-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/daily/staff-infection/marine-tells-cypress-church-the-war%e2%80%99s-over-we-won/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Like showing up for a final, having studied the wrong subject, and declaring you've passed the test because you correctly answered questions that weren't on the test.
Good cause? Sure. Too bad these Marines didn't need to be there in the first place.
Are you the type of guy who says he suports the military, but really doesn't do a tangible thing to reflect that support? Or do you just hate George Bush?
Have you read the news lately about the success of the surge in Iraq? Pick up any paper ... like today's Wall St. Journal.
How in the world can you say we are losing the occupation? The facts on the ground completely refute that.
We were before the surge. It's miraculously turned around now. Ask any respectable journalist.
iraqis hate us, dont see us as liberators and want us out of the country. by what metric are you measuring success?
I don't need you to tell me how to support my country. I've worked in support of our nation's armed services longer than you'll ever know. I know how the military beauracracies run and I've seen how the grunt on the ground is considered a statistic, a budget item, a means to an end to ensure additional funding. The Air Force just placed a request for $59 million for additional ADVERTISING funding, not additional socks, not additional bullets, not additional benefits for families undergoing hardships because their spouses are serving their third tour, but ADVERTISING.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/02/airfo...
So, do I think this was a recruiting PR effort? Yes, I do. And supporting your troops is not slapping a flag in your yard and forwarding links to Wall Street Journal articles. And, Diane, you seem like a very nice, literate woman, but have you read any international accounts? It's not a very Pollyanna world out there. But it is convenient to fear those terrorists who will get to heaven by killing Americans...
Yes, I'm angry, And when someone tells me I'm not supporting the troops, I get furious. These are our bravest men and women serving there, the above Marines included. But I don't support the "We broke it, we bought it" mentality. It's beyond that now, we need a differnet solution... but if your yellow ribbon on your Lexus makes you sleep better at night, congratulations.
Howard,
How many metrics do you need? Fewer casualties & attacks on our military and Iraqi civilians, the fact that democrats' attacks on Gen. Petraeus are now muted, polling results, etc.
Why do you want to be mired in defeat, denigrating and denying the remarkable success of the U.S. military under exceedingly difficult circumstances; i.e. the lack of support and recognition from Americans like you?
Is this just about saving face in front of the opposite party?
I am so tired of the "look, we're there now, so just deal with it" line. We didn't HAVE to be there. And the deed being done doesn't do ANYTHING to insulate you from the extraordinary anger that is coming your way from all those people who KNEW it was a mistake, KNEW the government wasn't planning appropriately, and KNEW that the predictions for success were way oversold.
People have been blown to pieces. You don't get to dismiss the critics by just rolling your eyes and saying "what's done is done." People have a right to be angry, and they have a right to be angry for a long, long time. Admit it: all things being equal, if Bush just happened to be a Democrat you would find plenty to complain about.
When things blew up in Somalia under Clinton, Republicans were screaming from the rafters. And not a single Republican said, "now, now. we *have* to stay there. getting upset is just going to hurt the troops' feelings! bringing them home early is just going to damage their self-esteem!" No, they said, "Bring our troops home, for God's sake!" Which makes perfect sense. Because the troops aren't preschoolers. They are ADULTS who just want to be home with their families.
Nobody, repeat nobody, is denying the that US Military is the strongest and most capable fighting force in the world. But soldiers, sailors, and Marines are not policy makers, and it is a citizen's duty to question failed policies that have squandered lives and resources.
Here's the question again, specifically: how do you tangibly support our soldiers besides questioning "failed" policies and denying and denigrating a complete turnaround in Iraq in the last year by the addition of only 30,000 troops? For example, have you ever sent a contribution to military hospitals or one of the many organizations that help wounded soldiers and Marines. You don't have to agree with the policy in Iraq to do that. It's just the right thing to do. Military service men and women don't like fighting wars and suffering casualties for a predominantly ungrateful and indifferent populace. I think they should all come home now because "citizens" like you, Howard, and Rachel don't deserve their sacrifice.
For Rachel, read this article and learn something about your democrat party http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120468439524812...
Lastly, and quite frankly, I think Bush has been and is a lousy commander-in-chief. He has allowed our troops to be attacked by Iran with their IED's with virtual impunity. So I'm no fan of George Bush. I just believe soldiers and Marines are caught in the middle and should be supported financially, emotionally, and spritually by we who have it so easy.
I did answer your question, but you didn't like my answer. And I do donate to veteran's organinizations, even before this war. Why? Because my Dad was a veteran who understood the cost of service. But I don't think you do.
As I said, previously, you seem to think that you're the judge of who supports the troops and how it's OK to do it. I never criticized this group for their work with the Marines. But do I agree with the Lt.Col.? No.
And if you'd like to cite statistics from an organization (the WSJ) that has supported the invasion of Iraq since the beginning, and through its many revisions, you might want to find an outlet that has more credibility. Think Bill Kristol supports the troops?
I've been clear--I'm not "ungrateful" and certainly not "indifferent", and I resent your assertion. I'm sorry you believe that criticizing policy equates not supporting the troops because there is a huge difference. Life is not a tidy black and white, "with us or agin' us", half-hour television show. Though it's easier to go through life that way.
And I don't drive a Lexus, not that we can't afford it, I'm just more sensible than that, and there is no yellow ribbon on my 3 yr. old Toyota.
forgive me if i dont take what you have heard through the "patriots ministry" as god's own truth especially when you say something like "Muslim men are told to come here, find and marry American women to gain instant long term legal status, to increase their numbers and breed more Muslim boys." thats racism diane, clearly you are a racist.
Clearly, you are clueless.
Just so we're clear, ad hominem attacks are personal insults to "buttress" your argument when you have no facts to back it up. Get it? And your retorts are full of ad hominem. Therefore ...
You may not like what the Lt. Col. said, but he spent four years in the Anbar Province establishing police agencies and working with Sunnis and Shiites, among other accomplishments. He knows far more than you or I about the situation in Iraq, and has sacrificed far more than you or I are willing. Thank God there are men like him around.
"I never loved the soldier until there was a war." from Freedom Never Cries
Try reading this article by Alan Dershowitz (Harvard law professor and no war monger) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120450617910806...
Then maybe you'll be less vitriolic and more supportive of those on the front lines. And maybe not.
Bye
You mean the Alan Dershowitz, who championed the war in the first place?
http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs...
And again, please explain how keeping our troops there for years this has to do with supporting the troops? Seems to me that a planned exit strategy with an international commitment supports them more than your solution of endless occupation.
"I know first hand it’s happening, one of my friends is engaged to a Muslim man."
You're right. You are eminently qualified to assess the threat to the homeland, and to become Immigration Czar. Have you informed your friend that she is going to be harboring a terrorist who will immediately impregnate her with a little Muslim? And how did she take the news?
As for Tom: I am about to ask you an honest, respectful question. Seriously, no sarcasm intended. I am often confused by the argument that being angry about a war is the same thing as insulting the troops. I swear to god, I don't understand why one equals the other. So my two questions, to which I would love a serious response: (1) if a government declares war, does that mean that its people are *morally* bound to support that war? To put a shoe on another foot, were the Japanese morally bound to support the emperor after Pearl Harbor? (2) If it is acceptable to express discontent with a war, and to express concern that a mistake has been made, then how should a citizen go about it in such a way that protects the troops?
Wake up- It would be great if Diane's source was wrong, but I doubt it is. Living with your head in the sand, is just plain stupid.
Fair questions. First, though, the premise of your questions is not accurate. Being angry about a war is not insulting the troops. It's how that anger is expressed when the troops are in harm's way -- by no choice of their own -- that's at issue here and in many other forums.
As to your questions: (1) No. The government is run by men and women who make decisions that, in the case of war, should be based on threats, real or perceived, to national security. It's their job. That doesn't make the decision moral, just constitutional and prudent (or not).
(2) Many ways to express disapproval the "right" way. Vote. Contact elected representatives. Have open and respectful discussions (like you and I are having now). The problem with rank disapproval in a public forum like this and elsewhere -- because the internet is so open and accessible -- it demoralizes the troops (in harm's way) who may read the posts and encourages the enemy who may read the posts. And that, among many other things, puts a lot of stress on military families who are already paying a price that neither you nor I are willing to pay.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. Meanwhile, I encourage you to read Dershowitz's op-ed piece here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120450617910806...
The piece is frightening, and Dershowitz is no war monger. The question I would ask Dershowitz is "Who's we?" It's the U.S. military, not him or his friends in academia.
Pray for our troops. Tell them thanks for being on the front lines. Send a contribution to Walter Reed. None of those choices means you support the war. But at least you'll stand out from the crowd that says "we support the troops but don't support the war" and really don't do a darn thing to support the troops in a tangible way (James 2:14-17).
You take care.
Perhaps Senator Webb, who might know a thing or two about supporting the troops, should remove this from his website:
http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/record_article....
or, how dare he publicly question the success of the surge?
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/b...
And no matter how many times you say Dershowitz "is no warmonger", it doesn't make it true (see #18 above).
I appreciate the response. A few points/questions:
* Your comments about sending a contribution to Walter Reed, etc., are well taken. I'm not going to pretend that the majority of anti-war folk are sending checks to military hospitals. (I will say, however, that I've always been happy to pay my taxes, and have NEVER complained when they've gone up, and even though I know that money goes to projects that are ludicrous, I'm very, very happy to know that some money--not enough, apparently--goes towards VA services)
* I ask that you consider that an *enormous* number of Americans feel *exactly* as if they are being told that anger at the war means that they are insulting the troops. And I ask you to consider that an equally enormous number of Americans feel as if their patriotism is questioned on a daily basis, simply because they feel deeply about this issue. I would hope that you would be willing to acknowledge that their patriotism *is* questioned by some, and that this is a vicious response to political disagreement.
* It's not that all of the people against the war want to be cynical, anti-authority college students for the rest of their lives (though there may be some who do). It isn't that they are pacifists (personally, I enjoyed watching the Taliban get an ass-kicking, and I wish we still had the numbers over to continue in earnest.) It is simply that many of us, when a war with Iraq was first raised as a possibility in early 2002, had a very ominous feeling. And we thought, "oh no, please no. Can't we look a little longer at Saudi Arabia?" (not that we wanted to go to war there either, but it seemed like that was a link that the administration wasn't exploring properly). A lot of us felt, from the beginning, that it would be a tragic mistake that would cost many, many more lives (and limbs), both American and Iraqi, than if we continued with diplomatic efforts spearheaded by the UN. And many of us remember how every single disaster in Iraq was predicted before hand, and so we feel extraordinarily frustrated, as if we are watching a train go over the cliff and can't do anything about it.
* Voting is important. You are right. I did that. Contacting elected representatives is also crucial. I did that as well, and have the computer-generated letters of acknowledgment to prove it. Unfortunately, we went to war anyway. So my efforts didn't change the course of history, but I'm a big girl and understand that that's life.
* After the voting and letter-writing, what should I do if I still feel a tremendous sense of urgency about this war? What do I do if the carnage is deeply distressing to me--as I'm sure it is to you--and I feel that there is a way to limit it? If I see other options? Aren't I *morally obligated* to act accordingly if it means that lives could be saved? What do I do if I am a 16 years old, too young to vote, and I've got two cousins in the war and I want them home? Do I just say, "well, we're there now, so I've just got to keep my mouth shut"? Imagine that I have lost my opportunity to prevent a war that I feel is unjust: what if I feel that I can help to shorten it by half, and therefor save half of the lives? What do I do if I feel ethically bound to do what I can to shorten the war?
* I often hear, "well however we got there, we are there NOW, so we need to win." I agree, in that I would like to be able to see this end with a victory. But what if I don't believe that it is possible? What if I think that there may be *other* ways of dramatically reducing the risk of terrorism? What do I do if I feel very strongly that, upon finding oneself in a hole, one should resist the urge to keep digging? I'm not trying to be flippant, I'm just trying to find out what a person should do. Perhaps, to many against the war, simply accepting the status quo feels like a violation of moral principle. So how does this get expressed in a serious way?
* For me, what it comes down to is that the "vote, donate, write letters" suggestion, while crucial, denies opponents of the war of powerful means of political expression. It's patting them on the the head, and saying "there there, I understand, now just shut up and disagree quietly." It is, in essence, saying "look, I don't have a problem with free speech; I just wish that you wouldn't exercise it right now."
Americans *did* vote, and got a new congress. But we are still in Iraq. So what sort of effective political action do we have left?
And one last question: Aren't the soldiers adults, and therefore able to put anti-war comments in an appropriate context? Also, when you say that we should vote, and the result is a massive repudiation that results in republicans losing congress, doesn't that hurt the troops' morale? Should we stop voting if we think that we will upset the troops?
After wading through that diatribe, I would answer your last question with a definite "yes, in your case". That's the other good thing you personally could do.
Dear Andy,
"pompous malarkey"? I'm impressed with your rhetorical skills. Did you pick them up in 3rd or 4th grade?
Cheers to both of you. Perhaps you two should get together at Starbucks. You're a good match.
As for me, this discussion has gone beyond pointless and it would be foolish to continue. Adios.
If there's ANYONE who's seen more shit over there than the Marines I fought with, then I wanna meet 'em. Because that's one hard son-of-a-bitch. There are good things about our presence in Iraq. I had Iraqis thanks me personally for ousting Saddam. I saw gold plated bolts on lightposts, where the people outside the palaces had no running water. I've met Saddam's turture victims, and women who still don't know where their husbands are. I saw the improvements in Ramadi. Children going back to school. Girls, especially, whom some factions want to ban from attending school, or driving. So let not mak eit out to be black and white. We STILL should not be there. Sorry. Its been a hard thing for me to deal with. I sent a dozen buddies home in body bags. I know what human guts smell like. I've seen civillians grinded up like hamburger so that you couldn't tell if the body part you're looking at was part of a penis or an ear.
I don't just support THE troops. I support MY troops. As a Marine Sergeant or Corporal, you lead men into these fights. Your job is to get them back out alive.
These are my troops. My friends. Men I fought and bled with. Bring them home.
They've had enough.
In 20 years Iraq will be a huge tourist attraction. "A Marine died here on this spot 20 years ago." Should we leave them hanging? No. We need to ensure a stable transition, but that's not an excuse to linger and steal gas while companies like Chevron and Kellog Brown and Root make record BILLIONS. Do you know how many Wendy's or Subways there are in the middle east now versus 10 yeard ago? check it out for yourself. Do your own homework. Research, research, research.
Don't ever talk bad about those boys over there either. They believe in their hearts that they are protecting the farm from terrorists. Maybe because that's what Fox News and CNN have been telling them. I was in gun battles or missions that were on CNN and Fox. Guess what? You will never believe this...they both told their own version. a version that somehow seemed to parallel their political/corporate ties. God Bless America. Support the troops. All that. just let our sons and daughters, our moms and dads come back home. Screw oil, buy bio-diesel if you really want to support the troops while saving the American economy and the environment. Yeah, right. Next week you'll still be standing at the pump feeding the machine of war with your ever-so-convenient paypass or whatever. Out.
I'm a little dismayed: I hadn't meant that to be a diatribe, I wasn't angry when I wrote it, and every single question was an honest one. But your response was downright nasty.
I really wanted to know: how does a citizen express displeasure with a policy, once the voting is over?
Do what ever you can. Do something. It seems like maybe you're doing it, just by creating discussion. The last thing I ever want to see is a war that we ALL agree on. When we engage in any task that has such a huge effect on human life, there should always be someone asking "...are you sure this is right?"
And if you don't think its right, you're obligated to shout it form the rooftops.
Members of the armed forces are dealing with the most *appalling* violence, but we can't ask that this country put an end to it because it might lead to hurt feelings...?!?
I should have considered the very real ramifications of joining an organization whose business is killing. Alot of kids join for vocational training or college money. If you are foolish enough to join the military for those reasons without considering the consequences then you may find yourself dealing with a lot of psychological and personal issues. It sucks to join the military for college tuition only to find to get your college money you had to kill other human beings in some brutal and gruesome way, while your comrades kill and die by your side.
There is such a thing as taking personal responsability for your actions. Even if you were unable to predict the outcome of your decision making.
I joined to be a Marine. I thought about the life and death thing alot. But I never knew. I never REALLY knew. Not until I experienced it. Even now I don't know if I would have chosen differently.
I hope the things I say about the war don't hurt our veterans. But I have an obligation to my country, my family, and myself to tell the truth. I fought for the American way of life. In theory, this also includes freedom of speech.
that sounds like bullshit, got a link to the study?
There's another study that you should know about: it's pretty big, and has participants in almost every country on the globe. It's a longitudinal study, as well. Governments have been super cooperative, too, from King George, to Louis XIV, to Pinochet, on and on and on. Basically, it's proven that an informed and vocal populace is, like, really important to the health of a nation, no matter what views are being expressed. It's also given us plenty of evidence that a very popular--and effective--method of quieting down troublesome citizens is to explain to them that the integrity of the nation depends on them shutting up. You know, like "Hey Colonials, don't you revere your British sovereign? Don't you think that this is a really inconvenient and dangerous time to start doing something as silly as refusing to pay your taxes? I mean, the survival of the Crown is at stake!" Or "Come on, my fellow Germans, these are dangerous times! And they require that we get our hands a little dirty! We're under assault by a group that has NO NATION, NO BORDERS, and they insinuate themselves into every aspect of our lives, even through intermarriage and lax immigration laws! Under normal circumstances, of COURSE we wouldn't conduct an unsanctioned invasion of Poland, or use stress positions on those pesky Resistance members, but the survival of the Fatherland is at stake!"
I don't CARE if those examples don't measure up to the present day situation, in your mind. Principles aren't always convenient! Democracy is messy! Haven't I heard that somewhere before?
Public opinion will help shape the policies that lead to a stable Iraq, and without vocal disagreement about those policies, the current failed policies will continue. Whispering in your congressperson's ear will do nothing. This "go-it-alone" (don't give me that crap about coalition) policy put forth by Bush/McCain/et al. cannot succeed without HUGE U.S. casualties for an undetermined length of time. Effecting change to that policy is supporting the troops.
And, had we focused our efforts on Afghanistan, Al-qaeda wouldn't be in Iraq now.
We are in Iraq for oil. We are in Afghanistan for the natural gas pipeline. Make not mistake. Anybody here ever heard of Darfur? That real terror.
There aren't enough "terrorists" in the world to cause the damage that politicians have. Do you think that terrorists have the power to strip you of your constitutional rights? Never. But the power-hungry petroleum and defense interests that are making record-breaking profits while our country slides into a recession (or "slow down" as Bush called it) can easily (lobbying) strip you of your rights, as you rally behind "the cause" to destroy our unseen enemies. The Patriot Act has done more damage to our country than all the terrorists in the world ever could. You can quote me on that.
And most people "don't even know what the hell an Al Queda is". There are hundreds of real terrorist groups out there. Al Queda is one of them. But to blame every security issue on Al Queda is just rediculous. AL Queda was trained by the CIA to fight the Russians when they tried to seize the natural gas in Afghanistan.
I could go on forever so I'll spare you, but the point is that Washington is using Al Qaeda as an excuse to fleece the nation. Check the price of gas and the potroleum companies' tickers. You are paying at the pump, while your servicemembers pay in blood. Get a grip. Screw everybody's "feelings." Even mine. Kelson's right about that one.
Doing what's right is hard... in so many ways.
Iraq will eventually stabilize just like Vietnam. With or without us.
* Gas prices in western europe are almost exactly twice what they are here--not 3x. And they are paying that much because european governments have high gas taxes, not because of some sort of karmic retribution caused by not supporting the war.
* Just because people disagree with you, and do it vociferously on a website, doesn't mean that all of our arguments fall apart. The fact is, you are still here telling us to keep our mouths shut, just like every other conservative. Free speech isn't some luxury that we can only enjoy when we aren't in a conflict.
* You want us to think about what we say? We do. But it says something that you think that the terrorists are paying waaaaaay more attention to us than the US government is.
* As for "monopolizing the camel industry": you're all class, Piet. Why don't you extend some of that consideration that you save for the troops to the countries that are being overrun?
* Is Afghanastan a worthy war? In my opinion, it made a hell of a lot of sense to go after bin Laden. Remember him? If some Taliban were crushed in the process, I didn't shed a tear. It's a completely different country, with completely different political considerations, and a completely different rationale for military action. All those countries with camels are different, you know.
The intelligence capabilites that our country posesses are far beyond your wildest imagination.
I think that a positive aspect of the war is the effect it will have on Iraqi society. They will experience more freedom. I know this for a fact. I have seen it in action.
People have always ranted about removing Isreal. Isreal is mighty military force in and of itself, well respected in the military community for their superior tactics and real-world successes.
"...European countries are paying 3 times what we pay here..." So what.
Saudi's are paying $0.60-$0.70 a gallon!!!!!
They're killing eahcother in Iraq because that's what you do in a CIVIL WAR.
Americans have almost no knowledge whatsoever of the tribal factions in iraq because the media proudly proclaims all the enemy to be Al Queda. Do you know the difference between a contracted insurgent and a mujahadeen?
I can tell the difference by the shoes they wear and the weapons and equipment I strip off their dead bodies. I can tell the difference by the types of tactics and military maneuvers they attempt. By the kind of fighting they engage in.
You can tell by the news reports that are wholly inaccurate anyways.
I respect your opinion and I'm glad you're sounding off. To have this discussion is a patriotic act. So you're doing your part.
The truth of the sitiuation is that there will continue to be bloodshed in Iraq, probably for a thousand years. The reasons for fighting right now, though are to get a piece of the Iraq pie. Use your head. If they don't fight for it now and win a piece, they will be mucled out later, and the tribe itself will suffer economically and will become victim to more powerful tribes, who fought harder or bought more weapons or hired more Syrian contractors.
By the way, conspiracy is as old as the concept of government itself. If you don't believe governments are well versedin the ancient art of conspiracy then you know nothing about what a government is. Of course you've probably never worked as an tasctical operator going into somoene's house in the middle of the night to snatch them out of their sleep and make them disappear, so its probably all fiction to you.
I love and respect our troops in a deep way. I feel their pain. We need to bring them home. They are good, honorable men and women who will always give their all to protect and defend our country. They fight wherever Americans asks them to. Shame on America for sending them somewhere without knowing first what was really going on.
A carriage return is not just a place to turn in your horse-drawn cart. Try one sometime.
Bush: Upsurge in Violence a 'Defining Moment' for Iraq
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-03-28-voa52...
So now "surge" has been replaced by "upsurge." None of this means the U.S. won't wait it out, of course--for 100 years if necessary, says John McCain. The question is only, "At what price?"
The Markets...geez. The entire US machine called America is losing its value.
The whole darned thing is slipping down the slope while politicians huff and puff and bluff. Soon the dollar won't be worth a thing, and foreign interests will have bought us all up, company by company, acre by acre. Maybe then someone will consider this more than a "slowdown." Chasing a made-up enemy called terrorism is leaving us open to the only kind of attack that could really hurt us. An economic attack. They will buy us up and buy us out, all while the eyes of America stare intently at Fox or CNN telling us the danger is in the Middle East.
Sure, there IS danger there. But the real threat is the one that comes silently.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/0...
Are Iraqi Insurgents Emboldened by Antiwar Reporting?
Economists say their study, with caveats, finds some linkages
By Alex Kingsbury
Posted March 12, 2008
Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq? The short answer, according to a pair of Harvard economists, is yes.
In a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the authors are quick to point out numerous caveats to their findings, based on data from mid-2003 through late 2007.
Yet, their results show that insurgent groups are not devoid of reason and unresponsive to outside pressures and stimuli. "It shows that the various insurgent groups do respond to incentives and shows that a successful counter insurgency strategy should take that reality into account," says one of the paper's coauthors, Jonathan Monten, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
The paper "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect in Iraq? Evidence From the Insurgency in Iraq" concludes the following:
In the short term, there is a small but measurable cost to open public debate in the form of higher attacks against Iraqi and American targets.
In periods immediately after a spike in "antiresolve" statements in the American media, the level of insurgent attacks increases between 7 and 10 percent.
Insurgent organizations are strategic actors, meaning that whatever their motivations, religious or ideological, they will respond to incentives and disincentives.
Interesting debate glad most of it has been above the belt with only a few salacious comments that are unwarranted but understandable in the heat of the arguments.
Doh. Violated Godwin's law again... Dammit!
lbrez
go back and read my comment, i never said MY life had been ruined, i said the country had been ruined by 8 years of republican rule but i think you knew that. if you want me to list the things the republicans have ruined in the last 8 years i'll be happy to, lets start with the value of the dollar and move on from there. give it up dittohead you'll lose this one.
gas prices soaring (remember bush saying he would "jawbone" the saudis?)
a major american city destroyed, remains destroyed years later.
food prices soaring
food safety an issue (due to the repub penchant for letting businesses regulate themselves in return for campaign contributions)
4000 dead soldiers
unemployment way up
rule of law ignored by white house
i could go on if necessary
the country lied into an unecessary and probably illegal war
bush administration spying on americans BEFORE 9/11
on the brink of a recession if not a depression (again due to the republican "free market" penchant)
healthcare costs soaring if not completely unavailable for some.
international position severely degraded due to cowboy diplomacy and the "bush doctrine"
again i could continue
ps rez
i "denigrate" religion not "denigrade" i dont think thats actually a word.
You are absolutely correct. The country is an absolute mess. The Bush administration has wrecked it. I voted for Bush so you can blame me, too.
I believed the crap they spewed. But after going serving this administration I can tell you firsthand, its all manipulation of information, propaganda, and just plain lies. But so what?
Bush's friends and business associates will have made off with hundreds of billions. Enough to ensure security for their bloodlines for hundreds of years.
You only have to watch a little TV to see what people will do for a few thousand dollars.
Imagine what these crooked f!$%ers will do for billions.
If we continue on this path we will be made vulnerable to a hostile takeover.
We will be financially unable to defend ourselves. We will be forced to borrow from the Federal Reserve Bank, again. The FRB (private parties) will "own" us all over again. Then we will be forced to pay extra taxes to them just like we do now (IRS).
Maybe we should start shooting them wherever they are instead of using
fire control discipline.
It seems just as silly to me to suggest we attempt to restrict our own freedom of speech.
Free speech is one of the most powerful weapons man wields.
My opinion: We shouldn't crush free speech, just realize some of it does endanger our military, and know the Terrorists have internet, and may have even read what we've written. Interesting paradox, one of the very rights our militray fights to protect, actually endangers them.
Andy, Your jokes are pitiful, and your nasty sarcasm is very telling. I met that man (he's Indian) I referred to in Post 14 a few weeks ago. He is a missionary in a Muslim country. He was the one that told me that the purposeful infilitration of Muslims into America IS WIDELY KNOWN. He said we should be wary of the hidden agenda of Islam much like the 911 plot. It is a religious goal to kill the Infidels, WE ARE the infidels. Another source - a Lebanese woman, named Brigette Gabriel who immigrated to the US in '89. She is journalist, former middle east news anchor, author, and public speaker. She operates a 501(C)3 called "American Congress for Truth". He latest book is: "Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America". She lived it, researched it beyond any of us on this blog. She quotes frightening data from the CIA but I'm sure you would not believe the CIA either.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
diane
a study done by "acouple of harvard ecomomists" for the nber is NOT a harvard study, its an nber study. what does the national board of economic reporting doing a study on this anyways? im sure if i looked into the org it would be full of war supporting right wingers who paid to get this study done so pro war people lke you could point to in an attempt to shut people up.
its a free country, if you want to live in fear, wetting your bed about the "muslim agenda" i wont stop you. i have better things to o than participate in the new cold war.
If any of you had even one conversation with Brigitte Gabriel that I mentioned in Post 59 the lightbulb would go on. I don't live in fear, she did for all of her childhood, barely escaped being beheaded at 13. She has studied, reported, written and spoken of it. She has a multitude of links and references to support her research, data, etc. on her website. www.americancongressfortruth.com
Why don't you spend some time reading, researching what she has to say. If any of you "we're not worried" bunch have the credentials to dispute what she reports, then make an intelligent argument, not just irrelevant points and sarcastic, caustic remarks.
A lot has been said about fear, and being pro-war. Just because someone is aware of a potential threat, doesn't mean they are in fear, just prepared. I am not pro-war. I hate it, I wish it wasn't necessary... ever. But it is. You arm chair quarter backs should not shut up, just take responsibility for what your complaints and protests could do.
--actually, he was joking about your theory that sex-crazed, murderous arabs are coming to impregnate our women with mini-terrorists.
"then make an intelligent argument, not just irrelevant points and sarcastic, caustic remarks."
--we've made a lot of them. We don't get much in the way of a response, other than pronouncements that you are exiting the conversation once and for all.
"A lot has been said about fear, and being pro-war. Just because someone is aware of a potential threat, doesn't mean they are in fear, just prepared."
--find me the place where we said anything contradicting this.
"You arm chair quarter backs should not shut up, just take responsibility for what your complaints and protests could do."
--hate to break it to you, Diane, but you are every bit the armchair quarterback yourself. Have you been involved in the fighting? No, of course not: you've just had some conversations with people who were. So have we.
And for Christ's sake, how many times do we have to explain to you that our complaints and protests are, for us, A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE? Do I think that you are a war-mongerer? A murderer? Absolutely not, but that doesn't mean that I don't feel that disagreeing with you may actually save some lives. And by the way, that doesn't make me a friend of the insurgents.
I recommend rereading comment #37.
"...you cannot trust having a Muslim in office. When he has to make a decision to either be loyal to the United States or be loyal to Islam."
They were saying the same thing about JFK and the Pope. There are rational fears and irrational fears. There will, no doubt, be more horrific violent attacks. But ridiculous prejudices do not contribute to anything except convenient stereotypes and mob mentality...
Sorry, Diane, no jokes and sarcasm this time. Your narrow world view is just so sad.
Since Saddam was a Sunni, the Sunni's had all the priveliges in that country. The shites were treated badly. This rift has always been there, but today Sunnis are working with Shites and Vice a versa. Of course there was alot of violence perpetrated by both groups earlier but this really was spured on by the Al Qaeda by blowing up the shite mosque. Today Maliki is authorizing the iraq troops to take on Sadr's fighters in Basra. Why I bring this up is because Sadr is a shite and so is Maliki. Sadr was in iran in exile for awhile and Maliki met up with the iranian President, but he is willing to take on these terrorist even though they are shite. That is good news. Until next time, dont forget to Pray for troops.
The extraordinary executive power that this administration claims to hold has thrashed any thoughts that they are protecting us from an external threat and has shown that they are using it for political expediency.
We have not won, we have lost. True conservatives understand this, but fear-based, mob mentality fascists are OK with losing their rights when they know the knock on the door, the tapped phone call, or the monitored personal records won't be theirs. For now.
So Rachel- I was offended that Kelson would use slaves who were taken against their will, treated worse than cattle in comparison to the radical Muslims who come here WILLINGLY. I just HAVE to ask one last question. Why would that missionary lie to me, and why was it corraborated from other independant sources if it is so outrageous? And how did we not see 911 coming? Why did we not believe it was possible they could be so cunning, to use our own system of trust to run their agenda of hate? Or do you not believe they hate us.
BTW Andy- No Catholics under the direction of the Pope or JFK ever blew up a building or high jacked planes to fly into any symbol of commerce or government. I've never heard any Pope instruct Catholics to kill Americans as a way to get to heaven. Brigette Gabriel has more credibility than any of you. You can not dispute her experience, her courage (face to face) and her education. If you want to stay misinformed hating your government, with your rose colored glasses on about Islam--go ahead. MY worldview is quite optimistic if the right people (congress and president) who realize who our acutally enemies are and I trust our Military. I dislike how Bush handled many things, it's embarrassing the misinformation he AND CONGRESS based their decisions on. Of course we can have perfect hindsight to see the mistakes. The truth is we have to leave that Iraq stable.
I spent the yesterday showing appreciation to 700+ young Marines with a huge party. As always, they were polite, strong, and courageous. That's how I like to spend my time, off-setting the anti war folks by encouraging them. They hear it and have told us, that when people don't support the mission they are fighting for, it feels like they aren't supporting them. That says it all! All the negativity effects them too. I hope you would agree, they don't deserve that.
One high ranking officer "in the know" who has read this blog told us that you people have no idea what you're talking about. That you are nieve and mis-informed. Who should I believe; him and Brigette Gabriel who have lived it, or you spellling champs who get your info second hand. Not a tough choice.
look no further than any of the many crusades to find popes telling their followers to kill in the name of their "god" as for your "high ranking officer reading this blog" comment, i call bullshit. since you say he is reading this perhaps (if he actually exists) he will comment on here to back you up. but i doubt it. brigitte gabriel is a racist and your hero worship of her doesnt do anything to change my earlier assessment of you.
Listen, Diane, I never said that your missionary friend was lying. I am saying that I'm not sure that I agree with her assessment. I don't think that anyone can claim to understand the aims of an entire culture, or even a subculture of that culture, because even subcultures (like islamic radicals) are made up of countless individuals who have different aims and opinions and motivations (like the guys who blow themselves up because it means that their starving parents will get a stipend as a reward.)
I am also highly suspicious of any argument that encourages people to be afraid of dark men coming over here and taking our women. Do I *really* need to explain why that is?
And again, you keep putting up this crap about how people with only second-hand knowledge should keep their mouths shut. Well, your knowledge is second-hand as well. The fact is that I've talked to plenty of vets. PLENTY. And MY vets disagree with YOUR vets. Deal with it. Are those vets that are anti-war guilty of sedition?
Another thing, Piet: I was an infant at the tail end of the vietnam war. I didn't spit on anyone. I didn't call anyone a baby-killer. I didn't refuse to hire vietnam vets. I was drooling on my pacifier and eating pureed carrots. So don't presume to lecture me about what I should have learned or what I (or people like me) might have done in 1970.
None of you--NONE OF YOU--have chosen to answer the questions that I have posed again and again, and I'm not posting until they are answered: WHAT DO YOU DO IF YOU FEEL THAT THE WAR IS WRONG? WHAT DO YOU DO IF IT IS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE? AREN'T I OBLIGATED TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST WHAT I SEE AS UNNECESSARY DEATH?
I ask you to consider that your attitude grants ridiculous power to governments: the minute they enter a war, all criticism is immoral, all dissent is unpatriotic. When things blew up in Somalia you didn't hear a single Republican saying, "Don't upset the troops!" They said, "THE MISSION IS STUPID, bring them home, for Christ's sake!" Why is that? Were all those senators and congresspeople anti-military?
So again: If I were a japanese citizen after pearl harbor should I support the emperor without question? If I'm a German citizen am I required to cheer for Hitler? If I was born in Virginia am I morally obligated to fight for Jeff Davis?
I pray that one of you guys will stop spouting feel-good platitudes and answer those questions. Until then, I can only assume that you *can't* answer them.
words do mean things and that what may be said can embolden the enemy must have been misinterpret as you are not allowed to speak. Most of the people that I try to talk to about the iraq war couldn't care less or have no idea. At times it makes me feel frustrated too, but my head wont explode there is to much of that going on in iraq by those we are fighting. I am really glad that this website is available. It gives me the chance to voice my feelings. You talked about japan, Germany and the south, if you would have spoken up against all those evil empires and govts. I guarantee your voice would have been silenced Aren't you glad we live in the USA. One of the key things that the enemy wants us to do is to lose heart and for our leaders to say things that denigrate the troops and the mission. John kerry is an example of someone with a loose tongue,and some more examples Harry reid and John Murtha. Our troops are not stupid and they do not go into houses and kill anyone they desire or proclaim the war has been lost, even as our brave troops are still over there fighting. All these comments have embolden the enemy! for all of us who support the troops we should make sure they are not forgotten. Lnc. Cpl Jason Dunham should be a house hold name not Brittney Spears. Has any one heard of Rafael Peralta, how about Danny Dietz, Peter Wagler, Katy Soensken, Louis Qualls, Jeff Starr, John House, Steven Mc Gowan, Amy Duerksen
Rodney Jones, Daniel Noble, Mike hook, Jason Chappel, do I need to go on? For those who are anti-war would you discourage young people to go into the arm forces. These guys I met at Camp Pendleton were so polite and helpful and intense. Alot of them had no idea want they wanted but they found direction in the marines. Even though they were much younger than I am I look up to them. Go on the internet and find out about these fallen heroes, did you know that Steven McGowan had a program that he gathered beanie babies from back home and distributed them to iraq kids. Check it out!