VP Cheney is scolding the Democrats for failure to "support the troops" simply because they're disinclined to give President Bush an indefinite amount of money for an indefinite amount of time...in other words, because they won't let Bush do whatever he wants. And if there's one thing we've learned about this president, he HATES it when someone stops him from doing whatever he wants.
The thing is, when I think of supporting the troops, I'm thinking of supporting their right not to be mired in an ill-defined mission that treats their lives as easily disposable commodities. I support their right to keep sucking oxygen. I support their right to an honest government that should admit they were sent over there on a political pretext, to search for weaponry that wasn't there, and is now operating on fumes in the middle of an ongoing civil war that's going to be waged whether we're there or not.
As opposed to Cheney, for whom "suporting the troops" is code for "giving Bush carte blanche."
I think I'll take my definition over Cheney's, thanks.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at March 13, 2007 08:26 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingMeanwhile, Halliburton is preparing Cheney's Dubai mansion, and Stephen Colbert is the new Captain America. (Although we could certainly do worse, like this fellow: http://www.dvandom.com/drawings/nascap.JPG)
Of course, anyone wanting to bring the troops home wants the terrists [sic] to win.
Bush wants the Iraq authorization bill passed with "no strings attached".
That's because he's the decider, he decides what should be done. You see, he's been President for six years. The new majority in Congress has only been in power for a few months. They don't understand how government works. They should just defer to his years of experience as dicta...President and do whatever he says.
Peter, Peter, Peter, haven't you learned anything from watching '300'? If we don't send unlimited amounts of men and money to support an illegal war, then that means we're secretly traitors in the pay of a foreign power, and we hate freedom and democracy and all those other things! It's just that simple!
Oh, and if you don't kill hunchbacks at birth, they'll just grow up to be lecherous traitors. Better to just get it over with early.
It's the same tired bs from the right: Democrats present a plan, and the Republicans say the Dems have no plan, they don't support the troops, blah blah blah.
It makes you wonder how long the White House can keep crying wolf before even hard-core right-wingers say uncle.
I wonder if Vice President Crash Cart also considers this to be supporting the troops:
The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq
http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/?source=rss
"As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records."
It's too bad that the Dems are repeatedly spineless when it comes to standing up to Bush. What's the biggest thing they've done so far? They passed a non-binding resolution saying they disagreed with sending more troops to Iraq. Bush promptly gave them the middle finger and ignored them.
Bush has historically been giving everyone the middle finger- the Air National Guard, the State of Texas ( governed by a Yank from Connecticut who hides behind the Homestead Act pfui), the Electoral Process, the United States Constitution and our own troops. I say we all give it back to him in spades. Let's start a grass roots of FU Bush- post pictures on your blogs, YouTube et al. of yourself giving the Decider the bird. Exercise your digital rights!
huh-frikkin-zah!
All we have to do to stop all this warring, is to go back to the days of old, when leaders led their troops into battle. If Bush had to be in "harm's way" to go to war, we probably wouldn't have ever even fired a shot. Bush, the "christian" President doesn't mind ignoring "thou shalt not kill" so long as he can line his pockets with green.
It's amazing so many people were behind this war (and I'm not saying anything against the troops, they are following their orders), when no one knows why Iraq would be tied closer to Al Quida(?) then say, Saudi Arabia...but Saudi royals are the Bush's friends so they don't want anything bad happening there....
George Bush...please stop pushing our will on the cultures of others at the cost of innocent lives (ours and theirs), while you sit back with your prompter in your ear to tell you what to say next...
I'm always amazed that for some folks Criticism of the President (and/or his Policies) = Criticism of the Troops (and/or Hatred of America). I just don't get it and I don't think I ever will...
I agree with you, Peter. I think this whole "not supporting troops" statement the Republicans keep making is scurrilous at best. Does it even still work? I think the Democrats should follow the Republicans lead in supporting the troops--slashing veterans benefits and making sure the VA hospital system offers sub-standard care to our returning soldiers. Heck, the Democrats just want them home, out of harms way and reunited with their families. Obviouisly they aren't doing enough.
I've been a regular lurker here for years so I'm sorry for throwing my two cents into this. I'm a conservative Republican and local elected official but I thoroughly enjoy the debates I witness.
I strongly believe that Congress has a role in the declaration and cessation of armed hostilities. The assymetrical War on Terror poses a lot of confusion though on this issue. It is very difficult to sign a peace treaty with a set of rogue actors who are determined to do your people great harm with no apparent willingness to compromise in their mission. John McCain recently stated that "If we lose this war, and come home. They will follow us home." I don't believe that any withdrawal of US forces from Iraq will deter Islamic fundamentalist groups operating in Iraq or in other nations from continuing to launch attacks on US interests or individuals inside or outside American borders.
I believe this is an important debate occuring in Congress right now and shouldn't be hamstrung by any callous political catcalls (plenty of time for that in 2008). I remember when President Clinton appeared on television back in the late 90's and charted out why we needed to intervene in Kosovo because Milosevic was going to become the next fascist leader that would engulf Europe into war. I'm a student of history and my response was "that's a load of b.s." to his comparisons to pre-World War I Europe. It was laughable that a third rate country like Serbia that got its nose handed to it by the upstart Croatians during the breakup of Yugloslavia could launch any war of conquest against their neighbors.
As I said, I don't have the answers. I don't know how Congress can legally reign in the Imperial Presidency, especially so many years. Congress, as an institution, is complicit in its diminuation when it comes to war powers via its conduct during the FDR administration in World War II and the LBJ administration in the Vietnam War.
Scott, I came in to post exactly that bit about our wounded vets. It's bad enough how they get treated at Walter Reed (the parts turned over to that oh-so-perfect "free market" the Right loves to crow about as the best solution to everything), but we're going to send them back into the war zone while physically unfit for duty? Now who's supporting the troops?
Bush has an approval rating in the 30's, the Dems swept congres, why the hell are they still acting like scared rabbits, afraid of what the President and Fox News will say about them? They need to stop with the empty gestures and actually DO SOMETHING. And not be afraid to punch back when the Right Wing Spin Machine starts tossing mud.
The issue I have with "time-table" talk is that it does have the possibility to hurt the troops. Right now you have people in Irag hearing that we might back out before the area is stable, not knowing which side could be in power if that happens. So if you side with the Americans, they leave and those who are un-friendly to America get into power that's bad news for you, you might be more open to siding with those who would do harm to the troops. Playing arm-chair QB, sure we shouldn't be there, but now that we are, we need to leave quickly without notice or stay and finish until it's stable.
I never understood how "supporting our troops" means that we must send them to a foreign country for a pointless and baseless war so they can die in vain.
You have to remember, this is Cheney talking. Whenever he says something, you have to take the exact opposite as being truth.
"We will be greeted as liberators" means "We will be greeted as invaders"
"The insurgency is in its last throes" means "The insurgency is just getting started"
And so on. Heck, even when his friend apologized to him for being shot in the face, that meant Cheney was apologizing to his friend for shooting him in the face.
So what he's actually saying is by not supporting Bush, the Democrats are in fact supporting the troops.
I will continue to criticize any President who puts the troops in "harm's way". Any government who puts so low a price tag on human life. I believe that every life taken on either side over there, will be one more point on Bush's ride to Hell in the end. The only type of person who could have a clean conscience of his actions, is someone who can truly not sympathize for others and how things effect their families for years to come. If only one of our soldiers was over there in harm's way, it's our duty to get them out, not leave them to marinate. The only thing Bush is doing now is lining his pockets with Tank contracts from his investments, and putting our country more in the red.
The one thing most Americas, I think, do not acknowledge, is that the culture over there was/is the Iraqi culture. As much as we would like to think that our ways, are "the" ways, it's not always true. The media gave us a spin how all these Iraqi's are thankful for democracy being brought to them. Riddle me this...if someone came in and took over our country and wanted to impose their beliefs on us, do you think we would just sit still? Yes, by our standards women over there were treated badly. We must allow ourselves to think outside the box, and realize that their cultural values, may mean that that is how a lot of them think it should be. Forcing them to change their ways, can be a dangerous choice to make...
"The assymetrical War on Terror poses a lot of confusion though on this issue. It is very difficult to sign a peace treaty with a set of rogue actors who are determined to do your people great harm with no apparent willingness to compromise in their mission."
It is necessary to distinguish between:
Assymetrical war
Terror
rogue actors
Willingness to compromise.
It is a mistake to lump al this together. Not all of the groups using terror in Iraq right now are motivated by the same reasons -- they are not all Al-Quaida -- and therefore there are differences in their willingness to compromise. The fact hat there are multiple groups with comlex agendas makes the possibility of compromise difficult. But this whole thing is difficult.
Al-Quaida, or like minded groups, will continue to want to hurt the US regardless of success or failure in Iraq. An American withdrawl will 'embolden' them, but so would the Americans remaining. It's a win win situation for them. But this does not mean that after withdrawl from Iraq 'they' will follow you home. Some will remain to deal with the situation in Iraq, or continue fighting in Iraq, others might go to their home, others might seek other conflicts to join, and some -- the more hard core Al-Quaida -- will seek to specifically attack the US. It all depends on the motivation.
What if the bulk of the troops want to be there (or think the troops should be there-obviously to some extent everyone wants to be home) and believe in the mission and think you are wrong for wanting them home?
What if they believe that by calling for the mission to end, you encourage the ones they are there to fight and kill to keep fighting, when a resolute country would send quite a different message?
What if their values and beliefs are largely quite different than yours?
From the soldiers perspective, I have a problem with the "timeline" and "pull-out" dates. it allows the enemy (my enemy, maybe not yours) a sense of hope, that all they have to do is hold on a little longer and we'll be gone. Also every attack that puts more strain on our politicians and gets them to talking about a "pull out" justifies more attacks.
One last thing, I'm sick of hearing the word "Quagmire" in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.
Anyway, thats my opinion take it or leave it.
If any of the timelines were true or accurate, we would have pulled out in 2004 at the latest:)
I will say that I see some of the same nastiness to those that disagree here, and the same unwillngness to see those who disagree with the opinions of the majority of those who come to this bog as good honest people who disagree, as I see complained about here regarding the administration and its supporters.
From the soldiers perspective, I have a problem with the "timeline" and "pull-out" dates. it allows the enemy (my enemy, maybe not yours) a sense of hope, that all they have to do is hold on a little longer and we'll be gone. Also every attack that puts more strain on our politicians and gets them to talking about a "pull out" justifies more attacks.
Agreed (and that's speaking as someone opposed to Iraq action). It's clear that no one, on either side, has given much thought on whether it's even POSSIBLE to withdraw gracefully from the area, without causing more problems (and I think that it isn't possible).
Just curious that no one has specifically mentioned this... (Dave elluded to it, however)
www.gulf-news.com/business/Oil_and_Gas/10110825.html
(US oil services firm Halliburton's announcement that it will move its corporate headquarters from Houston, TX to Dubai has drawn criticism in America.)
Am I the only one that sees all kinds of conspiracy theories here???
Posted by: spiderrob8 at March 13, 2007 02:34 PM
What if the bulk of the troops want to be there (or think the troops should be there-obviously to some extent everyone wants to be home) and believe in the mission and think you are wrong for wanting them home?
That is their right. But the U.S. is not a military dictatorship. Quite the opposite: in the U.S. the military is under civlian control. The Congress is supposed to have the sole power to declare war (although everyone seems to have forgotten that), and the president is the Commander-in-Chief. Both Congress and the president are answerable to the people. If the majority of citizens want our troops home, then the civlian government should order our military to leave. The military should then follow those orders.
What if they believe that by calling for the mission to end, you encourage the ones they are there to fight and kill to keep fighting, when a resolute country would send quite a different message?
Then I would disagree with them. Micha, who actually lives in the Middle East and understands the cultures better than the vast majority of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, has pointed out in numerous threads that many Iraqi insurgents will fight like hell no matter what "message" we send.
What if their values and beliefs are largely quite different than yours?
Frankly, I don't think we can truly know what most of the troops are thinking. It's not like a scientific poll is feasible when people are engaged in all-out combat. And even if it was practical, the military chain-of-command would never allow it.
Moreover, any soldiers with grave doubts about the war may be less likely to express them for fear of reprisal from their commanders and/or fellow soldiers.
Besides, spiderrob8, in a prior thread you actually dismissed the value of individual troops' opinions when someone else pointed out that many military commanders have disagreed with Bush's Iraq strategy -- and in some cases even disagreed with the decision to go to war in the first place. Well? Which is it, then? Do the opinions of the military count or not? You cannot have it both ways.
Posted by: SSG H at March 13, 2007 02:39 PM
From the soldiers perspective, I have a problem with the "timeline" and "pull-out" dates. it allows the enemy (my enemy, maybe not yours) a sense of hope, that all they have to do is hold on a little longer and we'll be gone. Also every attack that puts more strain on our politicians and gets them to talking about a "pull out" justifies more attacks.
You are in Iraq because of a decision made by the civilian government of the U.S. In a democracy, we are responsible for our government whether we like it or not (or, for that matter, whether we "feel" we have such responsibility or not). Because you are doing a job for your country, and I am a citizen of this country, I cannot draw a distinction between "your" enemy and "mine."
I am staunchly opposed to the war in Iraq. I have been since it was just a gleam in our president's eye. But that doesn't mean I don't know which nation I call home.
That said, I believe you are wrong about our enemy's motivation. Micha, who lives in Israel and understands the Middle East much better than most of us do, has pointed out that there are a number of different factions with different agendas. Many of the insurgents don't give a shit about a timeline or lack thereof. They'll fight just as hard whether we swear to leave tomorrow as they will if we say we're going to stay until Kingdom Come.
Posted by: SSG H at March 13, 2007 02:39 PM
One last thing, I'm sick of hearing the word "Quagmire" in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.
Your analogy is invalid. We occupied West Germany but there was no insurgency. My father was with the army during the Cold War, stationed in Germany. He can tell you from personal experience that he was involved in NO active combat. Two totally different situations.
Posted by: SSG H at March 13, 2007 02:39 PM
Anyway, thats my opinion take it or leave it.
I disagree with your opinion but am glad you have taken the time to express it.
I disagree with your views, and I disagree with the Iraq war. But, again, I know where I live. The U.S. is my home. I pray for a resolution to this war that allows you to return home safely. And thank you for your service to this nation.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at March 13, 2007 02:49 PM
I will say that I see some of the same nastiness to those that disagree here, and the same unwillngness to see those who disagree with the opinions of the majority of those who come to this bog as good honest people who disagree, as I see complained about here regarding the administration and its supporters.
And yet in the post immediately after the one I've quoted above, an opponent of the war expressed agreement with a supporter of the war on a specific issue. Your confrontational attitude is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Put more simply, you're causing the very problem you claim to abhor.
I have suggested this to you before and will do so again: lose the attitude. You are a hothead, but you are also an intelligent person with worthwhile opinions to share. Why let the one aspect of your personality overshadow the other, better, part?-
Sigh... four posts in a row. Gee, looks like I have a life... not!
Spiderrob8, I just want to make one clarification: when I say "lose the attitude," I don't mean "lose the contrary opinions." I'm just saying there you can express contrary opinions in firm, confident, but non-confrontational ways.
Given our past interactions, I'm guessing this will upset you. I truly am sorry about that. My suggestions really do come from a place of goodwill. You are indeed in the minority here and it's nice to see the minority view represented. I hate to see you drowning your own views out, however, by getting into fights needlessly.
I said this a long time ago and will say it again. Any president or veep that to drags us into a war with lies, should be required to lead the charge. How many people believe we'd still be there if tin man and shrub were required to lead the charge like Leonidas.
Yeesh.
Y'know, Cheney, it IS possible to be completely against the war in Iraq, yet also support the troops...as long as they're there, they should be properly equipped and cared for, and once they return, have easy access to full veteran's rights and benefits. I don't think they ought to be there in the first place, but since I'm not in charge, I'd much rather they do it under somewhat humanitarian conditions.
I mean, how hard is it, if you know someone stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan, to just send them care packages and letters all the time? It won't do a hell of a lot of good in combat, but you wouldn't believe how much it helps their mental state. Trust me on that one.
That's "supporting the troops." But I'm still against the war. Oops, I guess that makes me a terrorist.
My Post:
"One last thing, I'm sick of hearing the word "Quagmire" in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there."
Response by Bill Myers
"Your analogy is invalid. We occupied West Germany but there was no insurgency. My father was with the army during the Cold War, stationed in Germany. He can tell you from personal experience that he was involved in NO active combat. Two totally different situations. "
Sorry Sir, I disagree that my analogy is invalid. The fact that there was a very limited, and I do mean VERY limited, amount of insurgent type combat only validates my point further. It took 10 years to turn the reigns of government back over to a sovereign state that had a socialogical history of democracy (yes I made op the term) and next to no insurgency... yet with Iraq we only get what 3 years and its a "quagmire" a lot of us hear this on the news and are left with a WTF look on our faces.
the other (very nitpicky) thing that pisses us off(me and my squad anyway) is how often the news people get ranks wrong when interviewing soldier (or airmen/marines/sailors). I know its a simple thing but how can I trust the rest of their reports when they can't be bothered to ensure that a simple think such as rank is correct.
"I support the firefighters... I just don't want them fighting that brushfire because I don't like the guy who started the fire. Also, I want them out if they don't have the whole thing under control by Wednesday."
Yeah, that makes heaps o' sense.
Posted by: Doom Shepherd at March 13, 2007 04:21 PM
"I support the firefighters... I just don't want them fighting that brushfire because I don't like the guy who started the fire. Also, I want them out if they don't have the whole thing under control by Wednesday."
Yeah, that makes heaps o' sense.
It doesn't make sense because it's a straw man argument you've created.
Besides, a better analogy for the Iraq War would be a forest fire that's burning out of control. Would you send firefighters into the raging heart of that fire, knowing they have zero chance of putting out that blaze and that most of them will surely die in the attempt? Or would you allow them to make a strategic retreat and protect those areas where they have at least a chance to succeed?
Iraq may well be a raging fire beyond our control to put it out. It may be a blow to our national pride, but I'll put our national security and the lives of U.S. troops over our pride any day of the week.
One last thing, I'm sick of hearing the word "Quagmire" in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.
What does this have to do with Iraq?
1)The troops in Germany aren't being shot at & killed on a daily basis. Nor were they between 1945 & 1955.
2) Germany declared war on us & was actively attacking other countries. Iraq wasn't.
The fact that there was a very limited, and I do mean VERY limited
Which is in no way equal to the open warfare occuring today.
To emphasize and separate out a sentiment covered above:
"Supporting the troops" and "supporting the mission" are not the same thing. There's some overlap, but it seems that the administration is all about the mission without really supporting the troops very well. If the troops were being supported, they would have gone to war with the army they wanted, not the army they had. There would have been body armor, vehicle armor, proper supply trains, etc.
The administration wants troops in Iraq, but doesn't seem to care much what happens to them while there. That it's not a COMPLETE sinkhole is a testament to the hard work and talent of the people actually running the ground effort in spite of all the crap the administration is responsible for. The people who manage to keep vehicles on the road despite lack of supplies, who keep men in action despite lack of armor (or the men who buy their own armor online). Etc.
Maybe if the government supported the troops as much as they support the mission, we wouldn't have anything significant to complain about.
"One last thing, I'm sick of hearing the word "Quagmire" in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.
What does this have to do with Iraq?
1)The troops in Germany aren't being shot at & killed on a daily basis. Nor were they between 1945 & 1955.
2) Germany declared war on us & was actively attacking other countries. Iraq wasn't.
The fact that there was a very limited, and I do mean VERY limited
Which is in no way equal to the open warfare occuring today. "
Same mission, different OPFOR. Which is why I'll never understand us having LESS time to accomplish in Iraq what we did in Germany.
At any rate no more time for this, last post. Take care.
Look, I've said it before. There is no doubt that terrorists view the debates about the war as an encouraging sign of weakness. But the alternative is to live in a society in which there is no debatem and in which a policy, good or bad, is continued without question until the leadership says otherwise.
The war is not going badly because the US is not sending the right message, or because of lack of confidence at home. It goes badly because it was mismanaged by the people leading it.
When a leadership leads a country to war on false pretences, and then does a bad job running the war, it has no right to expect that its policies will not be questioned and criticized.
Even people who support the war should question how it is being conducted. Even those who oppose the war must realize that it is too late to question the decision to go into Iraq, and must deal with the situation as it is, in all its complexity.
If the American army would have been fighting Nazi insurgents 3 years after the end of WWII, and had no effective strategy to deal with the problem, it would have been considered a quagmire. The 10 years between 1945 and the foundation of an independant West Germany were not required in order for the US to gain control of the country. Conversly, if the US army had established full control of Iraq and complete cecession of violence, and then needed ten years in order to rebuild the country and protect it from outside threats, nobody would have begrudged them the time. But this is not the case right now.
I am certainly not an expert on Iraqi factions. I can't claim to have much knowledge about the complexities of Iraq at all. But I know it is complex. It is important not to lump together all terrorists into one template and to understand the gradients and complexities.
Sarge, sorry to see you go, but I must again state that the occupation of Germany was in no major way comparable to the invasion of Iraq. For starters, we have yet to "occupy" Iraq; there is no zone in that country, outside the Green Zone inside the US base in Baghdad, that US forces control. They patrol other regions, yes; and the locals snipe at them from concealment, plant bombs, and in many other ways demonstrate that we do not hold the streets.
In Germany, within weeks of the toppling of the existing regime, the Allies owned every major city in the country, and pretty well controlled things outside the cities as well. There was a very small, extremely limited insurgent movement, one quickly quelled by the Allied forces and the local police (who were reestablished at the first opportunity). Contrast this with Iraq, where what passes for local defense forces mostly seem to moonlight for one or another of the militias.
In Japan, which we also occupied for a considerable time, the Allies forced a constitution on the Japanese people. Had we done so in Iraq, and had we persuaded the locals to adopt it, a good deal of unpleasantness may have been avoided. (Of course, it was considerably easier to impose a constitution on Japanese society of the time, accustomed as they were to regarding whoever was in charge as at least semi-divine. It's easier to take orders from a stranger who's standing in for the Gods than from a stranger who just happened to get elected to his position, even if he thinks he is a God.)
I would further submit that declaring war on a tactic, which is all terrorism is, is sublimely ridiculous. You can't shoot terror, you can't arrest it; it has no homeland to invade, no capitol to bomb, no international standing to discredit. It is a concept, purely and simply - and as we humans have proven time and again through our history, you can't kill a concept.
"From the soldiers perspective, I have a problem with the "timeline" and "pull-out" dates. It allows the enemy (my enemy, maybe not yours) a sense of hope, that all they have to do is hold on a little longer and we'll be gone."
See, I'm not so sure about that. I think that depends on which enemy in Iraq you’re talking about and what their ultimate goal is. The groups that we’re fighting in the Middle East are not one large group with the same goals, desires and ideas on how to get them.
Lets look at the world as seen through the eyes of George W. Bush for a moment. He and Cheney keep claiming that “the enemy” hates our freedoms and that they are trying to stop democracy in the Middle East. They also keep saying that we will stand down when the government of Iraq can stand up. When it’s on its feet, then we leave.
Well, now lets look at that worldview through the lenses of reality. The Prime Minister of Iraq has ties to terrorist groups in his past, most man on the street interviews that come out of Iraq as well as talking to friends who have family there pretty much make clear that the average Iraqis’ definition of “freedom” isn’t quite the same as the average American’s definition and there are already signs that Iraq is going to become, basically, another Iran.
The fight to stop a Western style democracy in Iraq is likely already halfway won without any real fighting on the enemy's part. It wouldn’t be all that hard to tip Iraq into their preferred direction after we’re gone under the Bush plan of "stay until the job is done". If all they wanted to do was stop Bush’s pipedream, all they would have to do is back off, stop the attacks, let Iraq stand up so we can stand down, watch us leave once the job is done and then let Middle Eastern nature take its course. We’d be out of the way and the forces that already seem to be aligning over there would pull Iraq into the direction they want it to go within a decade.
They likely know that. So what’s some of the other motivations for some of the killing going on over there with some of the groups doing the killing? Well, for one, despite Cheney claiming that there is no civil war going on over there, there’s a civil war going on over there. We can argue about the size and scope of it, but there is one happening over there. Guess what, they’ll kill each other, as they have for centuries, over religious, tribal or other nitpicks for at least several generations more whether we’re there or not. Pulling based on “jobs done” VS timetables won’t change that a bit.
How about this one? We know from their own internet, radio and television broadcasts that a big factor in the desire to go into Iraq and kill Americans is, for some, just to go in and kill Americans because they’re there and that makes them easy targets and close to fill-in-the-blank’s homeland. The short version of this? Some of the people coming in to Iraq right now are basically just there BECAUSE we’re there. We leave and their target of choice leaves.
And, no, that it no way backs up Bush’s claims that we’re fighting them there to keep from fighting them here. Most of the people fighting us there would not come all the way over here to shoot at Americans on our home court. The ones that would will likely do it whether we’re there or not. If Bush is to be believed at all, then we’ve stopped several attacks from happening in the U.S. by catching the culprits after they got here and started their plans in motion. The simple fact of Bush and his supporters boasting about these stopped nonevents that were in play on U.S. soil puts the lie to his claim that we’re fighting them there so as not to have to fight them here. We’re fighting them there and we’re fighting them here.
Is this slightly over-simplified? Yeah. I don’t have ten pages to devote to each of the above options and I don’t have that much typing time right now. But it does get the short, kind of summery POV out clearly enough. Later, when I’m not ignoring the work I should be doing to play on the net, I’d love to debate some of the finer points with you (or anybody else) and even to see where we might have some common ground that could create better ideas on both ends.
For now, especially if your active and getting shipped over there, keep your head down and stay safe. Be nice to have another civil poster with an active military POV around here to play verbal ping-pong with on both the agree and disagree threads.
:)
"Which is why I'll never understand us having LESS time to accomplish in Iraq what we did in Germany."
Maybe because this war was sold to the public, until the first shot was fired, as a war that would last, "six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," by this administaration. We were told left and right that this would be over and done with in no time flat.
We were also told that this would cost us next to nothing. The administration and administration toady line was that as soon as this quick little war was done, the Iraqi oil supply would be turned back on to full gush and that the shiny new American style Iraqi democracy would pay us back in full for our war costs.
We were also going to be loved, hailed as heroes, have flowers thrown at us and all that jazz.
Now, before someone points out the obvious, Bush did not make any of these statements. I know that. But Rummy, Rice, Cheney and others were making those statements and others like them in the higher positions of the 02 and 03 Bush administration on a regular and repeated bases. Bush never stopped his people from saying those things when speaking on behalf of his administration and he himself never made a single statement to contradict those predictions until after we started the charge into Baghdad. If you let your underlings speak for your POV for that long and as publicly as they did without ever putting a stop to it our saying that their personal views do not endorse the official administration policy, then you are, by default, approving their statements. Those in the media that were promoting the Bush administration “go to war” talking points then repeated them endlessly until the start of the war with, again, no official rebukes from Bush or his top people until after the first shots were fired.
Guess what? All of that turned out to be, like so many of the justifications for going into Iraq, so much hot air and bull patties.
Then there was the ever-changing reason for why we’re over there. Old reason fell apart? No problem. Put forward a new “The-Main-Reason-We-Went-To-Iraq-Is” press statement and hope that people don’t remember the last “real’ reasons we had to be there.
People were sold a bill of goods and now they’re having buyer’s remorse. Sad thing is, guys like you are now caught in the middle of a lot of crap on several fronts.
Beyond that, there’s just the general publics lack of understanding of war and the real world. Most people who haven’t fought in a war or who don’t have close family who did and shared some of that knowledge with them don’t have any idea what a real war is like. Hey, this is the same country that thinks that C.S.I. is a realistic show and that our forensic teams knock every case out of the park with that much ease to the point that it’s actually creating problems in court cases where juries have to be exposed to real forensic procedure and evidence and don’t think that its “real” because it’s not like C.S.I.’s evidence. And the Average Joe gets to see more police and police work in their life then they see of soldiers at war. This is a country that talks about how real 24 is and how it’s the perfect example of why we should be doing some of the things that we shouldn’t be doing because they don’t actually work out like they do on 24 without a script writer to control the outcome.
They also don’t know what the Middle East is like or what stepping into Iraq was going to be like. What was most American’s exposure to Iraq and Saddam prior to this? Iraq was the country on the news that was broken and poor and that we stomped a mud hole in years ago. Saddam was the butt of jokes in movies and TV. He was the clown who couldn’t shoot straight in Hot Shots and other live action films and he was having a gay relationship with Satin on South Park. He was a chump, a loser and a wuss. He wasn’t nothing. We could take him and his country without breaking a sweat.
Then reality stepped in. Oops.
You also have to realize how many people were scared spitless after 9/11 and just curled up into the fetal position and let Bush say and do anything he wanted to so long as he promised that he wouldn’t let that happen again. Fear, for most people, doesn’t last forever. Even the level of fear displayed by some after 9/11 and played upon so well by this administration. Lots of people who backed Bush before woke up and saw what they were allowing to happen. Again, the result is that guys like you get kinda stuck in the middle.
That sucks for you and it sucks for anybody who has a brain in their head and can see that. But there's not much that can be done about that because the debate as to what option is going to be the best long term solution in iraq has started to hit full roar and it's not going anywhere.
"At any rate no more time for this, last post. Take care."
Hopefully, you just mean for the rest of the day.
I'd like to point out that we're having a spirited disagreement that is remaining largely civil. No one on the anti-war side has been disrepectful to SSG H, and he has not been disrespectful to us.
We have liberals and conservatives, soldiers and civlians here. We have people from different countries participating here, like Micha, our token Israeli! (Just kidding, Micha. Your point of view is invaluable and always educational. You are a good and thoughtful man.)
People like spiderrob8 who claim this board is one-sided and unfriendly to opposing points of view are just plain wrong.
After all these years---YEARS DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!---in Iraq, the troops still don't have the proper equipment for fighting.
They still lack proper personal armor.
Their vehicles still lack proper armor.
They are still understaffed.
They are still being put back into action before they are ready.
They still don't have enough interpreters.
When is Bush/Cheney/Rove truly going to start supporting the troops? Wen?
And why are they understaffed? Because those in favor of mass killing are too cowardly to enlist.
Chickenhawks=neocons.
(And don't tell me to enlist. I'm too old and physically incapable.)
...And then along comes Alan Coil to prove me wrong.
Never mind. I'm going to bed to shake a head cold. Hopefully I'll have something to say worth saying tomorrow.
"Oh, and if you don't kill hunchbacks at birth, they'll just grow up to be lecherous traitors."
Gods, imagine if THAT's who they had to save in Trek IV? ("SANCTUARY!" "No, SAN FRANCISCO!")
Seems to me I remember reading somewhere that the military was updating their tactical training for urban combat and conditions. Too bad those in charge are still trying to fight with the OUTdated plan book.
1Can we add to that list the right of our troops to proper medical care after they've come home after being shot. Also I support the right of our troops to be properly trained and provided for and their familes to be provided for and if we the people and by that I include Bush's base have to pay more taxes to acheve that, i don't have a problem with that.
As Dave said, ""Supporting the troops" and "supporting the mission" are not the same thing. There's some overlap, but it seems that the administration is all about the mission without really supporting the troops very well. If the troops were being supported, they would have gone to war with the army they wanted, not the army they had. There would have been body armor, vehicle armor, proper supply trains, etc."
That's pretty much what I was trying to say, only with better word-things. :)
Posted by spiderrob8
What if the bulk of the troops want to be there (or think the troops should be there-obviously to some extent everyone wants to be home) and believe in the mission and think you are wrong for wanting them home?
Oh, yeah. (rolls eyes)
The "bulk of the troops" who have seen what a thorough-going mongolian fire drill is going on over there and just how much the Iraqi People love us (not) think it's a good idea to saty over there and get shot at for a cause that was lost even before The Decider made the Decision to lie and manipulate us into it.
Ain't what i hear from my son-in-law (what little he is willing to talk about).
Posted by SSG H
From the soldiers perspective, I have a problem with the "timeline" and "pull-out" dates. it allows the enemy (my enemy, maybe not yours) a sense of hope, that all they have to do is hold on a little longer and we'll be gone. Also every attack that puts more strain on our politicians and gets them to talking about a "pull out" justifies more attacks.
But anyone who has eyes to see - and actually like, ya know, looks, knows that a US pullout is inevitable, and that it is inevitable sooner rather than later on a real-world political/historical time scale.
We cannot sustain this sort of thing in the Real World of today - economically, domestically politically, or in terms of international relations.
One last thing, I'm sick of hearing the word "Quagmire" in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.
Well, yeah. But that was an "occupation". What we have in Iraq is not an occupation.
(Unless you're Halliburton and your occupation is collecting as much money for as little actual work on no-bid contracts, anyway.)
I seem to have missed the reports of daily battles with roving guerrilla bands in the streets of Berlin in 1954.
And, at least until the Shrub shoved us into this stupid war and international opinion began change, a lot of Germans actually thought our being there was a Good Idea, and that our troops were actually there to help defend their country. (Well, anyone who actually looked back at how WW2 went probably realised just what a mess Germany was going to be if we fought the Russians there, but, still...)
Posted by Bill Myers
Besides, spiderrob8, in a prior thread you actually dismissed the value of individual troops' opinions when someone else pointed out that many military commanders have disagreed with Bush's Iraq strategy -- and in some cases even disagreed with the decision to go to war in the first place. Well? Which is it, then? Do the opinions of the military count or not? You cannot have it both ways.
Those were merely generals, who don't know anything about the war or how it ought to be fought. (Or, not fought, as the case might be.)
One last question, *SSG* - and i'm not being nasty here, but i'm honestly wondering - have you served in Iraq? Or Gulf 1?
My own service was Viet Nam (era and place - though non-combat in a Navy shore establishment), and, while a lot of "the troops" felt that the Opposition back home might be going a little far, by the time i set foot in the place, there wasn't much doubt among the guys that i knew that the party was over.
And would the last person out please turn off the light at the end of the tunnel.
But, boy howdy!, do i ever agree with you on one thing - the fact that people can't get ramks right. I, personally, have only a limited understanding of the ranks and structures of the Army, Air Force or even the Marines, aside from counting stripes to see who ranks who, but i promise that if i were either interviewing troops or writing about them, i would make it a point to at least get it right on paper, even if i didn't exactly grasp it to the fullest.
I still twitch and grind my teeth when i hear some journalistic type - likely as not a Brit, at that - refer to "Princess Diana", which is just about equivalent to calling a sergeant "Colonel"...
"Hopefully, you just mean for the rest of the day."
yeah, I wasn't "taking my ball and going home" I just have limited time/access. I usually just lurk around here, I like a lot of PAD's books, but in the past I've kept myself out of discussions. I disagree with PAD's (democrat) politics on a number of levels, though I also disagree with a lot of republican politics as well, I'm about at the point where I think political leaders should be chosen from a lottery and there should be no "political career field"
Mike Weber:
"Ain't what i hear from my son-in-law (what little he is willing to talk about)."
A lot of the people hate us, a lot like us (or our money), and a lot could give a s*** less and are just waiting till we leave for the next shoe to drop. There is no question that our cultures are not compatible.
Also keep in mind that a significant percentage of the EPW and enemy KIA are from outside Iraq, which means that a similar percentage of insurgents are from outside Iraq. Whoever mentioned that the insurgent issue is complex was really understating the issue.
"One last question, *SSG* - and i'm not being nasty here, but i'm honestly wondering - have you served in Iraq?"
Yes I have. But I am a 31B MP and not 11B Infantry so that might color my viewpoint some.
"Or Gulf 1?" no.
"But, boy howdy!, do i ever agree with you on one thing - the fact that people can't get ramks right. I, personally, have only a limited understanding of the ranks and structures of the Army, Air Force or even the Marines, aside from counting stripes to see who ranks who, but i promise that if i were either interviewing troops or writing about them, i would make it a point to at least get it right on paper, even if i didn't exactly grasp it to the fullest."
LOL, I feel the same way about Navy ranks... I don't know If I'll ever understand them.
Just to clear the air, I took no offense to your questions. For one its the internet, I could have just as easily "tagged" myself CSM or LTG, no one here has any proof that I'm really a Staff Sergeant other than my word.
Bill Myers -
Micha ... has pointed out that there are a number of different factions with different agendas.
Well, with no offense intended to Micha, it doesn't take somebody living in the Middle East to see what's really going on in Iraq - it just takes somebody who is willing to not automatically assume that anybody fighting US soldiers in Iraq as terrorists.
The simple fact is that some of these people fighting our soldiers simply see us as an invader that needs to be forced out of the country. But, the 'freedom fighter' concept (which is I'm sure how some native Iraqis view themselves) has been completely ignored by Bush & Co. in favor of political expedience: that everybody must be a terrorist working for Al Qaeda, when it simply isn't the truth.
SSG H -
yet with Iraq we only get what 3 years and its a "quagmire"
Last I checked, once "mission accomplished" was announced in Germany, the war was over. The war is not over in Iraq.
3000 US soldiers didn't die in Germany after WWII was declared over. US soldiers didn't have to take and retake cities because the Germans wouldn't stop fighting.
Your view of Iraq and dislike of the term 'quagmire' is, imo, very strange indeed. But then, I question why you would compare Germany and Iraq in the first place when there really is no solid comparison to be made.
Now, Vietnam, on the other hand...
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 14, 2007 10:49 AM
Well, with no offense intended to Micha, it doesn't take somebody living in the Middle East to see what's really going on in Iraq...
The only reason I brought poor Micha's name into it was to counter spiderrob8's assertions, which seemed to have as their premise the idea that the soldiers in Iraq have a better perspective than us civilians. I was trying to point out that merely being in Iraq isn't the same as understanding the culture, history, politics, and economics of that region. Hell, most of our personnel in that region don't even speak the local language!
Moreover, I'm not sure you're correct that "it doesn't take somebody living in the Middle East to see what's really going on in Iraq." If Micha has taught me anything, it's that the cultural chasm between the U.S. and the nations of the Middle East is larger than most of us imagine. We tend to see the world in what we believe to be a perfectly obvious and rational way, but a lot of what we consider to be "perfectly obvious" is seen through the prism of our own cultural biases.
Want a "for instance?" New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has covered the Middle East extensively and has many contacts there. He pointed out that in the U.S., people tend to be more truthful with you in private than they are in public. In the Middle East, people tend to do the reverse. That seems counter-intuitive, but that's their culture. I therefore don't think any of us can really understand what's going on in that region without understanding each of the cultures at play.
I was one of the troops over there the first time around.
I like PADs version of supporting us best.
I DON'T BLIEVE THE MINDLESS BLOGS, EVERYONE SHUT UP.
From that bastion of pinko-liberalism The Army Times:
...in the Army -- in the midst of a war -- the number of soldiers approved for permanent disability retirement has plunged by more than two-thirds, from 642 in 2001 to 209 in 2005, according to a Government Accountability Office report last year. That decline has come even as the war in Iraq has intensified and the total number of soldiers wounded or injured there has soared above 15,000...
Those who try to navigate the [disability rating] process beyond their initial evaluation -- to include hundreds of combat veterans in limbo at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington -- face long waits, lost paperwork and months or even years away from home as they try to complete the process. If they receive a rating of above 30 percent, they receive disability retirement pay, medical benefits, and commissary privileges. Those rated under 30 percent receive [24 months] severance pay and no benefits.
- “I finally decided to take on a [rating] case myself,” [deputy general counsel for Disabled American Veterans Ron] Smith said. “It’s been a while since I took a case.”
He found an Army captain whose radial nerve in his right arm had been destroyed in Iraq -- the same injury that has left Bob Dole, the World War II veteran and former Kansas senator, unable to use his arm to do more than hold a pen.
Smith followed the captain through the physical evaluation board process. He said that under the ratings schedule, this was an easy call: 70 percent disability. But at his first informal medical evaluation board, the captain initially was offered just 30 percent...
Many troops accept the first rating offered them at their initial informal evaluation board, Smith said. “Soldiers are trained. When the evaluation board says, ‘This is what you get,’ the soldiers say, ‘Yes sir.’ A lot of people don’t appeal.”
- In May 2003, Army Cpl. Richard Twohig was thrown from an armored personnel carrier in Iraq. The 82nd Airborne Division paratrooper landed on his head, said his lawyer, Mark Waple, of Fayetteville, N.C.
Twohig suffers headaches at least once a week that last up to 14 hours, as well as short-term memory loss, and is dependent on pain medication.
“This is well substantiated by his doctors -- Army medical doctors,” Waple said.
But his physical evaluation board rated him only 10 percent disabled for another injury because he had no substantive proof the headaches were a result of the accident -- even though regulations call for evaluation boards to give troops the benefit of the doubt in such instances....
Twohig can’t work because of the disabling headaches, and even if he receives VA benefits, his family has lost its medical insurance. And if a physical evaluation board rules that injuries are not related to service or were preexisting conditions, troops are not eligible for VA benefits, either.
- ...a Judge Advocate General lawyer looked at [Villalpando's] case after he filed a complaint that he received no disability rating because his depression was ruled to have existed prior to his enlisting.
Villalpando said he became depressed because his cousin, a Marine, was electrocuted while they were both serving in Iraq. He has been at Walter Reed for just over a year.
“The JAG wanted to know how they knew it was existing prior to service if they didn’t have my medical records,” Villalpando said.
What if their values and beliefs are largely quite different than yours?
Funny, a few months ago, I suggested in this blog that Bush try listening to the opinions of people with actual combat experience when planning the "surge" as a nice change of pace and somebody (I think his name was "spiderrob8" or something like that) took me to task and told me that their opinions were unimportant.
Gee.
Joe Thomas wrote "I DON'T BLIEVE THE MINDLESS BLOGS, EVERYONE SHUT UP." I personaly would like to thank Joe. Previous to today, I thought that my first few postings made me the biggest idiot a** on the blog (which thank you to PAD and everyone for not banning me forever and showing me the error of my ways). Thanks Joe. You now have the crown.
James
Supporting the troops to me is saying "yeah we understand you have a sucky job to do and thank you for doing a thankless job, but we want to get you home in one piece despite the best efforst of our Prezydent to push you into revolving-door deployees so he can move into Iran."
six days, sixe weeks, six months...try six years bucko.
jeezlouis.
"Previous to today, I thought that my first few postings made me the biggest idiot a** on the blog (which thank you to PAD and everyone for not banning me forever and showing me the error of my ways). Thanks Joe. You now have the crown."
Just as, no matter how skilled at something someone may be, it's a little frustrating to know there's always someone out there more skilled, it's also the case that--no matter how big a jerk someone believes they are--they can draw comfort from the knowledge that there's an even bigger jerk out there. So I guess it all balances out.
PAD
My criteria for "Supporting the Troops":
1)Proper and relevant training for the anticipated mission. Don't send mountain warfare specialists to fight urban combat.
2)Properly equip EVERY SINGLE SOLDIER AND UNIT. Don't "fight the war you get with the army you have". Make sure that army has the tools to do the job. Even if it means tax increases, Congressional pay cuts, and Halliburton not cleaning up on the clean up.
3)Clearly define the mission. Try actually telling the truth about the wherefores and the whys.
4)DO NOT stand under a banner on the deck of an aircraft carrier declaring Mission Accomplished when the mission remains unaccomplished.
5)DO NOT throw soldiers into a quagmire (sorry SSG H, it is what it is) in the name of political posturing.
6)Spend no less than 10 dollars on the care of injured soldiers for every dollar it took to get them injured.
7)Don't deny the obvious.
Just my 2 canadian centd worth.
Remember, May 1, Mission Accomplished Day.
Posted by: Shadowquest at March 15, 2007 10:12 AM
Previous to today, I thought that my first few postings made me the biggest idiot a** on the blog...
James, you weren't the "biggest idiot a** on the blog" even before Joe Thomas chimed in. Trust me. Not even the top five. How can I say this with such confidence? You cooled down rapidly and really listened to what others had to say. In the year-or-so that I've been posting here, I've run into at least five people I could name off the top of my head who wouldn't reconsider their words to save their own lives.
Sorry, the crown was never yours.
The X-Ray Award, one of the few awards where it's an honor to not be nominated...
-Rex Hondo-
All of the arguments regarding President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and the administrations actions on this website are the same old thing that people watching PBS get every night. Most of the people posting comments regarding these matters on this web-log and thousands of others, don't seem to believe in fighting for ANY reason at all. I have heard that there is a Culture War going on in this country. It's nice to know that the "enemy" doesn't have the knowledge, or the guts to fight back in any real manner. Many people are not happy with the current State of the Union, but for very different reasons. I am one of them. My definition of the following: "Supporting Our Troops"--Giving our fighting men the means to win whatever conflict they happen to be engaged in at the moment. They are there because they believe in this country, and our way of life. They would lay down their lives, for you, if neccessary. None of those posting here would do the same for them, or me, or most people that they've ever met.
I am looking forward to honest debate on this matter, if it is at all possible.
In the words of Fox Mulder,
"Bring it on."
Ever forward,
Robert Preston
My, Robert, how WONDERFUL it must be to live inside a head that knows the heart of everyone on the internet. Speaking only for myself, since I, unlike some people, wouldn't presume to identify the attitudes of my fellow posters, I know there are specific times when combat is in fact necessary. However, at no time did I ever consider Iraq one of those times.
Rereading your post, you seem to be living with some some ill-considered misconceptions. First, I don't recall anyone around here, nor more than one individual I know personally, who isn't supportive of they who serve in the military. Disagreeing with the politicians in Washington is entirely different than not supporting the troops. And if you believe as much as you claim that they who are fighting should have everything they need to win, why are you not furious that we have soldiers over there with insufficient body armor, which they had to pay for themselves, driving around in vehicles with no more protective ability than most of what is currently driving down the Jersey Turnpike, and being ordered to go in with no consideration for what they'll do once the initial task is accomplished or even cultural advisors to school them on the very different culture they'll encounter? Where is your anger then?
Finally, these people are my friends, and you should know that I think most of them would have no problem whatsoever laying themselves down under the right circumstances. I take great offense to the statement that because some here differ with your seemingly out-of-date and limited worldview that we don't believe in this country. And let me ask, if you saw someone on the side of the road that needed help, how quickly would YOU stop? There's more to being an American than kicking everyone's ass.
Ironic that you close your overly insulting post with "Ever forward," using arguements that look back to the beginning of the previous century.
Dear PAD,
Assume, for the moment, Bush and Cheney are not doing this for personal profit or power. They are doing this because they really do believe there is a threat. If that is true, then this is not about letting Bush do whatever he wants. It is about allowing the president to actually defend the country.
As I look at the world, there most definitely is a threat. And it did not start with Bush and Cheney entering office -- or even Clinton. You can go back to at least the Carter years and track the threat of the militant factions of Islam.
Was it necessary to invade Iraq to stop this threat? That is very much a matter of debate. While I think it was an appropriate way, it is by no means the only or even necessarily the best way. But with the invasion already done, there is a bigger issue that must be decided: Which is worse, staying there until this is done or pulling out?
A very strong case can be made that pulling out now would be worse than if we had never invaded in the first place. Even Hillary Clinton has conceded in a recent interview that some American troops would need to stay. Pulling out without some clear victory would only embolden the terrorists. This is not a matter of preserving Bush's pride. This is a matter of making it clear that attacking America is not worth the effort.
The reality is the troops are in the middle of a war. You didn't agree with the war in the first place. I get that. But there is a much bigger issue here than just pulling troops out to protect their lives. The bigger issue is ending this war in a way that protects American lives here at home. The soldiers signed up knowing they might be asked to give up their lives for the sake of their country. I don't take that lightly and mourn the loss of every life (on either side). But to pull them out now without finishing this the right way is to only put their lives at risk in the future either with another terrorist attack or with their having to go back to war all over again with an emboldened enemy.
I don't expect you to agree with the war. But redefining "supporting the troops" to simply make Bush and Cheney look like it is solely about their power and pride accomplishes nothing. The reality is they DO believe they are doing what is best for the country. If there is a better way to accomplish the protection of America, let's hear it. Even if it is a belief pulling out now is better, that is fine (even if I disagree). But assigning motives to Bush and Cheney does nothing to deal with the situation.
Iowa Jim
I will continue to criticize any President who puts the troops in "harm's way".
Comments like this are bewildering. The issue is not whether the President puts troops in "harms way." The issue is whether it is necessary and whether it will ultimately serve to protect the country.
Every President has the responsibility and duty to put troops in harms way when necessary to protect the welfare of the country. That is a whole different debate.
Iowa Jim
This is a matter of making it clear that attacking America is not worth the effort.
Before someone says it, let me clarify that I am NOT implying Iraq attacked us on 9/11. As others have argued better than I, there is a broader war on terror. Iraq was just one front of that war. They did not attack us on 9/11, but there is no question they were supporting terrorists, ignoring UN resolutions, and shooting at our planes which were enforcing a no-fly zone to protect groups like the Kurds.
Iowa Jim
This might have been covered already, but just in case . . . Anyone else find it interestingly timed that a flick like "300" came out while Congress is debating whether or not to allow for the troop surge? As though it might be a bit of public opinion manipulation? Possibly naught but paranoia, but just a thought . . .
Dear Mr. Scullion,
Three things.
First: I wouldn't presume anything about the people who post to this site that they haven't allowed with their written words. I could cut and paste several examples of this for you, but since you are obviously familar with this site, then you know of whom I speak.
Second: If funding for our military were not tied to various idiotic pork barrel spending from both the Republicans and the Democrats, the United States military would not have nearly the funding problems that it does today. However, the soldiers seem to be doing their job very well without bitching too much. Perhaps they are more familiar with the what was required at Bastogne and other places than you seem to be. Look that one up on Wikipedia or some other source if you are not a student of history. Most of the complaining comes from people like you. In my experience reading and talking to people from all different political and philisophical background, most of the those that I have encountered that hold your beliefs, and those of your friends who use this page (up to and including Mr. David, whose writing I have been interested for some time) are for the most part not able to support any form of military action against anyone of any country for any reason. They CLAIM they do, but their actions and words show different. They do not seem the kind of people to whom I would trust the future of this Nation, let alone my family or my back going through a door in a crisis. Not to say that there are not exceptions, but they are few and far between.
Third(and finally): As far as presumptions go, I was raised to not call someone by their first name until they gave me permission to do so. That was considered presumtuous.
All the best,
Robert Preston
p.s.- No insult was intended from this or previous postings. If I ever insult you personally, you'll KNOW it.
First--excuse my presumption. I call everyone around here by their first name with the possible exception of the Bills, and that's just because it'd be too confusing otherwise.
Regarding the spending on pork--I'm just about right there with you. Another problem I see with the way money is spent in Washington is the snail's pace at which, when it becomes clear there's a problem, it generally takes to get anything approved because too many are too close to their own causes not to see the bigger picture.
Just curious, not looking to start a huge arguement, but have you spoken to either soldiers that have been in Iraq or their families? Do you, in fact, have a history of military service?
Now, coming from the family I do, I am well familiar with the second world war. For example, my uncle was on the Bunker Hill at Pearl Harbor and eventually lost his legs because of it. I also gave serious consideration to becoming a history teacher while in college. Don't assume that simply because I interpret things differently than you, I don't know the facts. I find it slightly venturing into apples/oranges territory to compare the Battle of Bastogne to the Iraq situation. And how could you possibly know my views? Had my face not broken a windshield and my lungs been punctured, I would be in the military right now. Just to clarify, I feel that while going into Iraq the way we did was a tactical mistake, we now have the responsibility to leave it better than we found it. Put more simply, we broke it, we bought it.
Finally, I never felt personally insulted. My skin's a little thicker than that, and I have the scars to prove it. You did, though, insult they who I consider my friends, and for that I won't sit by and let that go unchallenged.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 05:23 PM
First: I wouldn't presume anything about the people who post to this site that they haven't allowed with their written words.
You can tell me that a circle is a square, but despite any amount of hot air you expel in my direction the circle will remain a circle. You have presumed to judge people far beyond what their words allow. Rather than judging us as individuals, you are allowing your perceptions to be clouded by your own emotions and are arguing with constructs of us that exist only in your own mind.
After September 11, 2001, I was furious. In fact, I thought we should mow down Afghanistan to show the world that such attacks would not be tolerated. That the price to pay was so high that no one should dare to even contemplate such attacks again.
Remarkably, George W. Bush and his administration proved to have cooler heads than mine. It may have had to do with the fact that they had the responsibility and authority I lacked.
I was 31 at the time. I don't know if I was eligible for military service at that time, but I hadn't given it much thought. I had just moved in with my girlfriend. I'd made a commitment to her and at the time it didn't look like a war that needed volumes of bodies thrown at it.
But make no mistake, one of the reasons I opposed, and continue to oppose, the Iraq Mistake, is that it depleted and continues to deplete resources that could be used to fight the actual war on terror.
Again, it is depleting resources.
That could be used.
To.
FIGHT.
The war on terror.
Just in case it wasn't already clear enough for you.
However, the soldiers seem to be doing their job very well without bitching too much.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the military. Soldiers are trained to follow orders, even at the cost of their own lives, not to bitch. I would hazard that we don't know what most soldiers are feeling. They're trained to do their jobs, however the feel.
God bless 'em.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 05:23 PM
In my experience reading and talking to people from all different political and philisophical background, most of the those that I have encountered that hold your beliefs, and those of your friends who use this page (up to and including Mr. David, whose writing I have been interested for some time) are for the most part not able to support any form of military action against anyone of any country for any reason. They CLAIM they do, but their actions and words show different. They do not seem the kind of people to whom I would trust the future of this Nation, let alone my family or my back going through a door in a crisis. Not to say that there are not exceptions, but they are few and far between.
Anecdotal evidence like this is meaningless. I don't know the people with whom you claim to have spoken. I do know that you have misjudged the crowd here. Based on what little I know of you, you are a very superficial person.
But of course, Internet posts are but a shadow cast by the person writing them. The person behind them is likely far more complex and nuanced than words on a computer screen. So I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not the two-dimensional thinker that your post makes you appear to be.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 05:23 PM
Third(and finally): As far as presumptions go, I was raised to not call someone by their first name until they gave me permission to do so. That was considered presumtuous.
Ah, I see. You insult people's patriotism and that's cool, but we're supposed to call you "mister?" No, sorry. You want respect, you show it. That's what my parents taught me.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 05:23 PM
p.s.- No insult was intended from this or previous postings. If I ever insult you personally, you'll KNOW it.
Yes, and we will shrug it off and go on with our day.
Hey, if you'd be interested in debating the war on its merits without resorting to ad hominem attacks, let me know. Debate and disagreement are far healthier than you seem to believe. I mean, what's the alternative? Islamic theocracies are great at squelching dissent and getting everyone to toe the party line. Personally, I prefer democracy, and democracy necessitates debate and disagreement.
It's the American Way.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM
They are doing this because they really do believe there is a threat. If that is true, then this is not about letting Bush do whatever he wants. It is about allowing the president to actually defend the country.
Your conclusion does not logically follow from its premises. Just because one believes something to be true doesn't make it so. What if I truly, sincerely believed that the safety of my family depended on attacking you? Given that I have no evidence whatsoever to support that belief, attacking you would be more about my inability to assess reality than it would be about defending my family.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM
As I look at the world, there most definitely is a threat. And it did not start with Bush and Cheney entering office -- or even Clinton. You can go back to at least the Carter years and track the threat of the militant factions of Islam.
Yes. Therefore we must attack Egypt, right?
Oh, wait, not every nation in the Middle East is a direct threat to us.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM
A very strong case can be made that pulling out now would be worse than if we had never invaded in the first place. Even Hillary Clinton has conceded in a recent interview that some American troops would need to stay. Pulling out without some clear victory would only embolden the terrorists. This is not a matter of preserving Bush's pride. This is a matter of making it clear that attacking America is not worth the effort.
Right. Because if you attack America, we'll attack a nation that wasn't involved in that attack and divert resources against our actual enemies.
I don't see much deterrent value in that strategy.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM
But redefining "supporting the troops" to simply make Bush and Cheney look like it is solely about their power and pride accomplishes nothing. The reality is they DO believe they are doing what is best for the country.
And you know this... how? I don't think any of us can read their minds. We can only judge their actions. Whether they are sincere or not, they have proven to be incompetent leaders. Every assumption they made about Iraq has proven to be wrong. Therefore, I don't care what they BELIEVE. They have bungled this war and cannot be trusted to run it.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM
If there is a better way to accomplish the protection of America, let's hear it.
Investing in more human intelligence, learning the culture of the Middle East, letting intelligence dictate what the administration believes rather than the other way around would be a good start. An even better start would be unleashing a full-court diplomatic effort to create a political solution for Iraq. That's what's needed, after all. Our goal wasn't to simply mow down one government and leave. It was to mow down one government and grow another in its place. That's not solely a military task, it's also a poltical one.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM
Even if it is a belief pulling out now is better, that is fine (even if I disagree). But assigning motives to Bush and Cheney does nothing to deal with the situation.
Yes, it does. People's motives have to be taken into account before deciding how much trust we can invest in them.
Iowa Jim, I believe your strongest argument is that pulling out of Iraq will make things worse, not better. I suspect that pulling out of Iraq will have direct negative consequences for the U.S., but I am certain it will make things far worse for the Middle East. We went stomping into Iraq without being asked. We have a responsibility to the people in Iraq and the surrounding area to clean up the mess we made.
Your weakest argument is the idea that Iraq was ever a front on the war on terror. There is no evidence to support this and plenty of evidence that suggests the contrary. Osama bin Laden often referred to Saddam Hussein as an enemy after all.
Vietnam should have taught us a lesson about the folly of foreign adventurism, but apparently we have short memories. The lesson we should have learned is this: we should fight the wars we NEED to fight, not the ones we WISH we need to fight.
Jim--don't feel like you're being ganged up on, first off. Just a question, though. How is "But redefining "supporting the troops" to simply make Bush and Cheney look like it is solely about their power and pride" any different from redefining just about everything that the administration doesn't like as "helping the terrorists?" That's why I don't like catchphrases.
Iowa Jim, let me echo Sean's sentiments: no intent to gang up on the conservative minority here.
In fact, I regret the sarcasm I used when I addressed you. It wasn't necessary and I'm sorry.
I generally disagree with you, but I nevertheless believe you to be an intelligent person of goodwill.
Bill, I was considering posting that you addressed Iowa Jim rather harshly considering he made a respectful and thoughful post (unlike Mr. Preston). But then I realized that there is no need to say anything, because you are sensitive enough to notice this yourself, and to make the necessary apologies.
Anyone else find it interestingly timed that a flick like "300" came out while Congress is debating whether or not to allow for the troop surge? As though it might be a bit of public opinion manipulation? Possibly naught but paranoia, but just a thought...
Dude, 300 was messed up. They tell you in the opening the puny and mishaped infants are killed. So when the 300 were cheering their fight to preserve their freedom, they apparently meant their freedom to throw babies off of cliffs. Not many people realize our national pastime of baseball was based on the ancient Greek sport of "babiesball."
It was a Sparticus remake with fights like the Matrix and Lord of the Rings special effects -- but without the dramatic pay-off.
I heard at one of the film premiers reporters tag-teamed asking if the Xerxes invasion was meant to represent the US invasion, and if the defense department had subsidized the movie.
"As far as presumptions go, I was raised to not call someone by their first name until they gave me permission to do so. That was considered presumtuous."
In the words of the esteemed Sgt. Hulka, "Lighten up, Francis."
Jim, as has been stated above, the "threat" from Iraq has more to do with Dubya's inability to tell the difference between internal and external reality than with any actual threat per se. Dubya's advisors intercepted communiques to Saddam's royal palace, failed to take into account the simple fact that Saddam killed anyone who dared tell him what he didn't want to hear, and concluded that the nutbar actually was a danger to more than just his own country. Thus, our forces were sent into a place they didn't need to be, to overthrow a madman who didn't need overthrowing, and took the lid off a can of explosive worms (to Mixmaster a metaphor). Now we're kind of stuck there, because the situation was destabilized by Dubya's attack.
Bill M, attacking Egypt actually would make some sense. After all, the 9/11 terrorists had all been school in the Wahhabi belief system - which is most strongly grounded in the slums of Cairo. Saudi Arabia would be another valid target - 17 of the 19 people involved in the hijackings came from there. (It's also a nation ruled over by a tyrannical dictator - but I digress.)
Iraq? Well, they threatened to kill GHWBush - after he had left office, mind you, but the threat was made. And trying to kill Dubya's daddy is of much greater import than actually killing almost 3000 people Dubya doesn't know, some of whom weren't even Americans - right?
Micha, you are correct: I could have phrased the same points to Iowa Jim in a much less confrontational manner. I should have accorded him the respect that he showed to others in disagreeing politely.
Again, Iowa Jim, I am sorry. I stand by my arguments, but not the sarcasm with which I phrased them.
PAD,
"When I think of supporting the troops, I'm thinking of supporting their right not to be mired in an ill-defined mission"
President Bush has said repeatedly that the mission is to have the Iraqi government be stable and be capable of defending themselves.
"that treats their lives as easily disposable commodities"
I doubt anyone except the fringe elements see our soldiers' lives as "easily disposable commodities". But every soldier knows when he signs up that the possibility of losing it on the battlefield is a very real one. That is not to take it lightly. My twin brother could still theoretically go although he is older so the chances are a bit more remote than some. One of my friends from my hometown went. And the son of a local township supervisor was killed over there.
"I support their right to keep sucking oxygen"
As do most rational people.
"I support their right to an honest government"
Nice. But will this help us win and achieve our objectives?
"that should admit they were sent over there on political pretext"
They should admit to something that is purely your opinion? Unless someone can prove wht the political pretext was, I thing we should focus on winning.
"to search for weaponry that wasn't there"
B. Clinton, Kerry, H. Clinton and many others felt the WMD were there. Bush waited five months from receiving authorization to use force against Iraq and actually using it. Plenty of time to have the weapons relocated to Syria, as was widely reported then. Not so much now.
"and is now operating on fumes in the middle of an ongoing civil war that's going to be waged whether we're there or not"
If we are 'operating on fumes'- which i don't agree with - then we should actualy send more troops to ease the burden of those already there, don't you think? Having John Murtha not threatening to withold funds for the war unless Pelosi gets a bigger plane would help, as well.
In the end, the troops' morale is of the utmost importance.
"As opposed to Cheney, for whom "supporting the troops" is code for "giving Bush carte blanche".
I disagree. I find it impossible to know that this is what Cheney is thinking. And i find it highly probable that if more Democrats - and cowardly Republicans - actually had the balls to criticize bush when they thought he was wrong but stand united for victory, this war would have been won by now.
Dear Mr. Scullion and Mr. Myers,
Please, gentlemen, call me Robert. Since I am unfamiliar with communicating this way, I’ll respond to your comments in order of importance.
Mr. Myers: Democracy is NOT the “American Way”. At no time does the word democracy ever appear in either the Declaration of Independence or The Constitution. Our founding fathers were very wary of Democracy as it used by the political Left today. That word should be carefully considered when applying it to the United States. There is a reason why Al Gore is not in office. Thank God. If you need a further example, consider this. Fifty percent of the people you meet are below average.
After 9-11-01(the Attack) I was furious also. I still am. However, I thought that after Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, or even Saudi Arabia would have been a viable target as well as Iraq. The President chose Iraq for reasons strategic, as well as political. I support the reaction, but not the prosecution for the war. Time will tell.
As to judging people by their words. Let them write more words, and I will read them as they are written. All I have to go by is what’s there on record. From what I can determine, I have a pretty good idea of where most on this site stand on certain issues. If a question is asked, I will not disparage the honesty of the answer. As I stated before, I’m new to this.
Soldiers would not be soldiers if they didn’t follow orders, but do not pretend that they are mindless automatons. That’s rude and disrecpectful. These men believe in the United States of America. More to the point, their job is to kill people and break things. Most of them really do enjoy kicking the crap out of THE BAD GUY S. You know, the ones who are shooting at them? The ones who want to drive buses of innocent people into more innocent people and murder them? You know, those people.
Anecdotal evidence is all that most on the Internet have to go on. As for respect, earn it. Theodore Roosevelt chose his Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee because the man knocked him on his ass in a boxing ring. I doubt that Ruth Ginsberg would ever have the guts. I defy you to cite an example of me insulting anyone’s patriotism. I don’t do that.
As for debating, I am very open to that. However, while I enjoy playing Devil’s Advocate, I was once thrown off of a high school debate team because my idea of a rebuttal is “F!@#$%^&*K YOU!!! Be warned. My email address is rttss@hotmail.com.
Mr. Scullion: Yes I do come from a military background. Although I never served myself, I wish that I had. And we seem to be closer in opinion on the Washington B.S. than most people these days.
As for your uncle at Pearl Harbor, my best to him. I have two that were in the Navy in the Pacific. One, Lynn, is a codger, lifetime Democrat, and one of the toughest men I have ever met. If you want, I’ll tell you about the U.S.S. Finback. His sub fished a downed pilot out of the water once.
My only reason for mentioning Bastogne, is the fact that I firmly believe that most of the complaining about our lack of funding comes from the major media sources, who, it seems, will say anything to make any war effort nowadays look bad. Imagine if WWII had been reported to the American public using today’s modern media techniques? Would we have won?
To both gentlemen: Please forgive my spelling, and grammar. I’m a lousy typist. If I seem two-dimensional, it is only because the page appears that way. All questions will be answered honestly. And my name is my own. I’m in the book.
Good talking to you,
Robert Preston
p.s.-If I didn’t address all of the differences noted by you gentlemen above, don’t worry. I’m sure there will be more.
David Van Domelen,
"Of course, anyone wanting to bring the troops home wants the terrorists to win"
If we are seen as being "driven out" of Iraq, how exactly do you feel that will be viewed by terrorist factions? By the Mideast? By those in Iraq who have risked so much, from training with American soldiers to policing the streets to those who are helping us build schools?
It has been over three decades and the country still has a Vietnam Syndrome. ur departure there hurt us in the eyes of the world and helped lead to the deaths of over three million people. If we were to simply boly, how could we be trusted again by those we seek out as allies? And what will an ever-more-aggressive Russia, powerful China, North Korea and Iran think?
Scott Bland,
"It's too bad the Dems are repeatedly spineless when it comes to standing up to Bush. what's the biggest thing we've done so far? They passed a non-binding resolution saying they disagreed with sending more troops to Iraq. Bush promptly gave them the middle finger and ignored them."
As well he should have. hat vote was so cynical, it's no wonder people hate politicians. To have that kind of vote with no bite is simply a way to appeal to the MoveOn crowd by saying they were "against it" without actually cutting off funding. If they are truly against the surge, why appoint a new man who will be leading it? because on the chance the surge succeeds, they can then say they put "pressure" on the President.
Oh, and violence is down 80% since the troop surge - mention of which I have not seen in any of the mainstream media.
Michael D,
"I'm always amazed that for some folks Criticism of the President (and/or his policies) = Criticism of the Troops (and/or Hatred of America). I just don't get it and I don't think I ever will."
Reasoned dissent is fine. Conservatives like George Will have made intelligent cases against the Iraq War. But when you have Rosie o'Donnell spouting "We invaded and occupied them" - well, who is doing the invading and occupying then? Our soldiers. when you have her cohort Behar say "They are thieves and murderers" in regards to the Administration...well, unless Bush was driving a Ford Bronco in 1994 or something does that not imply that the troops are "murderers" or, at the very least, "instruments of murder". It is impossible to say things like that and then say you support the troops.
William Gatevackes,
"I think this whole "not supporting the troops" statement the Republicans keep making is scurrilous at best."
No. If you listened to some of the people at the anti-war rally a few weeks ago, many of whom blamed the U.S. for a variety of the world's ills, dramatically inflated the number of civilian casualties and blamed our involvement in Vietnam for causing the 3 million deaths I mentioned earlier, it is clear many were amti-military. those are just a mild sample. Also, when neither David Letterman nor O'Donnell can reply "yes" to a being asked whether or not they want the U.S. to win, then that is a clear message of non-commitment at best and non-support.
"The Democrats just want them out of harm's way and reunited with their families."
Well, they would never be in harm's way if we never sent them anywhere. If we are to survive as a nation, that is not an option. The world is an increasingly dangerous place these days. I would rather deal with these threats before they grow. would we not be better off if we had dealt with North Korea more sternly in 1994 or Iran even five years ago?
sneezythesqid,
"Bush has approval ratings in the '30s"
Still higher than the 25% Truman left office with in large part due to Korea. History has treated him more favorably than his contemporaries. It is my opinion the same thing will happen with Bush.
"the Dems swept Congress"
Well, they won both houses. But neither by an overwhelming margin.
"why the hell are they still acting like scared rabbits"
good question.
'afraid of what the President or Fox News will say about them"
Again with Fox News. The coverage of the war by the mainstream press has ben extremely negative. even Bill O'Reilly says Iraq is "a mess". But we have 60 Minutes finding 10 soldiers, ALL OF WHOM DIDN'T SUPPORT THE SURGE while claiming they couldn't find any who did. well, they must not have looked very hard. Sean Hannity has. Oliver North has. Why couldn't 60 Minutes?
Richard Engel on NBC routinely injects his anti-war opinions into his "objective" reports and Meredith Viera of "Today" actually took part in anti-war march.
If the mainstram press dedicated even 20% of their coverage to positive developments they would appear a lot more credible.
"They need to syop with the empty gestures and actually DO SOMETHING"
On this point, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
"And not be afraid to punch back when the Right Wing Spin Machine starts tossing mud."
Guess they're counting on the Left Wing Spin Machine including, Katie, Brian, Rosie, Diane, Air America's loudmouths,Clinton's buddy Kaplan and all the rest to do their work for them.
Denny,
"I never understood how "supporting our troops" means that we must send them to a foreign country for a pointless and baseless war so they can die in vain"
By saying the war is pointless and baseless you are saying that their actions are pointless and baseless. That's hardly the definition of support. Saying that they are dying in vain is ironic, since if we do not finish the job more people will see those who did die as doing so in vain.
If you do not support the war, that alone does not make you anti-American. But it sure means you aren't supporting them in any meaningful way.
Brian Douglas,
"You have to remember, this is Cheney...So, what he's actually saying is that by not supporting Bush, the Democrats are in fact supporting the troops."
It means no such thing. Yet again, the personal and sometimes irrational distrust and even hatred of Bush and Cheney is emphasized and substituted for a rational solution. Is it at all possible to hate the men but respect the objective.
Bill Myers,
"They bungled this war and cannot be trusted to run it."
Then the Democrats should say so and talk serious with the American people about their solutions and what they are and what they hope to achieve rather than engaging in the cynical political games they are right now.
Robert--two things, really quick, because then I have to get back to work.
First, my uncle--when I talked about Uncle Oscar, I should've written my LATE Uncle Oscar. Sorry for the the omission and the misunderstanding, but thank you for the well-wishing. My best to your two.
Second--haven't really noticed any problem with your typing or grammar. Trust me, as a writer, it always rankles me when people don't communicate clearly, I WOULD have noticed.
Anyone else find it interestingly timed that a flick like "300" came out while Congress is debating whether or not to allow for the troop surge? As though it might be a bit of public opinion manipulation? Possibly naught but paranoia, but just a thought . . .
Well, it was written several years before the war and it's pretty close to the comic...and it's based on events that happened a few thousand years ago...and the producers would have had to be psychic to have predicted that we'd be debating whether or not to allow for the troop surge when they stared filming it...so I'm going to come down squarely on the "paranoia" theory.
300 was, I might add, a ripping good movie and the best I've seen this year. It might be quickly dethroaned by Grindhouse though.
Hey, I just realized that my link to the Army Times™ article -- that periodical whose readership is active Army -- on the shitty way George Bush's defense department is treating wounded soldiers is broken:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/TNSmedholdmoney070222/
I'm mortified that link was broken. I bet all those wounded soldiers are healed by now and ready to join in on the surge.
Jerome: Point still stands. Doesn't matter what the terrorists actually think, anyone making a case for leaving will be tarred with the "pro-terrorist" brush. Personally, I doubt the terrorists will be more or less happy regardless of what we do. They may change their details, but they still want to kill people and spread terror, any excuse will do, and no field-army can stop that sort of thing.
"By saying the war is pointless and baseless you are saying that their actions are pointless and baseless."
No. It isn't. And to say that if a person doesn't support the war, they aren't supporting the troops in any meaningful way is empty rhetoric. And your "who is doing the invading and the occupying" is likewise. Who would you like to do this country's invading and occupying? The Girl Scouts? The New York Giants, perhaps? And not two hours ago, I watched one of the pro-war protestors in DC being interviewed, and she was also of the opinion that anti-war means anti-troop. And yet, most of the anti-war types that I know have family in the military. Yeah, they're likely to look down on the troops.
Bill Muligan wrote:
"300 was, I might add, a ripping good movie and the best I've seen this year. It might be quickly dethroaned by Grindhouse though."
The Moor Next Door, who is a young Arab-American blogger who holds moderate conservative political views, wrote a review of 300.
http://wahdah.blogspot.com/2007/03/fantastic-waste.html
Bill Myers wrote:
"Micha, you are correct: I could have phrased the same points to Iowa Jim in a much less confrontational manner. I should have accorded him the respect that he showed to others in disagreeing politely."
My intention was not to criticize you but rather to praise you.
About Bastogne. WWII have become a yardstick against which all wars are measured. There is a desire to return to the certainty of that war. But most wars are not like that. The war against Islamic Radicalism is certainly not like that. It is more like the war against communism.
I was going to post a long reply to all the issues, but I started boring myself, so I gave it up.
Bill,
Your conclusion does not logically follow from its premises. Just because one believes something to be true doesn't make it so.
That was not my point. My point is that PAD basically said Cheney and Bush want a blank check for a war that was started under false pretenses. If the last part is not true (they did not start it under false pretenses), then they are not asking for a blank check but are doing what any commander would do, doing what is needed to actually win.
I understand you (and others here) do not see Iraq as an essential part of the war on terror. I disagree, but it is late and I need to get some sleep. I respect your disagreement on this. It doesn't change the fact that what's done is done, and we have to work with the present situation.
Yes, it does. People's motives have to be taken into account before deciding how much trust we can invest in them.
I get that, but it misses the point. If you demonize the opposition (as "my side" did with Clinton), you don't deal with the real issues. Bush's actions have been highly consistent with a belief this actually is a war on terror. I can respect those who say it has been handled poorly (I agree even on a few of the examples some have given). But it is hard to respect those who assume Bush is in any way deliberately lying and using this for his own political gain. If that was true, he wouldn't have such horrible approval ratings. To be political for a moment, Clinton would never have "stayed the course" with his poll numbers in the 30's. Whatever faults Bush may have, he is not in this for public opinion, nor (as far as I can tell) is he profiting from this (the past oil connections issues some raise are extremely weak and circumstantial).
Do motives matter? Yes. But they are extremely hard to judge. When someone's actions are consistent with his stated beliefs, even in the face of ridicule and opposition, that tends to demonstrate some internal consistency (at least in most cases). And when we are at war (and we are), it is not really helpful to assign motives for political reasons when doing so actually emboldens the enemy.
Do I think PAD is patriotic and loves this country? Yes. But the fact that he is sincere doesn't make it a good idea to not support our troops in the way that really matters right now -- allowing them to actually win this war.
I close with a link. The people in Iraq recently agreed in a poll that things are better now than under Sadaam -- even with all of the bombings, etc.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece
We DO have a real chance to win this war in Iraq if we stick with it. It is not certain, and it depends on the Iraqi's, but putting our troops in harms way IS making a difference.
Iowa Jim
David, It matters what they think if it encourages them to "hold on" until we will eventually retreat. Some Arab scolars have even pointed to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam to embolden them. They have taken it as a lesson that if they inflict enough pain and give the perception that the war is lost by causing enough casualties, America will no longer have the stomach for the fight.
Frighteningly, they may be right.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
Please, gentlemen, call me Robert.
I would have done that anyway.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
As for respect, earn it.
I'm not overly concerned about your opinion of me.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
My email address is rttss@hotmail.com.
Uhm, thanks, but no thanks. You don't strike me as someone I want to get to know.
Iowa Jim, your last post deserves a thoughtful response and I'm not in a position to give it one at the moment. So let me instead merely say "thank you" for taking the high road when I didn't. You're a class act.
The Moor Next Door, who is a young Arab-American blogger who holds moderate conservative political views, wrote a review of 300.
">http://wahdah.blogspot.com/2007/03/fantastic-waste.html
Obviously I disagree with his view of the film, for what that's worth. A few points:
Apparently, Spartans wore no breast plates and rushed into battle in no more than underwear, capes so large that they seem as if they would have obscured the ability to fight, and helmets.
Geeze, even back then they knew the power of artistic license. The Greeks often portrayed their warriors as fighting in a phalanx buck naked. So 300 is actually a bit more realistic in that regard. The damn thing isn't supposed to be a documentary.
Xerxes, the famed king of the Persian Empire
And all around bastard, even by ancient standards.
is a Brazilian drag queen, or something like it.
I don't quite get the "Xerxes is gay" meme. He's 7 feet tall and has piercings, is that code for gay now?. The real Xerxes is portrayed on coins as having a big wooly beard. He'd be about as scary looking as C Everett Koop.
The point that the traitor Ephialtes is portrayed as a grotesque hunchback is also consistent with epic tales and/or Dick Tracy comics, where a character's evil is reflected in his physical appearance. I'm guessing this guy gets all fatootsed by Richard III as well).
He's correct that the Spartans were hardly a society most of us would want to be a part of but if the ancient accounts of Xerxes Persia are correct they were the lesser of two evils.
One famous story of Xerxes is that of Pythius the Lydian, a man of great wealth who offers his fortune to the king. Xerxes refuses his aid and instead gives him an even greater fortune. When Pythius asks that the oldest of his 5 sons be allowed to leave the army to take care of him in his old age Xerxes, enraged by this request from a mere vassal, releases the other 4 sons instead and has the oldest and most favored one torn in half so that the army can march between the halves of his severed body.
The Greek states were far far from perfect but I think most of us would prefer life there to one under such a despot.
300 may offer a simplistic idealized view of West vs East but I don't know that it's one that is all that bad for Easterners. The idea that the Greeks won in large part because they were free men fighting for their land against slaves to a tyrant is better than the alternative explanation that the Persians quite frankly sucked at war, getting their asses repeatedly kicked by the Greeks and, later, Alexander the Great, despite always having superior numbers.
"They would lay down their lives, for you, if neccessary. None of those posting here would do the same for them, or me, or most people that they've ever met."
Wow. I've been playing catch up on a days worth of reading and that has to be the single most asininely stupid thing I've read all night. You don't know a single one of us at all, but you come in and make an insulting blanket statement such as that based only on the fact that we disagree with you on the war. So, your POV on the Iraq War debate is basically that the people that agree with you are kind, noble and good while the people who disagree with you are cowardly, bad and would run away and let someone die just to save themselves. Gee, that's good sign that debate with you will be meaningful and of substance.
And your spelling problem has an easy fix. Open a hotmail "new message" window and type your posts into that. Then you can spell check it, cut it and paste it into the blog. If you have Word on your computer, do the same. that'll also get some grammar goofs.
Robert, I wssn't going to respond to your paralogisms point-by-point. But after reading Jerry Chandler's last post I realize that there are some outrageous statements you've made that shouldn't go unchallenged. So I shall plug my nose and here goes...
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
Please, gentlemen, call me Robert.
As I said in my prior post, I would've done that anyway. No one stands on formality here.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
Democracy is NOT the “American Way”.
That's false. According to the Microsoft Encarta dictionary, one definition of the word "democracy" is "the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the people."
Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." Article I, Section 3 states, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years." With respect to the election of the president, Article II, Section 1 states, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." These provisions established a framework for a national government whereby leaders would either be elected directly by the people, or by state legislatures who themselves were popularly elected. That meets the definition of "democracy."
(Oh, and to allay any possible confusion: Article I, Section 3 was later supserseded by Amendment XVII, which states, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years.")
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
Our founding fathers were very wary of Democracy as it used by the political Left today. That word should be carefully considered when applying it to the United States.
I haven't the foggiest idea how you believe the "political Left" defines democracy, and given your inability to avoid drawing unwarranted inferences from others' words, I don't care. When I use the word "democracy," I'm using it as it is defined by respectable dictionaries. Let's stick with the actual meanings of words, shall we, and leave the mind-reading to the Amazing Karnak?
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
Fifty percent of the people you meet are below average.
And yet the U.S. Constitution provides that each and every person has a right to vote.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
The President chose Iraq for reasons strategic, as well as political.
Really? Al Qaeda was an enemy of Iraq until we took out Saddam, and created a power vacuum that let them and other forces get in. Iraq was less dangerous to the U.S. prior to the invasion. How was that a "strategic" move?
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
As to judging people by their words. Let them write more words, and I will read them as they are written.
Except you're not doing that. I have yet to read a single post in this blog wherein anyone has stated that they oppose all wars in all forms and reject the right of the United States to defend itself. That is something you are inferring solely based on... what? The absence of anyone articulating when and how the U.S. should go to war? But that's not what we've been discussing. We've been discussing one particular war, and opposition to one war is not the same as opposition to all war.
You need to brush up on your reasoning skills.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
Soldiers would not be soldiers if they didn’t follow orders, but do not pretend that they are mindless automatons. That’s rude and disrecpectful.
It's also nothing I said, so please don't puff out your chest and offer your false indignation. It's laughably self-aggrandizing. I merely pointed out that the military doesn't exactly encourage a vigorous debate, and with good reason. For a military to function effectively, people must adhere to the chain of command. Moreover, the formal rules of the military quite naturally create an informal culture of cohesion based on a shared sense of purpose. Soldiers may have misgivings about their mission that they choose not to express publicly because they know that doing so would be bad for unit morale.
In other words, these soldiers are doing what they are told, which is their job. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't have misgivings -- merely that they understand that dwelling on such misgivings, if they have them, is counterproductive.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
As for respect, earn it.
You have an overinflated sense of self if you belief I'm going to jump through any hoops to "earn" your respect. It's not the prize you apparently believe it to be. My parents raised me to treat people I don't know with respect, and only withdraw it if they give me reason to do so. And with your behavior here, you have given me reason to do so.
Put more simply: I don't give a rat's ass about earning your respect because with your behavior, you've lost mine.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
I defy you to cite an example of me insulting anyone’s patriotism. I don’t do that.
As Jerry Chandler pointed out, you did just that when you wrote, "[U.S. military servicemen and women] would lay down their lives, for you, if neccessary. None of those posting here would do the same for them, or me, or most people that they've ever met."
After Jerry called you on the carpet about that, I realized just how appalling your statement truly is. See, Jerry opposes the Iraq war... and he's a cop. Every damn day he puts his life on the line merely by putting on his uniform and doing his job. How dare you make an assumption about him... or any of us... merely because you are too weak to accept that people of goodwill can disagree?
When can we expect your apology?
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
As for debating, I am very open to that. However, while I enjoy playing Devil’s Advocate, I was once thrown off of a high school debate team because my idea of a rebuttal is “F!@#$%^&*K YOU!!! Be warned.
That's like saying, "This newborn, declawed kitten sometimes like to swat people. Be warned." You overestimate the intimidation factor present in your insults. Tell me "fuck you" and I'll merely shrug, tell you to "grow up" and probably stop wasting my time with you.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM
My email address is rttss@hotmail.com.
No, see, I meant debate with you HERE, in this blog. I'm not interested in striking up a personal correspondence with you. As I said, you don't strike me as someone I want to get to know.
In fact, if you continue to offer insults and paralogisms, I doubt I'll want to continue to debate with you in any forum. I'd rather devote my time to discussing things with those who value rational discourse, like Iowa Jim. I passionately disagree with him, but I have great respect for his choice to debate this war on its merits and discuss things politely.
If you demonize the opposition (as "my side" did with Clinton), you don't deal with the real issues. Bush's actions have been highly consistent with a belief this actually is a war on terror.
He threatened to veto implementation of 9-11 recommendations over provisions to allow unions in the TSA. As with the disparity between the president's avowed devotion to the well-being of soldiers and scraping the resources for that care from the bottom of his shoe after walking Barney, it seems clear the war on terror is an issue dependent on politics. If the war on terror isn't sacrosanct to him, what standing does he have to challenge anyone else's devotion?
It's not the prize you apparently believe it to be.
Bill, I'm now officially adding that line to my repertoir of snappy comebacks to stupid statements. It's way better than my usual ones ("Oh yeah?", "No YOU suck!", and "Hey, that's MR. Asshole to you, fella!")
Jerome: Throwing men and materiel into Iraq and failing to stop the insurgency emboldens the enemy too.
Robert Preston meet Mike. Mike meet Bobby, you make a lovely couple.
Mr. Preston, sorry, I not American, I am Canadian. We have troops in Afghanistan, a country which had close ties with Al-Quaida. They know why they are there. I question the mission, but I support the troops.
Contrary to "History by Hollywood", the USA did not win either World War single handed. How Bastogne is even vaguely relevant to the current debate is a mystery to me. If you can elighten me, please do.
Although most of the contributors here are "liberals", accusations of cowardice are ill founded and insulting. I don't know why you think I should earn your respect, when you have thrown mine out the window.
Bill Myers, you were a tad harsh on Iowa Jim. Ten lashes witha wet noodle, and two viewings of "Battlefield Earth". There will be a quiz.
{Apologies for the weirdness that crept into my markup}
Posted by Jerome Maida
PAD, "When I think of supporting the troops, I'm thinking of supporting their right not to be mired in an ill-defined mission"President Bush has said repeatedly that the mission is to have the Iraqi government be stable and be capable of defending themselves.
Of course there is a clearly-defined mission, one that was well-known to the rest of Bush Minor's gang from the day he took office determined to find some pretext for deposing Saddam "Because he made my Daddy look weak!"
"that treats their lives as easily disposable commodities"
I doubt anyone except the fringe elements see our soldiers' lives as "easily disposable commodities".
"I support their right to an honest government"
Nice. But will this help us win and achieve our objectives?
But even Cardigan wasn't stupid or crazy enough to throw away more troops that way.
It's been said that a good working definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time, By that definition, the Shrub's sanity is definitely questionable, 'cos all that happens every time they send more troops to Iraq is that more body bags come home.
"that should admit they were sent over there on political pretext"
They should admit to something that is purely your opinion? Unless someone can prove wht the political pretext was, I thing we should focus on winning.
However, over the course of this debacle:
"Saddam has WMD." Nope.
"Saddam is preventing the inspectors from looking for his WMD." Nope.
"Saddam is developing WMD." Nope,
"Saddam is negotiating to buy uranium to make WMD with from Niger." Nope. (And that one was such a whopper that he blamed it on the British Government, who never said any such thing, and proved it.)
"Saddam is working with al Qaeda." Nope.
"We can't quit now, we'd look weak." (Like my Daddy.) Nope.
"to search for weaponry that wasn't there"
B. Clinton, Kerry, H. Clinton and many others felt the WMD were there. Bush waited five months from receiving authorization to use force against Iraq and actually using it. Plenty of time to have the weapons relocated to Syria, as was widely reported then. Not so much now.
"and is now operating on fumes in the middle of an ongoing civil war that's going to be waged whether we're there or not"
If we are 'operating on fumes'- which i don't agree with - then we should actualy send more troops to ease the burden of those already there, don't you think?
And may i enquire if you are aware of the principle of "good money after bad"?
Having John Murtha not threatening to withold funds for the war unless Pelosi gets a bigger plane would help, as well. In the end, the troops' morale is of the utmost importance.
"I want an aircraft that will reach California," Pelosi told reporters Wednesday afternoon, insisting that she doesn't care what kind of plane it is as long as it can fly nonstop to her home district. Pelosi said news reports suggesting that she seeks a lavish jet suggest a "misrepresentation that could only be coming from the administration.
One would wonder why the practice deemed to be necessary from a security standpoint would be mischaracterized in the press. I know that it's not coming from the president, because he impressed upon me the amount of security I need to have."
Because the C-20 (a bizjet-class plane that seats 12) generally would need to stop and refuel to make it all the way to the Bay Area, Pelosi requested a plane that could make it to California without having to stop along the way... (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2858225&page=1 - the same article mentions that the class of jet requested for Pelosi by the officials in charge of security for the House is the same class that the First Lady would get automatically.)
and:
White House Defends Pelosi Over Plane Request
The White House on Thursday came to the defense of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, describing as "silly" reports about her use of a large Air Force transport plane to travel back and forth from her West Coast district.
"This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said at a morning briefing with reporters. "We think it's important that the speaker of the House enjoy the same kind of security that we arranged for Speaker Hastert in the wake of September 11th. And like I said, I think that there's been a lot of over-hyped reporting on this," Snow said.
{snip}
A plane with security for the House speaker is nothing new. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Pentagon agreed to provide a military plane to House Speaker Dennis Hastert to and from his district in Illinois. Hastert flew in a C-20, a small commuter-sized jet. House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood, who is responsible for the speaker's security, advised Pelosi in December that the Air Force had made an airplane available to her predecessor.
But because her congressional district is in California, Pelosi and her aides said she needs a larger plane that can fly coast to coast without refueling. The C-32 she requested is about the size of a Boeing 757-200 and has seating for 42 on it. (FoxNEWS (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250848,00.html)
Hardly an unreasonable request - travelling non-stop is a reasonable security precaution. The previous Leader's home district is only 700 miles from DC, which the smaller plane can make without refueling. California is a bit further away. And, as long as you were quoting irrelevancies, attacking liberals in general, instead of actually, like, you know, responding to what PAD actually said, why didn't you include this other smear against Pelosi (from the same Fox piece):
Besides the use of a military aircraft, top leaders on Capitol Hill are also required to be transported around Washington, D.C., in a a secure, bulletproof vehicle. That too raised eyebrows in Washington, when a government-owned sports utility vehicle on Thursday transported Pelosi, who owns her own hybrid SUV, to a House panel hearing on global warming.
"As opposed to Cheney, for whom "supporting the troops" is code for "giving Bush carte blanche".
I disagree. I find it impossible to know that this is what Cheney is thinking.
And i find it highly probable that if more Democrats - and cowardly Republicans - actually had the balls to criticize bush when they thought he was wrong but stand united for victory, this war would have been won by now.
Okay, it is difficult to tell what Cheney is thinking. Or if he actually thinks. However, his actions and statements cause me to believe that two possiblities exist:
(A) He actually thinks that we're winning this war and/or that by throwing a few (hundred) thousand more young men and women at it, we can win it. In which case he should be removed from thge Vice-Presidency for reasons of insanity,
or,
(B) He doesn't really give a damn, at this point, whether we win or lose, just so long as it happens after January, 2009, and no matter how many troops it costs.
David Van Domelen, "Of course, anyone wanting to bring the troops home wants the terrorists to win"
If we are seen as being "driven out" of Iraq, how exactly do you feel that will be viewed by terrorist factions? By the Mideast? By those in Iraq who have risked so much, from training with American soldiers to policing the streets to those who are helping us build schools? It has been over three decades and the country still has a Vietnam Syndrome. ur departure there hurt us in the eyes of the world and helped lead to the deaths of over three million people. If we were to simply boly, how could we be trusted again by those we seek out as allies? And what will an ever-more-aggressive Russia, powerful China, North Korea and Iran think?
And i know what the Chinese will say - are inevitably going to say sooner or later - "Hey, Sam - you owe me umpty-trillion dollars. Pay up or i'm foreclosing."
In Iraq, we don't have the troops or the resources available, for one thing, and the only way to "win" there, it looks more and more like, is to pull out all the "good"Iraqis on our side and then employ Weapons of Mass Destruction to reduce the place to radioactive glass. Anything less leaves us there "until the Iraqis can defend themselves", which, based on the conduct of their own "security forces" looks like about the same time that Charon leaves his boat frozen in and opens a ski lift.
Scott Bland, "It's too bad the Dems are repeatedly spineless when it comes to standing up to Bush. what's the biggest thing we've done so far?
They passed a non-binding resolution saying they disagreed with sending more troops to Iraq. Bush promptly gave them the middle finger and ignored them."
As well he should have. hat vote was so cynical, it's no wonder people hate politicians.
And, of coure, nothing that the Current Ruling Junta in Washington DC has ever done - from lieing us into this war to "Mission Accomplished" and beyond wasn't cynical and self-serving
Oh, and violence is down 80% since the troop surge - mention of which I have not seen in any of the mainstream media.
Michael D, "I'm always amazed that for some folks Criticism of the President (and/or his policies) = Criticism of the Troops (and/or Hatred of America). I just don't get it and I don't think I ever will."
Reasoned dissent is fine. Conservatives like George Will have made intelligent cases against the Iraq War. But when you have Rosie o'Donnell spouting "We invaded and occupied them" - well, who is doing the invading and occupying then? Our soldiers. when you have her cohort Behar say "They are thieves and murderers" in regards to the Administration...well, unless Bush was driving a Ford Bronco in 1994 or something
does that not imply that the troops are "murderers" or, at the very least, "instruments of murder".
It is impossible to say things like that and then say you support the troops.
But the people who ordered them to do so - they are guilty of such. That principle was established by our very own kangaroo court at the Nuremberg Tribunals, where the leaders of Germany were held accountable for what was done in their name by troops who were not charged with the crimes.
I support the troops.
I had to sweat out a year while the father of my grand daughter was in harm's way for Bush's ego, wondering if he would live to see his child. I want our troops out of there now, instead of after the election when someone sane can consider our chances of actually accomplishing anything other than making the US even less well-regarded than it already is in the world. ("I'd like to introduce you to the Chance brothers - Slim and None, but I think Slim's
left town.")
William Gatevackes, "I think this whole "not supporting the troops" statement the Republicans keep making is scurrilous at best."
No. If you listened to some of the people at the anti-war rally a few weeks ago, many of whom blamed the U.S. for a variety of the world's ills, dramatically inflated the number of civilian casualties and blamed our involvement in Vietnam for causing the 3 million deaths I mentioned earlier, it is clear many were amti-military. those are just a mild sample. Also, when neither David Letterman nor O'Donnell can reply "yes" to a being asked whether or not they want the U.S. to win, then that is a clear message of non-commitment at best and non-support.
As to the 3 million deaths in Viet Nam, (A) that's a lot higher number than i remember hearing, and (B)if we hadn't unilaterally set aside the results of a plebiscite that we sponsored when it came out the "wrong way", set up a puppet government that was not supported by its own citizens, and then prosecuted and escalated a war to attempt to overthrow what was, arguably, the legal government of the entire country, i suspect that a hell of a lot fewer pepole (and certainly a lot fewer American troops) would have died in a doomed attempt to prove to the Soviets that we had larger genitalia then they did(and its inevitable aftermath).
Well, who asked them that, and was it phrased in a "Do you want to win or do you want the troops withdrawn?" have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife manner?
Myself, i'd have to answer that, since i am firmly convinced that "winning" is not a viable outcome at this point, whether i want to "win" or not is irrelevant.
"The Democrats just want them out of harm's way and reunited with their families."
Well, they would never be in harm's way if we never sent them anywhere. If we are to survive as a nation, that is not an option. The world is an increasingly dangerous place these days. I would rather deal with these threats before they grow. would we not be better off if we had dealt with North Korea more sternly in 1994 or Iran even five years ago?
sneezythesqid, "Bush has approval ratings in the '30s"
Still higher than the 25% Truman left office with in large part due to Korea. History has treated him more favorably than his contemporaries. It is my opinion the same thing will happen with Bush.
"the Dems swept Congress"
Well, they won both houses. But neither by an overwhelming margin.
'afraid of what the President or Fox News will say about them"
Again with Fox News. The coverage of the war by the mainstream press has ben extremely negative. even Bill O'Reilly says Iraq is "a mess". But we have 60 Minutes finding 10 soldiers, ALL OF WHOM DIDN'T SUPPORT THE SURGE while claiming they couldn't find any who did. well, they must not have looked very hard. Sean Hannity has. Oliver North has. Why couldn't 60 Minutes?
Richard Engel on NBC routinely injects his anti-war opinions into his "objective" reports and Meredith Viera of "Today" actually took part in anti-war march.
If the mainstram press dedicated even 20% of their coverage to positive developments they would appear a lot more credible.
"And not be afraid to punch back when the Right Wing Spin Machine starts tossing mud."
Guess they're counting on the Left Wing Spin Machine including, Katie, Brian, Rosie, Diane, Air America's loudmouths,Clinton's buddy Kaplan and all the rest to do their work for them.
Denny, "I never understood how "supporting our troops" means that we must send them to a foreign country for a pointless and baseless war so they can
die in vain"
By saying the war is pointless and baseless you are saying that their actions are pointless and baseless. That's hardly the definition of support.
Saying that they are dying in vain is ironic, since if we do not finish the job more people will see those who did die as doing so in vain.
If you do not support the war, that alone does not make you anti-American.
But it sure means you aren't supporting them in any meaningful way.
Brian Douglas, "You have to remember, this is Cheney...So, what he's actually saying is that by not supporting Bush, the Democrats are in fact supporting the troops."
It means no such thing. Yet again, the personal and sometimes irrational distrust and even hatred of Bush and Cheney is emphasized and substituted for a rational solution. Is it at all possible to hate the men but respect the objective.
Bill Myers, "They bungled this war and cannot be trusted to run it."
Then the Democrats should say so and talk serious with the American people about their solutions and what they are and what they hope to achieve rather than engaging in the cynical political games they are right now.
Posted by Bill Mulligan
The Greeks often portrayed their warriors as fighting in a phalanx buck naked. So 300 is actually a bit more realistic in that regard. The damn thing isn't supposed to be a documentary.
The Celts apparently did often fight naked - allegeldy to show their foes that their manhood didn't wither in fear. (Of course, presumably both sides were doing it - at least until the Romans came along.)
Jerome Maida -
Plenty of time to have the weapons relocated to Syria, as was widely reported then.
Seeing as how Colin Powell was the sacrificial lamb to the UN on how Iraq had WMD, seeing as how Bush & Co sold the war on Iraq over WMD, and then seeing as how we didn't invade Syria to find said WMD...
I'd say the whole "the WMD went to Syria" is pretty bunk.
Not to mention, Syria is a puppet of Iran in many ways, and we all know how well Iraq and Iran got along.
Robert Preston -
don't seem to believe in fighting for ANY reason at all.
Which is an opinion that is in no way based in reality.
Many people here have said they supported overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan, including myself.
But then, the fact that we have left Afghanistan in a mess, and the Taliban is still hanging around, means we didn't finish the job. And that's just one of many reasons why we shouldn't have ever gone to Iraq.
There is a reason why Al Gore is not in office. Thank God.
Yes, it's called the SCotUS deciding an election, something that should never have been allowed.
But if you have to thank god for that, I'm inclined to believe you need to reexamine your faith and how you apply it to life.
If you need a further example, consider this. Fifty percent of the people you meet are below average.
The 51% of people who voted for Bush are idiots. This is basically what you're saying about people who voted for Gore. C'mon, show some balls, man! Show us how you really feel!
Bill Myers---
A suggestion, if I may. When you are rebutting separate people, use separate posts. My brain has trouble keeping track.
Brian Wood has written a well thought out post on the subject:
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 18, 2007 10:07 AM
It's way better than my usual ones ("Oh yeah?", "No YOU suck!", and "Hey, that's MR. Asshole to you, fella!")
As someone who has been on the receiving end of your rapier wit from time-to-time, I have to disagree. ;)
Posted by: Manny at March 18, 2007 02:26 PM
Bill Myers, you were a tad harsh on Iowa Jim. Ten lashes witha wet noodle, and two viewings of "Battlefield Earth". There will be a quiz.
*Sigh*
I've apologized to Iowa Jim.
Twice.
I've said 14,543 Hail Mary's.
I was beaten with a rattan cane.
Worst of all... I was forced to look at Ann Coulter... totally nude.
Totally.
Nude.
For the love of God, haven't I suffered enough????????????
Posted by: Alan Coil at March 18, 2007 05:55 PM
My brain has trouble keeping track.
As does mine.
So... if you're not keeping track of what I'm saying... and I'm not keeping track of what I'm saying...
Oh Lord... this could result in a mix-up on a par with one of those jokes that ends with the punch line, "Wait-a-minute, if these are the brownies -- then what happened to the stool sample???"
"He's correct that the Spartans were hardly a society most of us would want to be a part of but if the ancient accounts of Xerxes Persia are correct they were the lesser of two evils.
One famous story of Xerxes is that of Pythius the Lydian, a man of great wealth who offers his fortune to the king. Xerxes refuses his aid and instead gives him an even greater fortune. When Pythius asks that the oldest of his 5 sons be allowed to leave the army to take care of him in his old age Xerxes, enraged by this request from a mere vassal, releases the other 4 sons instead and has the oldest and most favored one torn in half so that the army can march between the halves of his severed body."
Is this from Herodotus? I think you have to take stories like that with a grain of salt, or at least think about them like healines in our newspapers: they do not reflect everyday life of most subjects of the Persian Empire.
"The Greek states were far far from perfect but I think most of us would prefer life there to one under such a despot."
I'm not so certain. If I remember correctly, Sparta was pretty tyranical place to live in even for the male citizens. For the helots it was probably even worse. The Spartans treated them badly if I recall correctly. It was, well, very Spartan. Democratic Athens was obvously much better -- when I've finished my time machine I'd like to visit. But that's only if you were a citizen, not a slave.
"300 may offer a simplistic idealized view of West vs East but I don't know that it's one that is all that bad for Easterners. The idea that the Greeks won in large part because they were free men fighting for their land against slaves to a tyrant is better than the alternative explanation that the Persians quite frankly sucked at war, getting their asses repeatedly kicked by the Greeks and, later, Alexander the Great, despite always having superior numbers."
You should be careful about reading the present into the past. The way of life of the Greeks probably was partialy responsible for their military successes, but summing it all up with the phrase 'free-men' might create a wrong impression. The Greeks were citizens in small, close nit communities with strong cultural ties. Some of the city states were ruled by tyrants (the word is greek), but they were independent. The citizens were trained as warriors, in a culture that admired physical prowess, and they were fighting for their own communities. Also, the poverty of their land hardened them and caused them to look outward. And let's not forget that military technology also played a role -- their tactics of phallanax infantry and heavy warships was the right one in the right place, then but not later. Also, the Greeks were mountain people. mountain people historically tend to be fierce warriors.
The persians on the other hand had an army of mercenaries or slaves or conscripts (you know better than I do), less committed. They were fighting for a distant ruler. The subjects of a vast empire have much less interest who rules than the citizen of a small independent community. Also, you have to remeber that even great empires have their limitations and have their down cycles. One day you're the toughst warriors in the world, a few centuriess later you are rich fat slobs with great culture but dependant on foreign mercenaries. Another thing you should remember is that the Persians were still a super power for a century after the Persian wars, that they were able to subjugate some greek cities, and that the Greeks did not build the great Empire, it was Alexander, himself a tyrant king, but also a military genius. And his father did defeat the Greeks. That's the cycle of Empires.
I wonder if we were to propose an interpretation of 300in which the Persian Empire does not represent the Muslim east but instead it represents the United States, would everybody reverse their attitudes toward it -- the ones who loved it would hate it, and the ones who hated it would love it?
-----------------
It is factualy false that PAD is against any war any time. I know of one war he supported.
-----------------
"Plenty of time to have the weapons relocated to Syria, as was widely reported then."
That's a conjecture. we thought there were WMD's. we didn't find them. Either Saddam didn't have them or he moved them somewhere else. We don't know, but if we had to guess which guess would we find more appealing?
-----------------
About Bastogne. There is tendency to measure all wars against WWII. There's also a desire in some to return to the supposed certainty of WWII. But most wars are not like WWII. The war in Iraq is not like WWII. The war on terror is certainly not like WWII. It is more like the fight against the Soviet Union. There will be no day of victory. It will be years of fighting, prevention, diplomacy, propaganda. It is essential to learn to adapt tactically, strategically and mentally.
----------------
The connection claimed to have existed between Saddam and terrorism is based on two cases.
1) A group called Ansar Al-Islam that was connected to Al-Quaida but whose connection to Saddam is disputed. In any case, this small group was stationed in Kurdish Iraq, an was mostly fighting the Kurds -- it did not warrant a full invasion.
2) Saddam gave money to the Palestinian suicide bombers. This is a local matter that is not the business of the US and does not warrant a full invasion.
The real reason for the invasion was the bad idea to solve the problem of terrorism by reshaping the middle east starting with Iraq. Iowa Jim is correct, Iraq is a front in the war on terror, but only because Bush turned it into one.
Whether you think the war was right or wrong, whether you support staying or leaving, you must recognize that the was handled badly, that currently things are not working. so, staying the course is not an option. If you support continuing, you should be the first to hold Bush accountable for mismanaging the war and demanding that he present a credible plan to change the situation. Continuing with the same will embolden the enemy (or rather enemies) even more than leaving.
Bill Myers, in view of what you viewed, I'll reduce your sentence to merely explaining how the hell "Battlefield Earth" ever got greenlit in the first place.
As for why the Greeks kicked Persian ass, free men fighting for their homes works, to a degree. The retreating Germans, the Poles, just about every losong side was fighting for their home.
The role of technology is relevant. However, purely technologically, Germen tanks were superior to just about anything the Allies could field. The other end of the equation is sheer numbers. The allies could build and field more Shermans than the Germans could King Tigers. Pound for pound, the KT could kick the shit out of the best Sherman variant in the field.
The last part of the equation is competance of leadership. How capable is the level of leadership from which strategic decisions flow.
During WWII, the German leadership in 1939 was superior to the Allies. After Hitler assumed direct control of the German war effort, this situation was reversed.
In the current situation in Iraq, the US has the technical edge and the economic edge. As to who feels they are fighting for their homes, yer guess is as good as mine.
Now for competence. Since it appears that the fate of any officer who questions the conduct of the war is career over, to be replaced by someone who "stays on message" the question of competence must be answered by el Presidente.
Worst of all... I was forced to look at Ann Coulter... totally nude.
Really? So...is she or isn't she? You know what I mean...
s this from Herodotus? I think you have to take stories like that with a grain of salt, or at least think about them like healines in our newspapers: they do not reflect everyday life of most subjects of the Persian Empire.
Well, sure, but you takes what you gots. My point is that any representation of Xerxes as a cruel despot is entirely consistant with history as we have it. It may not reflect reality but that's another, probably unanswerable, question.
Democratic Athens was obvously much better -- when I've finished my time machine I'd like to visit. But that's only if you were a citizen, not a slave.
But in a system with a despot EVERYONE is a slave, to one degree or another.
The way of life of the Greeks probably was partialy responsible for their military successes, but summing it all up with the phrase 'free-men' might create a wrong impression.
I don't want to seem as though I think that the Greeks were walking around in an Ayn Rand paradise but I think there is a reason that we still have the plays of Aristophanes and not so much from whoever was the writer of plays in Persia during Xerxes reign (I may well be wrong but I'm betting that a big hit in 474 BC in Persia had a title something like "Hail Xerxes, Ruler of Heroes Part 2, The Quickening".
The persians on the other hand had an army of mercenaries or slaves or conscripts (you know better than I do), less committed. They were fighting for a distant ruler.
True, although not distant enough; he was right there watching and chopping off the heads of his generals when they did not get the results he wanted. This is apparently less effective than you'd think. I was struck by the contrast between Carthage, which executed its generals when they lost the first Punic War, and Rome, which suffered an almost unimaginable loss at Cannae during the second Punic War but thanked the surviving consul (Gaius Terentius Varro) for his service and later made him an ambassador. Rome, of course, ultimately came out on top in that fight.
I wonder if we were to propose an interpretation of 300in which the Persian Empire does not represent the Muslim east but instead it represents the United States, would everybody reverse their attitudes toward it -- the ones who loved it would hate it, and the ones who hated it would love it?
Some have tried and one could argue that the multicultural nature of the Persians is closer to our own reality that that of the racially homogeneous Greeks but some of the people with an axe to grind with this movie just can't help but root for the darker skinned side, no matter how despotic. Anyway, the ones that love it tend not to take these political interpretations too seriously so I doubt that any new spin is going to blunt the love. The producers already have 15 of MY hard won dollars and may well get more (I'm hoping to see it at IMAX).
Oh check this out--from Variety:“Miller is also prepping a follow-up to "300" based on another mythic tale from Greek history, but he won't divulge details.”
Oh please, oh please...let it be the March of the Ten Thousand!!!!!
Bill Mulligan: The damn thing isn't supposed to be a documentary.
Luigi Novi: Sigh. Why do people have to use this counterargument with those who observe inaccuracies in films? :-)
If you don't feel that the inaccuracy in question is such that it takes away from the film (and I speak as someone who really liked 300), that's fine, but this retort seems to imply that "realism" is the sole province of documentaries? No offense, Bill, buddy, but this idea just grates on me! :-)
And hell, even documentaries are not necessarily "realistic". Look at Michael Moore's films.
Bill Mulligan: I don't quite get the "Xerxes is gay" meme. He's 7 feet tall and has piercings, is that code for gay now?.
Luigi Novi: Actually, I myself got an androgynous vibe from the character when I saw the film, based on his makeup, plucked eyebrows and computer-aided transgendered-like voice, and that was before I found out that Rodrigo Santoro was a drag queen. I found it a cheap shot, because of the possible inferred connection between androgyny and evil, and I wonder how members of the LGBT community feels about that.
Bill Mulligan: The real Xerxes is portrayed on coins as having a big wooly beard. He'd be about as scary looking as C Everett Koop.
Luigi Novi: C'mon, Bill. Because we can point to a cuddly bearded guy means that therefore, ipso facto, all bearded men cannot be frightening characters, even regardless of how they're portrayed, designed, plotted, etc.? You could just as easily replaced "C. Everett Koop" with "Charles Manson", and argue the opposite point. If they wanted to portray Xerxes as a frightening guy with a beard, they could've have.
Bill Mulligan: The point that the traitor Ephialtes is portrayed as a grotesque hunchback is also consistent with epic tales and/or Dick Tracy comics, where a character's evil is reflected in his physical appearance.
Luigi Novi: I'm not sure why consistency with something acts as justification for it, or why Dick Tracy comics are being held up as the standard; I personally think that attempting to portray villainy solely through grotesque appearance shows a lack of imagination, and is a cop-out. That's just me. :-)
If you don't feel that the inaccuracy in question is such that it takes away from the film (and I speak as someone who really liked 300), that's fine, but this retort seems to imply that "realism" is the sole province of documentaries? No offense, Bill, buddy, but this idea just grates on me! :-)
I get what you're saying Luigi. But it bugs me when a film that is deliberately being presented as very much a stylized representation of a historical event (and an event of which little is factually known as far as the details go) and people suddenly get all frantic about it's realism. Picasso's Guernica doesn't strike me as terribly realistic either but you'd look like a real dope complaining about it. If they'd filmed the movie in some cinema verite style, made it look like someone handed John Cassevetes a camera and plunked him down in the middle of things, ok, then I guess there would be grounds for complaints. Maybe. But this is about as realistic as a Frazetta painting and almost as nice to look at.
I myself got an androgynous vibe from the character when I saw the film, based on his makeup, plucked eyebrows and computer-aided transgendered-like voice
Well...I guess I could see that. I was thinking Egyptian with the eyebrow bit. I didn't get a gay vibe from the voice at all, more of a 10th level video game Boss thing.
All I have to say is that gays have made great strides if the stereotype has gone from Waylon Flowers and Madame to 7 foot tall man-gods. I know, I know, all stereotypes are bad but some are worse than others. Most guys would rather be suspected of having unusually large penises than being, say, frequently drunk or tight with a dollar.
C'mon, Bill. Because we can point to a cuddly bearded guy means that therefore, ipso facto, all bearded men cannot be frightening characters, even regardless of how they're portrayed, designed, plotted, etc.? You could just as easily replaced "C. Everett Koop" with "Charles Manson", and argue the opposite point. If they wanted to portray Xerxes as a frightening guy with a beard, they could've have.
No, sorry, can't agree with you there. I'm talking BIG WOOLY BEARD. This isn't a scary Manson or Castro beard, this is a comical Smith Brothers Cough Drops beard. It's like he was caught in the act of swallowing a sheep. He'd be trying to look fierce and I'd be having flashbacks to The Mad Adventures of Rabbi Jacob and laughing my ass off.
I'm not sure why consistency with something acts as justification for it, or why Dick Tracy comics are being held up as the standard; I personally think that attempting to portray villainy solely through grotesque appearance shows a lack of imagination, and is a cop-out. That's just me. :-)
I'm not saying it's the only or best way to do it but the fact that it is consistent with epic takes some of the wind out of the sails of those who seem to think that Miller was, I don't know, taking out some personal antipathy toward hunchbacks or something.
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention--most of 300 is essentially a tale told by the surviving Spartan to his men right before a battle to the death with the Persian army. So yeah the elephants are gonna be too big and the heroic acts of the heroes be a bit gravity defying and the bad guys are not only bad but they're ugly too.
But the important thing is we both liked it and now Zack Miller can hopefully go make Watchmen.
The Greek states were far far from perfect but I think most of us would prefer life there to one under such a despot.
The history channel cited a few historians on the Persian invasion. A few of them said other than the battle of Thermopylae he was a capable ruler in the line of Persian kings, and none of the historians described him as a despot. Persian interest didn't seem to exceed that of collecting protection money, and their various, I guess I'd call them confederate states, were otherwise left alone.
Spartans were raised to serve first the Spartan state and, other than their existence predating the term, seemed to be best described as fascists. The final right of passage for their soldiers wasn't killing a wolf as depicted in 300, but in killing a slave without getting caught, as soldiers were trained to sneak and steal their food as well as fight.
After watching the history channel episode on Thermopylae, my Rush-Limbaugh-listening brother said the downfall of Persia was that they were a multi-cultural society. The historians didn't portray life serving Persia as less attractive than life serving Sparta in any way.
In real-life as well as the movie, the Persians would have won on the first day if they had loosed their arrows when the Spartans were engaged in battle, a tactic most closely associated with the Japanese.
Maybe the invasion of Iraq does signal the decline of America just as the Persian invasion unified Greece for Alexander to roll right into Persia with. 25 hundred years from now, Osama bin Laden may be portrayed in holodeck reinactments as shirtless and caped, inspiring The 19 to sacrifice their lives to preserve the Arab freedom they will enjoy in the future.
"Also, the Greeks were mountain people. mountain people historically tend to be fierce warriors."
Hi, Micha, haven't been formally intro'd yet. Broadly speaking, just about any ethnic group that comes from a harsh region (mountain, desert) tends toward a degree of ferocity.
Look at the feudal Japanese culture. An island nation with limited natural resources that gave birth to a society which placed a priority on martial ability. Or, the ancient Israelis, my own Alpine Swiss ancestors, the Vikings.
Sorry, little tangent drift there.
As much as I agree with those that say the entire Iraq Misadventure should not have happened, the time for the blame game passed about 1 second after the first boot hit the ground. Every second after that made the mess deeper.
Pulling out of Iraq now would be irresponsible at best, criminal at worst. Not because "they have to be fought over there or over here", but because, given the quagmire there, leaving would create a new Somalia.
Compounding the error of invasion with the semantic joke of "liberation" pushes us all one step closer to the absurd. "Liberation" implies there was a foreign invasion force occupying Iraq. The reality is that the US is that foreign invader/occupier. That makes Al-Quada's recruiting very easy. "We're gonna liberate Iraq."
As to the argument that "troops want to be there", well bullshit, from a crapped out bull. Yes, a number of the troops in theater want to be there. However, I believe the only people under arms in Iraq who want to be there are the ones working for various security contractors. They make more than your average 11B infantry grunt, and are probably better equipped.
From the official position, the deaths of these people in combat keeps the number of reported US combat casualties down. That helps keep things on message. I don't know how many of these contractors have died in combat operations, but I'll bet if those numbers were US military personel, and they were added to the 3200+ dead, a few more questions might be asked.
And questions make W and the boys VERY nervous.
"Oh please, oh please...let it be the March of the Ten Thousand!!!!!"
Seconded. :)
"And hell, even documentaries are not necessarily "realistic". Look at Michael Moore's films."
What.... You mean that his documentaries aren't.... They're... They're not true? My faith in the world is gone. :o
The history channel cited a few historians on the Persian invasion. A few of them said other than the battle of Thermopylae he was a capable ruler in the line of Persian kings, and none of the historians described him as a despot.
My dictionary defines despot as A ruler with absolute power. Which would describe Xerxes quite well. He may well have been a capable despot; the trains ran on time and he quite capably put down rebellions from people who did not appreciate his gentle rule.
After watching the history channel episode on Thermopylae, my Rush-Limbaugh-listening brother said the downfall of Persia was that they were a multi-cultural society.
I don't think it was their multi-cultural nature that doomed them, just the poor way it was used. Hannibal had a very diverse force and used the various skills and specialties to create a more powerful whole. The Persian army, in contrast, seems to have just been a very large rabble. Against smaller rabbles they did fine. Against an organized disciplined force, even one much smaller than theirs...well, we see how that went. The same thing happened with most of Rome's opponents.
(I'm reminded of another change from history in 300; they don't have the Persians carrying their main defensive weapon which was--get ready--a wicker shield! Bwah! I can see why that got booted off, it's too much to expect audiences not to laugh when you see guys marching into battle holding something that looks like it came from Pier 1.)
In real-life as well as the movie, the Persians would have won on the first day if they had loosed their arrows when the Spartans were engaged in battle, a tactic most closely associated with the Japanese.
I don't know, in the phalanx formation it was not always easy for arrows to get through--now had the Spartans behaved as in the movie, breaking ranks and fighting in slow motion, well...
The real life Spartans were also better armored than the movie ones, though the ladies in the audience (and a few of the guys, I guess) did not seem to mind this deviation from reality.
But yeah, it seems to me that if Xerxes had just sent wave after wave after wave of missile weapons it would have finally taken its toll. Sending the Immortals in so early (and having the army watch them be defeated) was tactically stupid.
The Greek states were far far from perfect but I think most of us would prefer life there to one under such a despot.The history channel cited a few historians on the Persian invasion. A few of them said other than the battle of Thermopylae he was a capable ruler in the line of Persian kings, and none of the historians described him as a despot.
My dictionary defines despot as A ruler with absolute power. Which would describe Xerxes quite well. He may well have been a capable despot; the trains ran on time and he quite capably put down rebellions from people who did not appreciate his gentle rule.
Then, as far as one could not predict the innovation of democracy -- in Athens -- leading to the comfort we enjoy today, your contention that we would prefer life in Greece, even Athens, over Persian rule would not seem clear-cut at the time. Consider the casualness today in curbing the burning of fossil fuels to preserve environmental conditions.
I'm guessing to everyone here, there would be no difference between either situation in the quality of life.
In real-life as well as the movie, the Persians would have won on the first day if they had loosed their arrows when the Spartans were engaged in battle, a tactic most closely associated with the Japanese.I don't know, in the phalanx formation it was not always easy for arrows to get through--now had the Spartans behaved as in the movie, breaking ranks and fighting in slow motion, well...
As far as their defense against arrows was described as holding their shields above their heads, and their defense against direct assault was described as holding their shields between them and their attackers, I don't imagine them defending themselves from both fronts at the same time.
As far as the Japanese were capable of fighting until they were killed, they would have taken advantage of the Spartans inability to defend both fronts at the same time. If, as implied by the name "immortal" (where the fall of each soldier was replaced by another, indefinitely), each immortal accepted his own death in the same fashion as the Japanese soldier, they could have performed such an attack and walked through Greece.
Regarding Manny's post comparing tanks, for some reason(could be that I'm tired and I'm taking care of a sick boy) I found comparing Shermans to Germans insanely funny.
"(I may well be wrong but I'm betting that a big hit in 474 BC in Persia had a title something like "Hail Xerxes, Ruler of Heroes Part 2, The Quickening"."
Bill, THAT just gives chills. To think that travesty has been around so long....
Oh, man. Mulligan made me think again. Damn smoke alarms. Under a despot could it be that the people aren't aware of their situation? I mean, I'm sure that they know that certain things are no-no's. But could it be that they feel like this is how EVERYONE lives, and that's how the despots get even more power?
"Oh please, oh please...let it be the March of the Ten Thousand!!!!!"
Somewhere, Blutarsky is muttering in ever increasing volume, "Toga! Toga! Toga! TOGA! TOGA!" My head is a dangerous place.
Iowa Jim -
The people in Iraq recently agreed in a poll that things are better now than under Sadaam
Another poll is being reported this morning, conducted by a combination of ABC News, USA Today, the BBC, and ARD German TV, and it *severely* disagrees with the link you provided, Jim.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_poll
Luigi Novi -
but this retort seems to imply that "realism" is the sole province of documentaries?
I think one distinction to be made here from many other historical pieces is that while 300 is certainly based on a real battle, it never goes out there in the advertising and exclaims "Based on a true story", which is something I find fault with with many historical movies (King Arthur, for example, purported itself to be "THE true story", etc).
So, I give more leniency to films that don't try to claim to be something they're not. :)
Posted by Sean Scullion at March 19, 2007 09:15 AM
"Regarding Manny's post comparing tanks, for some reason(could be that I'm tired and I'm taking care of a sick boy) I found comparing Shermans to Germans insanely funny."
Howzabout Germans named Herman fighting Shermans? Sorry, up all night with a cranky 5 week old. I'll just go in a corner and wait for the nice people with the nets.
No, wait--Germans named Herman fight Shermans with dreaming of Ethel Merman....
I think your corner will be the second stop for the net guys after my corner.
Maybe the invasion of Iraq does signal the decline of America just as the Persian invasion unified Greece for Alexander to roll right into Persia with. 25 hundred years from now, Osama bin Laden may be portrayed in holodeck reinactments as shirtless and caped, inspiring The 19 to sacrifice their lives to preserve the Arab freedom they will enjoy in the future.
I said that casually, but after sleeping on it, I'm wondering if a historical analogy such as this is what drives continued support of the war, if unconsciously. Americans aren't capable of abandoning the paradigm of the role of America as the last superpower -- as any people are incapable of abandoning their inherited culture.
(My indentity is not inherited from one culture, but pieced together from the building-blocks of a handful of cultures to suit my temperament. The casual insistence people "be themselves" has always rung hollow for me, and I know no solution lies in such an insistence. It's like the trauma people born blind endure upon having their sight restored. Expecting such a brain to suddenly devote most of its resources to a new function changes the subject's relationship with the world -- people do not change their identities in such a manner casually.)
The prospect of falling under a unified Arab world as Persia fell to a Greece it unified is then unthinkable. In a sense, if the Democrats never find an alternative for Xerxes to retreating from the invasion of Greece, the working paradigm to preserve the US for pro-war Americans will always be to crush the insurgency, perhaps up to and including employing nuclear weapons. It's wrong, but I have to admit -- that isn't necessarily being unreasonable.
Having invaded Greece, and to preserve the Persian Empire, what alternative then did Xerxes have than conducting total war?
Posted by Sean Scullion at March 19, 2007 09:27 AM
"No,wait--Germans named Herman fight Shermans with dreaming of Ethel Merman..."
"...in for permin' during the sturmin' of the vermin by Chris Berman."
Sorry, I need the net guys now.
"But in a system with a despot EVERYONE is a slave, to one degree or another."
"My dictionary defines despot as A ruler with absolute power. Which would describe Xerxes quite well. He may well have been a capable despot; the trains ran on time and he quite capably put down rebellions from people who did not appreciate his gentle rule."
You should be more careful about reading history with modern eyes. Most ofhumanity lived under the rule of despots for most of history, and you do not want to paint all of history until 1776 with black paint. Some despots are better some are worse. Some better in one thing and worse in another. In any case, even in a despotic society there is a significant difference between being a slave and a citizen. The fact that to our modern eyes they all seem like slaves should not cause us to ignore this if we are to understand history.
"My point is that any representation of Xerxes as a cruel despot is entirely consistant with history as we have it. It may not reflect reality but that's another, probably unanswerable, question."
But when you read a historical text you have to know how to analyze it. A king could treat badly a faction of courtiers, and they'll say he was a despot, but for a merchant in a distant province it will not matter so long as there is peace, business is good, his culture is not affected, the gods get their due so the weather is good and the seas calm, and the taxes are not too oppressive. He would say this was a good king.
"I don't want to seem as though I think that the Greeks were walking around in an Ayn Rand paradise but I think there is a reason that we still have the plays of Aristophanes and not so much from whoever was the writer of plays in Persia during Xerxes reign (I may well be wrong but I'm betting that a big hit in 474 BC in Persia had a title something like "Hail Xerxes, Ruler of Heroes Part 2, The Quickening"."
The contrast between the freedom in Athens and the oppression in Sparta is one of the reasons for Athens's amazing cultural contribution. Although Athens is amazing by any standard. Slavery and money extracted from the other Greek States were also factors. I believe the Persians did make some significant cultural contributions of ther owm -- more than Sparta. Certainly other despotic regimes were responsible for amazing cultural contributions too, in lietarture, architecture, art, government. I also believe some segments of the Old Testament were written or collected during Persian rule.
"True, although not distant enough; he was right there watching and chopping off the heads of his generals when they did not get the results he wanted. This is apparently less effective than you'd think. I was struck by the contrast between Carthage, which executed its generals when they lost the first Punic War, and Rome, which suffered an almost unimaginable loss at Cannae during the second Punic War but thanked the surviving consul (Gaius Terentius Varro) for his service and later made him an ambassador. Rome, of course, ultimately came out on top in that fight."
Like Manny said, good leadership is also a factor in miliitary victories and defeats.
"As for why the Greeks kicked Persian ass, free men fighting for their homes works, to a degree. The retreating Germans, the Poles, just about every losong side was fighting for their home."
Correct. Fighting for your home, in and of itself, is not sufficient to win wars. It helps.
The Poles sent against the german's cavalry in 1939 for god's sake.
"After watching the history channel episode on Thermopylae, my Rush-Limbaugh-listening brother said the downfall of Persia was that they were a multi-cultural society.
I don't think it was their multi-cultural nature that doomed them, just the poor way it was used."
A multi-cultural society with out any sense of unity of purpose might be a disadvantage. So can language or cultural barriers. The Duke of Burgundy tried to create an army with the best soldiers of his time -- swiss pikemen, English archers, and I don't remember the others. But they were apparently unable to work together.
"If you don't feel that the inaccuracy in question is such that it takes away from the film (and I speak as someone who really liked 300), that's fine, but this retort seems to imply that "realism" is the sole province of documentaries? No offense, Bill, buddy, but this idea just grates on me! :-)
I get what you're saying Luigi. But it bugs me when a film that is deliberately being presented as very much a stylized representation of a historical event (and an event of which little is factually known as far as the details go) and people suddenly get all frantic about it's realism."
OK. I'm sorry. I'm going to make a wide over-generalization and exageration about Americans. I know it is. But it seems to me that when it comes to historical films (or ones based onhistorical fiction), when it is American history (Titanic, civii war etc.) every bit and is accurate, But when it comes to non-American history there's no distinction between history and fantasy. Real history has such good complex stories. Look at Rome (the TV series), that's how historical films should be made.
"No, sorry, can't agree with you there. I'm talking BIG WOOLY BEARD. This isn't a scary Manson or Castro beard, this is a comical Smith Brothers Cough Drops beard. It's like he was caught in the act of swallowing a sheep."
It's a valid life style choice.
"He'd [Xerxes] be trying to look fierce and I'd be having flashbacks to The Mad Adventures of Rabbi Jacob and laughing my ass off."
Why do you think he was such a despot?
I haven't seen the coins you are talking about, but I'm sure Xerxes had servants who took care of his beard so he'll loook fierce.
"Hi, Micha, haven't been formally intro'd yet. Broadly speaking, just about any ethnic group that comes from a harsh region (mountain, desert) tends toward a degree of ferocity."
Hi. I agree with you completly. 'Dune' made use of that.
"As much as I agree with those that say the entire Iraq Misadventure should not have happened, the time for the blame game passed about 1 second after the first boot hit the ground. Every second after that made the mess deeper.
Pulling out of Iraq now would be irresponsible at best, criminal at worst. Not because "they have to be fought over there or over here", but because, given the quagmire there, leaving would create a new Somalia."
I agree with you completly. I'm in a little bit of a bind here. As a person living in the Middle East, I am very worried about what will happen when the US leaves Iraq. But I want the American to stay or leave as a result of rational deliberation, not manipulation. I also don't know how, as things stand now, things are going to improve in Iraq. 'Staying the Course' is not going to do it. Wanting victory is nice, but not enough. For me it might be better if the US stays, even if things don't improve, rather than face the results of US withdrawl. But this is not something I can ask the Americans to do. They must make their own decisions, this time with more rational thinking and less manipulation.
"But yeah, it seems to me that if Xerxes had just sent wave after wave after wave of missile weapons it would have finally taken its toll. Sending the Immortals in so early (and having the army watch them be defeated) was tactically stupid."
History and the present are full of this kind of stupidity.
""Oh please, oh please...let it be the March of the Ten Thousand!!!!!"
Seconded. :)"
How about a movie that is not about heroes and villains, but about a group of pretty decent but imperfect people who found themselves stuck in a foreign land?
I was lying in bed and I couldn't fall asleep. Then at some point I woke up to discover that for at least part of that time I was dreaming that I couldn't fall asleep.
As far as their defense against arrows was described as holding their shields above their heads, and their defense against direct assault was described as holding their shields between them and their attackers, I don't imagine them defending themselves from both fronts at the same time.
Those in front are dfending themselves against frontal attack. The back ranks don't need to do that. I suppose the Persians could have poured arrows upon the ranks of both sides but they would only be capable of killing the very front rank of the phalanx--maybe. The helmets and breastplates would limit damage and the bodies of the Persian infantry would take the greatest brunt of the damage.
In theory it could still work--but the ground that the Spartans and their allies were on was possibly the most favorable imaginable. They did not have to commit their entire force at once. They could afford to absorb some punishement. So could Xerxes but he did not have the same luxury of time. An army that massive can't stay in one place and one can only imagine the psychological effect it had on them to have to waste 3 days taking out such a tiny fraction of the Greek army.
The prospect of falling under a unified Arab world as Persia fell to a Greece it unified is then unthinkable.
If it's unthinkable I think it's because it is so farfetched--it would require two unlkely events. 1- A unified Arab entity. Considering that nobody has done a better job of killing Arabs than Arabs have (except perhaps Persians) it would take a major shift for them to get their act together. It's like saying the North American Indians could have defeated the Europeans if they had fought as a unified whole. Perhaps, but that would never have happened. Some of the most effective Indian fighters were Indian. Had Custer listened to his scouts he...well, he would probably be an obscure figure, but one with a likely better end.
2- They would then have to take over the world. I don't think they have it in them. Looking at the Arab countries, looking at how they have used their wealth--a wealth that will one day be gone, by the way--one does not get the sense that this is the future. Their inability to defeat Israel time and time again also does not inspire confidence.
Of course, one cannot say for sure--a charismatic, intelligent, competant military leader could rise up and bring about major changes. The political structure of the Arab nations as they are now does not encourage the cultivation of such men but who can say?
OK. I'm sorry. I'm going to make a wide over-generalization and exageration about Americans. I know it is. But it seems to me that when it comes to historical films (or ones based onhistorical fiction), when it is American history (Titanic, civii war etc.) every bit and is accurate, But when it comes to non-American history there's no distinction between history and fantasy. Real history has such good complex stories. Look at Rome (the TV series), that's how historical films should be made.
Well, isn't Rome an American TV series?
One reason that American history may be presented in a more factual manner is that it's all fairly recent. It's easier to get the facts straight when you know what they are. It is not possible to tell the story of the 300 in a way that can be absolutely assured of total accuracy. Even events in the recent past (the Alamo, for example) are mired in controversy.
I might add that I've seen lots of people complain about Rome. Someone said that Cleopatra was too good looking, that in reality she was frumpy. This is another case of where I'll take the possible myth over the probably reality, thank you very much and hold the mayo.
"Well, isn't Rome an American TV series?"
I thoght it was British. All the actors are British. I have a theory that every British household has in the closet several periodical costumes -- especiall early 19th century -- in case somebody wants to make a movie or a miniseries or an adaptation of Jane Austin.
"One reason that American history may be presented in a more factual manner is that it's all fairly recent. It's easier to get the facts straight when you know what they are. It is not possible to tell the story of the 300 in a way that can be absolutely assured of total accuracy. Even events in the recent past (the Alamo, for example) are mired in controversy."
I'm talking less about technical stuf as the attitude toward the story. Look at the three musketeers. I know it isn't real history, but it is historical fiction. In the book you have this cynical game between the king and Richelieu, and you have the Musketeers who are fighting for fun mostly, for romance. But the movie had to make it into the kind of story in which there's an evil, mustache twirling counselor who is trying to become king. And look at Braveheart, the Kingdom of Heaven, Troy.
"The prospect of falling under a unified Arab world as Persia fell to a Greece it unified is then unthinkable."
Only that Greece was only unified partially and temporarily more than a hundred years later when it was conquered by the Macedonians. And their Empire broke down pretty fast.
"I might add that I've seen lots of people complain about Rome. Someone said that Cleopatra was too good looking, that in reality she was frumpy. This is another case of where I'll take the possible myth over the probably reality."
Agreed. You shouldn't be too realistic, all I am asking is a little more respect to history. The way they handled Cleopatra in Rome was rather clever. They didn't lok for a new Elizabeth Taylor. They took someone who was a little strange looking, but in a sexy kind of way.
""One reason that American history may be presented in a more factual manner is that it's all fairly recent. It's easier to get the facts straight when you know what they are. It is not possible to tell the story of the 300 in a way that can be absolutely assured of total accuracy. Even events in the recent past (the Alamo, for example) are mired in controversy."
I'm talking less about technical stuf as the attitude toward the story. Look at the three musketeers. I know it isn't real history, but it is historical fiction. In the book you have this cynical game between the king and Richelieu, and you have the Musketeers who are fighting for fun mostly, for romance. But the movie had to make it into the kind of story in which there's an evil, mustache twirling counselor who is trying to become king. And look at Braveheart, the Kingdom of Heaven, Troy."
There's a tendancy in some movies to make historical, or fictional-historical characters into cardboard puppets in simplistic fairytale like stories that usually reflect rather obviously modern attiudes and considerations.
But I am making a very gross over-generalization.
Manny--
While of course going to the hairdressers for some permin' and being afraid of rodents due to the squirmin' and some other pun that has yet to be determined...
HA! Net guys in my court now, Mister!
"'Staying the Course' is not going to do it."
Is it my imagination, or +have politicians seen that the American populace is so influenced by catch phrases from commercials that they just throw out a phrase hoping that we'll say, "Hmmm. Stay the course. Coke is it." Looking back through history, they've always blocked things under certain phrases, but where the New Deal might have been a catch phrase, there was something behind it, not just jingoistic rhetoric to cover that they in power have no idea what the heck to do to get us out of this situation.
Bill Mulligan: I get what you're saying Luigi. But it bugs me when a film that is deliberately being presented as very much a stylized representation of a historical event (and an event of which little is factually known as far as the details go) and people suddenly get all frantic about it's realism. Picasso's Guernica doesn't strike me as terribly realistic either but you'd look like a real dope complaining about it. If they'd filmed the movie in some cinema verite style, made it look like someone handed John Cassevetes a camera and plunked him down in the middle of things, ok, then I guess there would be grounds for complaints. Maybe. But this is about as realistic as a Frazetta painting and almost as nice to look at.
Luigi Novi: I don’t think people necessarily get that it’s being deliberately presented as a stylized representation of history per se, or that this viewpoint in itself is being used by the creators to address the question of its inaccuracies. From the publicity about the film, they will probably hear or read that it’s based on a real event. Nor do I see how this is “sudden”. It’s what happens with pretty much every popular movie that plays fast and loose with history. Me, I feel that creators of such adapted stories should try to adhere as close to the empirical truth as possible, and veer off only in areas where it’s absolutely narratively necessary.
Bill Mulligan: No, sorry, can't agree with you there. I'm talking BIG WOOLY BEARD.
Luigi Novi: Why would that preclude the use of the character’s actions, voice, the actor’s acting ability, etc., to create a frightening character? The beard alone would completely negate the ability of the creators to create an effective character? Hell, the Xerxes that’s in the film isn’t really that frightening so much as a representation of the Persian Army, which is the true enemy in pragmatic terms. Oh well, to each his own, of course.
Bill Mulligan: I'm not saying it's the only or best way to do it but the fact that it is consistent with epic takes some of the wind out of the sails of those who seem to think that Miller was, I don't know, taking out some personal antipathy toward hunchbacks or something
Luigi Novi: Well, obviously that’s subjective. Those who might find the choice questionable are probably still going to find it thus regardless of whether you point out that it’s consistent.
Bill Mulligan: But the important thing is we both liked it and now Zack Miller can hopefully go make Watchmen.
Luigi Novi: Wow, have Frank Miller and director Zack Snyder been fused into some sort of monstrous comic creator/film director creature? :-)
Micha: OK. I'm sorry. I'm going to make a wide over-generalization and exageration about Americans. I know it is. But it seems to me that when it comes to historical films (or ones based onhistorical fiction), when it is American history (Titanic, civii war etc.) every bit and is accurate, But when it comes to non-American history there's no distinction between history and fantasy.
Luigi Novi: I don’t think that’s the case. You could find plenty of films on America history that are not accurate. I think one of the things upon which the success and believability of the films you think are realistic hinges is the ignorance of the audience. You mentioned Titanic as an example of an accurate film. But why is this? Do you honestly think a first-class passenger like Rose would ever have come into contact with a steerage passenger like Jack? Or that after slogging through water just a few degrees above freezing, that Rose would be able to effectively swing that axe and free Jack from those handcuffs, when realistically, she’d be unable to coordinate her muscles? Now you might react by saying, “Oh, okay, I didn’t know/realize that,” but then that’s my point. I didn’t know quite a bit about the inaccuracies in 300 until I read about them.
Just about every movie about a historical event is inaccurate in some way. I am reminded of the criticism of the Mel Gibson film The Patriot, which was accused of presenting the British in an inaccurate and overly cruel manner. But then again, does that count as American history? British? International? And how about Gone with the Wind? Birth of a Nation Or just about any Western? All of those are on periods in American history, but they’re hardly considered accurate.
Micha: I haven't seen the coins you are talking about, but I'm sure Xerxes had servants who took care of his beard so he'll loook fierce.
Luigi Novi: You can see him at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tresury_relief.JPG
Bill Mulligan: Well, isn't Rome an American TV series?
Luigi Novi: I believe it’s a joint venture by HBO and the BBC.
Bill Mulligan: One reason that American history may be presented in a more factual manner is that it's all fairly recent. It's easier to get the facts straight when you know what they are. It is not possible to tell the story of the 300 in a way that can be absolutely assured of total accuracy. Even events in the recent past (the Alamo, for example) are mired in controversy.
Luigi Novi: But there are plenty of aspects of the Battle of Themopylae and the cultures of the two powers who fought there that are part of the historical record, and not controversial, yet presented incorrectly in the film.
One thing I forgot to add in the first quote-and-respose exchange above is that Picasso was deliberately making a political statement when he painted Guernica, and any viewer can see by looking at it that it's not a representational painting. By contrast, there is a psychological tendency to absorb information seen on the screen or in print and assume it as accurate, as is the case with movies. This certainly happened when I first saw Oliver Stone's JFK, and it wasn't until I began reading critical material on the subject that I discovered that it was all bunk. (And again, Micha, that was American history. :-) )
I was going to respond to Iowa Jim but I am angry about something and do not want that anger to spill over.
Tom DeLay, former member of the House of Representatives (R-TX) and a thoroughly unprincipled individual, had the unmitigated gall to call war protestors, Democrats in Congress calling for a deadline for withdrawing from Iraq, and anyone else who believes we should pull out of Iraq "unpatriotic."
On "Meet the Press" yesterday, he grinned smugly while he asserted that once the decision to go to war has been made the nation should cast aside all doubts and, you know, "support the troops."
Never mind that the War Powers Act, despite its blatant unconstitutionality, allows a president to commit our troops to combat without Congressional approval, thereby eliminating chance for a debate. Never mind the fact that during the debate leading up to the current war in Iraq, George W. Bush knowingly misled us about the quantity and quality of evidence that Iraq was a threat. Once the decision's been made, we should just keep our mouths shut, smile, and tie a yellow ribbon to a tree.
Except that DeLay had a decidedly different view of things when Clinton committed U.S. forces to fight in Bosnia. DeLay wanted to limit funding, called for a pull-out date, and all of that good stuff that he now condemns.
I do not know how DeLay can live with the dishonest, unprincipled, spineless, opportunistic thing he has become. But I do know that this is why I am sick of hearing people parrot the phrase "support the troops."
Politicans love to hide behind that phrase, because who among us with a human heart can think about our servicemen and women, many of them quite young, fighting and bleeding and dying for us, and not want to support them?
But we must not allow politicans to conflate their own interests with those of the troops. The bottom line is that when it comes to war, our leaders have historically been unable to acknowledge when they've made a mistake. They'd rather see soldier upon soldier continue to die while they hold onto the vain and rather delusional hope that somehow an ill-advised ane ill-conceived war will magically turn itself around.
Some wars are necessary. Others are not. No amount of slogans will turn one into the other.
Bill Myers,
I, for one, would love to se Ann Coulter nude. Even though I don't agree with a few of her statements/sctions in the past year) Maybe it's the tall, blonde thing. Or the powerful, confident woman who isn't afraid to be a bitch thing. Or that she has a brain and a fat checking account. MMMMM..
Sean,
I said: By saying the war is pointless and baseless you are saying that their actions are pointless"
You said:
"No"
Yes
"It isn't and to say that if a person doesn't support the war...is empty rhetoric."
No. It's really not. I see a lot of "empty rhetoric" in the daily pounding of the President. No one - except maybe McCain has been coming out and saying we must win and here's why."
And there is a huge difference is hating the troops - although I do believe many on the left do - and not supporting them. Parents may love a child, but if Melvin Belvin wants to try out for the basketball team and they tell him it's a silly idea and he'll never make it, that's not SUPPORT.
"And who is doing the invading and occupying? The Girl Scouts? The New York Giants?"
Well, those on the fringe Left have advocated doing away with the military altogether and Kucinich makes some swoon when he brings up the idea of a Department of Peace. These are idealists not living in the real world, in which we have plenty of real and otential adversaries.
But the fact that you accept the "invaders and occupiers" label means a great deal. Instead of constantly mocking Cheney for his "We will be greeted as liberators" line, wouldn't it be great if more people and more stories focused on the fact that they HAVE LIBERATED 50 million people and allowed elections to occur? THAT'S support. Makinh Ab Ghraib a bgger story than the Holocaust and trying to paint all soldiers with the same brush is NOT support.
"Anti-war types I know have family in the military. Yeah, they're likely to look down on the troops."
And I know many who support it. The huge reason a lot of people don't support the war is because they don't understand it. I blame the President a great deal for this. he has been a horrible Communicator in this regard. But a media who won't air a video form Iraq showing Iraqis thanking America and other positive developments is partly to blame as well.
In short, there is plenty to be proud of our troops for. Why aren't these stories being told? That would be support.
Tom DeLay?
He's the guy who's been indicted for multiple felonies including campaign fiance irregularities and moneylaundering, right?
Why are we taking anything he says seriously again?
I, for one, would love to se Ann Coulter nude.
I'll skip the obvious tranny jokes and just say that even if she wasn't a batshit crazy hatefilled harpy from hell, I still wouldn't want to see her nude. I'm not into bony bottle-blondes with hawklike features.
Now, if you want a batshit crazy hatefilled harpy from hell who is also a hottie, give me Michelle Malkin.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Not 6 days, not 6 weeks, not 6 months.
It's now 4 years and counting.
Somebody want to tell me again why I should support the madness of King George?
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 19, 2007 01:15 PM
I, for one, would love to see Ann Coulter nude.
Uhm, yeah, thanks for sharing...
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 19, 2007 01:15 PM
Even though I don't agree with a few of her statements/sctions in the past year) Maybe it's the tall, blonde thing. Or the powerful, confident woman who isn't afraid to be a bitch thing. Or that she has a brain and a fat checking account. MMMMM...
I think you need to get out more. There are far more intelligent women out there. Coulter is to politics what Andrew Dice Clay was to comedy: nothing more nor less than shock value. It always wears off. Eventually, she'll be forgotten, relegated to the dustbin of history.
There are far more intelligent women out there, including conservative women. And there are WAY more attractive women out there.
Women, by the way, SHOULD be "afraid" to be "bitches." A woman can be an assertive go-getter without being a "bitch," just as a man can be an assertive go-getter without being an "asshole." People often mistake poor character for ambition. They often coexist but one is not a pre-requisite for the other.
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 19, 2007 01:15 PM
I see a lot of "empty rhetoric" in the daily pounding of the President.
Then you are extremely ill-informed. Every assumption the President made about this war has been wrong. Iraq had no significant stockpiles of WMDs. Ahmad Chalabi was not the "George Washington of Iraq" and couldn't even win a seat in that nation's recently elected parliament. We were not greeted as liberators but as occupiers. We could not run this war "on the cheap" and the troop levels Bush was certain would be adequate for occupying Iraq were, in fact, entirely inadequate. Our mission was not "accomplished" with the fall of Saddam. I could go on and on, but I have to get back to work soon.
There is nothing "empty" in pointing out a pattern based on hard cold facts: this President has not made a single correct decision with respect to Iraq. Not a single one.
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 19, 2007 01:15 PM
Well, those on the fringe Left have advocated doing away with the military altogether and Kucinich makes some swoon when he brings up the idea of a Department of Peace.
Yes, and some on the fringe right advocate a return to the days of Jim Crow... and worse. They're called the Ku Klux Klan.
What? If anyone who is remotely liberal has to take "ownership" of radical Marxist types, you have to take ownership of the Klan.
Or you could accept that the right and the left are part of a broad political spectrum with many shadings.
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 19, 2007 01:15 PM
But the fact that you accept the "invaders and occupiers" label means a great deal.
Yes, it reveals that he understands the meanings of those words. It's not his fault that people like you have invested them with emotionally charged connotations.
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 19, 2007 01:15 PM
Instead of constantly mocking Cheney for his "We will be greeted as liberators" line, wouldn't it be great if more people and more stories focused on the fact that they HAVE LIBERATED 50 million people and allowed elections to occur? THAT'S support. Makinh Ab Ghraib a bgger story than the Holocaust and trying to paint all soldiers with the same brush is NOT support.
Liberated the Iraqi people from what? Saddam Hussein was brutally repressive, but on the other hand most Iraqis had a measure of security. Now most have none. More people have died in Iraq in the last four years under our occupation than did prior to the toppling of Hussein's regime. And I'm not just talking about the Iraqis we've killed. They're killing each other in greater numbers than they could under Saddam's regime.
In "liberating" them from Saddam we also "liberated" them from conditions of relative security. Removing one evil isn't anything to brag about if all you do is unleash an even greater evil. And that's exactly what we did. Saddam was evil. But the civil war raging in Iraq is even worse.
By the way, the insurgency is an outgrowth of promises made and then broken to the Sunnis that they would be dealt into the new government. So it's not as representative as people such as you would like to believe.
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 19, 2007 01:15 PM
But a media who won't air a video form Iraq showing Iraqis thanking America and other positive developments is partly to blame as well.
In short, there is plenty to be proud of our troops for. Why aren't these stories being told? That would be support.
Oh, get off this "blame the media" crap. One million people have fled Iraq over the last several months, refugees who are running from their homeland to escape the horrible violence. They aren't fleeing their homeland because they're watching American news stations or reading the "New York Times."
See, if somone kills 500 people and then helps an old woman across the street, the media will likely focus on the 500 killings. Why? Proportionality. That's why it's asinine to ask why a few smiling Iraqis are drowned out by images of millions of suffering Iraqis.
Sigh... I was too nasty to Jerome Maida, wasn't I?
Jerome, sorry, but I'm still steaming about Tom DeLay calling people "unpatriotic." I disagree with you and stand by my argument. I do not stand by the sarcasm with which I expressed it.
In the future, I am going to write my posts using a stand-alone text editor, let them sit for a few hours, and then remove any unnecessary inflammatory language before finally posting them.
Unless, of course, I'm responding to people like Robert Preston. :)
Oh, and Manny, I will NOT discuss "Battlefield Earth" or perform any other of your crazy penances, you... you crazy person, you!
Hey, y'know what, Manny? You know what would really teach me a lesson? Having sex with Sarah Michelle Gellar. Can you arrange that?
It's a frightening punishment to contemplate, but I'm willing to accept it for the good of this blog.
Bill, don't be too hard on yourself, you're only human, and this is a very heated subject. If you react emotionaly it's because you care. And you also care enough to apologize. Many people don't do either.
--------------------
"Makinh Ab Ghraib a bgger story than the Holocaust"
you shouldn't say things like that even as a hyperbole.
"Parents may love a child, but if Melvin Belvin wants to try out for the basketball team and they tell him it's a silly idea and he'll never make it, that's not SUPPORT."
Melvin Belvin in this story is Bush, not the soldiers. And he does not deserve support. Supporting he soldiers is not supporting the policy. This is not the soldiers' war. They did not decide to start it or how to conduct it, so criticizing these aspects in no way diminishesthe support for the troops. And you know what, if there are aspects of the way the soldiers are doing things that are their responsibility (or the officers) they should not be shielded from criticism either.
Also, there is no doubt that some Iraqis were happy when the US came, and were happy to see Saddam toppled, and to see him hanged, and to vote. And that stuff was on the news. But the US has been the primary force in Iraq for four years, personal security is disasterous, the infrastructure is a mess, there's anarchy and civil war, people are running away from their homes, the influence of Iran and of Al-Quaida is growing, stability in the middle east is down, the American supported government is corrupt and theocratic, the Iraqi army is not ready and often seems more like another militia, and the soldiers are ill equipped to handle it in numbers, resources, intelligence or cultural awareness. Trying to ignore that does not constitute supporting the troops and it will not lead to victory.
Sigh... I was too nasty to Jerome Maida, wasn't I?
I don't think so. But then, I can be rather nasty on a regular basis.
And why do I get so nasty? Because I keep reading the same tired and incorrect arguments from those supporting the war over and over again.
The White House spits it out, some individuals suck it up, and then repeat it ad nauseum until they convince themselves its the truth.
Things like Syria having the WMD, or that no liberals supported going to Afghanistan.
Maybe they all just like to conveniently forget that Bush said we shouldn't be into nation building? Or that Bush said bin Laden was no longer important after helping murder 3000 people?
You know, things that should have everybody up in arms.
Posted by Bill Myers at March 19, 2007 01:58 PM
"Oh, and Manny, I will NOT discuss "Battlefield Earth" or perform any other of your crazy penances, you... you crazy person, you!"
Bill, given your recent exposure to Tom Delay, all penances are manumitted to penance served.
Posted by Bill Myers at March 19, 2007 02:04 PM
"Hey, y'know what, Manny? You know what would really teach me a lesson? Having sex with Sarah Michelle Gellar. Can you arrange that?
It's a frightening punishment to contemplate, but I'm willing to accept it for the good of this blog."
Sorry, ya gotta earn it.
Posted by Sean Scullion at March 19, 2007 11:33 AM
"Manny--
While of course going to the hairdressers for some permin' and being afraid of rodents due to the squirmin' and some other pun that has yet to be determined...
HA! Net guys in my court now, Mister!"
Only if Ethel Merman spent the night wormin' to catch fish for Herman ze German fightin' the Shermans with Chris Berman's vermins. Very consternin' we're learnin'.
PS, PAD, if I'm prying say so, how's with you and Kathy?
The prospect of falling under a unified Arab world as Persia fell to a Greece it unified is then unthinkable.If it's unthinkable I think it's because it is so farfetched--it would require two unlkely events. 1- A unified Arab entity. Considering that nobody has done a better job of killing Arabs than Arabs have (except perhaps Persians) it would take a major shift for them to get their act together.
But was a unified Arab vendetta against the US not the worst-case scenario of the Iraq Study Group?
It's like saying the North American Indians could have defeated the Europeans if they had fought as a unified whole. Perhaps, but that would never have happened. Some of the most effective Indian fighters were Indian.
As Jared Daimond pointed out to win his Pulitzer:
Dear Mr. Myers, - and Manny (I'm sorry, I don't know your last name),
Please forgive the haphazard manner in which this posting is put together. I’m still rather new to this whole blog thing.
Again, in order of importance:
Mr. Myers: I stand on formality here and anywhere else. That being said, I hope you’ll forgive my use of profanity earlier. Conversation should never disintegrate that far. I apologize.
When it comes to The Constitution, don’t presume to lecture me on, or cut and paste only those parts that you feel validate your own opinion. No where is that document is the “Right to Vote” guaranteed. I have worn out a copy or two of the Constitution, and I have yet to see that in the Bill of Rights. Where do you find any such statement within the law of the land? Democracy is by design mob rule. When it comes to the 2000 election, the Supreme Court of the United States decided, rightly so, that the right of the State of Florida to determine their own electoral were more important than being politically correct. And this was held up by a liberal Supreme Court. Al Gore and John Kerry were not duly elected. End of Story. Get over it.
Also, in my opinion, the XVII amendment should have been repealed long ago. I supported Zell Miller’s last bill and still do. Look that one up.
The Left’s definition of democracy can be summed up as follows. “The Majority shall get whatever They want, no matter Who has to pay for it, and even if the Law says differently.” Those are my words, but if you need any clarification, I will be happy to clear up anything that you don’t understand.
Iraq’s strategic position is still open to debate, but our being there is still at least a foothold in a predominately Muslim country. That is who we are at war with. As you so correctly pointed out. Muslim radicals. You wouldn’t have been any happier if President Bush had invaded Iran, Syria, of Saudi Arabia. These also remain a stronghold of our enemies, and perfectly viable targets, both economically, and militarily. Do you disagree?
The military is not there to debate anything, either internally or externally. Perhaps you would prefer that our military were run as a Democracy. That would give all our men a vote, and in the end accomplish nothing. If you don’t like the people making policy for our soldiers, vote out your represenitives. I believe Mrs. Clinton is due to run soon for something. Perhaps you can get her elected somewhere else.
I do not expect you to jump through any hoops of mine. Just honest answers, to honest questions from now on would be enough. As I said, I’m new to posting my thoughts, and I shall keep it civil from now on. No matter what is said.
I stated earlier that there were exceptions to every rule. Jerry may very well be one of those. No insult was intended to him. Legitimate disagreements are valid. Complaining without an alternative plan for victory is not. What do you propose? I'm curious.
My poor attempt at humor about my high school debating experience is regrettable. It really does come off much better in person. Kind of like “The Aristocrats.”
Anywhere, anytime and at any length, I will be glad to exchange ideas with you. I’m always up for a good argument. I’ll make you a deal, Mr. Myers. You and I will keep it civil and to the issues. Let’s see if anyone follows suit. Fair enough? You ask me a question, and I’ll answer. I ask you a question, and you answer. You go first.
I can’t wait to earn your respect.
If I read this site correctly, then I should be addressing Mr. Ries or Manny. They will know who should be on the receiving end of this statement.
When the Canadians manage give the people back their rights, stop taxing their own people into dependence, and start police their borders (as the U.S. should both North and South) then I will be glad to listen to them. As a nation, there is a reason why they haven’t been annexed.
I have consulted The Amazing Karnak. Your responses are in mayonnaise jars, in my wife’s purse. No place is more secure. I’m comfortable in that knowledge.
En garde,
Robert Preston
Instead of constantly mocking Cheney for his "We will be greeted as liberators" line,
Maybe if Cheney had been right about just one thing -anything- about Iraq, then maybe people wouldn't feel the need to mock him for his "greeted as liberators" or "last throes" lines.
That said, I'm immensely proud of the work our soldiers have done on the whole. They were given an near impossible job and have done a lot of positive things with it despite the incompetent leadership that sent them there and they've done a lot of positive things despite Abu Graib and the other idiotic things that Bush has inflicted on both Iraq and our prestige.
But, I'm looking at the 3200 of our dead soldiers and billions that have vanished down that rat hole with no end in sight and the damage our ability to stand as a moral leader of world. I ask myself everyday, was it worth it?
Sorry, but I still see it.
BTW, Dennis Kucinich has less chance of winning the Democratic nomination than John Stewart has being elected pope, yet anyone who is on the opposite side of the fence of this incompetent and corrupt administration is supposed to "swoon" over his every word?
I don't think so.
And yet, Ann Coulter not only gets invited to all the cool republican events, but she gets laughs and applause when she uses hatefilled language towards a presidential candidate and calls for a SCOTUS justice to be poisoned. But hey, she's just joking, right? Har har har. Where's your sense of humor? BTW, let's crucify John Kerry when he tells a bad joke.
Whatever.
Posted by Bill Myers
I was going to respond to Iowa Jim but I am angry about something and do not want that anger to spill over.Tom DeLay, former member of the House of Representatives (R-TX) and a thoroughly unprincipled individual, had the unmitigated gall to call war protestors, Democrats in Congress calling for a deadline for withdrawing from Iraq, and anyone else who believes we should pull out of Iraq "unpatriotic."
On "Meet the Press" yesterday, he grinned smugly while he asserted that once the decision to go to war has been made the nation should cast aside all doubts and, you know, "support the troops."
Which leads me to remember and hunt up this little post from "Huffington Post":
Tom DeLay: Tome of the Unsoldier - by Chris KellyActually, the full title of the DeLay book - which came out Wednesday -- is No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight. Yes, it's a story so bellicose, even the subtitle is scrappy.
And he's earned the right to talk tough, too. Not just because of his own student deferments, but also by the student deferments of Rush Limbaugh (who wrote the foreword) and the "other priorities" of Sean Hannity (who wrote the preface) and the book's co-author, Stephen Mansfield.
Four fightin' Americans. Zero seconds in uniform. $25.95 at bookstores everywhere.
No retreat. No surrender. No shame.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/tom-delay-tome-of-the-un_b_43593.html
BTW, my favorite Coulterism was this, "how do we know that their husbands weren't planning on divorcing those harpies" when referring to the 9/11 widows who had to audacity to be politically active, but not for republican causes.
Not having a shred of proof that there were an impending divorces, Crazy Ann can still manage to plant the seeds that these women were so vile their husbands hated them simply by phrasing it as a question. That shows that she has absolutely has no sense of ethics or honesty. If that's what you want to call having a brain, then you're welcome to her.
Hey, how do we know Ann Coulter isn't a meth addict? How do we know she's not a spy for Al Qaida? How do we know she's not an axe murderer?
I don't have any proof to back up any of those allegations, but I think it's important to raise these issues. It's okay if I just ask the question, right?
Dear Den (I have no other name appropriate for you.)
Ann Coulter is not a favorite of mine. However, it was Leftists who assaulted her less than two years ago for simply speaking her mind. When was the last time that Al Franken or Janeane Garofalo were assaulted for speaking their minds? Personally, I would really enjoy the opportunity to smack either of them in the face with a pie, just as much as they would.
Freedom of speech is the 1st amendment for a reason. The right to keep and bear arms is the 2nd in the order. Maybe the pie-throwers should be thankful that Ann Coulter didn't fire back like she should have.
In case you need ammo, I like cherry-cheese pie. If you need the recipe, my wife or mom would be glad to provide with a sample.
Waiting to hear,
Robert Preston
Because shooting someone is a rational response to someone armed with pie...
1 Mr. Preston:
Re: When the Canadians manage give the people back their rights, stop taxing their own people into dependence, and start police their borders (as the U.S. should both North and South) then I will be glad to listen to them. As a nation, there is a reason why they haven’t been annexed.
I read these boards regularly but I rarely participate. The incisive and erudite comments of people like Luigi Nova, the Bills and others usually cover things far better than I could.
However, your comment regarding Canada spurred me to write. Have you actually ever been to Canada? I am frankly baffled by your observations. What rights do Americans have that Canadians do not have? Seriously? On the other hand, we have rights up here that you only dream of. We have the right to health care that doesn't drive individuals into bankruptcy. And if you do the math, our tax burden is actually less than yours because you are not factoring in what it costs you to get health care.
There is a reason why we have not been annexed? Who, prithee, would annex us? The only nation close enough to do such a thing would be yours. Surely, you are not saying that the only reason we have not been conquered is because we are beneath contempt and not worth the trouble? If so, that is hardly a noble stance. (By the way, I suspect we will be worthy of more attention when your fresh water runs out in the near future.)
Perhaps our country came into existence through negotiation and compromise rather than having to militarily shake off the shackles of a foreign potentate but our military history is not one to be sneered at. We were in both World Wars long before the US joined in. Despite a much smaller population base and often insufficient preparation, our troops have always acquitted themselves well. And, as far as I know, no one has ever accused Canadian troops of war crimes. We have often stood between warring parties with nothing more than a blue helmet and a calm demeanour. Feel free to be proud of your nation, sir, but please do not mock mine. You have not earned that right.
In more general terms, we are starting to feel the same concerns in our country regarding our military in Afghanistan as you are with your troops in Iraq. I wish I had an answer to this damnable situation but all options seem unworkable at the moment. In this as in so many dangerous situations in the past, we are indeed allies and friends and I hope that we can find a way to get all our forces home soon.
Regards, The Rev
If I read this site correctly, then I should be addressing Mr. Ries or Manny. They will know who should be on the receiving end of this statement.
Maybe it's just my headache, but I'm not entirely sure what angle you're taking with this comment. Is it meant to be insulting, considering the subsequent comment about Canadians and Canada in general?
But, for what it's worth, I'm not Canadian. But I like Canadians, even the ones who say "eh" way too often for their own good.
The Left’s definition of democracy can be summed up as follows. “The Majority shall get whatever They want, no matter Who has to pay for it, and even if the Law says differently.”
That's rather ironic considering Bush's extensive and extreme use of signing statements, which amount to his giving the finger to Congress and saying "I shall do whatever I want, no matter who has to pay for it, and even if the law says differently."
For all your bitching about democracy and the left (and yes, I do realize that our country is actually a Republic, which means we elect representatives), the right is trying to run this country like a dictatorship.
But then, nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court gets to decide who is president when the laws of Florida were more than sufficient for the task, had they been given time to take their course.
And this was held up by a liberal Supreme Court.
I love Wikipedia:
"The nine members of the Supreme Court voted along ideological lines in the split decision, with five conservative justices (Chief Justice Rhenquist and Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas) outvoting the Court's four liberals (Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer)."
Liberal Supreme Court, indeed.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
Mr. Myers: I stand on formality here and anywhere else.
Most people here don't. When in Rome...
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
That being said, I hope you’ll forgive my use of profanity earlier. Conversation should never disintegrate that far. I apologize.
Apology accepted.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
When it comes to The Constitution, don’t presume to lecture me on, or cut and paste only those parts that you feel validate your own opinion.
I actually laughed out loud when I read the above sentence. You really overestimate your ability to intimidate people, y'know that?
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
No where is that document is the “Right to Vote” guaranteed.
That's false. The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that the members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are to be elected by "the people." That guarantees the right of the people to vote for their Congressional representatives.
Unless you can think of some other way that "the people" can "elect" their representatives without actually voting.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
I have worn out a copy or two of the Constitution, and I have yet to see that in the Bill of Rights. Where do you find any such statement within the law of the land? Democracy is by design mob rule.
No, it is not. In modern usage it simply refers to forms of governance where leaders are elected by the people.
You are somewhat correct that the term was used differently when the Founding Fathers were still around. Back then, "democracy" was indeed understood to mean "majority rule," pure and simple. A modern example of that would be the "initiative and referendum" process in some states, where citizens vote directly on legislation rather than having their elected representatives do it of them.
The Founding Fathers were concerned about the tyranny of the majority over the minority, and vice versa. Therefore they opted to create a representative democracy wherein people could vote for representatives whose ability to govern would be restricted by the parameters in the U.S. Constitution. This is today known as a "constitutional republic.:
Today, however, the word "democracy" has evolved to mean any form of representative government. It makes absolutely no sense to use an archaic definition of the word and makes intelligent communication impossible.
I remain unconvinced, however, that you care about intelligent communication.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
Al Gore and John Kerry were not duly elected. End of Story. Get over it.
I never brought up either of them. You did. Unless you enjoy being a laughingstock, you would be wise to cease projecting your own fixations onto others.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
Also, in my opinion, the XVII amendment should have been repealed long ago.
Well, it wasn't and probably won't be in the foreseeable future. Get over it.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
The Left’s definition of democracy can be summed up as follows. “The Majority shall get whatever They want, no matter Who has to pay for it, and even if the Law says differently.”
If you have to resort to a cartoonish distortion of the "other side's" point of view, you've already lost the argument before you begin.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
Those are my words, but if you need any clarification, I will be happy to clear up anything that you don’t understand.
Uhm, no. How about I listen to what people say and if I want clarification, I'll ask THEM and NOT some clown like you who builds up strawmen so he can feel like a tough guy for punching them down?
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
Iraq’s strategic position is still open to debate, but our being there is still at least a foothold in a predominately Muslim country. That is who we are at war with. As you so correctly pointed out. Muslim radicals. You wouldn’t have been any happier if President Bush had invaded Iran, Syria, of Saudi Arabia.
I wouldn't? How the hell would YOU know?
I've said before that Iran and Syria would've made far more justifiable targets for an invasion. The problem is one of logistics. Can we take and hold either country? I doubt it.
At one time we had a window of opportunity to influence Iran by tapping into a groundswell of anti-government sentiment in that country. But of course, George W. Bush doesn't do anything that subtle and it looks like we've lost that opportunity.
War is sometimes necessary. But if there's a violent way to achieve an end and a non-violent one, the non-violent one is generally the best way to go.
Before you attempt to distort my words: World War II was but one example of a conflict where violence was the only means to achieve the necessary ends of repelling aggression and preserving freedom. The recent invasion of Afghanistan is another example.
In case you're in danger of slipping back into your misperception that I'm opposed to all war in all forms.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
These also remain a stronghold of our enemies, and perfectly viable targets, both economically, and militarily. Do you disagree?
Yes, I do. Our military resources are stretched too thin. Either we must reinstate the draft, or acknowledged that we can only invade so many nations at a time.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
The military is not there to debate anything, either internally or externally. Perhaps you would prefer that our military were run as a Democracy.
My. God.
What color is the sky in your world?
I'M the one who pointed out that the military cannot, of a necessity, be a democratic institution because to function effectively the military relies on a strict adherence to a chain of command. You then twisted my words and attempted, lamely, to accuse me of calling the soldiers "automatons."
Now you're accusing me of WANTING the military to be democratic... after I pointed out that it isn't, can't, and shouldn't be?
No wonder they tossed you off the debate team.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
If you don’t like the people making policy for our soldiers, vote out your represenitives.
Uhm, that's what the American people did last year in the midterm elections. What's your point?
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
I believe Mrs. Clinton is due to run soon for something. Perhaps you can get her elected somewhere else.
Why? Not all New Yorkers talk to Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
I do not expect you to jump through any hoops of mine. Just honest answers, to honest questions from now on would be enough. As I said, I’m new to posting my thoughts, and I shall keep it civil from now on. No matter what is said.
Really? Because you haven't been civil yet!
Instead of talking about being civil, try BEING civil.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
I stated earlier that there were exceptions to every rule. Jerry may very well be one of those.
Oh, for cryin' out loud...
"Exceptions to every rule?" Jerry Chandler, Craig J. Ries, myself, and Peter David are but four examples of people who do not fit the box you've lamely constructed for us. Oh, and how about mike weber? He FOUGHT in VIETNAM for God's sake!!!!
What, does every person here have to lay out for you everything they believe before you stop making ridiculous assumptions and insulting generalizations? We shouldn't have to bother and I'm guessing many are opting not to do so.
Let me be clear:
YOU.
ARE.
WRONG.
Not just a little wrong. Not just kinda in the vicinity of "Wrong City." You are completely, drop-dead, absolutely wrong in your assumption that "no one" who posts here would have the guts to lay down their life for another, or that opposition to one war is tantamount to opposition to all. You are so wrong that your wrongness is now the yardstick against which all other wrongness will be judged.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
No insult was intended to him.
Doesn't matter. You're an adult. You've had more than enough time to learn that making unfounded generalizations about people is insulting. Get with the program.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
Legitimate disagreements are valid. Complaining without an alternative plan for victory is not. What do you propose? I'm curious.
I already did propose an alternative in a prior post in this thread. A post addressed to YOU. I don't feel like finding it and copying and pasting it again.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
I’ll make you a deal, Mr. Myers. You and I will keep it civil and to the issues.
I'm not making any "deals" with you. I have no problem interacting with most people who participate in this blog. In fact, in prior threads you'll see where others have actually changed my mind by offering a superior argument. When I have gotten overly heated, I've always known enough to back off and apologize.
And I actually LISTEN to people. You know, read what THEY say and not what I WANT TO BELIEVE they're saying.
If you want things civil, stop talking about civlity and BE CIVIL.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
Let’s see if anyone follows suit.
Uhm, plenty of people are already doing that.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
I can’t wait to earn your respect.
I never said you needed to "earn my respect." That's YOUR schtick, not mine. All I said was that you lost my respect through your asinine behavior. Want me to respect you? Just stop being a jerk. I'm very easy that way.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
When the Canadians manage give the people back their rights, stop taxing their own people into dependence, and start police their borders (as the U.S. should both North and South) then I will be glad to listen to them.
Oh, yeah, and I'm sure all of Canada is on the edge of its collective seat, just waiting for the day when you'll be willing to listen to them.
When it comes to The Constitution, don’t presume to lecture me on, or cut and paste only those parts that you feel validate your own opinion. No where is that document is the "Right to Vote" guaranteed. I have worn out a copy or two of the Constitution, and I have yet to see that in the Bill of Rights. Where do you find any such statement within the law of the land?
It doesn't seem like that to me.
Amendment 14: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Amendment 26: The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
If you want to say we don't live in a democracy because we live in a republic, that's like a high-school debate-club "gotcha."
But what circumstance are you referring to that you can go around saying "No where [in] that [the Constitution] is the 'Right to Vote' guaranteed" without looking like you don't know what you're talking about?
Posted by: The Rev. Mr. Black at March 19, 2007 05:02 PM
The incisive and erudite comments of people like Luigi Nova, the Bills and others usually cover things far better than I could.
Rev, some months ago I attacked you like a mad-dog. In fact, at one point I told you you didn't deserve your nickname... as though I had any place telling you that.
I later realized that you were likely suffering from depression as I once did. After you confirmed that in one of your posts, you kinda dropped off of the face of the blog. I got worried. I feared my poor behavior may have driven you away... or worse.
Is that arrogant of me to think I could have that effect on someone? Dunno. Perhaps. But I know what it's like to be in the grips of a severe case of depression. And I'd hate to think I did anything to make it worse for someone else.
The fact that you've posted again is a welcome sight from my perspective. I hope you are feeling better.
As far as "the Bills" being "erudite" and "incisive," you must be referring to Bill Mulligan and some other Bill.
Thank you for your kind words, Bill (Myers). I have indeed been wrestling with some mental issues and four deaths in my family in the last six months and have been behaving more or less like a hermit (One of my "I love humanity, it's people I can't stand." phases).
I think you are being a bit harsh on yourself. I didn't feel like you attacked me like a "mad dog". You spoke with passion and perception about something that mattered to you. I actually envy your capacity and and willingness to do that. Ennui tends to be my constant companion and passion hard to come by.
By the way, I know that you are being self-deprecating but you were indeed one of the "Bills".
Cheers, The Rev
By the way, Mr. Preston - every rule does not have an exception. The precise quote you were grasping for is "The exception TESTS the rule". Any exception, of course, invalidates a rule.
Ok, I made the last post very casually. But as the constitution says you can't abridge the right to vote based on ethnicity, gender, or age, who is denied the right to vote that "No where [in] that [the Constitution] is the 'Right to Vote' guaranteed" is worth saying?
Over 3100 killed.
Over 23,000 injured, many of them suffering lost limbs.
Isn't it time to bring the troops home?
If The Rev or any other Canadians feel I am out of line adressing Robert Preston on behalf of other Canadians on this blog, I apologize in advance.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 19, 2007 03:39 PM
"When the Canadians manage give the people back their rights, stop taxing their own people into dependence, and start police their borders (as the U.S. should both North and South) then I will be glad to listen to them."
Mr. Preston, on behalf of Canadians on this blog, where do you get off climbing onto a soapbox to tell us about freedom? What freedoms do we deny our people?
Perhaps it is the right to be financially ruined by health care costs. Bad enough someone who has no benefits at work goes through a health catatrophe, now they have to go through bankruptcy to pay for life. All at the behest of multi-billion dollar insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
Or the right, according to the NRA, to carry enough firepower to take a small country on one's own. The right to shoot an unarmed Japanese exchange student who doesn't understand English.
Maybe you refer to the right we give two people who feel a deep love and commitment to each other to marry, regardless of the howls of outrage from organized religion.
We do not claim to be without flaws. We're working on them.
As for our military history,we take pride in our military. Our troops in WWI were the one's sent in to take targets others, including late in the war, American troops could not take. In WWII, until 1945, all our combat troops were volunteers. In both wars, the USA, John Wayne notwithstanding, got into the fight half or more way through. In Korea, Canadian regiments held off Chinese divisions.
We take greater pride in our history of peacekeeping. As stated earlier, completely out of proportion to our population, Canadians have stood in the breech with little more than blue helmets and calm.
I travel extensively in the United States. When I speak, I speak from knowledge. Before you decide to cast aspertions on you're single biggest trading partner, take the time to come on up and take a look around.
As for taxes, at least here, everyone pays their freight. We have our priveleged few, but not to the obscene levels your country seems to have achieved.
Otherwise, Mr. Preston, take your attitude, your uninformed half assed opinions, and take a long walk off a short pier.
Manny: Please feel free to blast away. I was uncharacteristically moved to respond spontaneously (I tend to be about as spontaneous as your average boulder) and did not consider all those other things you mentioned. Normally, I would have taken the time to hammer out something crafted somewhat better.
Frankly, I will never understand the need to denigrate others to bolster one's own perceptions - particularly, as in this case, about an element that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion - but it is clearly not that uncommon.
Thanks for the support. I recognize that Mr. Preston is atypical of Americans and frankly, I should just have ignored him.
Regards, The Rev
"You wouldn’t have been any happier if President Bush had invaded Iran, Syria, of Saudi Arabia."
I really wasn't go to offer anything in response to any of these posts unless I had something to offer, be it a witticism that probably only the voices in my head would find amusing or something that could further the discussion.
But then I saw this statement. A statement I've heard all to often. Now here's a thought.
Maybe, just MAYBE, Bush shouldn't have invaded ANYONE.
"OK. I'm sorry. I'm going to make a wide over-generalization and exaggeration about Americans. I know it is. But it seems to me that when it comes to historical films (or ones based on historical fiction), when it is American history (Titanic, civil war etc.) every bit and is accurate, But when it comes to non-American history there's no distinction between history and fantasy."
Except for maybe things like.....
JFK
Just about any western
Half the Civil War films I've seen
The Patriot
Bonnie & Clyde
Hell, most mob films
U-571
Hawaii (Ok, I'll give that one some slack since it was a silly film.)
Most films that deal with the Frontier Days and our clashes with the Native Americans
Any number of films set in the Colonial Period of U.S. history
The Jesse Ventura Story
...to name just a few.
Hollywood has never been very good at getting ANY history right. I think that most the people in Hollywood feel that all they need to do is get the general dates and names right and the rest is all fluff that gets in the way of their story.
And yet, Ann Coulter not only gets invited to all the cool republican events, but she gets laughs and applause when she uses hatefilled language towards a presidential candidate and calls for a SCOTUS justice to be poisoned. But hey, she's just joking, right? Har har har. Where's your sense of humor? BTW, let's crucify John Kerry when he tells a bad joke.
C'mon, that joke did Democrats a tremedous favor; it got Kerry out of the race. That's why more than a few of his own party were there to twist the knife. But Coulter ran out of good material a long time ago. I'm not sure that it's wise to stoop even lower with the insults about her looks and all (I think Rosie O’Donnell is insane but I would hopefully express this better than tossing out one fat joke after another) but there's little question that she has not much left to offer serous thinkers.
(I'd forgotten that slur against the 9/11 widows. Yeah, that's vile. The last thing conservatives need is their very own Ted rall.).
There is a reason why we have not been annexed? Who, prithee, would annex us? The only nation close enough to do such a thing would be yours. Surely, you are not saying that the only reason we have not been conquered is because we are beneath contempt and not worth the trouble? If so, that is hardly a noble stance. (By the way, I suspect we will be worthy of more attention when your fresh water runs out in the near future.)
Rev, don't let one guy goad you into a USA vs Canada Who Has The Biggest Peninsula argument. And what's this about running out of water? Not where I am, that's for sure. Besides, according to the well researched documentary THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, Canada will soon be buried under about 12 feet of ice. You'll pay us to take some of that water off your hands, if only so you can get to the dirt.
(The only gripe I would have about living in Canada is the limited free speech rights.)
Robert Preston, Bill Myers is someone who one can have a perfectly reasonable conversation with, even if you disagree with him. Obviously you're doing something wrong.
The incisive and erudite comments of people like Luigi Nova, the Bills and others usually cover things far better than I could.
Erudite? ERUDITE? Why, when I find a dictionary you're gonna be in some trouble, fella! Here it is...oh. Boy, are my cheeks red. I guess this also means incisive isn't defined as the ability to chew through rope...
Oh, son of a bitch, I think I just broke democracy.
Well now you have to buy it.
Touché, Mr. Mulligan. Threeché, even (to quote that great philosopher, Snagglepuss). Actually, with the winter we've been having in my neck of the woods, I wonder, "Whither global warming?" However, I find when I go about 1000 miles due North (which I do frequently), it's actually warmer and the locals are complaining that it isn't cold enough to haul supplies over the normally rock-hard iceroutes, the fish are too mushy to eat because the water is not cold enough and the pelts on our local fur-bearing animals are too thin to be of any commercial value (much to their dismay, I'm sure).
Actually, my comment about water was not meant meanly. I understand that the Ogalala aquifer is dropping about 30 metres a year and that there are going to be some real water problems out West in the near future. I hope that's not the case.
Actually, if you are contemplating invasion, we do have Saudi Arabia-levels of oil in our tarsands in Alberta and quite a bit of natural gas even further north (if only the various Aboriginal Nations can agree to set aside their differences and agree on building a pipeline), we might be able to tell the Middle East: "Look, you guys work it out. There's a good movie on TV we want to watch."
(Yes, I know I'm being simplistically simplistic but some days, it feels like it would be nice to just cocoon with all our Western toys and pretend the world just ain't there no more).
I am pleased, however, that you will henceforth no longer hesitate to speak your thoughts, comfortable in your newly-recognized and universally acknowledged erudition.
Cheers, The Rev
The political attitudes of Mr. Preston seem to me to Libertarian. He sounds a little like the one Libertarian I ever talked to. But that guy was against the Iraq war even before it started. So maybe it is a different ideological sub-group, when you get to the fringe the nuances become more pronounced. But it is characteristic of people who belong to political fringe groups to cast everybody else as belonging to the other extreem. The Liberterian I talked to spoke of Bush as a socialist. This might explain the attitude toward the Left and Canada.
-----------------
"Iraq’s strategic position is still open to debate, but our being there is still at least a foothold in a predominately Muslim country. That is who we are at war with. As you so correctly pointed out. Muslim radicals. You wouldn’t have been any happier if President Bush had invaded Iran, Syria, of Saudi Arabia."
You/we are fighting several interrelated wars with different enemies on different fields. Getting them confused will get you nowhere.
You are in an ideological conflict with a Radical Islamic ideology that has become widespread in the Muslim world, and which has many manifestations -- legal political opposition parties, government parties, illegal parties, organizations, governments, armed groups. They may be only part of the Islamic world, but they have ideological influence, and exist all over the world, attaching themselves to any Muslim grievance anywhere. Your war with them involves making sure they don't gain more power. It's a little like Communism, an ideology with many strands and manifestations. However, you are not going to engage all these groups in battle, nor should you. Sometimes they are perfectly legal political groups, althugh you may dislike their Islamic ideology. You might even make alliances with some of them against more extreme groups (because if you wait to deal only with seculars or Christians you are going to wait a long time). Ethiopia did a good job taking care of the Islamic group that took over Somalia. They were smart enough not to stay.
You are also at war with a group of loosly associated international terrorist Islamic groups -- Al Quaida -- that have decided to target Western targets directly. They used to have the support of the Afgani government when it was the Islamic group known as the the Taliban. You attacked that government and the facilities of the organization stationed there. Good for you. But then you didn't stay with enough force to coplete the job. Except for that Al-Quaida does not have a government or a state of their own you can invade. They are in Europe, North America, South America, the Phillipines, Russia, China, Singapore, India, Africa, and all the Muslim countries, but they are not the rulers, so invading is pointless at this stage, which is not to say you might not later need to invade countries or stage other kinds of military attacks against them. Fighting them involves different skills than conventional war. Neither Iran, nor Syria nor Saudi Arabia controls or gives patronage to Al-Quaida, and invading them will affect it very little.
Al-Quaida is also involvd in a war against the American forces in Iraq. That's what it does -- attach itself to local conflicts to promote itself. But you created the conflict in Iraq. You are also involved in a different war with Iraqi insurgents who are also Muslim or even Islamic, but whose concerns are mostly local, and who are not part of the war of Al-Quaida againist the west. If and when the war in Iraq ends, something similar to what happened in Afganistan will occur, and some of these guys might join Al-Quaida like groups to fight against the west.
You are also involved in a conflict of regional domination in the middle east with Iran. If Al-Quaida is the Soviet Union, Iran is China. Iran is Islamic too, but it's main concern is to expand its prestige and influence in the regional and international arena. Syria is allied with Iran right now for its own regional reasons. Iran has symbiotic relationship with the Shia groups in the Middle East like the Hizballa in Lebanon, the Shiites in Iraq, and Shiites in Arabia. It aids their local political asperations and by so doing extends its leadership position in these countries. A similar thing is happening to some degree with Palestinian groups althogh they are not Shia. Thanks to the US Iraq, that has kept Iran in check is gone, and America's influence in the region has weakened, as its abiility to threaten Iran or Syria, the Shiites in Iraq are coming into power, the Sunnies in Iraq are terrified, and the neighboring Sunni Arab states are very worried. The Sunni Al-Quaida is playing into that fear too.
At the time of 9/11 there was no point attacking Iran, who may be jerks, but who had nothing to do with Al-Quaida. Syria had nothing to do with it either. Invading it would only have caused a rise of Islamists there, which would have made her an even greater threat. Saudi-Arabia might be a disgusting extremely islamic state, but what's the point of invading it? The 9/11 terrorists and Osama might be Saudi, but they were not working with or for the government.
Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Quaida or even the wider Islamic ideology until after the invasion (which is not to say it was secular). You foothold there is like having a foot in a pool of piranhas. You do not have any foothold, you have made a greater mess out of things, strengthened the Islamic groups you were supposed to fight, strengthened the ideology you were supposed to oppose and weakened your abiility to act when necessary both on the military or diplomatic level. And this has also alienated the American people themselves, which probably result in US withdrawl, with who knows what consequences to the region. That's just wonderful.
Jerry, Luigi, I stand corrected. Hollywood doesn't care about any history. But I stil feel when it comes to non American history they treat it like a disney fairy-tale. There's an actual term: distory.
"But I stil feel when it comes to non American history they treat it like a disney fairy-tale. There's an actual term: distory."
You mean like they did to the story of John Smith and Pocahontas a few years ago?
I don't really have the time or the inclination to deal with Mr. Preston right now. Someone let me know when he's ready to talk to people without resorting to gross generalizations and assumptions about the opinions of others.
C'mon, that joke did Democrats a tremedous favor; it got Kerry out of the race.
We can all be thankful for that. My point, though, is that, while Kerry's joke was both assinine and, worse, not funny, it was taken completely out of context and used as yet another way to tar everyone who isn't in Bush's camp as anti-military and unpatriotic. Coulter, on the other hand, is a known quantity. Anyone who invites her to speak knows that they'll have to wade hip deep through her bile in order to get out of the room. And yet conservative groups still invite her to speak. And then the act surprised when she says something offensive.
The Ted Rall comparison might be appropriate. He certainly has let his hatred of Bush purge all remnants of rational thought from his mind. What bugs me about Coulter is that she always wants things both ways. At the C-PAC conference where she hurled personal insults at several democrats and called Edwards a "faggot", she then faced questions. When a liberal blogger (who aparently snuck in) asked her about her three broken engagements, she huffily replied "way to respect my privacy".
So, in Ann's world, she can cast innuendo on the sex life of a democrat, but her own private life is above reproach. She make jokes about givin a justice poison or advocates shooting liberals as a warning to others, but then cries when she gets hit by a pie.
To me, the woman has no redeeming qualities as a political commentator, comedian, or human being.
Posted by The Rev. Mr. Black at March 19, 2007 08:49 PM
"Actually, if you are contemplating invasion, we do have Saudi Arabia-levels of oil in our tarsands in Alberta and quite a bit of natural gas even further north.."
SHHHHHHHH!!! DOOOOD!!!!! Don't tell them about the magic caves in BC!
A friend went out to Alberta to work the oil sands 3-4 years ago. He's bought a new house near Toronto ($345G CDN), a Harley, and still has bucks in the bank. The problem is that rent and housing prices have skyrocketed in Ft. McMurray. Apartments that would go 600 a month in civilization run 1200+, houses are priced out of reach of long term residents, and rampant homelessness.
According to an NPR report, if oil drops below (I believe) $40/barrel, Athabaska becomes unprofitable, and they just shut it down.
As for good old H20, casinos in Lost Wages truck tons of water down daily for fountains.
Robert Preston,
"Dear Mr. Myers, - and Manny (I'm sorry, I don't know your last name),"
Hey, I'm neither, but we do tend to just jump in and throw opinions around even on post specifically directed at others around here if we see enough to spark our interest.
"Please forgive the haphazard manner in which this posting is put together. I’m still rather new to this whole blog thing."
That's fine. We're all over the place a quarter of the time ourselves. One newbie mistake (that I made myself when first coming here) stands out though. Hit the "enter" button twice at the end of your paragraphs in order to create a space between them. It breaks the body of your post up a bit and makes it easier to read. And that Hotmail trick that I mentioned makes that all the easier to do.
"Mr. Myers: I stand on formality here and anywhere else."
"I hope you’ll forgive my use of profanity earlier."
We don't stand on formality. We tend to treat this a bit like having guys over for dinner or B.S.ing around the bar. Hell, we've even come up with odd names for each other from time to time. And we've all slipped up on the odd profanity here. No biggie.
"No where is that document is the “Right to Vote” guaranteed."
Article I: Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
Amendment XV: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Amendment XVII: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.
Amendment XIX: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Amendment XXVI: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
That does kind of lay out a clear concept that voting is a right. The repeated use of the words "The right" over and over again do tend to bolster that idea.
"Also, in my opinion, the XVII amendment should have been repealed long ago."
Well, it hasn't been. And you'd have to excise and repeal a few other bits as well. No dice.
"The Left’s definition of democracy can be summed up as follows. “The Majority shall get whatever They want, no matter Who has to pay for it, and even if the Law says differently.” Those are my words, but if you need any clarification, I will be happy to clear up anything that you don’t understand."
Wow. Another foolishly broad brushed statement.
Anyhow, that does sound a hell of a lot like the Right's definition of democracy during their last run as the majority and the POV of the Right's most ardent supporters. It's also not entirely untrue for either side. Any group can have those types of idiots, but they're rarely the true majority. I'd also point out that using the level of broad brushing you used can come back to smack you in the face. I know quite a few people that who could argue quite compellingly that you yourself subscribe to that definition from the posts you've made here in support of Bush and the Iraq folly and the remarks you've made about others who do not subscribe to your beliefs.
"You wouldn’t have been any happier if President Bush had invaded Iran, Syria, of Saudi Arabia. These also remain a stronghold of our enemies, and perfectly viable targets, both economically, and militarily. Do you disagree?'
Depends. Are you talking about after Afghanistan was properly dealt with or are you talking about just substituting one mistake for another. It also depends on what real facts (VS Bush facts) could be provided for their overall threat levels and their involvement in the 9/11 attacks. It was pointed out by many before we went into Iraq that Iran had more to do with assisting the 9/11 highjackers (whether or not they knew their actual plans is still open to debate) and that was ignored by Bush until after he got us stuck in Iraq. And then he had the gall to act surprised by that "revelation" by the 9/11 committee.
It also depends on what can be done non-militarily VS the risks of all out war. Lots of people are all hot and bothered to go into or bomb Iran right now. Not a good idea. There's a 50/50 chance that military action against Iran would would gain Iran the, possibly military, support of Russia, and maybe even China, against us. There's also the little thing of what a land war in Iran would be like. Think Iraq is creating problems? Iran's military isn't in the crap state that Iraq's military was in when we went in there.
Wise men actually think about those things, look at the costs, military needs, benefits and value of the soldiers lives and then try and make the best decision possible. Any fool or simpleton can talk tough about invasions and military action and then proceed to destroy our countries credibility or just outright waste human lives.
"Iraq’s strategic position is still open to debate, but our being there is still at least a foothold in a predominately Muslim country. That is who we are at war with."
A foothold to do what? Grind our military into the ground through foolishness and mismanagement? Test the will of the American people? Prove that Bush and Company have no idea of what they're doing? There isn't one single pipedream idea that Bush has stated about Iraq that we can do in our lifetimes. Maybe not even the lifetime of our children. We've actually made our road harder in Iraq through three years of bad decisions and we've even managed to give Iran more clout with its neighbors and Iraq.
Plus, we HAD a foothold in the Middle East. It was called Afghanistan. That's where the people who attacked us were and that's where we should have stayed in full force until the job was done. But nooooooo. We had to go and march into Iraq, let opportunities slip through our mismanaged fingers, pull resources from the Afghanistan campaign and then watch as Afghanistan slowly slides back into a similar state to where it was before. Joy.
"If you don’t like the people making policy for our soldiers, vote out your represenitives."
See Reference: November - 2006. Thank you.
"I stated earlier that there were exceptions to every rule. Jerry may very well be one of those. No insult was intended to him."
No insult was intended to me? Don't just stop with me. You have a number of posters here who put a lie to the statement you made. We have regular, semi-regular and infrequent posters here who disagree with the Iraq War and/or its handling by Bush and Company who have worn the uniforms of doctors, policemen, firemen and soldiers. All of those lines of work put you in danger for the sake of another at one time or another. We have teachers and lawyers here. Not the most dangerous professions all of the time, but I know quite a few of both who work around environments that I won't go into unless I'm armed. There are people here who value the belief that you help others when and where you can and have done so often. To walk in here and state as fact that people here would do the things you stated just because they hold a different point of view from you IS an insult to them AND to me as some of these people are my friends.
There are lots of exceptions here to the statement you made. Hell, there are a lot of exceptions to a lot the statements you made.
We wouldn't support any war at any time? You're just flat wrong with that statement. Most of the people here who disagreed on the need to go into Iraq in the first place and who are the most critical of its handling supported the invasion of Afghanistan right here in writing in this very website. Many also pointed out that there were any number of other targets, post Afghanistan, that would have made far more sense to go after other then Iraq.
And, hey, lets talk about Bill Myers since you pointed him out specifically for your post. You wanna know the name of one of the most reasoned and articulate supporters of the need to stay in Iraq and finish the job and not just pull out as so many on the left advocate? Too bad, I'm going to tell you. His name is Bill Myers. He's laid out very rational and reasoned arguments for the need to stay in this blog and on his own blog. Wanna know something else? I and others here have said the same thing here as well, but he's been more consistent in that belief then some here have.
You came in with no knowledge of the people here or their beliefs and made some insultingly broad brushed statements about us right off the bat. I don't know how you can say that no insult was intended from what you said. That would be like me saying to you that Bush supporters and Iraq War supporters are all just a bunch of gutless, clueless Chicken Hawks who don't care how many soldiers have to die or live with lifelong injuries for Bush's blunder so long as they can claim to be right in this argument, but, hey, no insult intended. Doesn't work like that.
"You ask me a question, and I’ll answer. I ask you a question, and you answer. You go first."
Fine. I'll jump in. Lets get an idea of where you're at on some issues. What do you actually believe that we've accomplished in Iraq and what do you believe we're going to accomplish? What do you think has gone wrong and how should it be fixed? Lots of us have batted those around before and we have some idea of where the others stand on these issues.
Canada: "As a nation, there is a reason why they haven’t been annexed."
Yeah, they don't want to be annexed by the U.S. What, you want to invade them next to bring them American style democracy?
_________________________________________________
Den,
"She make jokes about givin a justice poison or advocates shooting liberals as a warning to others, but then cries when she gets hit by a pie."
No comparison there. You're talking about words VS actions. I'll express my distaste for her words, but she has the right to prove that she's an idiot if she wants. Assaulting someone, even if it is with something as benign as a pie, is crossing a line and unacceptable. And you have to know by now that I hate the b***h, but she's right in that matter.
Jerome Maida: …wouldn't it be great if more people and more stories focused on the fact that they HAVE LIBERATED 50 million people and allowed elections to occur?
Luigi Novi: It might if that were the role Bush and Cheney were elected to do.
Jerome Maida: Makinh Ab Ghraib a bgger story than the Holocaust and trying to paint all soldiers with the same brush is NOT support.
Luigi Novi: Can you point to sources that support the notion that anyone has done either of these things?
Jerome Maida: In short, there is plenty to be proud of our troops for. Why aren't these stories being told?
Luigi Novi: I’ve heard and read plenty of stories focusing on those positives.
Robert Preston: the Supreme Court of the United States decided, rightly so, that the right of the State of Florida to determine their own electoral were more important than being politically correct.
Luigi Novi: That is not what they determined. The conservative wing of the Court simply wanted to make sure that their guy got into office, and made a ruling completely at odds with legal precedent, as Vince Bugliosi outlined in detail in The Betrayal of America.
Robert Preston: And this was held up by a liberal Supreme Court.
Luigi Novi: The conservatives in the Supreme Court outnumbered the liberals, which is why the conservative’s opinion was the majority.
Robert Preston: The Left’s definition of democracy can be summed up as follows. “The Majority shall get whatever They want, no matter Who has to pay for it, and even if the Law says differently.” Those are my words, but if you need any clarification, I will be happy to clear up anything that you don’t understand.
Luigi Novi: If they’re your words, then why do you say that the definition is “the Left’s”? Can you provide evidence or reasoning that illustrates this assertion? Because it just seems like a distorted Straw Man.
Robert Preston: The military is not there to debate anything, either internally or externally. Perhaps you would prefer that our military were run as a Democracy.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps you misunderstood Bill’s point. His point is that criticism of the war is directed at the administration because it—not the troops—bears ultimate responsibility for its prosecution, and that that is why such criticism has nothing to do with “not supporting the troops”. The point was made that troops cannot “bitch” that they do not like their orders, and have to follow the chain of command, so they are not responsible for a disliked war. This doesn’t make them “mindless automatons”, it just makes them what they are, and is the reason that criticizing the President for the war has nothing to do with criticizing the troops.
Robert Preston: Legitimate disagreements are valid. Complaining without an alternative plan for victory is not.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. One can complain that someone has done a poor job at something, the validity of which is not predicated in the speaker doing a better one themselves. If we accept this idea of yours, then we cannot call the Edsel a bad car, can’t complain when a repairman does a bad job, we cannot criticize our politicians if we are not politicians ourselves, we can’t form unfavorable opinions of books, movies and tv shows, and so forth. It’s little more than a relative of the ad hominem argument.
But if you really want an alternative, how about implementing the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group?
Den: BTW, my favorite Coulterism was this, "how do we know that their husbands weren't planning on divorcing those harpies" when referring to the 9/11 widows who had to audacity to be politically active, but not for republican causes.
Luigi Novi: I thought her remark that a nude spread in Playboy was their next logical step was far worse.
Robert Preston: Ann Coulter is not a favorite of mine. However, it was Leftists who assaulted her less than two years ago for simply speaking her mind. When was the last time that Al Franken or Janeane Garofalo were assaulted for speaking their minds?
Luigi Novi: So because one miscreant threw a pie at her makes her the victim as a whole, and characterizes all liberals? For the most part, criticism directed at her is valid, and is not made simply because she “speaks her mind”. She is criticized because she is a dishonest, bigoted propagandist who cannot form coherent logic. I don’t know if Franken or Garofalo or Michael Moore have ever been the target of pies, but I can assure you I don’t buy their assertions at face value any more than Coulter’s, and I’ve elaborated on my criticisms of them here and elsewhere, if that makes you feel better, Robert.
The Rev Mr. Black: I read these boards regularly but I rarely participate. The incisive and erudite comments of people like Luigi Nova, the Bills and others usually cover things far better than I could.
Luigi Novi: I’m not a Chevy, nor an exploding star. It’s Novi. Not Nova. :-)
And thank you.
Micha: Jerry, Luigi, I stand corrected. Hollywood doesn't care about any history. But I stil feel when it comes to non American history they treat it like a disney fairy-tale. There's an actual term: distory.
Luigi Novi: Ooh, I like that! That’s a neologism that’s just dying to be added to the Oxford Dictionary!
My apologies, Luigi. That is why I rarely write things in haste. (Would you believe that I think of you as a shining star on this blog? Would you believe you write so often that I figured there must be two of you {One Nova, two Novi??} Would you believe I should leave humour to people who are actually funny?)
Regards, The Rev
No comparison there. You're talking about words VS actions. I'll express my distaste for her words, but she has the right to prove that she's an idiot if she wants. Assaulting someone, even if it is with something as benign as a pie, is crossing a line and unacceptable. And you have to know by now that I hate the b***h, but she's right in that matter.
That's a good a point. Although Luigi is also correct is that Robert's overly broad statement was absurd. One person hit her with a pie, yet everyone to the left of her is somehow responsible for it?
Of but of course, we're not supposed to infer anything about the opinions of the people who invited her to speak, knowing what she's like and then cheered when she spewed her bile, right Mr. Preston?
Posted by Bill Myers
Oh, and how about mike weber? He FOUGHT in VIETNAM for God's sake!!!!
{just as whenever i post a review of a David Weber book on Amazon or elsewhere, i make sure to point out that Dave is my brother.}
OTOH, i missed by about three days being sent to a Naval station within shouting distance of the DMZ where they *did* see action fairly regularly. (A guy i went to tech school with who had specific training on the gear they needed a tech for came in Just In Time and wound up up there...)
And i recall contemplating a piece of shrapnel embedded in the front of a radio and the hole in the wall it came in through and reflecting that the line between them would have intersected either my head or some other important part of my body if i'd been there working on the gear a few hours earlier.
But i knew guys who did fight, and i saw some of what was going on.
There's things that a combat guy knows that i only guess at. And i cannot tell you how grateful i am for that, having read David Drake's SF novels that are heavily informed by his Nam experience. (I partocularly recommend "Rolling Hot", currently available in the collection "The Tank Lords" for something that will show you, however inadequately, what it is to be a soldier, and what soldiers think and feel...)
But there's things that someone who never went at all, never went to bed every night, as i did, with the knowledge that tonight might be The Night - The Night when Mr Charles came calling, never answered the "rad alert" siren at two AM and crouched in a foxhole with an M16 waiting to buy time for the radiomen to destroy the secret traffic and the crypto machines as the illumination rounds went out - can only suspect...
(Although my favourite late-night alert story is the time i was sitting in te barracks office on the night watch, listening to the radio and had a front-row "seat" as the roving patrol came face-to-face with a tiger {at least that's what *they* said it was} in the ballpark...)
"if there's one thing we've learned about this president, he HATES it when someone stops him from doing whatever he wants."
As opposed to pretty much every other human being on earth, whom are all very, very pleased, content, and satisfied when things do not go their way.
"Although Luigi is also correct is that Robert's overly broad statement was absurd. One person hit her with a pie, yet everyone to the left of her is somehow responsible for it?"
Hey, don't you know that we on the left or just slightly left of center are all just one giant, monolithic, vile hate filled group with no worthwhile ideas and even fewer worthwhile people. One extremist nut represents us all while an entire auditorium cheering the suggestion that considering that (then President) Bill Clinton should be assonated is a reasonable thing and the speaker of said statement herself are just merry, happy, love filled people just enjoying a good joke about the history of impeachment in America and England. And don't forget that NO ONE on the Right EVER spits at or throws things at anti-war protesters (I've seen it while on the job and working protests in this area) while the left never do anything but spit and throw things at pro-("America")-war speakers or groups.
We're just so unworthy of the freedoms that we won't defendwhile despising those that do.
"Robert Preston: Legitimate disagreements are valid. Complaining without an alternative plan for victory is not.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. One can complain that someone has done a poor job at something, the validity of which is not predicated in the speaker doing a better one themselves. If we accept this idea of yours, then we cannot call the Edsel a bad car, can’t complain when a repairman does a bad job, we cannot criticize our politicians if we are not politicians ourselves, we can’t form unfavorable opinions of books, movies and tv shows, and so forth. It’s little more than a relative of the ad hominem argument.
But if you really want an alternative, how about implementing the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group?"
I was going to leave that one from Robert alone because it's just one of those eye rolling comments, but Luigi hit a good point that only needs a slight addition.
Robert seems to be missing the fact that we can't put alternative plans into place for the things that have already happened. Much of what is discussed here as to the failings in the Iraq Campaign is based on the long string of blunders, screw-ups and missteps that have led us to the place that we are at now. We can't go back and replace the blunders and screw-ups with good ideas now and it does factor into discussions about our present choices in Iraq.
If your house is engulfed in a roaring fire that started as a small flame just after you fell asleep an hour earlier, suggesting to your spouse that changing that dead battery in the detector would really help matters actually does very little real good in regards to the kindling pile that was your home. Likewise, if there comes a point where the fire reaches the level of such a raging and dangerous inferno that it is too dangerous to risk the firemen's lives to enter or that it has gotten to the point that it is clear that the fire will destroy the home regardless of their best efforts, then you pull back and contain the blaze rather then sending lives pointlessly into the inferno.
Bush's blunders have brought us to a point where the definition of "victory" in Iraq may have to go through several dozen more changes before it's something that we can achieve. And any "victory" in Iraq is not likely to yield any long term outcomes that the American people could point to as an improvement over where Iraq was pre-invasion.
Peter David: If there's one thing we've learned about this president, he HATES it when someone stops him from doing whatever he wants.
Blue Spider: As opposed to pretty much every other human being on earth, whom are all very, very pleased, content, and satisfied when things do not go their way.
Luigi Novi: Please stop treating disparate concepts as synonymous. Someone stopping you from doing whatever you want and not having everything go your way are two different things. Are you arguing, after all, that Bush has not fought to expand the powers of his office beyond the appropriate scope required for a proper system of checks and balances moreso than any other President in recent history?
{just as whenever i post a review of a David Weber book on Amazon or elsewhere, i make sure to point out that Dave is my brother.}
Is that the same David Weber who writes SF novels with a strong emphasis on military tactics? Like "Old Soldiers"?
"And don't forget that NO ONE on the Right EVER spits at or throws things at anti-war protesters (I've seen it while on the job and working protests in this area) while the left never do anything but spit and throw things at pro-("America")-war speakers or groups."
I don't know how it is in the US, but I certainly had people spit on me and throw things at me by people from the right while demonstrating against a different war.
Bush's blunders have brought us to a point where the definition of "victory" in Iraq may have to go through several dozen more changes before it's something that we can achieve.
But that is part of the pathology of Bush. When he can't score a touchdown, he just moves the goal posts closer. We've gone from Iraq becoming a shining example of democracy that will spread freedom and liberty across the middle east like wild flowers to hoping we can produce enough stability to get our asses out of the way so that the Iraqi military might actually start picking up the slack.
They would lay down their lives, for you, if neccessary. None of those posting here would do the same for them, or me, or most people that they've ever met.
I've only heard one noble reason for becoming a soldier, and that's to know what a hero knows in his act of heroism. If a soldier sacrifices his health or his life for the parade, I think he should have done him and me and you a favor and skipped off to Canada.
I think it's oppressive to the children meant to benefit from that kind of sacrifice for us to honor those who sacrifice their lives to the point of guilting them into doing the same. It's something chickenhawks do that those who served typically abstain from.
As far as you have actual faith that there will be noble people, guilting others to serve their country is unnecessary.
Is that the same David Weber who writes SF novels with a strong emphasis on military tactics? Like "Old Soldiers"?
Those would be the ones with the (imo) pulp sci-fi covers? ;)
Going back to Tom DeLay for a second, hypocrisy in action:
"You can support the troops but not the president."
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX), on Clinton sending troops to Bosnia.
In fact, here's a few other gems from Republicans on Bosnia: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/3/17167/05105
It's always amazing how different things are when the shoe is on the other foot. Take note, Mr. Preston.
So, I repeat my question:
Why are we taking anything indicted money-launderer Tom DeLay says seriously again?
"Assume, for the moment, Bush and Cheney are not doing this for personal profit or power."
I can't. Between's Bush's stated personal enmity for Saddam based upon Saddam's history with Bush's father--an enmity that compelled him to use 9/11 as an excuse for the exact regime change that he contended years earlier that America should never undertake--and Halliburton's profiteering, I can't make that assumption at all. So everything else you've said goes out the window.
PAD
"Unless you can think of some other way that "the people" can "elect" their representatives without actually voting."
Putting aside that Bush was elected without the majority voting for him...when we consider the piss-poor voter turnout we see in this country, I think we've already GOT a situation with representatives being elected without actually being voted for.
PAD
Bill Myers,
A little late, but I just wanted to say it's okay that you got "nasty" a while back. You still did so with intelligent, articulate opinions. And we all ahve bad days.
Luigi,
I believe it was a true "neutral" election observer from Philly who, at a banguet televised by C-SPAN said there had been a total of 34 top of the fold front page stories in the Nre York Times, a total which superseded coverage of Auschwitz.
Den,
Wish I could reply to your posts as well. I do actually miss posting here. But I've ben getting a lot more work and I have to sleep sometime.
Be well, all.
Thank you for your response, Jerome. I'd wonder if it's possible to have a source for that provided. I would also point out that the Holocaust was over when it was first reported. The Iraq War is an event being reported on as it is in progress.
Luigi,
You are welcome. While I am aware that the Holocaust was over, the point remains that 34 top-of-the-fold headlines (or anything close to it) is pretty damn extensive, especially with an incident that was trivial compared to something like the Holocaust - or even Darfur, for heaven's sakes. And there were really no new photos, no new revelations, no indication that this was a widespread thing.
But it seems like certain people wanted one of the lasting symbols of this war to be that woman with a leash. Even if it meant making anger run white-hot in the Arab world.
This, from the same media that would not publish danish cartoons for fear of offending Muslims - and possibly putting themselves in harm's way - had no qualms about beating us over the head night after night, morning after morning - even though it likely put those in harm's way at the very least- with the possibility of more danger, or at least facing more anger and distrust.
Jerome, I feel that talking about the Holocaust in this context is tasteless and wrong. I think it is wrong when opponents of the war compare Bush to Hitler. It is wrong when you're doing it now.
Posted by: Jerome Maida at March 21, 2007 02:34 AM :
"But it seems like certain people wanted one of the lasting symbols of this war to be that woman with a leash."
Yes they did. Welcome to the odern world of mass media, 24 hour news, propaganda and manipulation. To complain about it is like coplaining that your enemies have guns.
"Even if it meant making anger run white-hot in the Arab world."
The Arab world is fueled on anger. Do you think your problem is the New York Times? The Arab world is not watching your news. The minute the story came out it was multipled in every Arab or Muslim satillite channel, government control channel, blogs, e-mails, newspapers, posters, on clothing probably, in sermons, lectures, essays, fatwas, and in talks in the market. If you want to be involved in the arab world you have to be aware of that.
"This, from the same media that would not publish danish cartoons for fear of offending Muslims."
Do you want to impose on American media the same kind of censorship some Muslims tried to impose on the Danish? with the same techniques?
"possibly putting themselves in harm's way"
the soldiers were put in harms way when they was sent to fight a war in an alien culture without preparing for the consequences.
"facing more anger and distrust."
Yes, your enemies will do anything they can to multiply this event in order to create anger and distruct. But don't you think the Iraqi people have good reasons to be angry and distrustful of the Americans?
Jerome Maida: Luigi, You are welcome. While I am aware that the Holocaust was over, the point remains that 34 top-of-the-fold headlines (or anything close to it) is pretty damn extensive...
Luigi Novi: Again, that's because the investigation into it was ongoing.
Jerome Maida: ...especially with an incident that was trivial compared to something like the Holocaust - or even Darfur, for heaven's sakes. And there were really no new photos, no new revelations, no indication that this was a widespread thing. But it seems like certain people wanted one of the lasting symbols of this war to be that woman with a leash
Luigi Novi: Well, obviously whether it's "trivial" is subjective. While I certainly don't disagree with you as to the rather arbitrary and flimsy things that the media sometimes turn into news items, I don't consider this to be one of them, as it was a legitimate incident. The United States is held up as a beacon of freedom, equality and civilization to the rest of the world, and 9/11 gave us a lot of leeway insofar as our foreign policy response to it. Thus, this incident served to damage the image of our country and military as one based on rule of law and respect for human rights.
I don't think it was about how widespread it was (though I seem to recall that question as one of the points discussed regarding the incident), so much as it was about what it represented, and how far up the chain of command that knowledge of it went.
I just found a very illuminating report issued by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. Here is a description of the CNGR from the organization's Web site:
"The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 established an independent Commission on the National Guard and Reserves which is charged by Congress to conduct a comprehensive examination of how the Guard and Reserves are used in national defense, including homeland defense, and to recommend any needed changes in laws and policies governing the National Guard and Reserves."
The CNGR's latest report demonstrates that Bush is asking the National Guard and Reserves to ramp up to operational levels while at the same time refusing provide adequate funding so that these troops will have at least a fighting chance to survive in Iraq.
"Support the troops" is a meaningless phrase if not backed up by action. Sending troops to Iraq who are dangerously under-equipped and under-prepared doesn't sound very supportive to me. And for those who would blame the Democrats for not wanting to continue funding for the war: please try to remember that Republicans had control of Congress until last year's mid-term elections. I don't recall any attempts to, perish the thought, raise taxes one dime to help support our troops back when Republicans held the presidency and both houses of Congress.
The report, for anyone who is interested, can be found at:
http://www.cngr.gov/Worddocs/March%201%20Report/CNGR%20Second%20Report%20to%20Congress%20.pdf
){kind=link}
