As aggressive as mankind is about not learning from his mistakes, there is at least one valuable lesson that’s been learned insofar as shameful behavior by Americans go.
When soldiers returned from Vietnam, they were treated like each and every one was a war criminal. Remember? “Baby killers!” people would shout at them. Many soldiers who come back from wars have to deal with the difficult readjustment, but it was far tougher for the Vietnam vets because they returned to such a hostile environment. It was disgraceful.
Now, no matter how unpopular the war in Iraq may get (and that’s what we have, make no mistake), it seems that one theme is justly recurring: Support the troops. At least now there’s an understanding that these guys are just trying to do an impossible job under impossible conditions. Although there may be strident disagreement as to why we’re in Iraq and whether we should be or not, let’s be thankful that at least there’s–as near as I can tell–a total lack of condemnation of the people who are over there and consistent support for them when they return.
And if Bush was going to visit them, as he did, certainly the manner in which he did was the eminently smart way to go about it. In general I’m not a big fan of the press being lied to, but in this instance, advertising his dropping into a war zone would have been madness.
PAD
• 
Covert assassination. What a great idea. Wonder why they didn’t think of it.
Might have something to do with such a mission being too risky, no matter how SEAL Team Six is portrayed in the movies. Nah. Couldn’t be that. MUST be political.
Explains why William the Great (D) tried it, and didn’t toss cruise missiles around in Iraq.
I’m sure members of our military will be appreciative of comparisons to poorly trained people answering phones for Dell (I know the extent of the training, because I have done it on a third party basis).
The thought that you can support troops, but not what they do (kill Iraqi civilians and military), is to reduce our military to a bunch of thugs who only “follow orders”. I guess trying anyone for war crimes is impossible, unless they are in leadership positions, because military troops are nothing more than Gestapo.
I’m sure many members of the military would rather be supported by someone who supports their commander-in-chief than by anyone who would hand them that holier-than-thou “You were just following orders, and therefore not responsible” crap.
The anti-Iraq War movement is nothing more than an anti-Bush groundswell, don’t kid yourselves. When William the Great (D) launched attacks into a sovereign country (without prior approval from the UN, by the way, which is apparently a violation of international law), none of the anti-war voices were heard to say so much as “boo”. When William said that Saddam was assembling and planned to use WMD, no one asked fro proof, and several in congress were ready to vote on allowing him broad war powers where Iraq was concerned.
Now Bush is doing all the same, and taking one additional step, moving in like he means business, all of the sudden, people are crying “foul”. France expresses their dislike for American Bullheadedness. Germany is against military action (never mind that two world wars were fought because of Germany in less than a century).
Really, the only difference is the parenthetical letter behind the name of the president.
Funny how anti-war movements depend ENTIRLY on the agreement or disagreement with the guys calling the shots, isn’t it?
Riiiight.
See, this is just another reson I will always use my full, real, name on the Internet. Because you can just go traipsing through USENET and see that I had rather the same objections to what we did in Serbia as I do to what we’re doing in Iraq. Not that I would expect most to DO this, but at least *I* know that you could.
No matter if I voted for the guy or not, what we did and what we’re doing is wrongo.
And by the way–you completely overlook the fact that I raised about the three Executive Orders in place which make it illegal for the U.S. to employ assassination for political means (though, admittedly, I misspoke and said that Carter was responsible for one when it was Ford who signed the first XO against it).
I used SEAL Team Six as an example because they’re simply the most well-regarded and most mobile of our Spoecial Forces. I don’t GO to movies, so I’ve no idea how they’re portrayed.
And exactly how is “kill Iraqi civilians amnd military” a proper job description for our soldiers. Though civilian casualties are inevitable in battle, forces are supposed to do whatever they can to minimize civilian casualties.
Such as, say, NOT bomb a heavily populated city with little military value.
As we are talking about Americans who are antiwar, why bring France and Germany into it? Unless you’re running out of strawmen, I mean; then it’s all well and good.
Wolfknight: I’m sure members of our military will be appreciative of comparisons to poorly trained people answering phones for Dell
Luigi Novi: Nice Straw Man argument.
Obviously, any objective debater who read Alex Berman’s comment can see that he didn’t compare the members of the military to people answering phones for Dell, or their respective levels of training. He compared blaming the Dell customer service guy because you didn’t get the right computer to blaming soldiers for the wars that political leaders decide.
The discussion was essentially about how one can support the troops while being against the war, and you basically reduced it to putting words into another person’s mouth, even when you knew what his central point was, and even though he later used another analogy involving the police in his 11/30/2003 02:26 AM post, which did not involve mention of Dell Computer c.s. reps.
Wolfknight: The thought that you can support troops, but not what they do (kill Iraqi civilians and military), is to reduce our military to a bunch of thugs who only “follow orders”. I guess trying anyone for war crimes is impossible, unless they are in leadership positions, because military troops are nothing more than Gestapo. I’m sure many members of the military would rather be supported by someone who supports their commander-in-chief than by anyone who would hand them that holier-than-thou “You were just following orders, and therefore not responsible” crap.
Luigi Novi: Apparently, despite the fact that you read Alex Berman’s comment about the Dell computer, you missed the one right above it why your hypothesis about war crimes doesn’t apply:
Soldiers are deployed by people in power. As long as soldiers honorably perform their duty (i.e. no heinous crimes against non-combatants, no going along with genocide), it’s the people in power who should be held accountable and brought to task by those who disagree with war.
As Alex made clear, his explanation regarding being able to support the honorable people who choose to work in the military even when you disagree with where the political leaders decide to deploy them does not mean absolving them of culpability when they commit war crimes.
“I hope this mess ends soon and these poor soldiers come home.”
With the exception of our monetary accounts, no ‘soldier’ (airman, marine, and sailor) is poor. It is completely voluntary and if anyone thinks an armed forces member is poor for that, then they are the ones that are poor for not realizing that serving a higher calling makes you rich beyond belief.
(quote) The problem with this argument is that it willfully ignores thereality of life under Saddam’s despotism. To have left him in power would have left him free to kill, rape, and torture many thousands more of Iraqis than died in the war. If the lives lost as a result of the war are Bush’s responsibility, then so must be the many more that have been saved as a result of it.(unquote)
Except for the minor detail that that was never the rationale for beginning hostilities and deploying troops.
If it were so, then (just off the top of the head) we should be doing the same in:
Congo
Burma (Myanmar)
China
North Korea
Cuba
The Sudan
Liberia
Tibet
Colombia
Bolivia
Peru
Paraguay
Fiji
Papua/New Guinea
Eritrea
Yemen
Mali
Uzbekistan
Tajikistan
Sri Lanka
and lots more.
Enforcing humanitarianism by gunpoint is an oxymoron. Inculcating Western values is not the job of the military – there are accredited agencies capable and trained for such (though in an often slow and imperfect manner).
Political and fiscal realiity merits choosing battles – it is a cold-hearted calculation, but there are international organizartions (and, no matter what, the U.S. is still to proverbial 800-lb. gorilla in the U.N.) that are specifically geared to dealing with these situations, with the proviso of having the backing of the international community.
whoop-de-doo- the ‘coalition of the willing’ includes 30 countries (such as Nauru, the ambassador of which expressed surprise to hear that his government had ‘signed on.’) That, in cold, hard numbers, equates that 160 counries (give or take a few) have not joined in.
As for the other argument above about the proportionality of casualties, based on the individual situation, terrain and weaponry deployed (a specious comparison to begin with) very recent examples that refute the premise would include the Falklands and Grenada.
“There were no U.S. draftees in Iraq. The people who are soldiers now have chosen to be soldiers, have chosen to sacrifice their own will in such matters to the government. And frankly, that makes it more reasonable to hold them responsible for their actions. These are almost all folks who signed up after ‘Nam was over, many were born after that war had ended, and (should history have been better taught in the schools) they should have known that they would be involved in morally questionable efforts.
This is not to say that any individual soldier should be held responsible for the actions of the entire army.”
This is posted with the thought that the military members have some sort of say so in what they will do or not do. There is no vote! The Commander in Chief makes an order, runs it by congress as needed, and then it goes to the pentagon, and then down through the chain of command from there. The military is here to support and defend the democracy, not be one. Get your facts strait.
“Vietnam-era flak jackets they were issued which can’t even stop small-arms fire”
This statement should speak for itself. FLAK. Not Bullet proof. Flak vests are meant to stop pieces of schrapnel from exploding ordinance, not bullets. Not amount of vests or helmets will stop a direct hit from a bomb or any other large explosion.
**Wolfknight:
Germany is against military action (never mind that two world wars were fought because of Germany in less than a century).**
Excuse me for picking this rather small part of your post, but the rest of it has already been answered to by Mister Berman and Mister Novi, since I am a German myself however I was wondering what exactly your argument in the quoted sentence is? I have only been able to come up with two readings that could give a sliver of credibility to it:
1. The German people are warmongers, the two World Wars only serve as examples for that; therefore, Germans should be happy that there is a war, and instead of bìŧçhìņg that they aren’t the ones who started it they should jump on the bandwagon. (This reasoning is obviously bogus, and I don’t honestly think that that was what you meant.)
2. Since the German people have been the reason for two World Wars, they have no right to speak out against war anymore.
The latter one seems to be more likely to be what you meant. In my opinion, however, it is as stupid as the first one. Don’t you think it is possible for a people to learn from mistakes? The Anti-War protestors in Germany were pretty much all born after the war, therefore no direct blame for it can be laid on them. They are, however, responsible that something like that may never happen again. This has left many Germans with a deep-rooted aversion to war. To them, war can only be justified as ultima ratio, as the absolutely last step. I won’t deny that the anti-war movement in Germany also has deeply anti-American tendencies, and that there are few Germans who like President Bush. But in most protestors, if you take away their anti-Americanism, they would still take to the street because they believe that the war was unjustified.
You might wonder why I used the nomer “they” although I am, as I already said, German myself. It is because I believe that it is a good thing that Saddam was driven out of Baghdad, and that the war actually saved more lives than it cost (remember the 500.000 children who died anually because of the sanctions in place against Iraq). I do, however, also believe that
a) Bush went in for the wrong reasons. I don’t believe he went in for WMD’s, or because he really believed that Saddam was behind 9/11. I do not believe that he went in mainly for the oil (though I guess he saw it as a nice extra). And least of all I believe that he went in for the people of Iraq. I believe that he went in to destroy a regime that he saw as a threat to American interests in the Middle east.
b) that they totally botched the post-war period. I mean, look only at the fact that during the riots in Baghdad after Saddam’s ousting the only building protected by American soldiers was the oil ministry, while many unique cultural treasures where stolen from the museums. And I am not saying that this is proof that America only cared about Iraq’s oil; I am saying that it looked like that to the world. I don’t know how the reconstruction of Iraq and winning the friendship of the Iraqi people could have been done better, but then again, I’m not planning on invading a country. I guess the American government should have made better plans though.
This post has gotten a lot longer than it was supposed to be, I guess I just had to write all this stuff from my chest. Sorry for getting off-topic (or at least not strictly on-topic)
Benjamin Gaede
[originally posted by Wolfknight: The anti-Iraq War movement is nothing more than an anti-Bush groundswell, don’t kid yourselves. When William the Great (D) launched attacks into a sovereign country (without prior approval from the UN, by the way, which is apparently a violation of international law), none of the anti-war voices were heard to say so much as “boo”.]
This is false. The anti-war movement consistently criticized Clinton during his time in office for his military actions.
If you don’t believe me you can check this out for yourself by looking up magazines, newsletters, etc. published by or sympathetic to the anti-war movement. You will find repeated strong denunciations of Clinton and his administration for his military adventures, and these criticisms are comparable to the ones of Bush for similar military actions. The current invasion of Iraq is garnering stronger criticism because it is, let’s face it, a stronger action than any Clinton took.
One of the easier journals to find might be In These Times, which has a comparatively large circulation for a left-wing journal. Probably harder for you to find, but even more to the point, would be Nonviolent Activist, the newsletter of War Resisters League. (If you can’t locate either of these, you can almost certainly locate The Nation or The Progressive at a library.)
The criticism of Clinton was as strong as the criticism of Bush for comparable actions. If Clinton had invaded Iraq, there would have been the same demonstrations as there were when Bush did.
Much of the criticism made by anti-war folks does not get picked up and broadcast in the mainstream media. Numerous protests go unreported. During the Clinton years, much of the anti-war movement activity was considered “not newsworthy”, which may be why whatever sources of information you rely on didn’t inform you of it.
If you want to know what the anti-war movement actually says and does, you should subscribe to some anti-war journals and see for yourself, because your current source of information has left you badly misinformed.
A few random thoughts:
1. While the Bush visit to Iraq might have been just an opportunity for a political photo-op, I don’t see any reason to hurl any brickabats at George for it. It’s what politicians do, on either side of the aisle.
2. The idea that Bush was greetly with great love and enthusiasm by the troops in Iraq should be tempered with the reminder that the troops aren’t allowed to air their real feelings for the President, his Cabinet, or this war. Or am I the only person who remembers the soldiers five months ago who got their military careers busted after they complained about Donald Rumsfeld and the Iraq war to an ABC reporter?
3. Anyone hearing accounts of anti-war protestors on Fox News should be sure to keep their NaCl handy. You can get it in bulk at Costco.
It seems that there is boldness in numbers around here.
Since everyone has decided to dog-pile, I will do my best to address all “points”.
You are specifically saying that you do not support having the military kill people and cause damage, yet that is EXACTLY what a military is trained to do. How can you be “anti-war” yet support the troops? No one has really answered this.
You say that you support the troops, by saying that they are following the orders from higher up, the decision makers, yet no one has said word one about how this makes them better than drones who lack free will.
To support the troops means to support the mission they are on. That’s all there is to it. Otherwise, you are giving lip service to those who deserve better.
If a member of our military were to say that he fully supports the president, and knows he is doing the right thing in Iraq, would you attack his position as you are doing to me here, of would you still “support” him?
The flak jacket thing is interesting. Anyone have evidence to back up that the modern military, thoughtfully assembled by a Vietnam-era draft dodger over the previous decade, is in the field with outdated equipment? If so, I guess that goes as a point against William the Great (D), and not against Bush, doesn’t it?
Re-read the context. France and Germany were “brought into it” because that is almost always a point made by those who are anti-war. Americans who are anti-war, almost always point to allies who are against this action, and use such as a major argument. They point to suspicion that evidence of Saddam’s wrongdoing (and violation of 19 UN resolutions) was “made up”, or that Saddam is bad, but didn’t do what he was accused of (by William the Great (D) AND Bush, BTW).
When asked for direct evidence that the administration lied, none is ever provided. Only anecdotal references that are as reliable as “friend of a friend” accounts.
Someone said that all the anti-war publications made noise when Clinton did what he did, but such information never made the mainstream news. Can’t help but wonder at the veracity of such dubious claims. As such, I won’t waste my time sifting through propaganda that may or may not exist. When Bush still hadn’t raised a finger in Iraq (no missiles launched, no soldiers deployed, no additional Naval task forces in the area), peace demonstrations were all over the news. They were demonstrating against the tough talk by Bush. In 1998, when Clinton said the same things, not a peep was heard. When Clinton launched missiles at aspirin factories, nothing was said by the “peace activists” (granted, any other story was overshadowed slightly by Monica’s Grand Jury testimony).
Since you claim that such things DID take place, and were dismissed as not newsworthy with a democrat in the White House, can you explain why they WERE newsworthy when a republican was in?
I’m not talking about after the war began, but when it was still just talk. No major media reports of major protests when Clinton launched missiles versus the formation of giant anti-war movements (most led by liberal actors) when Bush was talking about possible action in Iraq, but hadn’t launched anything. Care to explain THAT difference?
As for Germany, Germany has a violent past. It never has been a peace-loving country, through all its history. I pointed to the world wars as the most recent examples. Given the total history of Germany (and the other names the region has had through history), it is inconsistent, to say the least, for Germany to suddenly have “cold feet” about military conflict, unless there was some ulterior motive.
I have made my email address available by clicking me name, and would ask, on behalf of Mr. David (hope I’m not overstepping here), that further discussion is possible by contacting my e-mail, rather than using Mr. David’s bandwidth on a discussion that could go on for quite some time. I have an independent message board that could be used, or the discussion could be e-mail based. But I see little point in using Mr. David’s web space on this discussion for any more time.
Wolfknight wrote:
You are specifically saying that you do not support having the military kill people and cause damage, yet that is EXACTLY what a military is trained to do. How can you be “anti-war” yet support the troops? No one has really answered this.
EVERYONE has answered it; you’re just being bullheaded. Your definition of support and other people’s (including mine) differ, but the question has been answered.
Wolfknight again:
The flak jacket thing is interesting. Anyone have evidence to back up that the modern military, thoughtfully assembled by a Vietnam-era draft dodger over the previous decade, is in the field with outdated equipment? If so, I guess that goes as a point against William the Great (D), and not against Bush, doesn’t it?
I’m sorry, which Vietnam-era draft dodger are you talking about? Pot, kettle, black.
Rob
First: I wasn’t the one who made the Dell comparison; that was “ajk”.
STEVE O’RANDO: “This is posted with the thought that the military members have some sort of say so in what they will do or not do. There is no vote! The Commander in Chief makes an order, runs it by congress as needed, and then it goes to the pentagon, and then down through the chain of command from there. The military is here to support and defend the democracy, not be one. Get your facts strait.”
So all our guys exist to do is blindly follow orders, no matter if those orders may be immoral or illegal or both? Gee, I guess that’s why we gave Lieutenant Calley and his men a parade when they got home, right? I guess that’s why we didn’t bother with War Crimes trials after WWII, because after all, those German soldiers were just part of an army who could only follow orders, right?
I recommend you take a look at the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, and the Law of Armed Conflict. Pay special attention to the discussions of conduct regarding prisoners and enemy combatants, and to the subject of war crimes. Ðámņëd near all the military law in the world can be found at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-law.htm
A soldier, if given an illegal order, should question said order. To fail to do so, and/or to carry out said order, makes the soldier complicit in the illegal act.
As for your critique of my use of the catch-all term “flak jackets,” take a look at this article from the Dallas-Fort Wort Star Telegram: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/6932113.htm
Your belligerence of tone, and your refusal to address the facts I have cited, suggest that you have few if any of your own to get “strait.”
And as for Wolfknight’s dismissal of claims of antiwar marches against the bombing in Serbia …
March 29, 1999: “NEW YORK (CNN) — From New York to Prague to Athens, demonstrators rallied in cities around the world Monday in response to NATO airstrikes in Yugoslavia.”
March 27, 1999: “(CNN) — Protests drew thousands of demonstrators Saturday throughout Europe and the United States as NATO missiles again pounded Yugoslavia.”
April 15, 1999: (from CNN) “Outside the hotel where the president spoke, hundreds of protesters rallied for both sides of the Kosovo conflict.”
May 12, 1999: (CNN again) “Back in the U.S., American hackers are on a political binge, breaking into Web sites to leave what amounts to anti-war graffiti.”
There’s a lot more, but I trust I’ve made my point.
Unless CNN isn’t “mainstream” enough for you?
Admittedly, there has been a larger outcry to and a greater degree of coverage of the conflict in Iraq. As to why this is, I guess it’s because we didn’t see Americans dying in Serbia as we did and do in Iraq and Afghanistan. That sort of thing kind of brings a war closer to home.
Your refusal to look into the subject on your own, and your characterization of any accounts contrary to what you have said as “propaganda” which you do not want to “waste” your time looking over, suggests a closed-mindedness which taints any points you may make as those of a blustering demagogue, unwilling to concede even the smallest point.
Here’s a question: Why bother bringing Clinton into the discussion at all? If what the administration–ANY administration–is doing is wrong, it matters little what political party it represents, or what previous administrations may have done wrong.
Life is not an atrocity competition; it is not a place for the “Well, HE started it!” of childhood.
By the by: Perhaps your words would have more weight, Wolfknight, if they were spoken from behind something more approximating an actual name.
This is posted with the thought that the military members have some sort of say so in what they will do or not do.
Of course they do. As I noted, these are not draftees. They chose to join the military. They chose to be part of whatever commands come down. They chose to enable this sort of attack by their career choice.
And even once they are in the military, as others note they have options to not follow orders. Given the scale of matters before them, there should be serious consideration even when the decision does have consequences. If I was faced with the choice of spending several years in jail or killing a dozen people, I’d like to think I’d choose the former.
I think it’s quite disrespectful to see the members of the military as trained automatons who cannot be expected to have a moral sense.
you completely overlook the fact that I raised about the three Executive Orders in place which make it illegal for the U.S. to employ assassination for political means
If I understand the executive order process correctly, these could be rescinded by another executive order. If Bush wanted to get Saddam rather than killing many thousands of people and then failing to get Saddam, that would seem the more moral option.
And for those who act like we should be happy because the civilian death toll was only several years worth of what Saddam would have killed, only several times what we suffered on 9-11 when outside forces decided it was time to “shock and awe” America (and who seemingly want us to ignore the thousands of Iraqi military members who were killed defending their nation against the offensive attacks of hostile foreign invaders), who want us to be happy because it’s our government who is acting like murderous madmen rather than theirs — telling people to “grow up” is not apt to make them support thousands of people being violently killed, widowed, orphaned, and maimed in their name, at their expense, and at the seeming expense of the security of our nation.
I sat here and read the responses to my posts, and aside from my mispelled words (I’m human, so sue me), I choose not to correspond with anyone else that is ignorant. Unless you have been in the military and in a war, I think it is moot for me to trade words with that person. As you may have guessed, I am a vet of a war, and am a strong supporter of the military. I find liberals to be the nemesis of the military, for reasons I won’t go into here. If you think that makes me a war monger or anything of the sort, so be it. I always enjoy a heated discussion, but to discuss anything of this topic with someone that knows only one side of the situation is useless.
Just for the record, Bill Clinton signed an executive order authorizing the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, as part of his own “war on terror.” He also tripled the FBI’s antiterrorism budget, who in turn convicted a dozen terrorists in the United States and foiled several plots by al Qaeda against American and international interests. Even current Iraqi administrator Paul Bremer readily admits that Clinton was “obsessed” with fighting terrorism, more than any other President before him.
…Not that you’d learn any of this by listening to the conservative pundits.
Those CNN stories would matter more if it were Serbia I was speaking about.
I am referring to Clinton’s use of “tough talk” regarding Iraq, and his launching of missiles INTO Iraq.
I am comparing the mainstream liberal view of Clintons action in Iraq versus Bush’s action in Iraq. Mentioning Serbia is, as you guys so like to say, a strawman.
I’m not refusing to look into anything on my own. I just refuse to look at anything that I know to be propaganda, as virtually ALL anti-war “information” is.
I brought Clinton into it because it was said that he, not Bush, was responsible for Bush having a decently trained, sizable military, and advanced equipment. Thus far, no one has said word one about the flak jackets being in the field on troops that were supposed to be so well equipped and trained by the Clinton administration. The blame for outdated equipment is still, inappropriately I might add, being tossed in Bush’s direction.
Another reason I thought it appropriate to bring Clinton into things, was because someone made a comment about Rumsfeld, and his past attempts to open diplomatic and trade relations with Saddam’s Iraq.
Opening the can, allows others in a discussion to bring up whatever past worms they think are appropriate.
As for the “weight” of my words, Mr. Berman, they carry just as much as yours. You respond to them, others respond to them, and they are part of the conversation. If you must know, my name is Victor Talomar. I will continue to sign as Wolfknight, and would appreciate being addressed as such, since that is the name that I have chosen to post under.
Such is the beauty of freedom of speech.
Steve O’Rando: I find liberals to be the nemesis of the military, for reasons I won’t go into here.
…[T]o discuss anything of this topic with someone that knows only one side of the situation is useless.
Steve, I certainly respect the veteran and currently serving members of our nation’s armed forces; I have friends who fall into both categories. I also respect your opinion; even though I don’t share yours, it helps me to formulate and better define my own. However, your above quotes seem to say “here’s the side I’m on, and it’s useless to debate with anyone who’s not on my side.” Doesn’t that sound like a pretty one-sided debate to you?
I’d much rather hear your responses to the many points brought against your original arguments, much rather hear more of your opinions, instead of hearing that you’ve resigned yourself to not airing your opinions because they’re not being understood. More communication leads to better communication, and better communication leads to comprehension.
tOjb
Unless you have been in the military and in a war, I think it is moot for me to trade words with that person.
You should realize that decisions about the military are made by people who have never been in a war on a military basis… and that goes all the way up to the commander in chief, who called for the war without having been in one himself.
But if you choose only to exchange words with people who have undergone the same indoctrination that you have, that is of course your choice.
Wolfknight: It seems that there is boldness in numbers around here. Since everyone has decided to dog-pile, I will do my best to address all “points”.
Luigi Novi: No one here is dog-piling. People are expressing their opinions and views, nothing more.
Wolfknight: You are specifically saying that you do not support having the military kill people and cause damage, yet that is EXACTLY what a military is trained to do. How can you be “anti-war” yet support the troops? No one has really answered this.
Luigi Novi: Many have answered this several times on this thread. Whether you agree with it or understand it bears no relation to whether it’s been answered. Indeed, you referred to the answer given right after making this statement. So how can it not have been answered?
You say that you support the troops, by saying that they are following the orders from higher up, the decision makers, yet no one has said word one about how this makes them better than drones who lack free will.
Wolfknight: To support the troops means to support the mission they are on. That’s all there is to it.
Luigi Novi: No, it is not “all there is to it,” and I don’t see how you can tell someone else what they mean by something that they say. Just because a particular bit of wording means one thing to you when you say it does not mean it means what you jolly well wish to attribute it to it when someone else says it, and the people here have already explained what they mean when they they say that they are against the war but support the troops. A given statement means what the speaker says it means. Not what a listener/reader says it does.
Again, what part of the analogies mentioned above did you not understand? Ajk and Alex Berman provided two that clearly illustrated how those who are anti-war place blame for it. You responded to one with a Straw Man argument, and totally ignored the second one. So why are you again saying you don’t understand it, and now telling others what they mean they say this?
If I feel that this particular war is wrong, does that mean that I should shun my friend Mark when he comes home from the service? Should I spit in his face and call him a baby-killer?
Wolfknight: If a member of our military were to say that he fully supports the president, and knows he is doing the right thing in Iraq, would you attack his position as you are doing to me here, of would you still “support” him?
Luigi Novi: Again, the “support” refers to acknowledging that the people in the military are people who joined in good faith, who are doing a difficult, dangerous job, and wanting them to come home unharmed. It doesn’t refer to politics, or to agreeing with the specific assignment he’s been deployed to carry out.
Wolfknight: As for Germany, Germany has a violent past. It never has been a peace-loving country, through all its history. I pointed to the world wars as the most recent examples. Given the total history of Germany (and the other names the region has had through history), it is inconsistent, to say the least, for Germany to suddenly have “cold feet” about military conflict, unless there was some ulterior motive.
Luigi Novi: This is an incredibly specious argument. You say that Germany has never been a peace-loving country through ALL of its history. Does that include today? The past decade? The past 50 years? The latter of your “most recent examples” occurred almost 60 years ago. How does that constitute “all its history”?
Alex Jay Berman: First: I wasn’t the one who made the Dell comparison; that was “ajk”.
Luigi Novi: Ack! Sorry. You both share the same first two initials, so I got thrown, apparently missing the last. Sorry. 🙂
Wolfknight: I’m not refusing to look into anything on my own. I just refuse to look at anything that I know to be propaganda, as virtually ALL anti-war “information” is.
Luigi Novi: All you did was affirm the accusation by essentially admitting it. You don’t want to do the proper journalistic or scientific thing by verifying given sources because to do so would require some modicum of fairness and objectivity, so you label any information that may serve to support an anti-war idea as “propaganda.” Such a statement in itself is prejudicial and rhetorical, and therefore, itself propaganda.
(1) Those who still do not understand how someone can be anti-war yet still support the troops might contact Veterans For Peace (www.veteransforpeace.org) or Vietnam Veterans Against the War (www.vvaw.org).
(2) “Unless you have been in the military and in a war, I think it is moot for me to trade words with that person.” Steve O’Rando Good news for you, Steve! The people in the above-named groups have been in the military and in war, and thus you will be able to talk to them.
Good news for you too, Wolfknight! Both groups named above spoke out consistently against Clinton’s military adventures. If you get in touch with them they can confirm this for you. They can also confirm that the reason they speak out is because they are anti-war, not because they are anti-Bush or anti-Republican.
(3) “Since you claim that such things DID take place, and were dismissed as not newsworthy with a democrat in the White House, can you explain why they WERE newsworthy when a republican was in?” Wolfknight
Anti-war protests were largely ignored during the Clinton years, but they were also largely ignored during the Reagan years and during the first Bush predidency, until Bush went to war with Iraq in 1991 and anti-war protests became newsworthy. Likewise, anti-war protests did not get much coverage during the current Bush presidency until Bush’s speeches and actions leading up to the current war made anti-war protests newsworthy again.
A constant gripe in almost all protest groups, on the right and on the left, is that the media doesn’t pay attention to them. Only a fraction of protests that occur in this country get much media coverage. The fact that you didn’t hear a peep out of the anti-war people during the Clinton years didn’t mean the peeps weren’t being made.
FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) is a liberal group that criticizes the media for its conservative bias, including complaining about lack of coverage of anti-war speeches and protests. Next time a Democrat is president, go to the FAIR web site and sign up for their e-mail alerts. They will let you know about various anti-war protests that do not receive coverage, and you can then join in asking the media to cover these stories. That way you can help make sure that others are not misled the same way you were into thinking that the anti-war movement only protests against Republicans.
Re. the stories about returning Vietnam vets being spat upon, maybe check out
http://www.rlg.org/annmtg/lembcke99.html
and
http://www.thevoicenews.com/News/2003/0228/In_Response/R03_Bernard-re_Barlow.html
It appears that while it is impossible to prove that it did not happen (but then it always is extremely hard to prove a negative), there appear to be no media or FBI reports from the time of the war itself of anti-war protestors spitting on returning veterans. So it must have been a very minor thing (one would also expect that the administrations and media opposing the anti-war movement would have immediately seized upon even one such incident). In fact on the whole the anti-war movement was fairly welcoming to returning vets, hoping (not without reason) that they could be persuaded to join them. The stories about returning veterans being spat upon by opponents of the war apparently only arose ca. 1980, long after the end of the war and quite a few contain details that make them unlikely. The human memory can play funny tricks.
I guess one of the reasons that the spitting stories received such wide currency was to compensate for the fact that those supporting the Vietnam war did so little to make the returning vets feel welcome themselves. Indeed, war supporters are often more intent on supporting their war than on the troops. There were verified instances of Vietnam vets being spat upon in the US during the war itself, but these were vets spat upon by supporters of the war for protesting against it. Similarly during the run-up to the current Iraq war, some stay-at-home supporters of the war saw nothing wrong in vilifying veterans of Vietnam and the previous Gulf War engaged in anti-war protests, and in Congress the “support the troops” rhethorics did not prevent them from approving a slash in veterans’ benefits just as the war began.
Nova Land:
I am well aware of the existence of FAIR, but that doesn’t answer the question I asked.
Why was NO MEDIA COVERAGE WHATSOEVER of protests or protest groups forming when Clinton talk tough about Iraq AND launched missiles into Iraq, and almost NOTHING EXCEPT MEDIA COVERAGE of groups forming when Bush was simply talking about Iraq?
Everyone is saying that there is simply a lack of coverage, but this is simply NOT so. The coverage depends heavily on the political alignment of those protesting lining up with the opinion of those doing the editing of the news.
Before a shot had been fired, all across the country, opinions of liberal Hollywood actors such as Mike Farrell and Sean Penn, were well known because they formed a protest group.
I will ask again. WHERE WERE THESE PRINCIPLED PEOPLE WHEN CLINTON LAUNCHED MISSILES? Why did no one say a WORD? Why did newspaper and news desk editors not cover their words if they were said?
WHSAT MAKES A PROTEST OF A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING MORE NEWSWORTHY THAN A PROTEST OF A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT ATTACKING A SOVERGIN NATION WITHOUT THE UN’S SUPPORT?
It’s not a tough question, people. Really it isn’t. I cannot think of ANY references to major protests, or principled actors going to Iraq to “see firsthand” the conditions when Clinton was talking about doing something. Yet the newspapers had Sean Penn on the front page. Full page ads from “concerned citizens” were in virtually all newspapers. Basically, there seemed MORE coverage or deeming the story newsworthy when a politically unpopular man was calling the shots.
I just want to know why it is accepted as normal, and why some people continue to claim that the media is not biased in what is “newsworthy”?
Why is a viewpoint that is favorable to liberal interpretation accepted as Gospel, and one that is conservative dismissed as being nothing more than lies?
Where is the objectivity that I am told I lack?
Wolfie-
you’re funny, keep it up.
Best free entertainment on the web.
To most of the rest keep up the good debate, sites like this really help me understand BOTH sides of the arguement better.
Instead of getting upset about Robbins’ play based on how Fox News characterizes it, wouldn’t it make more sense to get upset about it based on actually seeing a performance, or at least reading the script of the play for yourself?
It’s possible the play actually is exactly as Fox portrays it. It’s also possible it isn’t. I’d prefer to get upset with Robbins for what Robbins says and get upset with Fox for what Fox says.
Did you actually read the story? Robbins’ people don’t deny it; they claim its “satire”. fox is a legitimite news source. By your logic, no one could comment on Bush’s trip unless they had actually been in Iraq. The Major being called a Nazi was witnessed by them.
**You say that this conflict has been fought with precision; that civilian casualties have been kept to a minimum.
You may want to go to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm and look at the incident-by-incident accounting of civilian deaths they provide. They only publish after sources have been checked, and they will not publish any incident without first having the story from at least two accredited sources. Also, they show the sources for each incident, so you can judge whether or not you think the sources are biased. At the present writing, they show qa MINIMUM of about eight thousand and a maximum of about ten thousand civilians killed. That doesn’t sound all that “precision” to me.**
The methodology behind that site has long been discredited, when it was used for the “Afghan body count”. Their two sources are usually two networks covering the same government propaganda flack. They also double count. It’s exposed here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/554awdqo.asp
In contrast, Bush came in, gave a rah-rah to the US soldiers, and jetted out.
Yeah, it’s not like people had been shooting anti-aircraft missiles at jets.
(Even when Bill Clinton went into Macedonia in ’99, he made sure to meet with the war’s refugees …)
Weren’t we talking a whole lot about the poor Iraqis and how desperately they needed freedom a while back? Way to show dedication to that ideal.
Did you miss the part where he met with members of the Iraqi governing council?
Further. I can’t help but think that the trip was conceived–if quickly–to steal the thunder away from the trip to Afghanistan by Sens. Clinton and John Reed. After all, it was announced that they would be sharing Thanksgiving with the troops in Afghanistan, then heading to Iraq over the weekend.
Only if you think Bush’s world revolves around Hillary.
Think about it–the President of the United States snuck away from the Secret Service, whose most visible objective as a department is to protect him … but he stopped to pick up members of the White House press corps.
It would have been MUCH cooler, MUCH more sincere-looking, and MUCH more effective, if he’d just TAKEN the Secret Service with him, DITCHED the press corps, and then let the news sink in after the fact.
The president always has some reporters following him. They’re called the press pool. CNN was complaining because their regular guy wasn’t brought along.
Luigi Novi: You’re supporting the troops by essentially saying that even though you’re against the war, you harbor no ill feelings against them because they’re not the ones in power who make the major decisions regarding it, but young boys, often poor, who are used by the government for ends that the protestor feels are wroing, and who have no say in where they’re sent to.
In other words, you excuse them for being stupid. An actual soldier in Iraq has his views on that:
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_iraqnow_archive.html#106953634372190831
\\BrakYeller: I don’t think MarvelFan literally meant opening the caskets and taking pictures of bodies (at least, I hope he didn’t).
Correct. Limiting the press from viewing all aspects of the results of this war, such as the arrival of the coffins back home and the presentation of the flags to the family members, seems wrong to me, and I have seen press members from both sides of the issue say so.\\
That’s a regulation started during the first Bush administration and never repealed under Clinton. As for funerals, Presidents rarely go to individual ones.
“By your logic, no one could comment on Bush’s trip unless they had actually been in Iraq. — Jim Burdo
No, that doesn’t follow.
I said it is unfair to get overly worked up with one person for what another person says.
If Fox news broadcasts the play, it is fair to get upset by what you see in the play. If Fox news broadcasts a speech by George Bush, it is fair to get upset with Bush for the content of that speech.
But if a Fox reviewer rips apart the play, or a Fox pundit rips apart a politician, I maintain it is fair to wait until you have actually seen the play or read the politician’s speech for yourself before you fly off the handle.
By my logic, it is unfair to get overly upset with George Bush or Tom DeLay based on what Molly Ivins or Jim HIghtower say he said. I read them (and other liberal critics of the president) and I often enjoy their writing. But I think it is unfair to assume that their characterization of what George Bush or Tom DeLay have said or done is a fair one. Before I get upset with Bush over what Molly Ivins has written, I want to look up what Bush actually said so I can judge it for myself.
It is very easy to select facts out of context and make almost anything sound bad. This is especially true with works of fiction — plays, novels, even comic books. (Just think what someone with an axe to grind could do with Fallen Angel.)
It just seems like common sense to me. Before getting all hot and bothered and informing the people around you how horrible something is, take the time to actually see the thing you’re talking about.
WolfKnight: The coverage depends heavily on the political alignment of those protesting lining up with the opinion of those doing the editing of the news.
That in mind, would you be willing to admit that FoxNews’ coverage is politically aligned with conservatives? And if Fox is so inclined, can you still consider them an objective news source, given a stated preference for ‘objective’ news?
The most objective television news source that first comes to most peoples’ minds (including mine) is PBS’s News Hour, and I well remember them covering the dissent against Clinton’s actions in the Balkans, and his ‘tough talk’ on Iraq (possibly because they were the only major outfit covering it).
Jim Burdo: [F]ox is a legitimite news source.
Despite the fact that they tend to get higher ratings than CNN, I know a lot of people (many of whom work in the news business) who can’t and don’t consider FoxNews as a hard-and-fast legitimate news source. After all, after 4pm most of their news broadcasts include opinion or editorial pieces at the tail end (I’m thinking specifically of Neil Cavuto). True, both CNN and FoxNews do opinion shows (‘Hardball’ and ‘O’Rielly’ spring to mind), but they’re clearly marketed as such, and I believe Fox airs more of them. I’ve also noticed the tendency of Fox anchors to not shy away from offering commentary after reading a news piece, something that is inherently frowned upon by the journalism community (the Hindenberg and other disasters of mass scale notwithstanding). Now, while I’ve occasionally seen the talking heads of CNN and Co. offer similar opinion after news reads, the Fox gang tends to do it a LOT more often.
When you think about it, much of FoxNews’s success is credited to commentators like O’Rielly and Cavuto rather than to their reporting… which says something about the quality of their reporting. CNN and Co., on the other hand, are known more for their reporters and reporting than anything else… Lester Holt (of MSNBC) and Wolf Blitzer rose to fame for their work reporting on the Gulf Wars; both have reputations resting on their objectivity.
And let’s not forget, before they became known as the ‘conservative’ news network, FoxNews was the ‘let’s drop our regular programming to televise every friggin’ car chase that we can’ news network. Fox has a reputation for flair and sensationalist programming which long precedes the existence of the cable news network.
Oddly enough, both CNN and FoxNews each came to prominence during a Gulf War, and each under a Republican president named Bush, so the popularity of either network can’t easily be ascribed to a liberal or conservative national consciousness at the time. I think it’s got more to do with the type of war being fought: an expulsion of the Iraqi forces that invaded Kuwait versus an invasion of Iraqi. Two different motivations; two different mindsets… and one has to admit to a vast chasm of mindset between FoxNews and CNN & Co.
tOjb
Obviously, I meant to say ‘Iraq’ rather than ‘Iraqi’ at the end of the penultimate sentence in my last post. Apologies.
tOjb
The methodology behind that site has long been discredited, when it was used for the “Afghan body count”. Their two sources are usually two networks covering the same government propaganda flack. They also double count. It’s exposed here:
Ummm, no, it’s not. What you point to is a grad student trying to discredit it, but he uses faulty logic. He acts as though civilian deaths caused by Iraq’s attempt to defend itself in the war should not count.
Their methodology is not precise, but it’s the best I’ve seen. Other attempts to generate a casualty count seem largely grounded in wishful thinking.
Luigi Novi: You’re supporting the troops by essentially saying that even though you’re against the war, you harbor no ill feelings against them because they’re not the ones in power who make the major decisions regarding it, but young boys, often poor, who are used by the government for ends that the protestor feels are wrong, and who have no say in where they’re sent to.
Jim Burdo: In other words, you excuse them for being stupid.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say they were stupid. You did.
I said I don’t hold them responsible for decisions made by the President. I made that clear to anyone objective enough to read my statement for what it was. Lack of culpability has nothing to do with stupidity. To interpret my statement to mean what you said is such a gross and vitriolic distortion that one can only wonder wonder at the subconscious motives for wanting to believe it.
Please, if you want to address me, call me “Wolfknight”, not “wolfie”.
Had I wanted to be called “wolfie”, I would have chosen that as a screen name.
That out of the way, Many people keep saying that protests to Clinton’s Balkan policy are what I should be content with.
Not a single person has answered the question regarding a lack of mainstream coverage of protests against Clinton’s IRAQ policies and actions.
THAT is what I am asking about. If I wanted information about Clinton and the Balkans, I would have asked for it.
To keep bringing up protests of actions that I am NOT asking about is a classic “strawman” argument. Keep to what I am asking about, and maybe the position being represented by such arguments won’t seem so weak.
Oh, and before Mr. Burdo takes me to task for it, let me refine what I mean by a ‘hard-and-fast legitimate news source.’ Reuters and the Associated Press are legitimate, first-rate news sources. This is because reporters for these outlets report events and/or facts as they witness them, and without injecting personal opinion or commentary… that’s what ‘news’ is supposed to mean. I would say that the New York Times, CNN, and Headline News are all first-rate news sources as well, though each of the three does from time to time deviate from the objective into the opinionated. (And I’m speaking strictly of their news coverage, and not of their opinion shows/pages.)
FoxNews, on the other hand, tends to be news in the same way that reading ‘Time’ or ‘The New Yorker’ is news: certain timely public events are focused on for discussion, where other events are discarded. Yes, they’re still news by definition, and they all carry weight and respectability as creditable outlets of topical information, but they’re second-rate news… not the first place you turn for facts, but media you turn to for review/analysis of the facts. With Fox, Time, and the others, their reporting tends to be both fact- and opinion-based… something which true, hard-and-fast journalists frown upon. News is not about spin, it’s about facts. The job of a journalist is to report the facts as objectively as possible and allow the consumer to formulate their opinions from those facts. Any time you try to analyze the reasons behind those facts, you move away from journalism and into editorial opinion.
Everything that calls itself news is not necessarily news… we need only look to the Weekly World News (“Bat Boy Found In Cave!!!”) to see this.
tOjb
Wow, someone has a sore spot.
**Brak wrote:
Everything that calls itself news is not necessarily news… we need only look to the Weekly World News (“Bat Boy Found In Cave!!!”) to see this.**
Okay, I give.
If not a cave, where WAS the Bat Boy found?
“If not [in] a cave, [then] where WAS the Bat Boy found?”
Why, behind the grandfather clock, of course.
(Aunt Harriet is under suspicion.)
\\That out of the way, Many people keep saying that protests to Clinton’s Balkan policy are what I should be content with.
Not a single person has answered the question regarding a lack of mainstream coverage of protests against Clinton’s IRAQ policies and actions.
THAT is what I am asking about. If I wanted information about Clinton and the Balkans, I would have asked for it.\\
If memory serves me, the reason Clinton’s Iraq endeavors were not broadcast so much in the mainstream is that Ken Starr and friends were doing everything in their power to make sure that the topmost topic on everyone’s mind was Whitewater and/or the Lewinski scandal. With all the hub-bub on Monica-Gate, it’s easy to see how protests on a relatively small military incursion would be back paged.
Also consider that Clinton’s military involvement in Iraq was not nearly equal to Bush’s in size, commitment, and collateral damage and you can see why protests (and thus, coverage of protests) weren’t as proportionately large or widespread.
That would follow, Sasha, except for a few things…
1) Clinton’s missile attack in Iraq was the SAME DAY that Monica was to take the stand in front of a Grand Jury.
Clinton’s actions in Iraq seemed to be designed to draw attention AWAY from the whole Monica thong– I mean, thing.
2) I wasn’t speaking about Bush’s military involvement being protested (a group called “United for Peace and Justice” was founded in 2002. Mike Farrell’s pet project, “Artists United wit Win Without War” was not formed until 2002, even though Mr. Farrell had been to Rwanda and Czechoslovakia. The war in Iraq did not begin until 2003), and Clinton’s not (on September 3, 1996, air strikes took place in Iraq, under Clinton’s authorization).
As I said, Bush hadn’t authorized ANYTHING in Iraq, but his protestors were all over the place (including Sean Penn, who went to Iraq). Where were these people when Clinton actually launched attacks?
Where was the laundry list of celebs who thought that any action in Iraq was “morally inexcusable”?