Crosshair
Member
How are we doing in Afganistan??
Exploiting The Dead
- Thread starter 280PLUS
- Start date
- Status
ojibweindian
Member
"How are we doing in Afganistan??"
I'd say that, based on the lack of stories out of Afganistan, we're doing quite well.
I'd say that, based on the lack of stories out of Afganistan, we're doing quite well.
Gordon Fink
Member
DirksterG30 said:
Luckily for you, the G. W. Bush administration disagrees.
~G. Fink
DirksterG30
Member
Gordon Fink said:
???????
Gordon Fink
Member
If reporters and commentators started getting brought up on treason charges … things would get very interesting … to say the least.
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
Crosshair
Member
ojibweindian
I'd say that, based on the lack of stories out of Afganistan, we're doing quite well.
Good point.
I'd say that, based on the lack of stories out of Afganistan, we're doing quite well.
Good point.
KriegHund
Member
ojibweindian said:
Thats the most truthfull thing ive heard all year...almost.
As I type this, I have a handful of Marines (OIF casualties) in the recovery room and a whole floorfull 2 floors above me.
I've been to Iraq (counting GW #1) twice with another deployment looming in the next year.
As a Doc, the left's exploitation of the dead and wounded has always infuriated me....these ???????s were all about despising the military but a short decade ago....and now they cry alligator tears and hold "vigils" because they think they can use that emotion to push their agenda on Jane and John average AMerican. The same idiots who organize (I don't deny that there may be some sincere "Usefull Idiots"-as Marx would call them--amongst the leftists) these vigils and die-ins are the same people (at least in spirit) that spat on troops coming home from VN. Every soldier, sailor, and Marine that I've spoken with is not fooled by, and extremely angry at, these people.
The anti-war left is treasonous. If all they were doing was protesting the war, it would be one thing, but they are NOT! They are showing support for the enemy! I'm statiioned near DC, and I've seen protests full of Palistinian and Iraqi flags. I've seen signs about supporting Iraqi "freedom fighters" and suggesting that troops desert, join "the resistance", and frag their officers and NCO's.
Morale and propaganda are very important aspects of modern warfare.
Everytime the media shows these idiots demonstrating "popular support" for the terrorists, the enemy is heartend...perhaps another kid is recruited....and another Marine dies.
Traitors to their country and supporters of those who murder their countrymen.
Damn them all!
I've been to Iraq (counting GW #1) twice with another deployment looming in the next year.
As a Doc, the left's exploitation of the dead and wounded has always infuriated me....these ???????s were all about despising the military but a short decade ago....and now they cry alligator tears and hold "vigils" because they think they can use that emotion to push their agenda on Jane and John average AMerican. The same idiots who organize (I don't deny that there may be some sincere "Usefull Idiots"-as Marx would call them--amongst the leftists) these vigils and die-ins are the same people (at least in spirit) that spat on troops coming home from VN. Every soldier, sailor, and Marine that I've spoken with is not fooled by, and extremely angry at, these people.
The anti-war left is treasonous. If all they were doing was protesting the war, it would be one thing, but they are NOT! They are showing support for the enemy! I'm statiioned near DC, and I've seen protests full of Palistinian and Iraqi flags. I've seen signs about supporting Iraqi "freedom fighters" and suggesting that troops desert, join "the resistance", and frag their officers and NCO's.
Morale and propaganda are very important aspects of modern warfare.
Everytime the media shows these idiots demonstrating "popular support" for the terrorists, the enemy is heartend...perhaps another kid is recruited....and another Marine dies.
Traitors to their country and supporters of those who murder their countrymen.
Damn them all!
Agree Navy Doc. Keep up your morale and those of the heroes you are taking care of. Tell them there are many citizens who REALLY support them. I do and I thank them everyday in a prayer and in person when I come in contact with one or many. I am sure most have been taught something about enemy propaganda. The fact that the left is in bed with the enemy is nothing new. Has been going on for at least a 100 years.
TallPine
Member
Not everyone that opposes the war against Iraq is part of the "Left"
Like Ron Paul, for instance.
Like Ron Paul, for instance.
Ezekiel
Member
Sir, I am going to open myself to great criticism here: but I have respect for you and this board and – thus – will do so.
I have great personal difficulty with ad hoc acceptance of the Marine Corps. Why? Because while they might be trained to “overcome and adapt” in support of their orders, I have yet to see wherein they are asked to consider the quality of said orders. In sum, they are the modern equivalent of “berserkers” set out under the Roman Catholic flag. Their injury and death – if you agree with our government’s cause – are both to be accepted and warranted. In sum, “shut up about it.” (They’re all volunteers.)
If you, as I do, believe that their death and injury is unwarranted, it has nothing to do with their position as Marines, but rather the incredibly disadvantageous and insane position they were placed in: a land war in Asia. (I love The Princess Bride as much as anyone else, but satire comes from truth: 2,000 years worth in this case.)
You want U.S. deaths in Iraq to stop? “I’m with you.”
We leave Iraq.
And your stance is grotesquely narrow, uninitiated and un-American (in my opinion: which I have a Constitutional Right to have).
"Get a grip."
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
And he has a constitutional right to his opinion that the anti-war left is treasonous. He did a fair job of backing up his opinion.Ezekiel said:
I know a number of leftists who are so against the war that they genuinely want the U.S. to be defeated. This isn't a simple difference of politics or philosophy. They consider the U.S. to be the enemy, and would take action against our country if they knew how. Fortunately all they seem capable of is idle talk.
I can certainly see how someone would consider this to be treasonous.
Ezekiel
Member
I am, personally, aware how [to attack our nation physically and academically] and take no action. Why? Because I am not as far off my rocker as those you indicate. In fact, the "verbal slap" against my cheek to recognize another's rights was both well deserved and felt.
I just believe that we (USA) are well outside the box here...
“Treason”, as a moniker, is so far beyond what can be established that anyone who uses the term merely undermines their position.
“Enough said.”
GoRon
Member
Then the faithful opposition whether it be Democrats, Libertarians or whatever better get a message and a plan.
"Bush lied", "chickenhawks are running the war", "it's all about oil" is not a plan, it is petulant whining that is rejected rightly by the voters.
Ezekiel said;
Have you ever served a single day? All members of the American military are trained from day one to consider if an order is a lawful. If it's not a lawful order then it's their duty not to obey it. That said, soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are instruments of policy. Basically, they go where they are told to go and shoot who they are told to shoot within the limits set by the rules of engagement. If an order is lawful then it is obeyed. That is the way it works and it can't possibly work any other way.
The United States Armed Forces do not make national policy. They only carry it out. We have an elected civilian leadership that makes policy. You really wouldn't want it any other way.
I spent almost 29 years of my life defending your right to your opinion. But you have to understand that the media is the terrorists equivalent of our air force. We used to have a policy that politics stopped at the waters edge. But not any longer. The left, and the right for that matter when Clinton took us into the Balkans plays right into the hands of our enemies. If you think attacks aren't planned to get the best coverage you're wrong. The terrorists are very media saavy. Why do you think that large parts of Iraq are relatively safe, but all the action seems to be going on around a couple big population centers? It's because that's where the cameras are. They know they can't defeat us on the ground. Their support among the Iraqi people isn't such that they could control much of the country. They are trying to break the will of the American people, so that we'll pack up and go home before we've made the new Iraqi government strong enough to resist them. I have no doubt that some on the left would actually like to see us defeated and shamefully pull out of Iraq. But the rest are just dupes who might as well be on the payroll of the people who are bankrolling the operations. In this war the proper response for those who are against it would be to insist that we achieve our objectives and then debate if it was wise thing to do, after we've achieved our objectives. You don't send people into harms way and then stop them before they've accomplished their mission.
In an earlier post I stated:
And Tallpine asked:
I seem to recall something about the President being commander in chief of the armed forces....But then again, maybe I'm wrong?.....
The absolute only way to win the war on terrorism is to change the conditions that cause young men to grow up wanting to destroy us. How do you propose we do that? Ring up the despots in the middle east who point at us as the reason their children are hungry and they have no standard of living and ask them to please treat their people nice and stop blaming us for their incompetance? Oh I know, we could send them a strongly worded letter, perhaps sue them for defamation of charactor in the World Court?
The nations that harbor the terrorists, give them aid and comfort, and blame the West for their societies failure must change. If they won't change on their own, they must be defeated as soundly as Germany, Italy and Japan were in WWII. If we don't we can look forward to more and more intrusions on our rights as the people demand more and more eyewash security from their elected officials. Like it or not we are in a war for our very way of life. If we don't win it, or we don't have the stomach to see it through, then we might as well just kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye tonight. Because the majority of the American people would gladly trade it for freedom from fear. There will be more attacks in the US. And the aftermath of each will be more damaging to our freedoms. Changing the conditions that breed terrorists is the only way to fight this war. Every terrorist we kill, every network we shut down will just spawn another like the head of a Medusa until the people who live in the middle east no longer have a reason to send their children to the camps and Madrassas to learn to be suicide bombers.
Jeff
Have you ever served a single day? All members of the American military are trained from day one to consider if an order is a lawful. If it's not a lawful order then it's their duty not to obey it. That said, soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are instruments of policy. Basically, they go where they are told to go and shoot who they are told to shoot within the limits set by the rules of engagement. If an order is lawful then it is obeyed. That is the way it works and it can't possibly work any other way.
The United States Armed Forces do not make national policy. They only carry it out. We have an elected civilian leadership that makes policy. You really wouldn't want it any other way.
I spent almost 29 years of my life defending your right to your opinion. But you have to understand that the media is the terrorists equivalent of our air force. We used to have a policy that politics stopped at the waters edge. But not any longer. The left, and the right for that matter when Clinton took us into the Balkans plays right into the hands of our enemies. If you think attacks aren't planned to get the best coverage you're wrong. The terrorists are very media saavy. Why do you think that large parts of Iraq are relatively safe, but all the action seems to be going on around a couple big population centers? It's because that's where the cameras are. They know they can't defeat us on the ground. Their support among the Iraqi people isn't such that they could control much of the country. They are trying to break the will of the American people, so that we'll pack up and go home before we've made the new Iraqi government strong enough to resist them. I have no doubt that some on the left would actually like to see us defeated and shamefully pull out of Iraq. But the rest are just dupes who might as well be on the payroll of the people who are bankrolling the operations. In this war the proper response for those who are against it would be to insist that we achieve our objectives and then debate if it was wise thing to do, after we've achieved our objectives. You don't send people into harms way and then stop them before they've accomplished their mission.
In an earlier post I stated:
And Tallpine asked:
I seem to recall something about the President being commander in chief of the armed forces....But then again, maybe I'm wrong?.....
The absolute only way to win the war on terrorism is to change the conditions that cause young men to grow up wanting to destroy us. How do you propose we do that? Ring up the despots in the middle east who point at us as the reason their children are hungry and they have no standard of living and ask them to please treat their people nice and stop blaming us for their incompetance? Oh I know, we could send them a strongly worded letter, perhaps sue them for defamation of charactor in the World Court?
The nations that harbor the terrorists, give them aid and comfort, and blame the West for their societies failure must change. If they won't change on their own, they must be defeated as soundly as Germany, Italy and Japan were in WWII. If we don't we can look forward to more and more intrusions on our rights as the people demand more and more eyewash security from their elected officials. Like it or not we are in a war for our very way of life. If we don't win it, or we don't have the stomach to see it through, then we might as well just kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye tonight. Because the majority of the American people would gladly trade it for freedom from fear. There will be more attacks in the US. And the aftermath of each will be more damaging to our freedoms. Changing the conditions that breed terrorists is the only way to fight this war. Every terrorist we kill, every network we shut down will just spawn another like the head of a Medusa until the people who live in the middle east no longer have a reason to send their children to the camps and Madrassas to learn to be suicide bombers.
Jeff
Jeff---------I agree with you totally. There is a big difference in thinking the war was the wrong policy and screaming get out so we fail. Failure would be dangerous. People is this country have a very short memory unfortuntually. Bush said this war was going to be different, fought on many fronts, some seen and others not, long and hard. Instead of a cold war it is going to be a hot/cold war for many years. The long term plan is to change the Middle East. You can say the war was the wrong way to start the change but you do not know this. Bush is again right in saying History will have the answer. But to be aganist the war because you hate Bush, Republicians, Conservatives or your Country, or Capitalism is childish and stupid. We have played stupid for decades. I remember seeing General Meyers on C-span speaking after he retired. He was really worried. He said if the US gets another major terrorist attack there will be a loss of freedom because the people will demand it and the politicians will clamp down hard to provide security. We must win. These enemies are not going away. I have not heard of a better plan just a bunch of shrill screaming. I hate fairweather warriors. I hate that people buy the propaganda. And I despise any politician that would sell out their country for pure politics. 
Ryder
Member
If the left thinks 2000 is a lot of dead then why do they want to send more over there and institue a draft? My theory is they want more deaths, lots more. They don't care for the lost. They only care that the current administration will take the blame. If true then they clearly are trying to exploit the dead for political gain.
Read the Pakistani media if you wish to keep up with the Afghanistan situation. That's what I do and yes we still lose people there. Rough guess I'd say maybe a half dozen a month on average.
Read the Pakistani media if you wish to keep up with the Afghanistan situation. That's what I do and yes we still lose people there. Rough guess I'd say maybe a half dozen a month on average.
0600 in the morning, at the start of hour 23 of a 24 hour call, I'm not sure that I can do your post justice, but...
"Shut up about it" !?! That really does not follow your whole "respectfull" preamble....rather disrecpectfull IMHO....Of course they are volunteers, just as I am....yet they are still "my guys" regardless. Volunteer or not, fighting Iraqis, Nazis, or what have you, each of my particular "band of brothers" is important....something, apparently, you do not understand. I find the whole suggestion to "shut up about it" "they're volunteers" (and thus, you seem to be suggesting,deserving of their fate).
Although the antics of the anti-American fanatics (they don't seem to be anti-war....just anti-America Winning a War) may not necessarily meet the legal definition of treason (although truth be told and the money trail followed, I would wager that some would), their behavior, through giving aid and comfort to the enemy who are actively engaged in the killing of their countrymen, is IMHO very treasonous in nature.
It's not un-American to "call 'em as I see 'em" nor do I believe that it is un-American to be annoyed with idiots who support people who are actively trying to kill me.
My patience is at a low point this morning, but I rather resent being told to "get a grip" from someone who, it seems to me from our brief acquaintance, has never had "a grip."
Having seen the antics first hand, I'm reccomending the 9th circle:
Dante and Virgil begin the last part of their journey. They have arrived at the Ninth and final circle of hell. The landscape here, perhaps surprisingly, is that of a vast frozen lake. It is described as "a lake so frozen/it seemed to be made of glass." Here are the sinners farthest away from the warm love of God. First Dante views the Treacherous Against their Kin. This particular section of hell -- Cocytus -- is called Caina, named of course, after the Biblical Cain. Next Dante arrives at Antenora and sees the Traitors to Country. Here Dante, along with the reader, is mesmerized by the terrifying story of Count Ugolino and Archbishop Ruggieri. The third section of Cocytus is called Ptolomea is the home of the Treacherous to Guests and Hosts. These sinners are pinned in the ice, their eyes shut with frozen tears. Section four, Judecca, named for Judas Iscariot, punishes the Treacherous to their Masters. At the center of this horrid ice-pit we find Satan. Although he is imprisoned in the ice, his great wings are free to beat the frozen air. He is a monster of the most grotesque nature. He has three faces. In each of his mouths Satan chomps on the greatest traitors in Dante=s view -- Judas, the betrayer of Christ, is ripped and guzzled in the center mouth of Satan. The other mouths shred Cassius and Brutus, the betrayers of Caesar. Dante=s reaction to this sight is one of the most awesome fear. His first view is described in this manner:
"Shut up about it" !?! That really does not follow your whole "respectfull" preamble....rather disrecpectfull IMHO....Of course they are volunteers, just as I am....yet they are still "my guys" regardless. Volunteer or not, fighting Iraqis, Nazis, or what have you, each of my particular "band of brothers" is important....something, apparently, you do not understand. I find the whole suggestion to "shut up about it" "they're volunteers" (and thus, you seem to be suggesting,deserving of their fate).
Although the antics of the anti-American fanatics (they don't seem to be anti-war....just anti-America Winning a War) may not necessarily meet the legal definition of treason (although truth be told and the money trail followed, I would wager that some would), their behavior, through giving aid and comfort to the enemy who are actively engaged in the killing of their countrymen, is IMHO very treasonous in nature.
It's not un-American to "call 'em as I see 'em" nor do I believe that it is un-American to be annoyed with idiots who support people who are actively trying to kill me.
My patience is at a low point this morning, but I rather resent being told to "get a grip" from someone who, it seems to me from our brief acquaintance, has never had "a grip."
Having seen the antics first hand, I'm reccomending the 9th circle:
Dante and Virgil begin the last part of their journey. They have arrived at the Ninth and final circle of hell. The landscape here, perhaps surprisingly, is that of a vast frozen lake. It is described as "a lake so frozen/it seemed to be made of glass." Here are the sinners farthest away from the warm love of God. First Dante views the Treacherous Against their Kin. This particular section of hell -- Cocytus -- is called Caina, named of course, after the Biblical Cain. Next Dante arrives at Antenora and sees the Traitors to Country. Here Dante, along with the reader, is mesmerized by the terrifying story of Count Ugolino and Archbishop Ruggieri. The third section of Cocytus is called Ptolomea is the home of the Treacherous to Guests and Hosts. These sinners are pinned in the ice, their eyes shut with frozen tears. Section four, Judecca, named for Judas Iscariot, punishes the Treacherous to their Masters. At the center of this horrid ice-pit we find Satan. Although he is imprisoned in the ice, his great wings are free to beat the frozen air. He is a monster of the most grotesque nature. He has three faces. In each of his mouths Satan chomps on the greatest traitors in Dante=s view -- Judas, the betrayer of Christ, is ripped and guzzled in the center mouth of Satan. The other mouths shred Cassius and Brutus, the betrayers of Caesar. Dante=s reaction to this sight is one of the most awesome fear. His first view is described in this manner:
Ezekiel
Member
You're right, I could have been more couth. "Note to self: never post after 2:00 AM..." (mutter, mutter...)
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
There's always the usually-unknown views of the guys who are on the ground, versus what we're fed by the media, per a troopie's letter:
Friday, October 28, 2005
EDITOR ASKED TO EXPLAIN EDITING
Lisa Huang Fleischman writes to New York Times public editor Byron Calame:
Mr. Calame—I've never bothered to write the NY Times before, because your paper seems to make a practice of sinking to new lows every time I look, although I admit I, like many others, hardly ever look anymore. But this last was really contemptible.
Your paper profiled Cpl. Jeffrey Starr in an article about the 2000th casualty (of course). Here's the article.
The paper quotes from a letter written by Cpl Starr to his girlfriend, found after his death by Starr's father. The erstwhile paper of record states:
"Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. 'I kind of predicted this,' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. 'A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.'"
Perfectly in keeping, may I say, with the defeatist, elegiac, Vietnam-like attitude of the entire piece.
I'm sorry to say that the Times reporter dishonestly deleted the rest of the letter. Thanks to the brave corporal's family, who forwarded the remainder of the letter to Michelle Malkin, we actually know what Corporal Starr really thought, not what the Times would like to use him to stand for.
Here's what the rest of the letter says.
He wrote: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
(Emphasis mine—it's the part that your reporter knowingly left out. Which only goes to show that everything—EVERYTHING—at the Times is in service of The Agenda.)
I know it just kills you guys to think that overwhelmingly our soldiers actually, consciously support the war, are perfectly aware of the dangers they face, and are as perfectly prepared to face them. I know it comforts all the Timesmen and women to think that soldiers are just sad, pathetic, barely literate dupes (when they aren't being babykillers and Koran flushers), but in fact the soldiers view their lives as imbued with transcendent meaning, apparently something no Times reporter can claim. Maybe it's just envy on the part of all your reporters that these American teenagers in uniform make history every day of their lives, while you all just continue to transparently twist the news and to accumulate contempt from the American people, which is now compounding at a daily rate.
Incidentally, I was a reserve army officer for twelve years. Sad, pathetic dupe that I am, I graduated Berkeley and Columbia Law School. (I understand you have a few Columbia J-School grads among your staff. Too bad. Everyone on campus knew that only the really dumb kids ended up in the J-School.)
Mr. Calame has a question or two to answer.
Friday, October 28, 2005
EDITOR ASKED TO EXPLAIN EDITING
Lisa Huang Fleischman writes to New York Times public editor Byron Calame:
Mr. Calame—I've never bothered to write the NY Times before, because your paper seems to make a practice of sinking to new lows every time I look, although I admit I, like many others, hardly ever look anymore. But this last was really contemptible.
Your paper profiled Cpl. Jeffrey Starr in an article about the 2000th casualty (of course). Here's the article.
The paper quotes from a letter written by Cpl Starr to his girlfriend, found after his death by Starr's father. The erstwhile paper of record states:
"Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. 'I kind of predicted this,' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. 'A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.'"
Perfectly in keeping, may I say, with the defeatist, elegiac, Vietnam-like attitude of the entire piece.
I'm sorry to say that the Times reporter dishonestly deleted the rest of the letter. Thanks to the brave corporal's family, who forwarded the remainder of the letter to Michelle Malkin, we actually know what Corporal Starr really thought, not what the Times would like to use him to stand for.
Here's what the rest of the letter says.
He wrote: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
(Emphasis mine—it's the part that your reporter knowingly left out. Which only goes to show that everything—EVERYTHING—at the Times is in service of The Agenda.)
I know it just kills you guys to think that overwhelmingly our soldiers actually, consciously support the war, are perfectly aware of the dangers they face, and are as perfectly prepared to face them. I know it comforts all the Timesmen and women to think that soldiers are just sad, pathetic, barely literate dupes (when they aren't being babykillers and Koran flushers), but in fact the soldiers view their lives as imbued with transcendent meaning, apparently something no Times reporter can claim. Maybe it's just envy on the part of all your reporters that these American teenagers in uniform make history every day of their lives, while you all just continue to transparently twist the news and to accumulate contempt from the American people, which is now compounding at a daily rate.
Incidentally, I was a reserve army officer for twelve years. Sad, pathetic dupe that I am, I graduated Berkeley and Columbia Law School. (I understand you have a few Columbia J-School grads among your staff. Too bad. Everyone on campus knew that only the really dumb kids ended up in the J-School.)
Mr. Calame has a question or two to answer.
TallPine
Member
Yeah, and I seem to remember something about it being the responsibility of Congress to declare war (or not) which hasn't happened since 1941.
Seems we have regressed to the old kings' right of going to war whenever he feels like it (Rice recently said as much herself).
tater_salad
Member
Thought you ladies and gentlemen may find this interesting. I forwarded that article to everyone in my mailbox like I said, and my mother wound up writing an email to the editor of the New York Post who forwarded it to the writer of the article. Anyways, he actually wrote my mother back and this is what he said,
I think I like this guy as a journalist more and more by the minute. BTW, I didn't post his e-mail for his own privacy, but if you want to get in touch with him, it sounds like he is more than willing to make the effort
I think I like this guy as a journalist more and more by the minute. BTW, I didn't post his e-mail for his own privacy, but if you want to get in touch with him, it sounds like he is more than willing to make the effort
rbernie
Contributing Member
I was going to address this statement and point out all of the recent examples where we *didn't* do this as well as all of the times when we did, but in the end I decided that to be a fools errand. It doesn't matter if you like the fact that we occasionally dip our toes into the waters of global policing. We do. Sometimes we don't, but sometimes we do. Sometimes we go because somebody else needs our help (think Kosovo, and how long our cultured European allies allowed wholesale genocide to be practiced in their own back yard rather than get involved), and sometimes we go for our own interests. In the case of Iraq, we started all of this based upon the concept that our own interests and those of the Iraqis were synergistic vectors. That's OK with me.
In the end, we go where we need to go to defend ourselves. When our borders do not provide a physical barrier to predation upon our citizens, we must be prepared to travel beyond those borders as needed. That was true in our nation's first military test (the First Barbary War) and it's true today. IMO, everything else is just cowardly posturing behind words and ideals that have no root in human behavior or history.
Congress is just plain lazy, or maybe they would like to be able to flip-flop once opinions change. In the case of the current war, Congress did authorize the President to take action. Since then, they have said or done little to indicate that they did not approve of his actions.
http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/5131.html
I make no claims to the necessity of the Iraq war -- especially before nailing bin Laden when we had his ass on a platter -- but I will say that a four-star general said it was a huge charlie-foxtrot. Need to ask my polysci friend the guy's name and for some quotes, but the gist of it was we're going about it the wrong way.
- Status