I see no "stretching" at all. "A rose by any other name". Their are just minor differences between Iraq and Vietnam and an overwhelming desire by some to experience that warm, feel good emotion of security. "Someone wiser than I is looking out for me and my safety." You lived during the period(?) but did you study it at all? Yes, its a matter of will. How much will power do you have to fight someone elses battle for freedom? During Vietnam our willpower lasted about 10 years (our longest war). Maybe we should have gone another 10 years and 100,000 KIA's. Lack of will power I guess.
What should we do about Iraq?
- Thread starter Jmurman
- Start date
- Status
E36M3
Member
I can candidly say that on the trip back from Desert Storm, in my past life, that I was slightly unclear on the concept of war itself. It sorta didn't make sense until I saw the Twin Towers crumble before my eyes. I instantly understood.
Having said that, it's my strong opinion that setting up a Democracy (or something like it) in the middle of ????land is one of the single most brilliant strategies in history. There's probably no need to go into greater detail than that for this crowd.
It's gonna be long, dangerous, hard and costly, but not doing it will be longer, more dangerous, harder and more costly, IMHO.
Having said that, it's my strong opinion that setting up a Democracy (or something like it) in the middle of ????land is one of the single most brilliant strategies in history. There's probably no need to go into greater detail than that for this crowd.
It's gonna be long, dangerous, hard and costly, but not doing it will be longer, more dangerous, harder and more costly, IMHO.
58,000 KIA's and another 304,000 Americans were wounded. Approximately 3 to 4 million Vietnamese on both sides were killed, The financial cost to the United States comes to something over $150 billion dollars.
State Department White Paper on Vietnam February 27, 1965
"The United States has responded to the appeals of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam for help in this defense of the freedom and independence of its land and its people." "If peace can be restored in South Vietnam, the United States will be ready at once to reduce its military involvement. But it will not abandon friends who want to remain free. It will do what must be done to help them. The choice now between peace and continued and increasingly destructive conflict is one for the authorities in Hanoi to make."
Air National Guardsman George Bush "Bring it on".
State Department White Paper on Vietnam February 27, 1965
"The United States has responded to the appeals of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam for help in this defense of the freedom and independence of its land and its people." "If peace can be restored in South Vietnam, the United States will be ready at once to reduce its military involvement. But it will not abandon friends who want to remain free. It will do what must be done to help them. The choice now between peace and continued and increasingly destructive conflict is one for the authorities in Hanoi to make."
Air National Guardsman George Bush "Bring it on".
ETCss Phil McCrackin
Member
Bravo Zulu! I believe these two have hit the nail right on the head, realizing that this conflict, the recent casualties, and every shot fired thus far is part of a battle that will last much longer than elections in Iraq or even the withdrawal of US forces.
I submit that we lost in Vietnam because of a lack of desire to even fight the war much less win. There's no moment in that war's history when our government really even tried to win. (I mean, not leveling Hanoi from the start with B-52 strikes?
) That's why we have to (at least publicly, this IS America after all) support our guys and the war, so that our national resolve never falters. The anti-war movement was DIRECTLY responsible for every casualty after the 1st four years.-"When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped."
-"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."
Take heart, Telewinz-I don't believe we are going to be there for the last shot fired. The new Iraqi government needs a chance to be elected, to form up and start functioning, as well as their military. You have been in the service-don't know what your MOS was, but that being the case, should know that a decent, well trained soldier takes a while. Leadership takes even longer.
I suspect Powell's recent estimate is about right for large, conventional forces-about another year. I suspect after that, it will be in the hands of special forces operators as Afghanistan is right now, with small supporting units for their aviation assets and whatnot.
I suspect Powell's recent estimate is about right for large, conventional forces-about another year. I suspect after that, it will be in the hands of special forces operators as Afghanistan is right now, with small supporting units for their aviation assets and whatnot.
Zundfolge
Member
The only real parallels between the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts are in the way the left here in the US have reacted to it.
I submit we lost in Vietnam because the US media, run by leftist like Cronkite lied their butts off to the American people to convince us we were losing and/or evil.
We are winning in Iraq ... 95%+ of the country is better off then when Saddam was in charge with a tiny minority of insurgents fighting against us (and most of them aren't even Iraqis!). Yet again, the leftist controlled media is spinning the war to make it look like we're losing so the American people will demand we "cut and run" again.
As a nation, our greatest sin in Vietnam was leaving and allowing the mass murders to happen ... the left in America wants us to repeat that mistake again (all the while telling us that being in Iraq in the first place is repeating some mythical mistake we made in Vietnam).
And the left claims to be for the little guy ... bovine scat! :banghead:
We were winning Vietnam, but the leftist controlled media spun it to look like we where losing ... this cost us public support for the war and pushed US politicians to "cut and run".
I submit we lost in Vietnam because the US media, run by leftist like Cronkite lied their butts off to the American people to convince us we were losing and/or evil.
We are winning in Iraq ... 95%+ of the country is better off then when Saddam was in charge with a tiny minority of insurgents fighting against us (and most of them aren't even Iraqis!). Yet again, the leftist controlled media is spinning the war to make it look like we're losing so the American people will demand we "cut and run" again.
As a nation, our greatest sin in Vietnam was leaving and allowing the mass murders to happen ... the left in America wants us to repeat that mistake again (all the while telling us that being in Iraq in the first place is repeating some mythical mistake we made in Vietnam).
And the left claims to be for the little guy ... bovine scat! :banghead:
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I ran across a comment from a guy who's fighting in Iraq; I think it was in a recent issue of SOF mag. Anyhow, he's not in the Sunni Triangle melee. He said that the people of the area he patrols are smiling and friendly. He said that it's hard to be alert when those around you are not hostile.
I also run across comments of a similar nature about Iraq away from the Sunni Triangle, as to people's attitudes. I read that more people in Iraq now have electricity and potable water than before our invasion. Hospitals and schools are up and running.
I guess good news ain't newsworthy enough for the mainstream mediahcrities...
There's a whole generation of Iraqis who've never known self-determination. With our help they do have a chance. They seem to want that chance. Now, no force of either military or police can be developed overnight--or even in only a year or so. With our help for another year or so, it seems to me that the Iraqis themselves can put together a viable country. They ain't stoopid, after all. They've just been held down at gunpoint for a long time...
Art
I also run across comments of a similar nature about Iraq away from the Sunni Triangle, as to people's attitudes. I read that more people in Iraq now have electricity and potable water than before our invasion. Hospitals and schools are up and running.
I guess good news ain't newsworthy enough for the mainstream mediahcrities...
There's a whole generation of Iraqis who've never known self-determination. With our help they do have a chance. They seem to want that chance. Now, no force of either military or police can be developed overnight--or even in only a year or so. With our help for another year or so, it seems to me that the Iraqis themselves can put together a viable country. They ain't stoopid, after all. They've just been held down at gunpoint for a long time...
Art
Ralphpeters
member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2005
- Messages
- 59
Next
Or maybe this is a controlled leak for diplomacy
White House says report is 'riddled with inaccuracies'
Sunday, January 16, 2005 Posted: 9:23 PM EST (0223 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.
The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition."
In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."
"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.
Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and is intended solely for civilian purposes. (Full story)
Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."
"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.
Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.
He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider.
"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said.
Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.
Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.
The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there. (Full story)
"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites."
He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."
Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."
And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:
"The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning ... But they need the intelligence first."
Emphasizing 'diplomatic initiatives'
Bartlett said the United States is working with its European allies to help persuade Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons.
Asked if military action is an option should diplomacy fail, Bartlett said, "No president at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table."
But Bush "has shown that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are under way right now," he said.
Hersh said U.S. officials believe that a U.S. attack on Iran might provoke an uprising by Iranians against the hard-line religious leaders who run the government. Similar arguments were made ahead of the invasion of Iraq, when administration officials predicted U.S. troops would be welcomed as liberators.
And Hersh said administration officials have chosen not to include conflicting points of view in their deliberations -- such as predictions that any U.S. attack would provoke a wave of nationalism that would unite Iranians against the United States.
"As people say to me, when it comes to meetings about this issue, if you don't drink the Kool-Aid, you can't go to meetings," he said. "That isn't a message anybody wants to hear."
The plans are not limited to Iran, he said.
"The president assigned a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other special forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia," he wrote.
Under the secret plans, the war on terrorism would be led by the Pentagon, and the power of the CIA would be reduced, Hersh wrote in his article.
"It's sort of a great victory for Donald Rumsfeld, a bureaucratic victory," Hersh told CNN.
He said: "Since the summer of 2002, he's been advocating, 'Let me run this war, not the CIA. We can do it better. We'll send our boys in. We don't have to tell their local military commanders. We don't have to tell the ambassadors. We don't have to tell the CIA station chiefs in various countries. Let's go in and work with the bad guys and see what we can find out.'"
Hersh added that the administration has chipped away at the CIA's power and that newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss has overseen a purge of the old order.
"He's been committing sort-of ordered executions'" Hersh said. "He's been -- you know, people have been fired, they've been resigning."
The target of the housecleaning at the CIA, he said, has been intelligence analysts, some of whom are seen as "apostates -- as opposed to being true believers." (Full story)
Or maybe this is a controlled leak for diplomacy
White House says report is 'riddled with inaccuracies'
Sunday, January 16, 2005 Posted: 9:23 PM EST (0223 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.
The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition."
In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."
"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.
Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and is intended solely for civilian purposes. (Full story)
Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."
"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.
Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.
He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider.
"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said.
Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.
Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.
The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there. (Full story)
"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites."
He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."
Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."
And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:
"The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning ... But they need the intelligence first."
Emphasizing 'diplomatic initiatives'
Bartlett said the United States is working with its European allies to help persuade Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons.
Asked if military action is an option should diplomacy fail, Bartlett said, "No president at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table."
But Bush "has shown that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are under way right now," he said.
Hersh said U.S. officials believe that a U.S. attack on Iran might provoke an uprising by Iranians against the hard-line religious leaders who run the government. Similar arguments were made ahead of the invasion of Iraq, when administration officials predicted U.S. troops would be welcomed as liberators.
And Hersh said administration officials have chosen not to include conflicting points of view in their deliberations -- such as predictions that any U.S. attack would provoke a wave of nationalism that would unite Iranians against the United States.
"As people say to me, when it comes to meetings about this issue, if you don't drink the Kool-Aid, you can't go to meetings," he said. "That isn't a message anybody wants to hear."
The plans are not limited to Iran, he said.
"The president assigned a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other special forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia," he wrote.
Under the secret plans, the war on terrorism would be led by the Pentagon, and the power of the CIA would be reduced, Hersh wrote in his article.
"It's sort of a great victory for Donald Rumsfeld, a bureaucratic victory," Hersh told CNN.
He said: "Since the summer of 2002, he's been advocating, 'Let me run this war, not the CIA. We can do it better. We'll send our boys in. We don't have to tell their local military commanders. We don't have to tell the ambassadors. We don't have to tell the CIA station chiefs in various countries. Let's go in and work with the bad guys and see what we can find out.'"
Hersh added that the administration has chipped away at the CIA's power and that newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss has overseen a purge of the old order.
"He's been committing sort-of ordered executions'" Hersh said. "He's been -- you know, people have been fired, they've been resigning."
The target of the housecleaning at the CIA, he said, has been intelligence analysts, some of whom are seen as "apostates -- as opposed to being true believers." (Full story)
ReadyontheRight
Member
Um....What's your point Ralphpeters? Do you think we're completely and utterly SAFE here in the U.S. and that those mean old military guys should just stop their warmongering?
Do you want the U.S. forces to KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN IRAN?
Should our armed service members steer clear of Iran because it SOUNDS dangerously like Iraq?
What, exactly are these problems in Iraq of which you quote? OMG -- We're losing soldiers IN A WAR? Maybe you and your D.U. buddies should look up the word "WAR" in a non-censored, free-state-produced dictionary!
And. Ralphpeters. Stop PMing me unless you have something worthwhile to say that has some basis if fact. I'm open to a good debate, but your PM is just shouted drivel:
Ralphpeters
member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2005
- Messages
- 59
Serious what is D.U.? Ducks Unlimited? I thought of it but the dues were kinda expensive. I am sorry if I offended you with the PM but i didnt want to make you look... never mind
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/index.html
If the news is to be believed, Iran has exported a lot of terrorism. My question to Mr Hersh is that he really thinks the government only started looking at military options last year for Iran???
Boy needs to knock the dust bunnies off his oujia board.
We have Iran surrounded by Afghanistan on one side and Iraq on the other. It does not take a lot of imagination to see that Iraq was an easier military nut to crack than Iran would be-the issue is always after the war is over and the rise of insurgency. It's one thing to fight against another flag, but quite another to fight loose knitted organizations. The Germans found that out against the Marquis, the French against the Viet Minh, and of course our own experience in our wars.
Heck-we had something called Plan Orange or something of a similar name, where we figured a war with Japan 20 years before it ever started, and we likely have plans somewhere on just about every region of the world.
Not that they are necessarily going to be employed, but it makes strategic sense to make such plans, updating with gathered intelligence as it becomes available.
Did we not have "plans" on all of the Warsaw pact countries for decades?
Hersh is a news man by trade-he gets good money to stir the pot, just like the politicians.
Boy needs to knock the dust bunnies off his oujia board.
We have Iran surrounded by Afghanistan on one side and Iraq on the other. It does not take a lot of imagination to see that Iraq was an easier military nut to crack than Iran would be-the issue is always after the war is over and the rise of insurgency. It's one thing to fight against another flag, but quite another to fight loose knitted organizations. The Germans found that out against the Marquis, the French against the Viet Minh, and of course our own experience in our wars.
Heck-we had something called Plan Orange or something of a similar name, where we figured a war with Japan 20 years before it ever started, and we likely have plans somewhere on just about every region of the world.
Not that they are necessarily going to be employed, but it makes strategic sense to make such plans, updating with gathered intelligence as it becomes available.
Did we not have "plans" on all of the Warsaw pact countries for decades?
Hersh is a news man by trade-he gets good money to stir the pot, just like the politicians.
fallingblock
Member
As different as day and night, telewinz.....
"You lived during the period(?) but did you study it at all? *********************************************************
Intensely.
I resisted the Vietnam War from within the Army for four of those five years, telewinz. I met returing troops from all levels of command and spoke candidly with those who were also interested in the pursuit of the war. It was not the V.C. or NVA who defeated U.S. forces. We beat them militarily at every turn.
It was the lack of a clear mission and the political manipulations of those at home who exploited the lack of a clear objective for their own political purposes.
It was NOT a good idea for the U.S. to follow the French in their folly of maintaining a divided people whose will to reunite their nation was strong.
Misreading intense Vietnamese nationalism for communist hegemony was a folly that we paid dearly for, in both lives and policy.
*********************************************************
Yes, its a matter of will. How much will power do you have to fight someone elses battle for freedom?"
*********************************************************
If they want their freedom and need the help, I'll give 'em a hand.
Myself, I'm too old to do much but write these days.
But - I'm glad there are those who are ready and willing to fight for a just cause such as the establishment of democracy in Iraq. We really do need to stay and stabilize Iraq, for sake of the the Iraqis and our own long-term interests in defeating the militant muslims.
IF we succeed, the effect on the militant muslims within the nations of the region will be even more to our advantage than the democracy within Iraq. A win/win situation, IMHO.
Totally unlike the Vietnam War.
"You lived during the period(?) but did you study it at all? *********************************************************
Intensely.
I resisted the Vietnam War from within the Army for four of those five years, telewinz. I met returing troops from all levels of command and spoke candidly with those who were also interested in the pursuit of the war. It was not the V.C. or NVA who defeated U.S. forces. We beat them militarily at every turn.
It was the lack of a clear mission and the political manipulations of those at home who exploited the lack of a clear objective for their own political purposes.
It was NOT a good idea for the U.S. to follow the French in their folly of maintaining a divided people whose will to reunite their nation was strong.
Misreading intense Vietnamese nationalism for communist hegemony was a folly that we paid dearly for, in both lives and policy.
*********************************************************
Yes, its a matter of will. How much will power do you have to fight someone elses battle for freedom?"
*********************************************************
If they want their freedom and need the help, I'll give 'em a hand.
Myself, I'm too old to do much but write these days.
But - I'm glad there are those who are ready and willing to fight for a just cause such as the establishment of democracy in Iraq. We really do need to stay and stabilize Iraq, for sake of the the Iraqis and our own long-term interests in defeating the militant muslims.
IF we succeed, the effect on the militant muslims within the nations of the region will be even more to our advantage than the democracy within Iraq. A win/win situation, IMHO.
Totally unlike the Vietnam War.
I fear it will escalate and end of costing alot more than a hand. When it's all said and done and Iraq can stand on their own two feet the government they choose/permit, we won't like nor except. A wasted effort on our part. Where we stand now...150,000 troops in country and our leadership admits that half the country can't vote in safety and that the "election" will be "less than perfect". Whats your definition of a valid Iraqi election? 25%, 33%, 10% are able/care to vote? No matter, our administration will declare the elections a "success" regardless.
"Attacks on U.S. forces have grown deadlier; ambushes of Iraq's budding security forces are increasingly successful; the marginal stability that presently exists is being further threatened by the lethal insurgent targeting of politicians and government figures; intelligence reports show that the insurgency is growing stronger with each passing day. The electoral quest has proven to be so messy that it is difficult to conclude that the elections will bring enough peace and stability to alter significantly the present dynamic in Iraq.
The head of the Baghdad division of the Iraqi National Guard, Major General Mudhir Abood, told reporters that members of his paramilitary police force have leaked classified information to insurgent groups. This type of behavior is a trend that is often observed when outside powers attempt to build indigenous security forces in a country facing an insurgency. It was best witnessed during the U.S. intervention in Vietnam, when U.S.-trained members of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (A.R.V.N.) supplied both classified information and military equipment to the insurgent forces that made up the Viet Cong".
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
"doomed to repeat it".
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
There is some truth to what Zundfolge wrote--the left-leaning media does lie to the U.S. public. So does the right-leaning media. Just because you might happen to agree with any particular lie doesn't make it the truth. I've spent a great deal of my adult life working as a journalist, for both left-leaning and right-leaning publications, and I've come to the opinion that only a fool would swallow everything he or she is spoon fed in the media, whether it suits your particular ideology or not.
As for going into Iran, right now our military resources are too depleted to contemplate any other large scale military action.
As for going into Iran, right now our military resources are too depleted to contemplate any other large scale military action.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
This thread has just about run its course. If I see any more silly name-calling like "Telewhiz" or goofy insistence that all the dissenters are Democratic Underground trolls, I'll close it.
You know, it's just possible that the guy arguing with you about the war does post at Democratic Underground, but so what? Does anybody really think you can win an argument simply by implying that someone is friends with a bunch of Democrats? Half the country wouldn't be bothered by that, you know.
People aren't going to be banned for being Democrats, DU posters, liberals, progressives or the like on this board. Period.
And like it or not, nobody is going to be seen as winning any debate points for calling somebody a liberal any more than you would lose an argument with a liberal if he decided to start calling you a racist. These automatic argument-ending words don't work for either side.
Also, PM's are private for a reason. If you wanted to ask him to stop sending them to you, all you had to do was reply to his PM.
You know, it's just possible that the guy arguing with you about the war does post at Democratic Underground, but so what? Does anybody really think you can win an argument simply by implying that someone is friends with a bunch of Democrats? Half the country wouldn't be bothered by that, you know.
People aren't going to be banned for being Democrats, DU posters, liberals, progressives or the like on this board. Period.
And like it or not, nobody is going to be seen as winning any debate points for calling somebody a liberal any more than you would lose an argument with a liberal if he decided to start calling you a racist. These automatic argument-ending words don't work for either side.
Also, PM's are private for a reason. If you wanted to ask him to stop sending them to you, all you had to do was reply to his PM.
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Don Gwinn wrote: "Does anybody really think you can win an argument simply by implying that someone is friends with a bunch of Democrats?"
That's about what political discourse in this country has devolved to, Don. Take the left's assertation that we were going to war in Iraq because of oil. The right went ape-feces, saying the war was about WMDs and that the left was committing treason by even suggesting the war might have been about oil. By the time the war started, the idea that it was about oil was perceived to have been a discredited idea, simply because the people on the right had yelled so loudly that it wasn't true, with no evidence to support their claim.
Turns out the war wasn't about WMDs. Many people on both the left and the right believed Iraq had WMDs, but the fact that the administration was forced to rely on trumped-up WMD evidence indicates that they at least had a suspicion that Iraq didn't have them.
So what was the war about? Could it have been... oil? Now that we know there were no WMDs, could we at least entertain that idea without being shouted down? Probably not. Could oil be a worthwhile goal for fighting a war? Who knows? I like to drive my pickup and ride my motorcycle as much as the next guy, so I would be a hypocrite to say that oil wasn't a valid reason. I sure wouldn't want my sons to die for my right to drive a 5,000-pound truck to get a bag of nails from the hardware store, though.
But I digress. My point is that we can't even discuss such things like rational human beings when the political discourse has devolved to such a pathetic level in this country. I think the inability to have civilized debate and the tendency for people to blindly adhere to any ideological argument regardless of how much evidence there exists to discredit that argument, is the result of a national psychosis. We, as a people--whether right wing or left wing--have gone completely nuts.
That's about what political discourse in this country has devolved to, Don. Take the left's assertation that we were going to war in Iraq because of oil. The right went ape-feces, saying the war was about WMDs and that the left was committing treason by even suggesting the war might have been about oil. By the time the war started, the idea that it was about oil was perceived to have been a discredited idea, simply because the people on the right had yelled so loudly that it wasn't true, with no evidence to support their claim.
Turns out the war wasn't about WMDs. Many people on both the left and the right believed Iraq had WMDs, but the fact that the administration was forced to rely on trumped-up WMD evidence indicates that they at least had a suspicion that Iraq didn't have them.
So what was the war about? Could it have been... oil? Now that we know there were no WMDs, could we at least entertain that idea without being shouted down? Probably not. Could oil be a worthwhile goal for fighting a war? Who knows? I like to drive my pickup and ride my motorcycle as much as the next guy, so I would be a hypocrite to say that oil wasn't a valid reason. I sure wouldn't want my sons to die for my right to drive a 5,000-pound truck to get a bag of nails from the hardware store, though.
But I digress. My point is that we can't even discuss such things like rational human beings when the political discourse has devolved to such a pathetic level in this country. I think the inability to have civilized debate and the tendency for people to blindly adhere to any ideological argument regardless of how much evidence there exists to discredit that argument, is the result of a national psychosis. We, as a people--whether right wing or left wing--have gone completely nuts.
Nehemiah Scudder
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Messages
- 391
I voted for Bush (more against Kerry) yet Bush and his advisors appear to be out of touch. Maybe Bush isn't stupid, maybe he is just a day dreaming fool who surrounds himself with like thinking fools.
NOTE: I plan to save this thread to my hard drive. When Bush's "noble enterprise" is resolved once and for all, I plan to play it back and see what really passed for wisdom. It might be very interesting but hopefully not tragic.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Lemme digress for a minute about presidents and decisions:
Bush has gotta deal with Iraq, other foreign relations, Social Insecurity, tax-rate stuff, the budget, economic issues, internal security and a host of other things, as well as signing autographs for some Girl Scout troop. Yeah, he has advisors, but he's still having to make decisions RIGHT NOW with limited time to pick and choose among options.
Back in the Nixon era, comparing him with LBJ, one thing was obvious: LBJ was a genius, a master, at dealing with the internal affairs of the US. He wasn't worth a hoot at foreign affairs. Nixon was just the opposite.
That's when it struck me that we oughta have an Internal President and an External President. Divide the work load. Candidates for either job had to show expertise or experience in those areas, at least to some extent...
Our present system was far more workable when information flowed at the speed of snail mail.
, Art
Bush has gotta deal with Iraq, other foreign relations, Social Insecurity, tax-rate stuff, the budget, economic issues, internal security and a host of other things, as well as signing autographs for some Girl Scout troop. Yeah, he has advisors, but he's still having to make decisions RIGHT NOW with limited time to pick and choose among options.
Back in the Nixon era, comparing him with LBJ, one thing was obvious: LBJ was a genius, a master, at dealing with the internal affairs of the US. He wasn't worth a hoot at foreign affairs. Nixon was just the opposite.
That's when it struck me that we oughta have an Internal President and an External President. Divide the work load. Candidates for either job had to show expertise or experience in those areas, at least to some extent...
Our present system was far more workable when information flowed at the speed of snail mail.
, ArtTelewinz-have some courage! Bolstering your private fears with the political left news is gonna give you stomach cancer. And no, I'n not part of the don't worry/be happy crowd-my oldest son just shipped over with the 3rd ID and is a combat medic assigned to an infantry company.
He's at Camp New York in Kuwait right now, but is moving out to Samarra near the end of this month. Nervous? Hell yes!
At this point, I have no choice but to trust his instinct and training, along with a few words of advice:
1. If it looks wrong, it probably is.
2. Stay around Americans.
3. If the kids are not present, that spells danger. Even Iraqi parents want to
shield their children, and will snatch them off the street in a heartbeat.
Just remember the hand wringing of the left press and liberals over the Gulf war-our kids are too stupid to operate all this fancy new equipment and so forth.
Now, its the boogie man and he is ten feet tall and is invincible. They are not. No group of insurgents is going to last long provided we show them that we are united in our resolve to see the thing through, regardless of whether we thought the war should have been brought there in the first place.
This is no longer a demonstration of our war fighting ability-it is all about reaching out to the citizens and letting them know that they no longer have to fear secret police kicking in their door, and murdering their family members. This is going to take time-they don't trust liberty because they never had it-not even close.
I'm all for pulling out the conventional forces as soon as it is safe to do-they are not diplomats as a general rule. They blow stuff up and shoot things, which is what they are trained to do. I've heard it said by someone that the Army is a hammer, but not every problem is a nail. I believe that. For every Iraqi we get trained up and operational, there should be an American coming home. It is going to take time, but this is a doable thing.
He's at Camp New York in Kuwait right now, but is moving out to Samarra near the end of this month. Nervous? Hell yes!
At this point, I have no choice but to trust his instinct and training, along with a few words of advice:
1. If it looks wrong, it probably is.
2. Stay around Americans.
3. If the kids are not present, that spells danger. Even Iraqi parents want to
shield their children, and will snatch them off the street in a heartbeat.
Just remember the hand wringing of the left press and liberals over the Gulf war-our kids are too stupid to operate all this fancy new equipment and so forth.
Now, its the boogie man and he is ten feet tall and is invincible. They are not. No group of insurgents is going to last long provided we show them that we are united in our resolve to see the thing through, regardless of whether we thought the war should have been brought there in the first place.
This is no longer a demonstration of our war fighting ability-it is all about reaching out to the citizens and letting them know that they no longer have to fear secret police kicking in their door, and murdering their family members. This is going to take time-they don't trust liberty because they never had it-not even close.
I'm all for pulling out the conventional forces as soon as it is safe to do-they are not diplomats as a general rule. They blow stuff up and shoot things, which is what they are trained to do. I've heard it said by someone that the Army is a hammer, but not every problem is a nail. I believe that. For every Iraqi we get trained up and operational, there should be an American coming home. It is going to take time, but this is a doable thing.
OK, what do some of the troops in Iraq say
"If Donald Rumsfeld were here, I'd ask him for his resignation," as told to ABC's Good Morning America. Anonymous Officer, U.S. Army, in Iraq
"It pretty much makes me lose faith in the Army ... I don't really believe anything they tell me. If they told me we were leaving next week, I wouldn't believe them," as told to ABC News. Private First Class Jason Punyhotra, 3rd Infantry Division, U.S. Army in Fallujah, Iraq
"The Army is strained and stressed ... The last time we had people doing combat tours every other year was Vietnam ... The impact on soldiers and families was great. A lot of good junior officers and mid-grade NCOs walked. This decimated the rising leadership and broke the force." General John Keane, U.S. Army
"Somewhere down the line, we became an occupation force in [Iraqi] eyes. We don't feel like heroes any more ... We are outnumbered. We are exhausted. We are in over our heads. The President says, 'Bring 'em on.' The generals say we don't need more troops. Well, they're not over here."
Private Isaac Kindblade, 671st Engineer Company, U.S. Army, in Iraq
"I've got my own 'Most Wanted' list ... The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz," as told to ABC News.
Anonymous Sergeant, U.S. Army, in Iraq
"I cannot say that [the invasion of Iraq] was to prevent terrorism. I cannot find a single good reason for having been there and having shot at people and having been shot at ... This war should not be paid with the blood of American soldiers."
Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, Florida National Guard, served in Ramadi, Iraq
(Sergeant Mejia decided to go AWOL when on leave from Iraq, turned himself in, and is currently applying for conscientious-objector status.)
I hope these comments don't "upset" anyone.
"I came into this war hoping to rid the world of an evil man, Saddam Hussein. Once accomplished, I now find myself confined and surrounded by the post-war chaos and anger of a people without direction and begging for leadership. I see their pain and realize that at this time I am part of their pain." Major Matthew Jennings, 82nd Airborne Division, U.S. Army, in Iraq
"If Donald Rumsfeld were here, I'd ask him for his resignation," as told to ABC's Good Morning America. Anonymous Officer, U.S. Army, in Iraq
"It pretty much makes me lose faith in the Army ... I don't really believe anything they tell me. If they told me we were leaving next week, I wouldn't believe them," as told to ABC News. Private First Class Jason Punyhotra, 3rd Infantry Division, U.S. Army in Fallujah, Iraq
"The Army is strained and stressed ... The last time we had people doing combat tours every other year was Vietnam ... The impact on soldiers and families was great. A lot of good junior officers and mid-grade NCOs walked. This decimated the rising leadership and broke the force." General John Keane, U.S. Army
"Somewhere down the line, we became an occupation force in [Iraqi] eyes. We don't feel like heroes any more ... We are outnumbered. We are exhausted. We are in over our heads. The President says, 'Bring 'em on.' The generals say we don't need more troops. Well, they're not over here."
Private Isaac Kindblade, 671st Engineer Company, U.S. Army, in Iraq
"I've got my own 'Most Wanted' list ... The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz," as told to ABC News.
Anonymous Sergeant, U.S. Army, in Iraq
"I cannot say that [the invasion of Iraq] was to prevent terrorism. I cannot find a single good reason for having been there and having shot at people and having been shot at ... This war should not be paid with the blood of American soldiers."
Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, Florida National Guard, served in Ramadi, Iraq
(Sergeant Mejia decided to go AWOL when on leave from Iraq, turned himself in, and is currently applying for conscientious-objector status.)
I hope these comments don't "upset" anyone.
- Status