting hairs in your own mind, when you break on the mission the soldiers do not feel supported reguardless of the PC rehtoric,
Change that to "some soldiers" and you would be accurate.
I know many soldiers who have said that they don't feel unsupported by people who oppose the mission but wish them the best.
quote:We will police up our bad soldiers, we will provide feedback to the policy makers so they can adjust the mission
I know MANY servicemen who are utterly offended by this idea. In fact, I've heard quite a bit of complaining from people in the service about soldiers who try to claim exclusivity of comment on military matters.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:We will police up our bad soldiers, we will provide feedback to the policy makers so they can adjust the mission.
And if the policy makers don't adjust the mission in response to your feedback, do you believe your useless deaths are good ones?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will you consider that an appropriate use of your corpse?
At what point, BC, do you believe that your leadership is capable of betraying your trust and no longer deserving of your unquestioning obedience? Is your answer to that question "never?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Until they ask me to violate the rules of war, I do as I am told, If I have to fight Iran, China, Russia, Somalia I will do the best I can for those with me and for the people I love. There is no question for a soldier about these things, I choose to be a soldier if I want to pick my own targets I would have to go freelance as a serial killer.
Do you think that my name and that of the rest of my family is beyond the reach of terrorists? We caught lists of our mail return addresses in the hands of insurgents that were compiled from our thrown away mail, they will bring it home to us if we do not take it to them. Breath the free air in the space we provide, use it for something nice like making inroads into Space, don't trip us up as we try to give you room.
quote:Until they ask me to violate the rules of war, I do as I am told...
That's still not the question. I'm not asking "should you obey?" I'm asking if people should offer advice to and criticism of your leadership while you are required to obey those leaders, or if you believe your effectiveness is reduced by any and all attempts to make your leadership more effective (and, consequently, your obedience most useful.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
And yet, notably, the UN did not authorize invasion of Iraq.
Now, if you want to get into treaty violations, that's a whole other ball of wax. Just be warned there's a lot of treaties and cease-fires violated around the world. Even the U.S has been guilty of a few.
Secondly, while functional mustard gas and sarin may be WMD. However, a "mushroom cloud" specifically refers to a nuclear weapon.
Never mind the question of whether a non-functioning nerve agent can be called a weapon at all, let alone a weapon of mass destruction.
If one were to lay off specifics and just accept that the administration has been, shall we say, fairly disingenuous, it would be fair to leave it at that.
Thirdly, if "all the world's intelligence agencies were in agreement, it's odd to have George Tenet attesting that "US Analysts never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat";
and that the infamous Downing Street memo implies that numerous holes and dissensions on the subject of intelligence would have to be covered to make the case for war:
The unanimity of international intelligence on the subject of Iraq and its weapons programs is a fiction. There wasn't even a unanimity of intelligence within the United States.
I'm not even going to bother joining in the dogpile on Bean Counter. Someone who screams constantly about fighting for America while deriding the basic democratic principles it stands for isn't worth the breath.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, a "mushroom cloud" specifically refers to a nuclear weapon.
Yes, it does. However, there was NEVER a contention that Iraq had a working nuclear weapon. There was a contention that it had working chemical weapons.
The mushroom cloud quote is irrelevant to this find except to refute the contention that the find proves Bush's claims were all correct.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The noisemakers only trouble me to the extent that they get listened to, so long as the administration can remain steadfast and listen to intelligence gathered by the military about the situation instead of the media I am fine.
We all got good laughs at Bush's plummeting poll numbers, it is so cute to say "look if we could only have the election now instead of two years ago people would agree with us..." In reality people are ignoring the furor and going about their business until they have to do their duty again, and keep the Left away from the Presidency.
As for deriding Democratic principle I have no idea when I have ever done so. A democracy at war is not the same as a democracy at peace, and some principles should be enshrined beyond the touch of mere mob rule, but I am a big fan of Democracy, fan enough to fight and die for it, fan enough to vote.
posted
I don't understand your way of thinking. It's narrow minded, to a degree that just boggles my mind from someone who grew up in America.
You strike me as an Ann Coulter fanatic, and that says it all for me.
Good luck. And even though you don't think it matters, I wish you well over there, but I don't support the war.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A secret known by three people is public knowledge, if you have a Town Hall discussion dictate policy during war time you are certain to have your decisions known to your enemy.
If you want to take your enemy with the least loss of life on your side, you cannot beat surprise. That is as simple an example of why you cannot discuss military maneuvers in a public forum as I can offer.
I trust you are just naive to need to ask this question at all, it is interesting how this fell from common knowledge in a couple generations.
quote:As for deriding Democratic principle I have no idea when I have ever done so. A democracy at war is not the same as a democracy at peace, and some principles should be enshrined beyond the touch of mere mob rule, but I am a big fan of Democracy, fan enough to fight and die for it, fan enough to vote.
Any time anyone says that others should shut up and let those who "know better" run the state, they deride democracy.
At this time, the democracy, or rather, republic, is "at war" only in as much as those who "know better" say it is. And frankly, they want to have it both ways, gaining credit for victory but remaining "at war". There's no single organized enemy to declare surrender or call for cease fire; there's no easily definable fronts which can be declared taken and held when insurgents fight with IEDs. And there's certainly no clear evidence that the occupation in Iraq is a fight against enemies who would otherwise attack America, or even are necessarily capable of attacking America. As has been repeatedly noted, exactly zero of those responsible for the 9/11/01 attack which has been so pilloried for the pleasure of those who sought to invade Iraq were actually from Iraq.
"The Left" is not something seperate from that democracy. It is a vital part of it. It is inseperable from it, and should be. The people who disagree with you are crucial to democracy, and they're no less doing their "duty" than you.
God help us all, if people are doing their "duty" they WON'T "shut up and let the people who know better" do their thinking for them. They'll speak up and try to convince people to go their way. On both sides. That's democracy.
Otherwise, hell, God save the king.
Give it a couple of years, we'll see who We, The People should decide make the big decisions. And we'll complain bitterly about those decisions, too, no doubt. That's part of the process. It's the immune system. The "we don't let a knuckleheaded idiot keep making bad decisions until we're run into the ground" process. I'm not claiming to know who will hold the office next. I'm not that stupid. The polls certainly don't tell me that. They do strongly imply this nation doesn't remotely swing right, right or wrong. If it came down to a Clinton-McCain race, I don't even know for sure who I'd vote for.
quote:Yes, it does. However, there was NEVER a contention that Iraq had a working nuclear weapon. There was a contention that it had working chemical weapons.
An insinuation, perhaps. A contention, harder to nail down.
Whether they had working chemical weapons remains under question as well, however. But I believe you noted as much.
Notably, arms expert David Kay claims that in all likelihood any weapons that have been discovered are presently degraded to non-lethal intensities:
posted
I don't think there was ever a claim that they had nukes, but I'm positive that Bush or Administration officials have said at least a dozen times that Saddam was actively seeking them. Basically, "Saddam might get them in a decade, thus, this is urgent!"
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I am teaching you is that to a soldier it matters not at all that you are splitting hairs in your own mind, when you break on the mission the soldiers do not feel supported reguardless of the PC rehtoric, so just make your choice, support the troops on their missions or be the other thing.
Sorry you feel that way. I'll keep paying my taxes anyway. But I guess I'm the "other thing."
I am not splitting hairs, by the way. I am resolving a major dilemma between what is right and what my country sometimes does in my name. The fact that soldiers sometimes perform duties that I disagree with gives me three options:
1) Adjust my thinking to align with whatever the soldiers' leaders say is right.
2) Exercise my role as a citizen to try to ensure that the government represents the highest ideals, as written in our laws and as embodied in our society's basic principals.
3) Actively fight against the government because I consider it corrupt.
#1 is not really an option that I can make work. In some cases, it would mean going against my faith, but in others it's just plain orneriness on my part -- refusing to give up simply because I know the arguments against my position are wrong.
Suffice it to say we're left with #2 and #3.
I choose #2 -- It preserves the United States in the truest sense of the word and does so in a way that #1 cannot.
It would take a lot for me to get to #3.
quote: In the end we always hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct then any soldiers in history,
Not to be a pain, but do you have anything to back this assertion? Every military historian-type I've ever asked about this points to the Brits as taking top honors in this regard. I don't mind being first, mind you, but I was just wondering if there was some sort of military ethics competition and we'd recently scored an upset victory.
quote: the end is this, our soldiers are on a mission against evil, and we have leaders who believe in both good and evil and try to fight on the side of good. That is where I place my blood and bone and that is where I vote.
I try to fight on the side of good too. If I see my government committing evil, I will work to stop it. If I see my government failing to do the best it can do, I will work to encourage it to do better. If I see us sacrificing our principles for the sake of expediency, I will raise questions.
I would expect ANY American to do likewise.
The main thing that's special about a time of war is that the stakes are higher. That's when having people who force us to stick to our ideals matters the most. It's not sedition to insist that the government act out our ideals.
If you understood what a gut punch launching a pre-emptive war was to what my underestanding of American values, perhaps you'd understand the disgust I have for the circumstances under which our troops arrived in Iraq. That alone has colored my feelings about the mission there. I find it difficult to imagine the good that will come from something so fundamentally against our unspoken principles.
The other things I dislike about the mission in Iraq pale against that one first problem. Unfortunately, my view of that also colors my perception of the good parts of the mission too. I worry that we didn't take the time to plan this whole thing well, and that people on both sides are dying as a result of that lack of careful planning in advance.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you want to take your enemy with the least loss of life on your side, you cannot beat surprise.
Believe it or not, I think you dishonor our soldiers by suggesting that our highest priority should be ensuring surprise. By that same logic, we'd be better off keeping them at home.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:A democracy at war is not the same as a democracy at peace...
Can you explain why this should be so?
Democracy is effective as a means to keep a stable government in times of peace. But in terms of being able to make effective decisions during a war a democracy is woefully inadequate in terms of speed. Many democracies temporarily invest powers in a select group of people so that they can be effective during war time rather than demanding total oversight on what the military does in a conflict.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Democracy is effective as a means to keep a stable government in times of peace. But in terms of being able to make effective decisions during a war a democracy is woefully inadequate in terms of speed. Many democracies temporarily invest powers in a select group of people so that they can be effective during war time rather than demanding total oversight on what the military does in a conflict.
... which is really no different from how a representative democracy handles non-military issues like education and interstate highways. Responsibility is delegated. Big whoop.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Democracy is effective as a means to keep a stable government in times of peace. But in terms of being able to make effective decisions during a war a democracy is woefully inadequate in terms of speed. Many democracies temporarily invest powers in a select group of people so that they can be effective during war time rather than demanding total oversight on what the military does in a conflict.
... which is really no different from how a representative democracy handles non-military issues like education and interstate highways. Responsibility is delegated. Big whoop.
Responsibility is delegated because the entire legislative body does not have TIME to deal with EVERYTHING those responsibilities entail. During war time decisions must be decisive and efficient. Neither of which is possible in a democracy. Just look at how the founding fathers organized the constitution and the declaration of independance. There was a HUGE debate on how much the delegates HAD to represent the people and how much they could make decisions FOR the masses. During the civil war Lincoln suspended writs of habeus corpus, and though he was scolded by the legislature (something that simply had to be done) many of the people in the legislature still said publically that Lincoln really had no choice as it was war time and he needed to make quick decisive action.
I imagine its like football. When do you scold the quarterback for changing the play at the huddle? Everytime, regardless of whether or not the outcome is favorable? Or only when the play goes south?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
1) Insuring they know we respect and admire thier courage and dedication and that we know they step in harms way not for glory or for money, but for us.
2) Insuring that we welcome them home with open arms and gratitude for the services they have done.
3) Making sure the sacrifices they are called on to make are used to the utmost to help everyone in the US, our goals and our beliefs. That not one drop of US Military Blood be spilled in waste.
4) Making sure that they are equipped with the best equipment available.
5) Making sure that those that are injured recieve the care that hero's deserve, not the care that the beaurocrats think we can afford. Whether that is psychological, medical, or lifestyle support (as in a Quadroplegic lifestyle that requires special mobility, help, or nursing) does not matter.
6) Ensure that the reservists have their jobs when they return, that their families have our support while they are gone, and that the full time soldier can find great jobs when they leave the military.
7) Make sure that once home they are safe from enemies, foriegn and domestic, who would belittle thier sacrifices for political gain or who seek violent misplaced vengeance.
Anything less than this support is TREASON.
But what is not included in this support is...
1) Unconditional backing of the politicians who use our soldiers.
2) Small little magnets on our car that proclaim our support.
3) Political support of people some soldiers believe we should support.
4) Surrendering of our own personal freedoms or responsibilities to those who have bled for us.
posted
The Dubya&Gang have decided to give the "person of interest" in the anthrax attack upon the Senate (more accurately upon the Senate office building occupied by Democrats) $5.8million to quash his lawsuit against the government.
BTW: That "Iraqi sketch of mobile WMD laboratories" -- which Dubya used as evidence against the Saddam regime -- was actually drawn much earlier by Hatfill in his capacity as advisor to the US government on biological weapons development.
posted
Of course everyone is going to agree with Dan's list. I mean, it's a nice list and all, but kind of fluffy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that's one of the best bumps I've ever seen. 2 years and 13 hours after the last post... if I wasn't paying attention, I might not even have noticed the delay.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wasn't paying attention, I might not even have noticed the delay.
Sure you would. This is an anachronistic level of militaristic jingodronism. An archaic remnant of a darker time.
Fellows like Bean Counter now spend their days complaining about how Bush was actually too liberal, when not forwarding important and helpful emails about how that obama feller is a muslim.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"One of the nation's top biodefense researchers has died in Maryland from an apparent suicide, just as the Justice Department was to file criminal charges against him in the anthrax mailing assaults... "Bruce E. Ivins, 62, who for the past 18 years worked at the government's elite biodefense research laboratories at Fort Detrick, Md., had been informed of the impending prosecution, people familiar with Ivins, his suspicious death and with the FBI investigation said."
Convenient considering that it allows the FBI to close future investigation.....without ever providing any public argument showing that they were actually targeting the guilty party.
BTW: While Health and Human Services Secretary TommyThompson was lying to the public inregard to the "unknown" source of the anthrax -- allowing the DubyaAdministration to scatter FBI investigators on a worldwide wild goose chase -- it was already known through DNA analysis that the particular anthrax strain used in the attacks could have come only from FortDetrick.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to be nitpicky (well not that much actually), but this is a case when it would have been much better to start new thread rather than resurrect this old one.
1. The information about Ivins suicide is at best cursorily related to the original thread topic. It is a new event and likely to be of interest to people who were never interested in this thread.
2. Resurrecting this two year old unpleasant thread draws more attention to what was already proven to be an overblown claim by a wight wing wacko.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, there is that. However since I believe it unlikely that there would be a great deal of response to a new thread upon the topic, and the original anthrax attack thread was deleted by a forum crash, it seemed better to just attach the "how it all came out in the wash" to an old (somewhat) related thread.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: BTW: While Health and Human Services Secretary TommyThompson was lying to the public inregard to the "unknown" source of the anthrax -- allowing the DubyaAdministration to scatter FBI investigators on a worldwide wild goose chase -- it was already known through DNA analysis that the particular anthrax strain used in the attacks could have come only from FortDetrick.
No, it was suspected. I should know, I worked there for 2 years in the safety office. There are a lot of reasons why they look at more than one possible origin. One reason is that there are people out there that no LONGER work at USAMRIID who could make this grade of anthrax, but could have made this in a home made lab. The techniques aren't that hard, per say, but the knowledge is the hard thing to come by.
Also, there isn't even a consensus regarding what technique was actually used to create it, or what grade it actually was upon delivery. All that is KNOWN is that at least two different levels/grades were used.
If it was that simple, you would hold office (god forbid).
And before you go off on yet another useless, pointless and uninformed rant not backed by any actual proof at all, keep this in mind.....I am hardly a fan of this administration. I think that this admin botched a lot of things, including this investigation....but there were a lot of areas of interest when this broke, and it is easy to second guess the people investigating years after the fact.
I worked with Dr. Ivins, and while I don't remember him well, what I do remember (from people who worked with him directly) is that he was a decent guy. I hope they find he wasn't responsible, and I feel for his family.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
