RealGun
Member
ghost squire said:
In any case, I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of Americans denouncing such a form of disunity in our wartime leadership, especially when the tone is blatantly partisan.
Cheney: War critics "dishonest" & "reprehensible".
- Thread starter Ezekiel
- Start date
- Status
In any case, I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of Americans denouncing such a form of disunity in our wartime leadership, especially when the tone is blatantly partisan.
Lone_Gunman
Member
The right to protest is not predicated on a need for any particular knowledge.
The majority of Americans have not been to Iraq, nor do they need to have been to protest. A majority are beginning to see the folly our war there.
In 30 yrs, the Iraq war will be judged to have been just as useless as Viet Nam.
The majority of Americans have not been to Iraq, nor do they need to have been to protest. A majority are beginning to see the folly our war there.
In 30 yrs, the Iraq war will be judged to have been just as useless as Viet Nam.
Such sentiments crashed in the jungles of Southeast Asia. And I suppose you could think that US foreign policy is aimed at promoting "democracy" only if you ignore the historical record. The US has violently overthrown elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, Laos, Chile, and numerous other countries; armed and directed death squads; fomented unnecessary civil wars; armed and supported genocidal dictatorial regimes.
During the 1990s the US ally Turkey was waging war against its Kurdish population with the support of the US gov, and yet it was barely reported in the US media.
Right now Colombia is the worst violator of human rights in the Western Hemisphere, and it is also one of the largest recipients of US aid. Studies by Lars Schoultz and Edward Herman show that US foreign aid tends to flow to governments with the worst human rights records.
Spare me the cant about US committment to "freedom," "democracy," "human rights."
M-Rex writes regarding draft dodgers:
Wrong. Al Gore enlisted in the US Army on Aug. 7, 1969, and carried a rifle in Vietnam.
You may sit down now, Rex.
The strategic reasons for going to war are classified?
What do you think of the men who helped the Saddam's Ba'ath party come to power? Former CIA officer Roger Morris said that the 1963 coup was a US gov operation. See Roger Morris. "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making," New York Times, 14 March 2003.
What do you think of men who helped Saddam stay in power? The US, UK and France all assisted Saddam's regime with credits, arms, intelligence, etc.
Junyo writes:
Well guess what! The US never receved UN authorization to invade and occupy Iraq.
See Israeli invasion of Lebanon, 1982. Read Fateful Triangle, Updated Edition : The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians by Noam Chomsky.
Jeff asked:
There was no draft when I turned 18, but there was draft registration. I registered for the draft in accordance with the law. Should I have volunteered? Part of me wishes that I had just so I would have gotten greater insight and understanding of the military ethos. At the time, however, I had strong philosophical disagreements with the US gov about its involvement in the areas where we were most likely to invade (Central America).
One thing I did NOT do: advocate for war while avoiding military service myself, and therein lies the difference between Dick Cheney and me.
Did you see that I specifically referenced and posted links to declassified government documents?
To claim that Bush lied one must believe that Bush had a passing familiarity with the truth. I kinda doubt that he did. He prolly believes whatever is convenient for him to believe. What do you call it when you believe your own lies? Nonetheless, I think that a culture of dishonesty pervades the White House. (What else is new?)
I spent a few minutes using Google.
Every once in a while I write a letter a reporter or editor criticizing their coverage of Second Amendment issue. Sometimes I even post a copy of the letter here. The same people who denounce me as a "leftist" will give me high-5s for my writings on gun issues. Hey, I'm the same person, OK? When I post my thoughts at DemocraticUnderground, I've gotten denounced as a racist, a rightwinger, a heartless capitalist, blah blah blah....mirror image of what the lazy ideologues here do, except with one very big difference. The mods here at The High Road have never cancelled my account for being too strident - just locked a few threads here and there.
More ad hominem from the Bush personality cult in lieu of actual reasoned argument.
Democrats aren't much of an opposition. Ron Paul has had a truthful, principled and consistent stance over the years. I wish he were president.
We attacked Germany after Germany declared war on us.
Wrong. Bush released the parts of the National Intelligence Estimates that supported his case while he held back the parts of the NIEs that cast doubt on the parts that were released. And that's dishonest.
We must follow our leaders blindly if we are to remain a free people! Sieg Heil!
Yeah, that was back in the 1980s when he was still an ally of the US government. We're talking about 2001. (Here's your sign.)
Camp David writes:
Pull over, buddy, fact police. See Article II, Section 3, Clause 3.
Further reading: The Iraq War Reader : History, Documents, Opinions. I'm about half way through this book, and it's a must-read. Chapters written by Ann Coulter, Christopher Hitchens, George H. W. Bush, Noam Chomsky, and numerous other across the spectrum.
MrTuffPaws
Member
Javafiend, you are awesome. Thank you for taking the time to tell the truth to those that either don't know, or refuse it.
Old Dog
Member
Well, Javafiend's "version" of the truth ... It's quite one thing to cut-and-paste little factoids from one's internet research, quite another thing to actually make an argument without having to resort to little swipes at other forum members such as "here's your sign," (boy, that's really the high road) and these two jewels:
and
Now, what does this have to do with the war in Iraq?
Javafiend, put your statement into context. Yeah, we've given Columbia large amounts of aid, specifically for counter-narcotics. If you're gonna talk about foreign aid, better include ALL the aid the U.S. doles out, in the form of grants, loans, economic aid, food aid, Peace Corps, etc.
Too good to pass up ... yeah, Vietnam all right; where he was a non-combatant journalist who, by his own account: "Much of his time was spent writing press releases, playing basketball, hitchhiking to Saigon to visit an Army buddy and occasionally, Gore says, smoking marijuana."
Well, still trying to find the "facts" in this statement ... (By the way, "prolly?" More academic slang, I gather)
shermacman
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,751
I have one word for the resident moonbats:
Noam Chomsky
That is not a reference any more than quoting the NYT editorial page. You are quoting propaganda in your propaganda.
Noam Chomsky
That is not a reference any more than quoting the NYT editorial page. You are quoting propaganda in your propaganda.
coylh
Member
What's a moonbat?
I don't know much about Noam Chomsky except for a vague sense that he's a cunning ling... you know... nevermind. But I did hear him give a couple lectures on the radio and he seems like a smart fellow.
I don't know much about Noam Chomsky except for a vague sense that he's a cunning ling... you know... nevermind. But I did hear him give a couple lectures on the radio and he seems like a smart fellow.
CAnnoneer
Member
People like Coultier and Chomski make their money and support their careers by writing what their respective readerships want to see. Thus neither are of any significant documentary value.
I trust the accounts of Clarke and O'Neil far more because
1) they were "there"
2) they are out of the game and thus have nothing further to gain/lose beyond what we do.
Both accounts produce a chilling portrait of Bush & Assorted Toadies Inc. I have yet to see any post by Bush supporters in this thread that satisfactorily explain away both accounts.
I trust the accounts of Clarke and O'Neil far more because
1) they were "there"
2) they are out of the game and thus have nothing further to gain/lose beyond what we do.
Both accounts produce a chilling portrait of Bush & Assorted Toadies Inc. I have yet to see any post by Bush supporters in this thread that satisfactorily explain away both accounts.
chromsky-------------Sorry it makes me disbelieve anything you minght say. To me he is an educated,nut professor. In real life I think he claims he is an anarchist libertarian or some such monster nonsense. Never has liked a damn thing about the USA except becoming rich(due to capitalism which he hates) writing weird left wing drible and spreading it to the gulliable.(think of an older but more educated cult figure like Michael Moore) I will give you credit for being duly indoctrinated by the finest. Chromsky????????? -----I don't know if I should scream or laugh. I would also add he is a cult leader kinda like Medina Bengiman(sp) or Larouche.
macavada
Member
I haven't read Clarke's book yet, but I definitely agree with your assessment of O'Neil's account. I just wish he had gone with an unknown ghost writer instead of Suskind. While the facts are all accurate, as O'Neil approved all that was printed, Suskind's background and editorial slant somewhat detract from the independence of the story. However, I don't think that in itself is enough to undermine the credibility of O'Neil's story. By the way, I like Suskind's editorial writing.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
javafiend, sorry I didn't label my mild sarcasm. 
One problem I have with your relating of admitted facts (well, generally I'll accept your version) is that there seems to be no understanding of the WHY of actions taken by such as the CIA or other US Government entities. It's as though there were no logical reasons.
There's no context, no "people factor", which is an ongoing problem with many threads such as this one. No "big picture" understanding of the times in which the various policies were put into place that led to the actions taken.
At my age, a lot of what folks think of as "history" is merely a sequence of events during my lifetime, and I sometimes feel like Elmer Keith: "Hell, I was there." I generally see things somewhat differently, which is the curse of a halfway decent memory.
, Art
One problem I have with your relating of admitted facts (well, generally I'll accept your version) is that there seems to be no understanding of the WHY of actions taken by such as the CIA or other US Government entities. It's as though there were no logical reasons.
There's no context, no "people factor", which is an ongoing problem with many threads such as this one. No "big picture" understanding of the times in which the various policies were put into place that led to the actions taken.
At my age, a lot of what folks think of as "history" is merely a sequence of events during my lifetime, and I sometimes feel like Elmer Keith: "Hell, I was there." I generally see things somewhat differently, which is the curse of a halfway decent memory.
, ArtM-Rex
member
You may want to check your facts, Mr. Wizard. Al Gore carried a note pad for 5 months, then received a mysterious 'early out'.
He did, in fact, enlist on August 07, 1969. Then he sat at Fort Rucker, Alabama doing who knows what until January 8, 1971, when he arrived in Vietnam to write newspaper articles. He was discharged on May 24, 1971. Granted, though...he did serve. Mea culpa.
- The Washington Times National Weekly Edition Nov. 28 - Dec. 4, 1994
So, with much respect, you may roll up your patronizing, pseudo-intellectual attitude and cram it in the posterior orafice of your choice.
macavada said:
I just finished "Against All Enemies." It's a pretty absorbing read, except for the final chapter. That gets a little too much into the details of bureaucracy for my taste... Kind of like reading an org chart, or stereo instructions.
But his description of operations undertaken during the Clinton years against al-Queda in general and Bin Laden in particular are fascinating. The FBI, and Louis Freeh in particular, come off looking like incompentent buffoons much of the time. I also was fascinated by the idea that Clinton wanted to send spec-ops teams into the camps in Afganistan. General Shelton , JCS, shot the idea down.
If you want a clear, concise, non-tin-foil-hat account of the whole arc leading up to 9/11 and the war in Iraq, give it a read. Even if you agree with Bush. Even if you despise Clinton, as many here do.
Back on topic, I'll record a vote as saying that there is NO time, war or otherwise, that an American citizen's disagreement with his government is treason, or should be supressed. Ever. Under any circumstances. That way lies fascism.
--Shannon
Cosmoline
Member
I have no love for GW's administration, but now that we are in we have to stay in. No choice. The enemy is killing people in order to cause discontent and to the extent people call for a pullout, they are doing exactly what the enemy wants. The politicos who now oppose the war had their chance to stop it before it started, but instead they acted like lemmings and gave a nearly unanimous thumbs up. Too late now.
As to whether we must stay, now that we're there... I'm not sure I buy that argument.
If the predictable results of staying are worse than the predictable results of leaving, you leave. Pretty simple.
If it's the other way 'round, you stay. Also pretty simple.
Where it gets sticky is if the results of leaving and of staying are equally bad, but different in detail. What do you do then?
A working definition of "victory" in this war would be nice, too.
Is an elected Iraqi government victory? What about the form of that government, and what about it's policies?
If there is a freely elected, Shia-dominated, anti-American, pro-Iranian Sharia theocracy, is that victory? I don't think so, not from our perspective at least.
Its clear that the pre-war fantasies of the Project for the New American Century are never going to happen. Anybody care to lay odds on an Iraqi-exile dominated government that is pro-American, grants us permanent land bases, pulls Iraq out of OPEC, and signs exclusive oil deals with us? So if that is still the definition of victory, we've already lost.
What about three independent states, divided up by an ethnic / religious war? This is one of the most frequent arguments for our staying in. I figure, if there's gonna be a civil war, and it's not unlikely, given the history of the place, there's gonna be one. I, for one, don't care to see my brothers and sisters who still wear the uniform caught in the middle of it.
It's all water over the dam now, because we're there until 2009 at the least, but its looking more and more like we should have "declared victory and gone home" after the capture of Saddam and the final reports of the ISG. "We did what we came to do, and now it's on your shoulders, Iraq. Whatever government you come up with, you can come to us and ask for help rebuilding your country, and we'll give it." That wouldn't have been "cut and run," and we could have gotten the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, etc. in on the deal.
I fear that it may be too late for such a solution now.
--Shannon
If the predictable results of staying are worse than the predictable results of leaving, you leave. Pretty simple.
If it's the other way 'round, you stay. Also pretty simple.
Where it gets sticky is if the results of leaving and of staying are equally bad, but different in detail. What do you do then?
A working definition of "victory" in this war would be nice, too.
Is an elected Iraqi government victory? What about the form of that government, and what about it's policies?
If there is a freely elected, Shia-dominated, anti-American, pro-Iranian Sharia theocracy, is that victory? I don't think so, not from our perspective at least.
Its clear that the pre-war fantasies of the Project for the New American Century are never going to happen. Anybody care to lay odds on an Iraqi-exile dominated government that is pro-American, grants us permanent land bases, pulls Iraq out of OPEC, and signs exclusive oil deals with us? So if that is still the definition of victory, we've already lost.
What about three independent states, divided up by an ethnic / religious war? This is one of the most frequent arguments for our staying in. I figure, if there's gonna be a civil war, and it's not unlikely, given the history of the place, there's gonna be one. I, for one, don't care to see my brothers and sisters who still wear the uniform caught in the middle of it.
It's all water over the dam now, because we're there until 2009 at the least, but its looking more and more like we should have "declared victory and gone home" after the capture of Saddam and the final reports of the ISG. "We did what we came to do, and now it's on your shoulders, Iraq. Whatever government you come up with, you can come to us and ask for help rebuilding your country, and we'll give it." That wouldn't have been "cut and run," and we could have gotten the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, etc. in on the deal.
I fear that it may be too late for such a solution now.
--Shannon
To my knowledge the interests of the USA on an international level has never been human rights or democracy for all. Those are cunning little bits of disinformation released to mislead the gullible. Anybody who seriously believes (apparently quite a few) those are core values of our foreign policy probably still believes in the tooth fairy.
rock jock
Member
How do you know Vietnam was useless? Unless you can go back in time and evaluate all the permutations of of the possible outcomes from our involvement/non-involvement, you really have no idea. Iraq makes that case even more so. You cannot possibly predict what would events have happened in the Middle East and what effect those events would have had on the world if we had not taken out Saddam.
NorthernExtreme
Member
Support: 2+2=4
Anti: 2+2=5
Support: No it does not = 5, it =4
Anti: It does not=4 or 5, it =3.76
Support: No it doesn't = 3.76 either, it =4
Anti: If it doesn't = 3.76 it must equil 946,765.346.32
Support: 2+2 has always = 4, always has, always will.
Anti: I'm tired if you narrow minded jerks telling me what to think. I said it's 17.
I give up!! I guess if a person is so JADED against anything that isn't a DEM position (at the time) there is simply no helping them. I guess we'll just have to wait till the DEM position turns around to support action in Iraq (again). Then we can argue when it turns against it (again).
Regards,
Anti: 2+2=5
Support: No it does not = 5, it =4
Anti: It does not=4 or 5, it =3.76
Support: No it doesn't = 3.76 either, it =4
Anti: If it doesn't = 3.76 it must equil 946,765.346.32
Support: 2+2 has always = 4, always has, always will.
Anti: I'm tired if you narrow minded jerks telling me what to think. I said it's 17.
I give up!! I guess if a person is so JADED against anything that isn't a DEM position (at the time) there is simply no helping them. I guess we'll just have to wait till the DEM position turns around to support action in Iraq (again). Then we can argue when it turns against it (again).
Regards,
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
tube_ee, a working definition of victory is a lead-pipe cinch: An Iraq which doesn't need our troops to deal with those called "insurgents". That is, a viable police infrastructure. And, enough of a military to discourage "adventurism" by the Iranis.
The results of our levaing before such a system is in place have been discussed at length: Briefly, it would encourage such as Al Qaida in the belief that we have no will for staying any course. It would be the same sort of psychological boost as bin Laden publicly stated resulted from our "running away" from Mogadishu. It would put us back into the view, "Paper Tiger", throughout the middle east--with all the bad results therefrom.
Art
The results of our levaing before such a system is in place have been discussed at length: Briefly, it would encourage such as Al Qaida in the belief that we have no will for staying any course. It would be the same sort of psychological boost as bin Laden publicly stated resulted from our "running away" from Mogadishu. It would put us back into the view, "Paper Tiger", throughout the middle east--with all the bad results therefrom.
Art
Cosmoline
Member
If we leave the terrorists win and we lose. Period. Advocating a pullout is advocating support for the terrorist's primary goal. The more antiwar sentiment comes out at home, the more the terrorists will try to kill people. The war was never about forcing our troops out through combat. They know they don't have a chance of that. Their attacks are all about swaying public opinion. They firmly believe that if the US bleeds enough we will run like cowards. AQ has been yapping along those lines since we left Somalia. They were right about the Euroclowns. Are they right about us?
Art Eatman said:
If that's your definition, then the next question becomes, what is the best way to achieve it?
First, the insurgents / guerillas / partisans / term-du-jour:
1. To the extent that the insurgency is an Iraqi nationalist phenomenon, it is about getting rid of a foreign occupying army. Staying put isn't going to help get rid of those people, and will tend to bring more of them into the fight. Whether it's "for their own good" or not, some are going to fight against foreign troops on Iraqi soil. Such movements have proven notoriously difficult for the occupying power to defeat. So what do we do? Staying in seems more like a merry-go-round to me. We kill a few, a few more come out, repeat forever. It's happened before, it can happen to us.
2. There is a component of the insurgency that is using the general geurilla war to pursue factional ends. Those groups, and the conflicts they arise from, are going to be there regardless of the presence of US troops. This one's a wash, as far as US presence is concerned.
3. There's the "foreign fighters" component. These guys will probably engage America in some theater of another, no matter what we do, so I guess Iraq works as well as anywhere else, for them. For us, well, it's good to kill those guys, but it may not make as much sense if it keeps our guys in the crosshairs of groups 1 and 2.
Iraq / Iran relationships: If Iraq holds together as a single state, it's government and foreign policy will be dominated by Shia muslim parties that have already shown themselves to be quite pro-Iranian. The Kurds won't care much, as long as they get to keep their "Kurdistan" and their oil fields. They'll cut a deal.
If it splits up, the Shia South will go towards Iran even more quickly than the whole state would. So Iran gets something out of this, no matter which way it goes.
Just because Iraq gets a freely-elected, strongly armed government (if it does) doesn't automatically mean that's a good thing from our perspective. If that government becomes a pro-Iranian Sharia theocracy, will it have been worth the cost in American blood and treasure? I'm elvaluating this solely on the basis of US interests (as I see them), and I'd have to say "no." I'm not saying that's what will happen, but you'll have to admit, it's not that unlikely.
--Shannon
RealGun
Member
So, all we are interested in is watching the shock and awe show. Heaven forbid that troops on the ground would be needed. It's amazing that people would expect the current operation to be the quick in and out of Desert Storm.
The current fuss about Congressman Murtha's immediate pullout proposal is really the press making more out of it than it is. I won't have to point out that the press and the Dems are in lockstep, sniffing for any blood in the water. This fuss and its ridiculous concept could serve the purpose of causing people to confront what would realy happen if we left now and what that would mean. To me, it means Osama wins and terrorism works.
The current fuss about Congressman Murtha's immediate pullout proposal is really the press making more out of it than it is. I won't have to point out that the press and the Dems are in lockstep, sniffing for any blood in the water. This fuss and its ridiculous concept could serve the purpose of causing people to confront what would realy happen if we left now and what that would mean. To me, it means Osama wins and terrorism works.
MrTuffPaws
Member
rock jock said:
Is that your argument?
Ezekiel
Member
Is Osama in Iraq? :banghead:
I know, I used this in another thread, but I still like it.
Invading Iraq is like invading my brother's house, after I bloody your nose, on the theory that I "may have some clothes there."
Or, another metaphor:
We've just purchased (invaded?) a drug house down the street because we fear dealers in the neighborhood and it is harming our property value. After owning it for a few months, we find that it is both a money pit and is not positively effecting our status in the community or increasing our safety. (It seems the ringleader spends time at a different house next door.) Do we keep throwing $$$ at it?
To be brutally honest, I could EASILY be wrong here and history could make me look the fool: fine. But a sitting Vice President attempting to quash critics by calling them "dishonest" and "reprehensible" is bunk. Until Darth Cheney removes articles of the Constitution, he hasn't a leg to stand on.
- Status
