PeterDavid.net

Meanwhile, Halliburton is preparing Cheney's Dubai mansion, and Stephen Colbert is the new Captain America. (Although we could certainly do worse, like this fellow: http://www.dvandom.com/drawings/nascap.JPG)

Of course, anyone wanting to bring the troops home wants the terrists [sic] to win.

Bush wants the Iraq authorization bill passed with "no strings attached".
That's because he's the decider, he decides what should be done. You see, he's been President for six years. The new majority in Congress has only been in power for a few months. They don't understand how government works. They should just defer to his years of experience as dicta...President and do whatever he says.

Peter, Peter, Peter, haven't you learned anything from watching '300'? If we don't send unlimited amounts of men and money to support an illegal war, then that means we're secretly traitors in the pay of a foreign power, and we hate freedom and democracy and all those other things! It's just that simple!

Oh, and if you don't kill hunchbacks at birth, they'll just grow up to be lecherous traitors. Better to just get it over with early.

It's the same tired bs from the right: Democrats present a plan, and the Republicans say the Dems have no plan, they don't support the troops, blah blah blah.

It makes you wonder how long the White House can keep crying wolf before even hard-core right-wingers say uncle.

I wonder if Vice President Crash Cart also considers this to be supporting the troops:

The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq
http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/?source=rss

"As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records."

It's too bad that the Dems are repeatedly spineless when it comes to standing up to Bush. What's the biggest thing they've done so far? They passed a non-binding resolution saying they disagreed with sending more troops to Iraq. Bush promptly gave them the middle finger and ignored them.

Bush has historically been giving everyone the middle finger- the Air National Guard, the State of Texas ( governed by a Yank from Connecticut who hides behind the Homestead Act pfui), the Electoral Process, the United States Constitution and our own troops. I say we all give it back to him in spades. Let's start a grass roots of FU Bush- post pictures on your blogs, YouTube et al. of yourself giving the Decider the bird. Exercise your digital rights!
huh-frikkin-zah!

All we have to do to stop all this warring, is to go back to the days of old, when leaders led their troops into battle. If Bush had to be in "harm's way" to go to war, we probably wouldn't have ever even fired a shot. Bush, the "christian" President doesn't mind ignoring "thou shalt not kill" so long as he can line his pockets with green.

It's amazing so many people were behind this war (and I'm not saying anything against the troops, they are following their orders), when no one knows why Iraq would be tied closer to Al Quida(?) then say, Saudi Arabia...but Saudi royals are the Bush's friends so they don't want anything bad happening there....

George Bush...please stop pushing our will on the cultures of others at the cost of innocent lives (ours and theirs), while you sit back with your prompter in your ear to tell you what to say next...

I'm always amazed that for some folks Criticism of the President (and/or his Policies) = Criticism of the Troops (and/or Hatred of America). I just don't get it and I don't think I ever will...

I agree with you, Peter. I think this whole "not supporting troops" statement the Republicans keep making is scurrilous at best. Does it even still work? I think the Democrats should follow the Republicans lead in supporting the troops--slashing veterans benefits and making sure the VA hospital system offers sub-standard care to our returning soldiers. Heck, the Democrats just want them home, out of harms way and reunited with their families. Obviouisly they aren't doing enough.

I've been a regular lurker here for years so I'm sorry for throwing my two cents into this. I'm a conservative Republican and local elected official but I thoroughly enjoy the debates I witness.

I strongly believe that Congress has a role in the declaration and cessation of armed hostilities. The assymetrical War on Terror poses a lot of confusion though on this issue. It is very difficult to sign a peace treaty with a set of rogue actors who are determined to do your people great harm with no apparent willingness to compromise in their mission. John McCain recently stated that "If we lose this war, and come home. They will follow us home." I don't believe that any withdrawal of US forces from Iraq will deter Islamic fundamentalist groups operating in Iraq or in other nations from continuing to launch attacks on US interests or individuals inside or outside American borders.

I believe this is an important debate occuring in Congress right now and shouldn't be hamstrung by any callous political catcalls (plenty of time for that in 2008). I remember when President Clinton appeared on television back in the late 90's and charted out why we needed to intervene in Kosovo because Milosevic was going to become the next fascist leader that would engulf Europe into war. I'm a student of history and my response was "that's a load of b.s." to his comparisons to pre-World War I Europe. It was laughable that a third rate country like Serbia that got its nose handed to it by the upstart Croatians during the breakup of Yugloslavia could launch any war of conquest against their neighbors.

As I said, I don't have the answers. I don't know how Congress can legally reign in the Imperial Presidency, especially so many years. Congress, as an institution, is complicit in its diminuation when it comes to war powers via its conduct during the FDR administration in World War II and the LBJ administration in the Vietnam War.

Scott, I came in to post exactly that bit about our wounded vets. It's bad enough how they get treated at Walter Reed (the parts turned over to that oh-so-perfect "free market" the Right loves to crow about as the best solution to everything), but we're going to send them back into the war zone while physically unfit for duty? Now who's supporting the troops?

Bush has an approval rating in the 30's, the Dems swept congres, why the hell are they still acting like scared rabbits, afraid of what the President and Fox News will say about them? They need to stop with the empty gestures and actually DO SOMETHING. And not be afraid to punch back when the Right Wing Spin Machine starts tossing mud.

The issue I have with "time-table" talk is that it does have the possibility to hurt the troops. Right now you have people in Irag hearing that we might back out before the area is stable, not knowing which side could be in power if that happens. So if you side with the Americans, they leave and those who are un-friendly to America get into power that's bad news for you, you might be more open to siding with those who would do harm to the troops. Playing arm-chair QB, sure we shouldn't be there, but now that we are, we need to leave quickly without notice or stay and finish until it's stable.

I never understood how "supporting our troops" means that we must send them to a foreign country for a pointless and baseless war so they can die in vain.

You have to remember, this is Cheney talking. Whenever he says something, you have to take the exact opposite as being truth.

"We will be greeted as liberators" means "We will be greeted as invaders"

"The insurgency is in its last throes" means "The insurgency is just getting started"

And so on. Heck, even when his friend apologized to him for being shot in the face, that meant Cheney was apologizing to his friend for shooting him in the face.

So what he's actually saying is by not supporting Bush, the Democrats are in fact supporting the troops.

I will continue to criticize any President who puts the troops in "harm's way". Any government who puts so low a price tag on human life. I believe that every life taken on either side over there, will be one more point on Bush's ride to Hell in the end. The only type of person who could have a clean conscience of his actions, is someone who can truly not sympathize for others and how things effect their families for years to come. If only one of our soldiers was over there in harm's way, it's our duty to get them out, not leave them to marinate. The only thing Bush is doing now is lining his pockets with Tank contracts from his investments, and putting our country more in the red.

The one thing most Americas, I think, do not acknowledge, is that the culture over there was/is the Iraqi culture. As much as we would like to think that our ways, are "the" ways, it's not always true. The media gave us a spin how all these Iraqi's are thankful for democracy being brought to them. Riddle me this...if someone came in and took over our country and wanted to impose their beliefs on us, do you think we would just sit still? Yes, by our standards women over there were treated badly. We must allow ourselves to think outside the box, and realize that their cultural values, may mean that that is how a lot of them think it should be. Forcing them to change their ways, can be a dangerous choice to make...

"The assymetrical War on Terror poses a lot of confusion though on this issue. It is very difficult to sign a peace treaty with a set of rogue actors who are determined to do your people great harm with no apparent willingness to compromise in their mission."

It is necessary to distinguish between:

Assymetrical war

Terror

rogue actors

Willingness to compromise.

It is a mistake to lump al this together. Not all of the groups using terror in Iraq right now are motivated by the same reasons -- they are not all Al-Quaida -- and therefore there are differences in their willingness to compromise. The fact hat there are multiple groups with comlex agendas makes the possibility of compromise difficult. But this whole thing is difficult.

Al-Quaida, or like minded groups, will continue to want to hurt the US regardless of success or failure in Iraq. An American withdrawl will 'embolden' them, but so would the Americans remaining. It's a win win situation for them. But this does not mean that after withdrawl from Iraq 'they' will follow you home. Some will remain to deal with the situation in Iraq, or continue fighting in Iraq, others might go to their home, others might seek other conflicts to join, and some -- the more hard core Al-Quaida -- will seek to specifically attack the US. It all depends on the motivation.

What if the bulk of the troops want to be there (or think the troops should be there-obviously to some extent everyone wants to be home) and believe in the mission and think you are wrong for wanting them home?

What if they believe that by calling for the mission to end, you encourage the ones they are there to fight and kill to keep fighting, when a resolute country would send quite a different message?

What if their values and beliefs are largely quite different than yours?

From the soldiers perspective, I have a problem with the "timeline" and "pull-out" dates. it allows the enemy (my enemy, maybe not yours) a sense of hope, that all they have to do is hold on a little longer and we'll be gone. Also every attack that puts more strain on our politicians and gets them to talking about a "pull out" justifies more attacks.

One last thing, I'm sick of hearing the word "Quagmire" in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.

Anyway, thats my opinion take it or leave it.

I for one appreciate your comment SSG H

If any of the timelines were true or accurate, we would have pulled out in 2004 at the latest:)

I will say that I see some of the same nastiness to those that disagree here, and the same unwillngness to see those who disagree with the opinions of the majority of those who come to this bog as good honest people who disagree, as I see complained about here regarding the administration and its supporters.

From the soldiers perspective, I have a problem with the "timeline" and "pull-out" dates. it allows the enemy (my enemy, maybe not yours) a sense of hope, that all they have to do is hold on a little longer and we'll be gone. Also every attack that puts more strain on our politicians and gets them to talking about a "pull out" justifies more attacks.

Agreed (and that's speaking as someone opposed to Iraq action). It's clear that no one, on either side, has given much thought on whether it's even POSSIBLE to withdraw gracefully from the area, without causing more problems (and I think that it isn't possible).

Just curious that no one has specifically mentioned this... (Dave elluded to it, however)

www.gulf-news.com/business/Oil_and_Gas/10110825.html
(US oil services firm Halliburton's announcement that it will move its corporate headquarters from Houston, TX to Dubai has drawn criticism in America.)

Am I the only one that sees all kinds of conspiracy theories here???

Posted by: spiderrob8 at March 13, 2007 02:34 PM

What if the bulk of the troops want to be there (or think the troops should be there-obviously to some extent everyone wants to be home) and believe in the mission and think you are wrong for wanting them home?

That is their right. But the U.S. is not a military dictatorship. Quite the opposite: in the U.S. the military is under civlian control. The Congress is supposed to have the sole power to declare war (although everyone seems to have forgotten that), and the president is the Commander-in-Chief. Both Congress and the president are answerable to the people. If the majority of citizens want our troops home, then the civlian government should order our military to leave. The military should then follow those orders.

What if they believe that by calling for the mission to end, you encourage the ones they are there to fight and kill to keep fighting, when a resolute country would send quite a different message?

Then I would disagree with them. Micha, who actually lives in the Middle East and understands the cultures better than the vast majority of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, has pointed out in numerous threads that many Iraqi insurgents will fight like hell no matter what "message" we send.

What if their values and beliefs are largely quite different than yours?

Frankly, I don't think we can truly know what most of the troops are thinking. It's not like a scientific poll is feasible when people are engaged in all-out combat. And even if it was practical, the military chain-of-command would never allow it.

Moreover, any soldiers with grave doubts about the war may be less likely to express them for fear of reprisal from their commanders and/or fellow soldiers.

Besides, spiderrob8, in a prior thread you actually dismissed the value of individual troops' opinions when someone else pointed out that many military commanders have disagreed with Bush's Iraq strategy -- and in some cases even disagreed with the decision to go to war in the first place. Well? Which is it, then? Do the opinions of the military count or not? You cannot have it both ways.

Posted by: SSG H at March 13, 2007 02:39 PM

From the soldiers perspective, I have a problem with the "timeline" and "pull-out" dates. it allows the enemy (my enemy, maybe not yours) a sense of hope, that all they have to do is hold on a little longer and we'll be gone. Also every attack that puts more strain on our politicians and gets them to talking about a "pull out" justifies more attacks.

You are in Iraq because of a decision made by the civilian government of the U.S. In a democracy, we are responsible for our government whether we like it or not (or, for that matter, whether we "feel" we have such responsibility or not). Because you are doing a job for your country, and I am a citizen of this country, I cannot draw a distinction between "your" enemy and "mine."

I am staunchly opposed to the war in Iraq. I have been since it was just a gleam in our president's eye. But that doesn't mean I don't know which nation I call home.

That said, I believe you are wrong about our enemy's motivation. Micha, who lives in Israel and understands the Middle East much better than most of us do, has pointed out that there are a number of different factions with different agendas. Many of the insurgents don't give a shit about a timeline or lack thereof. They'll fight just as hard whether we swear to leave tomorrow as they will if we say we're going to stay until Kingdom Come.

Posted by: SSG H at March 13, 2007 02:39 PM

One last thing, I'm sick of hearing the word "Quagmire" in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.

Your analogy is invalid. We occupied West Germany but there was no insurgency. My father was with the army during the Cold War, stationed in Germany. He can tell you from personal experience that he was involved in NO active combat. Two totally different situations.

Posted by: SSG H at March 13, 2007 02:39 PM

Anyway, thats my opinion take it or leave it.

I disagree with your opinion but am glad you have taken the time to express it.

I disagree with your views, and I disagree with the Iraq war. But, again, I know where I live. The U.S. is my home. I pray for a resolution to this war that allows you to return home safely. And thank you for your service to this nation.

Posted by: spiderrob8 at March 13, 2007 02:49 PM

I will say that I see some of the same nastiness to those that disagree here, and the same unwillngness to see those who disagree with the opinions of the majority of those who come to this bog as good honest people who disagree, as I see complained about here regarding the administration and its supporters.

And yet in the post immediately after the one I've quoted above, an opponent of the war expressed agreement with a supporter of the war on a specific issue. Your confrontational attitude is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Put more simply, you're causing the very problem you claim to abhor.

I have suggested this to you before and will do so again: lose the attitude. You are a hothead, but you are also an intelligent person with worthwhile opinions to share. Why let the one aspect of your personality overshadow the other, better, part?-

Sigh... four posts in a row. Gee, looks like I have a life... not!

Spiderrob8, I just want to make one clarification: when I say "lose the attitude," I don't mean "lose the contrary opinions." I'm just saying there you can express contrary opinions in firm, confident, but non-confrontational ways.

Given our past interactions, I'm guessing this will upset you. I truly am sorry about that. My suggestions really do come from a place of goodwill. You are indeed in the minority here and it's nice to see the minority view represented. I hate to see you drowning your own views out, however, by getting into fights needlessly.

I said this a long time ago and will say it again. Any president or veep that to drags us into a war with lies, should be required to lead the charge. How many people believe we'd still be there if tin man and shrub were required to lead the charge like Leonidas.

Yeesh.

Y'know, Cheney, it IS possible to be completely against the war in Iraq, yet also support the troops...as long as they're there, they should be properly equipped and cared for, and once they return, have easy access to full veteran's rights and benefits. I don't think they ought to be there in the first place, but since I'm not in charge, I'd much rather they do it under somewhat humanitarian conditions.

I mean, how hard is it, if you know someone stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan, to just send them care packages and letters all the time? It won't do a hell of a lot of good in combat, but you wouldn't believe how much it helps their mental state. Trust me on that one.

That's "supporting the troops." But I'm still against the war. Oops, I guess that makes me a terrorist.

My Post:
"One last thing, I'm sick of hearing the word "Quagmire" in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there."

Response by Bill Myers

"Your analogy is invalid. We occupied West Germany but there was no insurgency. My father was with the army during the Cold War, stationed in Germany. He can tell you from personal experience that he was involved in NO active combat. Two totally different situations. "

Sorry Sir, I disagree that my analogy is invalid. The fact that there was a very limited, and I do mean VERY limited, amount of insurgent type combat only validates my point further. It took 10 years to turn the reigns of government back over to a sovereign state that had a socialogical history of democracy (yes I made op the term) and next to no insurgency... yet with Iraq we only get what 3 years and its a "quagmire" a lot of us hear this on the news and are left with a WTF look on our faces.

the other (very nitpicky) thing that pisses us off(me and my squad anyway) is how often the news people get ranks wrong when interviewing soldier (or airmen/marines/sailors). I know its a simple thing but how can I trust the rest of their reports when they can't be bothered to ensure that a simple think such as rank is correct.

"I support the firefighters... I just don't want them fighting that brushfire because I don't like the guy who started the fire. Also, I want them out if they don't have the whole thing under control by Wednesday."

Yeah, that makes heaps o' sense.

Posted by: Doom Shepherd at March 13, 2007 04:21 PM

"I support the firefighters... I just don't want them fighting that brushfire because I don't like the guy who started the fire. Also, I want them out if they don't have the whole thing under control by Wednesday."

Yeah, that makes heaps o' sense.

It doesn't make sense because it's a straw man argument you've created.

Besides, a better analogy for the Iraq War would be a forest fire that's burning out of control. Would you send firefighters into the raging heart of that fire, knowing they have zero chance of putting out that blaze and that most of them will surely die in the attempt? Or would you allow them to make a strategic retreat and protect those areas where they have at least a chance to succeed?

Iraq may well be a raging fire beyond our control to put it out. It may be a blow to our national pride, but I'll put our national security and the lives of U.S. troops over our pride any day of the week.

One last thing, I'm sick of hearing the word "Quagmire" in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.

What does this have to do with Iraq?

1)The troops in Germany aren't being shot at & killed on a daily basis. Nor were they between 1945 & 1955.

2) Germany declared war on us & was actively attacking other countries. Iraq wasn't.

The fact that there was a very limited, and I do mean VERY limited

Which is in no way equal to the open warfare occuring today.

To emphasize and separate out a sentiment covered above:

"Supporting the troops" and "supporting the mission" are not the same thing. There's some overlap, but it seems that the administration is all about the mission without really supporting the troops very well. If the troops were being supported, they would have gone to war with the army they wanted, not the army they had. There would have been body armor, vehicle armor, proper supply trains, etc.

The administration wants troops in Iraq, but doesn't seem to care much what happens to them while there. That it's not a COMPLETE sinkhole is a testament to the hard work and talent of the people actually running the ground effort in spite of all the crap the administration is responsible for. The people who manage to keep vehicles on the road despite lack of supplies, who keep men in action despite lack of armor (or the men who buy their own armor online). Etc.

Maybe if the government supported the troops as much as they support the mission, we wouldn't have anything significant to complain about.

"One last thing, I'm sick of hearing the word "Quagmire" in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.

What does this have to do with Iraq?

1)The troops in Germany aren't being shot at & killed on a daily basis. Nor were they between 1945 & 1955.

2) Germany declared war on us & was actively attacking other countries. Iraq wasn't.

The fact that there was a very limited, and I do mean VERY limited

Which is in no way equal to the open warfare occuring today. "

Same mission, different OPFOR. Which is why I'll never understand us having LESS time to accomplish in Iraq what we did in Germany.

At any rate no more time for this, last post. Take care.

Look, I've said it before. There is no doubt that terrorists view the debates about the war as an encouraging sign of weakness. But the alternative is to live in a society in which there is no debatem and in which a policy, good or bad, is continued without question until the leadership says otherwise.

The war is not going badly because the US is not sending the right message, or because of lack of confidence at home. It goes badly because it was mismanaged by the people leading it.

When a leadership leads a country to war on false pretences, and then does a bad job running the war, it has no right to expect that its policies will not be questioned and criticized.

Even people who support the war should question how it is being conducted. Even those who oppose the war must realize that it is too late to question the decision to go into Iraq, and must deal with the situation as it is, in all its complexity.

If the American army would have been fighting Nazi insurgents 3 years after the end of WWII, and had no effective strategy to deal with the problem, it would have been considered a quagmire. The 10 years between 1945 and the foundation of an independant West Germany were not required in order for the US to gain control of the country. Conversly, if the US army had established full control of Iraq and complete cecession of violence, and then needed ten years in order to rebuild the country and protect it from outside threats, nobody would have begrudged them the time. But this is not the case right now.

I am certainly not an expert on Iraqi factions. I can't claim to have much knowledge about the complexities of Iraq at all. But I know it is complex. It is important not to lump together all terrorists into one template and to understand the gradients and complexities.

Sarge, sorry to see you go, but I must again state that the occupation of Germany was in no major way comparable to the invasion of Iraq. For starters, we have yet to "occupy" Iraq; there is no zone in that country, outside the Green Zone inside the US base in Baghdad, that US forces control. They patrol other regions, yes; and the locals snipe at them from concealment, plant bombs, and in many other ways demonstrate that we do not hold the streets.

In Germany, within weeks of the toppling of the existing regime, the Allies owned every major city in the country, and pretty well controlled things outside the cities as well. There was a very small, extremely limited insurgent movement, one quickly quelled by the Allied forces and the local police (who were reestablished at the first opportunity). Contrast this with Iraq, where what passes for local defense forces mostly seem to moonlight for one or another of the militias.

In Japan, which we also occupied for a considerable time, the Allies forced a constitution on the Japanese people. Had we done so in Iraq, and had we persuaded the locals to adopt it, a good deal of unpleasantness may have been avoided. (Of course, it was considerably easier to impose a constitution on Japanese society of the time, accustomed as they were to regarding whoever was in charge as at least semi-divine. It's easier to take orders from a stranger who's standing in for the Gods than from a stranger who just happened to get elected to his position, even if he thinks he is a God.)

I would further submit that declaring war on a tactic, which is all terrorism is, is sublimely ridiculous. You can't shoot terror, you can't arrest it; it has no homeland to invade, no capitol to bomb, no international standing to discredit. It is a concept, purely and simply - and as we humans have proven time and again through our history, you can't kill a concept.

"From the soldiers perspective, I have a problem with the "timeline" and "pull-out" dates. It allows the enemy (my enemy, maybe not yours) a sense of hope, that all they have to do is hold on a little longer and we'll be gone."

See, I'm not so sure about that. I think that depends on which enemy in Iraq you’re talking about and what their ultimate goal is. The groups that we’re fighting in the Middle East are not one large group with the same goals, desires and ideas on how to get them.

Lets look at the world as seen through the eyes of George W. Bush for a moment. He and Cheney keep claiming that “the enemy” hates our freedoms and that they are trying to stop democracy in the Middle East. They also keep saying that we will stand down when the government of Iraq can stand up. When it’s on its feet, then we leave.

Well, now lets look at that worldview through the lenses of reality. The Prime Minister of Iraq has ties to terrorist groups in his past, most man on the street interviews that come out of Iraq as well as talking to friends who have family there pretty much make clear that the average Iraqis’ definition of “freedom” isn’t quite the same as the average American’s definition and there are already signs that Iraq is going to become, basically, another Iran.

The fight to stop a Western style democracy in Iraq is likely already halfway won without any real fighting on the enemy's part. It wouldn’t be all that hard to tip Iraq into their preferred direction after we’re gone under the Bush plan of "stay until the job is done". If all they wanted to do was stop Bush’s pipedream, all they would have to do is back off, stop the attacks, let Iraq stand up so we can stand down, watch us leave once the job is done and then let Middle Eastern nature take its course. We’d be out of the way and the forces that already seem to be aligning over there would pull Iraq into the direction they want it to go within a decade.

They likely know that. So what’s some of the other motivations for some of the killing going on over there with some of the groups doing the killing? Well, for one, despite Cheney claiming that there is no civil war going on over there, there’s a civil war going on over there. We can argue about the size and scope of it, but there is one happening over there. Guess what, they’ll kill each other, as they have for centuries, over religious, tribal or other nitpicks for at least several generations more whether we’re there or not. Pulling based on “jobs done” VS timetables won’t change that a bit.

How about this one? We know from their own internet, radio and television broadcasts that a big factor in the desire to go into Iraq and kill Americans is, for some, just to go in and kill Americans because they’re there and that makes them easy targets and close to fill-in-the-blank’s homeland. The short version of this? Some of the people coming in to Iraq right now are basically just there BECAUSE we’re there. We leave and their target of choice leaves.

And, no, that it no way backs up Bush’s claims that we’re fighting them there to keep from fighting them here. Most of the people fighting us there would not come all the way over here to shoot at Americans on our home court. The ones that would will likely do it whether we’re there or not. If Bush is to be believed at all, then we’ve stopped several attacks from happening in the U.S. by catching the culprits after they got here and started their plans in motion. The simple fact of Bush and his supporters boasting about these stopped nonevents that were in play on U.S. soil puts the lie to his claim that we’re fighting them there so as not to have to fight them here. We’re fighting them there and we’re fighting them here.

Is this slightly over-simplified? Yeah. I don’t have ten pages to devote to each of the above options and I don’t have that much typing time right now. But it does get the short, kind of summery POV out clearly enough. Later, when I’m not ignoring the work I should be doing to play on the net, I’d love to debate some of the finer points with you (or anybody else) and even to see where we might have some common ground that could create better ideas on both ends.

For now, especially if your active and getting shipped over there, keep your head down and stay safe. Be nice to have another civil poster with an active military POV around here to play verbal ping-pong with on both the agree and disagree threads.

:)

"Which is why I'll never understand us having LESS time to accomplish in Iraq what we did in Germany."

Maybe because this war was sold to the public, until the first shot was fired, as a war that would last, "six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," by this administaration. We were told left and right that this would be over and done with in no time flat.

We were also told that this would cost us next to nothing. The administration and administration toady line was that as soon as this quick little war was done, the Iraqi oil supply would be turned back on to full gush and that the shiny new American style Iraqi democracy would pay us back in full for our war costs.

We were also going to be loved, hailed as heroes, have flowers thrown at us and all that jazz.

Now, before someone points out the obvious, Bush did not make any of these statements. I know that. But Rummy, Rice, Cheney and others were making those statements and others like them in the higher positions of the 02 and 03 Bush administration on a regular and repeated bases. Bush never stopped his people from saying those things when speaking on behalf of his administration and he himself never made a single statement to contradict those predictions until after we started the charge into Baghdad. If you let your underlings speak for your POV for that long and as publicly as they did without ever putting a stop to it our saying that their personal views do not endorse the official administration policy, then you are, by default, approving their statements. Those in the media that were promoting the Bush administration “go to war” talking points then repeated them endlessly until the start of the war with, again, no official rebukes from Bush or his top people until after the first shots were fired.

Guess what? All of that turned out to be, like so many of the justifications for going into Iraq, so much hot air and bull patties.

Then there was the ever-changing reason for why we’re over there. Old reason fell apart? No problem. Put forward a new “The-Main-Reason-We-Went-To-Iraq-Is” press statement and hope that people don’t remember the last “real’ reasons we had to be there.

People were sold a bill of goods and now they’re having buyer’s remorse. Sad thing is, guys like you are now caught in the middle of a lot of crap on several fronts.

Beyond that, there’s just the general publics lack of understanding of war and the real world. Most people who haven’t fought in a war or who don’t have close family who did and shared some of that knowledge with them don’t have any idea what a real war is like. Hey, this is the same country that thinks that C.S.I. is a realistic show and that our forensic teams knock every case out of the park with that much ease to the point that it’s actually creating problems in court cases where juries have to be exposed to real forensic procedure and evidence and don’t think that its “real” because it’s not like C.S.I.’s evidence. And the Average Joe gets to see more police and police work in their life then they see of soldiers at war. This is a country that talks about how real 24 is and how it’s the perfect example of why we should be doing some of the things that we shouldn’t be doing because they don’t actually work out like they do on 24 without a script writer to control the outcome.

They also don’t know what the Middle East is like or what stepping into Iraq was going to be like. What was most American’s exposure to Iraq and Saddam prior to this? Iraq was the country on the news that was broken and poor and that we stomped a mud hole in years ago. Saddam was the butt of jokes in movies and TV. He was the clown who couldn’t shoot straight in Hot Shots and other live action films and he was having a gay relationship with Satin on South Park. He was a chump, a loser and a wuss. He wasn’t nothing. We could take him and his country without breaking a sweat.

Then reality stepped in. Oops.

You also have to realize how many people were scared spitless after 9/11 and just curled up into the fetal position and let Bush say and do anything he wanted to so long as he promised that he wouldn’t let that happen again. Fear, for most people, doesn’t last forever. Even the level of fear displayed by some after 9/11 and played upon so well by this administration. Lots of people who backed Bush before woke up and saw what they were allowing to happen. Again, the result is that guys like you get kinda stuck in the middle.

That sucks for you and it sucks for anybody who has a brain in their head and can see that. But there's not much that can be done about that because the debate as to what option is going to be the best long term solution in iraq has started to hit full roar and it's not going anywhere.

"At any rate no more time for this, last post. Take care."

Hopefully, you just mean for the rest of the day.

I'd like to point out that we're having a spirited disagreement that is remaining largely civil. No one on the anti-war side has been disrepectful to SSG H, and he has not been disrespectful to us.

We have liberals and conservatives, soldiers and civlians here. We have people from different countries participating here, like Micha, our token Israeli! (Just kidding, Micha. Your point of view is invaluable and always educational. You are a good and thoughtful man.)

People like spiderrob8 who claim this board is one-sided and unfriendly to opposing points of view are just plain wrong.

After all these years---YEARS DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!---in Iraq, the troops still don't have the proper equipment for fighting.

They still lack proper personal armor.
Their vehicles still lack proper armor.
They are still understaffed.
They are still being put back into action before they are ready.
They still don't have enough interpreters.

When is Bush/Cheney/Rove truly going to start supporting the troops? Wen?

And why are they understaffed? Because those in favor of mass killing are too cowardly to enlist.

Chickenhawks=neocons.

(And don't tell me to enlist. I'm too old and physically incapable.)

...And then along comes Alan Coil to prove me wrong.

Never mind. I'm going to bed to shake a head cold. Hopefully I'll have something to say worth saying tomorrow.

"Oh, and if you don't kill hunchbacks at birth, they'll just grow up to be lecherous traitors."

Gods, imagine if THAT's who they had to save in Trek IV? ("SANCTUARY!" "No, SAN FRANCISCO!")

Seems to me I remember reading somewhere that the military was updating their tactical training for urban combat and conditions. Too bad those in charge are still trying to fight with the OUTdated plan book.

1Can we add to that list the right of our troops to proper medical care after they've come home after being shot. Also I support the right of our troops to be properly trained and provided for and their familes to be provided for and if we the people and by that I include Bush's base have to pay more taxes to acheve that, i don't have a problem with that.

As Dave said, ""Supporting the troops" and "supporting the mission" are not the same thing. There's some overlap, but it seems that the administration is all about the mission without really supporting the troops very well. If the troops were being supported, they would have gone to war with the army they wanted, not the army they had. There would have been body armor, vehicle armor, proper supply trains, etc."

That's pretty much what I was trying to say, only with better word-things. :)

Posted by spiderrob8

What if the bulk of the troops want to be there (or think the troops should be there-obviously to some extent everyone wants to be home) and believe in the mission and think you are wrong for wanting them home?

Oh, yeah. (rolls eyes)

The "bulk of the troops" who have seen what a thorough-going mongolian fire drill is going on over there and just how much the Iraqi People love us (not) think it's a good idea to saty over there and get shot at for a cause that was lost even before The Decider made the Decision to lie and manipulate us into it.

Ain't what i hear from my son-in-law (what little he is willing to talk about).

Posted by SSG H

From the soldiers perspective, I have a problem with the "timeline" and "pull-out" dates. it allows the enemy (my enemy, maybe not yours) a sense of hope, that all they have to do is hold on a little longer and we'll be gone. Also every attack that puts more strain on our politicians and gets them to talking about a "pull out" justifies more attacks.

But anyone who has eyes to see - and actually like, ya know, looks, knows that a US pullout is inevitable, and that it is inevitable sooner rather than later on a real-world political/historical time scale.

We cannot sustain this sort of thing in the Real World of today - economically, domestically politically, or in terms of international relations.

One last thing, I'm sick of hearing the word "Quagmire" in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.

Well, yeah. But that was an "occupation". What we have in Iraq is not an occupation.

(Unless you're Halliburton and your occupation is collecting as much money for as little actual work on no-bid contracts, anyway.)

I seem to have missed the reports of daily battles with roving guerrilla bands in the streets of Berlin in 1954.

And, at least until the Shrub shoved us into this stupid war and international opinion began change, a lot of Germans actually thought our being there was a Good Idea, and that our troops were actually there to help defend their country. (Well, anyone who actually looked back at how WW2 went probably realised just what a mess Germany was going to be if we fought the Russians there, but, still...)

Posted by Bill Myers

Besides, spiderrob8, in a prior thread you actually dismissed the value of individual troops' opinions when someone else pointed out that many military commanders have disagreed with Bush's Iraq strategy -- and in some cases even disagreed with the decision to go to war in the first place. Well? Which is it, then? Do the opinions of the military count or not? You cannot have it both ways.

Those were merely generals, who don't know anything about the war or how it ought to be fought. (Or, not fought, as the case might be.)

One last question, *SSG* - and i'm not being nasty here, but i'm honestly wondering - have you served in Iraq? Or Gulf 1?

My own service was Viet Nam (era and place - though non-combat in a Navy shore establishment), and, while a lot of "the troops" felt that the Opposition back home might be going a little far, by the time i set foot in the place, there wasn't much doubt among the guys that i knew that the party was over.

And would the last person out please turn off the light at the end of the tunnel.

But, boy howdy!, do i ever agree with you on one thing - the fact that people can't get ramks right. I, personally, have only a limited understanding of the ranks and structures of the Army, Air Force or even the Marines, aside from counting stripes to see who ranks who, but i promise that if i were either interviewing troops or writing about them, i would make it a point to at least get it right on paper, even if i didn't exactly grasp it to the fullest.

I still twitch and grind my teeth when i hear some journalistic type - likely as not a Brit, at that - refer to "Princess Diana", which is just about equivalent to calling a sergeant "Colonel"...

"Hopefully, you just mean for the rest of the day."

yeah, I wasn't "taking my ball and going home" I just have limited time/access. I usually just lurk around here, I like a lot of PAD's books, but in the past I've kept myself out of discussions. I disagree with PAD's (democrat) politics on a number of levels, though I also disagree with a lot of republican politics as well, I'm about at the point where I think political leaders should be chosen from a lottery and there should be no "political career field"

Mike Weber:

"Ain't what i hear from my son-in-law (what little he is willing to talk about)."

A lot of the people hate us, a lot like us (or our money), and a lot could give a s*** less and are just waiting till we leave for the next shoe to drop. There is no question that our cultures are not compatible.

Also keep in mind that a significant percentage of the EPW and enemy KIA are from outside Iraq, which means that a similar percentage of insurgents are from outside Iraq. Whoever mentioned that the insurgent issue is complex was really understating the issue.

"One last question, *SSG* - and i'm not being nasty here, but i'm honestly wondering - have you served in Iraq?"

Yes I have. But I am a 31B MP and not 11B Infantry so that might color my viewpoint some.

"Or Gulf 1?" no.

"But, boy howdy!, do i ever agree with you on one thing - the fact that people can't get ramks right. I, personally, have only a limited understanding of the ranks and structures of the Army, Air Force or even the Marines, aside from counting stripes to see who ranks who, but i promise that if i were either interviewing troops or writing about them, i would make it a point to at least get it right on paper, even if i didn't exactly grasp it to the fullest."

LOL, I feel the same way about Navy ranks... I don't know If I'll ever understand them.

Just to clear the air, I took no offense to your questions. For one its the internet, I could have just as easily "tagged" myself CSM or LTG, no one here has any proof that I'm really a Staff Sergeant other than my word.

Bill Myers -
Micha ... has pointed out that there are a number of different factions with different agendas.

Well, with no offense intended to Micha, it doesn't take somebody living in the Middle East to see what's really going on in Iraq - it just takes somebody who is willing to not automatically assume that anybody fighting US soldiers in Iraq as terrorists.

The simple fact is that some of these people fighting our soldiers simply see us as an invader that needs to be forced out of the country. But, the 'freedom fighter' concept (which is I'm sure how some native Iraqis view themselves) has been completely ignored by Bush & Co. in favor of political expedience: that everybody must be a terrorist working for Al Qaeda, when it simply isn't the truth.

SSG H -
yet with Iraq we only get what 3 years and its a "quagmire"

Last I checked, once "mission accomplished" was announced in Germany, the war was over. The war is not over in Iraq.

3000 US soldiers didn't die in Germany after WWII was declared over. US soldiers didn't have to take and retake cities because the Germans wouldn't stop fighting.

Your view of Iraq and dislike of the term 'quagmire' is, imo, very strange indeed. But then, I question why you would compare Germany and Iraq in the first place when there really is no solid comparison to be made.

Now, Vietnam, on the other hand...

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 14, 2007 10:49 AM

Well, with no offense intended to Micha, it doesn't take somebody living in the Middle East to see what's really going on in Iraq...

The only reason I brought poor Micha's name into it was to counter spiderrob8's assertions, which seemed to have as their premise the idea that the soldiers in Iraq have a better perspective than us civilians. I was trying to point out that merely being in Iraq isn't the same as understanding the culture, history, politics, and economics of that region. Hell, most of our personnel in that region don't even speak the local language!

Moreover, I'm not sure you're correct that "it doesn't take somebody living in the Middle East to see what's really going on in Iraq." If Micha has taught me anything, it's that the cultural chasm between the U.S. and the nations of the Middle East is larger than most of us imagine. We tend to see the world in what we believe to be a perfectly obvious and rational way, but a lot of what we consider to be "perfectly obvious" is seen through the prism of our own cultural biases.

Want a "for instance?" New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has covered the Middle East extensively and has many contacts there. He pointed out that in the U.S., people tend to be more truthful with you in private than they are in public. In the Middle East, people tend to do the reverse. That seems counter-intuitive, but that's their culture. I therefore don't think any of us can really understand what's going on in that region without understanding each of the cultures at play.

I was one of the troops over there the first time around.

I like PADs version of supporting us best.

I DON'T BLIEVE THE MINDLESS BLOGS, EVERYONE SHUT UP.

From that bastion of pinko-liberalism The Army Times:

...in the Army -- in the midst of a war -- the number of soldiers approved for permanent disability retirement has plunged by more than two-thirds, from 642 in 2001 to 209 in 2005, according to a Government Accountability Office report last year. That decline has come even as the war in Iraq has intensified and the total number of soldiers wounded or injured there has soared above 15,000...

Those who try to navigate the [disability rating] process beyond their initial evaluation -- to include hundreds of combat veterans in limbo at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington -- face long waits, lost paperwork and months or even years away from home as they try to complete the process. If they receive a rating of above 30 percent, they receive disability retirement pay, medical benefits, and commissary privileges. Those rated under 30 percent receive [24 months] severance pay and no benefits.

• “I finally decided to take on a [rating] case myself,” [deputy general counsel for Disabled American Veterans Ron] Smith said. “It’s been a while since I took a case.”

He found an Army captain whose radial nerve in his right arm had been destroyed in Iraq -- the same injury that has left Bob Dole, the World War II veteran and former Kansas senator, unable to use his arm to do more than hold a pen.

Smith followed the captain through the physical evaluation board process. He said that under the ratings schedule, this was an easy call: 70 percent disability. But at his first informal medical evaluation board, the captain initially was offered just 30 percent...

Many troops accept the first rating offered them at their initial informal evaluation board, Smith said. “Soldiers are trained. When the evaluation board says, ‘This is what you get,’ the soldiers say, ‘Yes sir.’ A lot of people don’t appeal.”

• In May 2003, Army Cpl. Richard Twohig was thrown from an armored personnel carrier in Iraq. The 82nd Airborne Division paratrooper landed on his head, said his lawyer, Mark Waple, of Fayetteville, N.C.

Twohig suffers headaches at least once a week that last up to 14 hours, as well as short-term memory loss, and is dependent on pain medication.

“This is well substantiated by his doctors -- Army medical doctors,” Waple said.

But his physical evaluation board rated him only 10 percent disabled for another injury because he had no substantive proof the headaches were a result of the accident -- even though regulations call for evaluation boards to give troops the benefit of the doubt in such instances....

Twohig can’t work because of the disabling headaches, and even if he receives VA benefits, his family has lost its medical insurance. And if a physical evaluation board rules that injuries are not related to service or were preexisting conditions, troops are not eligible for VA benefits, either.

• ...a Judge Advocate General lawyer looked at [Villalpando's] case after he filed a complaint that he received no disability rating because his depression was ruled to have existed prior to his enlisting.

Villalpando said he became depressed because his cousin, a Marine, was electrocuted while they were both serving in Iraq. He has been at Walter Reed for just over a year.

“The JAG wanted to know how they knew it was existing prior to service if they didn’t have my medical records,” Villalpando said.

What if their values and beliefs are largely quite different than yours?

Funny, a few months ago, I suggested in this blog that Bush try listening to the opinions of people with actual combat experience when planning the "surge" as a nice change of pace and somebody (I think his name was "spiderrob8" or something like that) took me to task and told me that their opinions were unimportant.

Gee.

Joe Thomas wrote "I DON'T BLIEVE THE MINDLESS BLOGS, EVERYONE SHUT UP." I personaly would like to thank Joe. Previous to today, I thought that my first few postings made me the biggest idiot a** on the blog (which thank you to PAD and everyone for not banning me forever and showing me the error of my ways). Thanks Joe. You now have the crown.

James

Supporting the troops to me is saying "yeah we understand you have a sucky job to do and thank you for doing a thankless job, but we want to get you home in one piece despite the best efforst of our Prezydent to push you into revolving-door deployees so he can move into Iran."

six days, sixe weeks, six months...try six years bucko.
jeezlouis.

"Previous to today, I thought that my first few postings made me the biggest idiot a** on the blog (which thank you to PAD and everyone for not banning me forever and showing me the error of my ways). Thanks Joe. You now have the crown."

Just as, no matter how skilled at something someone may be, it's a little frustrating to know there's always someone out there more skilled, it's also the case that--no matter how big a jerk someone believes they are--they can draw comfort from the knowledge that there's an even bigger jerk out there. So I guess it all balances out.

PAD

My criteria for "Supporting the Troops":

1)Proper and relevant training for the anticipated mission. Don't send mountain warfare specialists to fight urban combat.

2)Properly equip EVERY SINGLE SOLDIER AND UNIT. Don't "fight the war you get with the army you have". Make sure that army has the tools to do the job. Even if it means tax increases, Congressional pay cuts, and Halliburton not cleaning up on the clean up.

3)Clearly define the mission. Try actually telling the truth about the wherefores and the whys.

4)DO NOT stand under a banner on the deck of an aircraft carrier declaring Mission Accomplished when the mission remains unaccomplished.

5)DO NOT throw soldiers into a quagmire (sorry SSG H, it is what it is) in the name of political posturing.

6)Spend no less than 10 dollars on the care of injured soldiers for every dollar it took to get them injured.

7)Don't deny the obvious.

Just my 2 canadian centd worth.

Remember, May 1, Mission Accomplished Day.

Posted by: Shadowquest at March 15, 2007 10:12 AM

Previous to today, I thought that my first few postings made me the biggest idiot a** on the blog...

James, you weren't the "biggest idiot a** on the blog" even before Joe Thomas chimed in. Trust me. Not even the top five. How can I say this with such confidence? You cooled down rapidly and really listened to what others had to say. In the year-or-so that I've been posting here, I've run into at least five people I could name off the top of my head who wouldn't reconsider their words to save their own lives.

Sorry, the crown was never yours.

The X-Ray Award, one of the few awards where it's an honor to not be nominated...

-Rex Hondo-

All of the arguments regarding President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and the administrations actions on this website are the same old thing that people watching PBS get every night. Most of the people posting comments regarding these matters on this web-log and thousands of others, don't seem to believe in fighting for ANY reason at all. I have heard that there is a Culture War going on in this country. It's nice to know that the "enemy" doesn't have the knowledge, or the guts to fight back in any real manner. Many people are not happy with the current State of the Union, but for very different reasons. I am one of them. My definition of the following: "Supporting Our Troops"--Giving our fighting men the means to win whatever conflict they happen to be engaged in at the moment. They are there because they believe in this country, and our way of life. They would lay down their lives, for you, if neccessary. None of those posting here would do the same for them, or me, or most people that they've ever met.
I am looking forward to honest debate on this matter, if it is at all possible.
In the words of Fox Mulder,
"Bring it on."
Ever forward,

Robert Preston

My, Robert, how WONDERFUL it must be to live inside a head that knows the heart of everyone on the internet. Speaking only for myself, since I, unlike some people, wouldn't presume to identify the attitudes of my fellow posters, I know there are specific times when combat is in fact necessary. However, at no time did I ever consider Iraq one of those times.

Rereading your post, you seem to be living with some some ill-considered misconceptions. First, I don't recall anyone around here, nor more than one individual I know personally, who isn't supportive of they who serve in the military. Disagreeing with the politicians in Washington is entirely different than not supporting the troops. And if you believe as much as you claim that they who are fighting should have everything they need to win, why are you not furious that we have soldiers over there with insufficient body armor, which they had to pay for themselves, driving around in vehicles with no more protective ability than most of what is currently driving down the Jersey Turnpike, and being ordered to go in with no consideration for what they'll do once the initial task is accomplished or even cultural advisors to school them on the very different culture they'll encounter? Where is your anger then?

Finally, these people are my friends, and you should know that I think most of them would have no problem whatsoever laying themselves down under the right circumstances. I take great offense to the statement that because some here differ with your seemingly out-of-date and limited worldview that we don't believe in this country. And let me ask, if you saw someone on the side of the road that needed help, how quickly would YOU stop? There's more to being an American than kicking everyone's ass.

Ironic that you close your overly insulting post with "Ever forward," using arguements that look back to the beginning of the previous century.

Dear PAD,

Assume, for the moment, Bush and Cheney are not doing this for personal profit or power. They are doing this because they really do believe there is a threat. If that is true, then this is not about letting Bush do whatever he wants. It is about allowing the president to actually defend the country.

As I look at the world, there most definitely is a threat. And it did not start with Bush and Cheney entering office -- or even Clinton. You can go back to at least the Carter years and track the threat of the militant factions of Islam.

Was it necessary to invade Iraq to stop this threat? That is very much a matter of debate. While I think it was an appropriate way, it is by no means the only or even necessarily the best way. But with the invasion already done, there is a bigger issue that must be decided: Which is worse, staying there until this is done or pulling out?

A very strong case can be made that pulling out now would be worse than if we had never invaded in the first place. Even Hillary Clinton has conceded in a recent interview that some American troops would need to stay. Pulling out without some clear victory would only embolden the terrorists. This is not a matter of preserving Bush's pride. This is a matter of making it clear that attacking America is not worth the effort.

The reality is the troops are in the middle of a war. You didn't agree with the war in the first place. I get that. But there is a much bigger issue here than just pulling troops out to protect their lives. The bigger issue is ending this war in a way that protects American lives here at home. The soldiers signed up knowing they might be asked to give up their lives for the sake of their country. I don't take that lightly and mourn the loss of every life (on either side). But to pull them out now without finishing this the right way is to only put their lives at risk in the future either with another terrorist attack or with their having to go back to war all over again with an emboldened enemy.

I don't expect you to agree with the war. But redefining "supporting the troops" to simply make Bush and Cheney look like it is solely about their power and pride accomplishes nothing. The reality is they DO believe they are doing what is best for the country. If there is a better way to accomplish the protection of America, let's hear it. Even if it is a belief pulling out now is better, that is fine (even if I disagree). But assigning motives to Bush and Cheney does nothing to deal with the situation.

Iowa Jim

I will continue to criticize any President who puts the troops in "harm's way".

Comments like this are bewildering. The issue is not whether the President puts troops in "harms way." The issue is whether it is necessary and whether it will ultimately serve to protect the country.

Every President has the responsibility and duty to put troops in harms way when necessary to protect the welfare of the country. That is a whole different debate.

Iowa Jim

This is a matter of making it clear that attacking America is not worth the effort.

Before someone says it, let me clarify that I am NOT implying Iraq attacked us on 9/11. As others have argued better than I, there is a broader war on terror. Iraq was just one front of that war. They did not attack us on 9/11, but there is no question they were supporting terrorists, ignoring UN resolutions, and shooting at our planes which were enforcing a no-fly zone to protect groups like the Kurds.

Iowa Jim

This might have been covered already, but just in case . . . Anyone else find it interestingly timed that a flick like "300" came out while Congress is debating whether or not to allow for the troop surge? As though it might be a bit of public opinion manipulation? Possibly naught but paranoia, but just a thought . . .

Dear Mr. Scullion,
Three things.
First: I wouldn't presume anything about the people who post to this site that they haven't allowed with their written words. I could cut and paste several examples of this for you, but since you are obviously familar with this site, then you know of whom I speak.
Second: If funding for our military were not tied to various idiotic pork barrel spending from both the Republicans and the Democrats, the United States military would not have nearly the funding problems that it does today. However, the soldiers seem to be doing their job very well without bitching too much. Perhaps they are more familiar with the what was required at Bastogne and other places than you seem to be. Look that one up on Wikipedia or some other source if you are not a student of history. Most of the complaining comes from people like you. In my experience reading and talking to people from all different political and philisophical background, most of the those that I have encountered that hold your beliefs, and those of your friends who use this page (up to and including Mr. David, whose writing I have been interested for some time) are for the most part not able to support any form of military action against anyone of any country for any reason. They CLAIM they do, but their actions and words show different. They do not seem the kind of people to whom I would trust the future of this Nation, let alone my family or my back going through a door in a crisis. Not to say that there are not exceptions, but they are few and far between.
Third(and finally): As far as presumptions go, I was raised to not call someone by their first name until they gave me permission to do so. That was considered presumtuous.

All the best,

Robert Preston
p.s.- No insult was intended from this or previous postings. If I ever insult you personally, you'll KNOW it.

First--excuse my presumption. I call everyone around here by their first name with the possible exception of the Bills, and that's just because it'd be too confusing otherwise.

Regarding the spending on pork--I'm just about right there with you. Another problem I see with the way money is spent in Washington is the snail's pace at which, when it becomes clear there's a problem, it generally takes to get anything approved because too many are too close to their own causes not to see the bigger picture.

Just curious, not looking to start a huge arguement, but have you spoken to either soldiers that have been in Iraq or their families? Do you, in fact, have a history of military service?
Now, coming from the family I do, I am well familiar with the second world war. For example, my uncle was on the Bunker Hill at Pearl Harbor and eventually lost his legs because of it. I also gave serious consideration to becoming a history teacher while in college. Don't assume that simply because I interpret things differently than you, I don't know the facts. I find it slightly venturing into apples/oranges territory to compare the Battle of Bastogne to the Iraq situation. And how could you possibly know my views? Had my face not broken a windshield and my lungs been punctured, I would be in the military right now. Just to clarify, I feel that while going into Iraq the way we did was a tactical mistake, we now have the responsibility to leave it better than we found it. Put more simply, we broke it, we bought it.

Finally, I never felt personally insulted. My skin's a little thicker than that, and I have the scars to prove it. You did, though, insult they who I consider my friends, and for that I won't sit by and let that go unchallenged.

Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 05:23 PM

First: I wouldn't presume anything about the people who post to this site that they haven't allowed with their written words.

You can tell me that a circle is a square, but despite any amount of hot air you expel in my direction the circle will remain a circle. You have presumed to judge people far beyond what their words allow. Rather than judging us as individuals, you are allowing your perceptions to be clouded by your own emotions and are arguing with constructs of us that exist only in your own mind.

After September 11, 2001, I was furious. In fact, I thought we should mow down Afghanistan to show the world that such attacks would not be tolerated. That the price to pay was so high that no one should dare to even contemplate such attacks again.

Remarkably, George W. Bush and his administration proved to have cooler heads than mine. It may have had to do with the fact that they had the responsibility and authority I lacked.

I was 31 at the time. I don't know if I was eligible for military service at that time, but I hadn't given it much thought. I had just moved in with my girlfriend. I'd made a commitment to her and at the time it didn't look like a war that needed volumes of bodies thrown at it.

But make no mistake, one of the reasons I opposed, and continue to oppose, the Iraq Mistake, is that it depleted and continues to deplete resources that could be used to fight the actual war on terror.

Again, it is depleting resources.

That could be used.

To.

FIGHT.

The war on terror.

Just in case it wasn't already clear enough for you.

However, the soldiers seem to be doing their job very well without bitching too much.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the military. Soldiers are trained to follow orders, even at the cost of their own lives, not to bitch. I would hazard that we don't know what most soldiers are feeling. They're trained to do their jobs, however the feel.

God bless 'em.

Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 05:23 PM

In my experience reading and talking to people from all different political and philisophical background, most of the those that I have encountered that hold your beliefs, and those of your friends who use this page (up to and including Mr. David, whose writing I have been interested for some time) are for the most part not able to support any form of military action against anyone of any country for any reason. They CLAIM they do, but their actions and words show different. They do not seem the kind of people to whom I would trust the future of this Nation, let alone my family or my back going through a door in a crisis. Not to say that there are not exceptions, but they are few and far between.

Anecdotal evidence like this is meaningless. I don't know the people with whom you claim to have spoken. I do know that you have misjudged the crowd here. Based on what little I know of you, you are a very superficial person.

But of course, Internet posts are but a shadow cast by the person writing them. The person behind them is likely far more complex and nuanced than words on a computer screen. So I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not the two-dimensional thinker that your post makes you appear to be.

Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 05:23 PM

Third(and finally): As far as presumptions go, I was raised to not call someone by their first name until they gave me permission to do so. That was considered presumtuous.

Ah, I see. You insult people's patriotism and that's cool, but we're supposed to call you "mister?" No, sorry. You want respect, you show it. That's what my parents taught me.

Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 05:23 PM

p.s.- No insult was intended from this or previous postings. If I ever insult you personally, you'll KNOW it.

Yes, and we will shrug it off and go on with our day.

Hey, if you'd be interested in debating the war on its merits without resorting to ad hominem attacks, let me know. Debate and disagreement are far healthier than you seem to believe. I mean, what's the alternative? Islamic theocracies are great at squelching dissent and getting everyone to toe the party line. Personally, I prefer democracy, and democracy necessitates debate and disagreement.

It's the American Way.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM

They are doing this because they really do believe there is a threat. If that is true, then this is not about letting Bush do whatever he wants. It is about allowing the president to actually defend the country.

Your conclusion does not logically follow from its premises. Just because one believes something to be true doesn't make it so. What if I truly, sincerely believed that the safety of my family depended on attacking you? Given that I have no evidence whatsoever to support that belief, attacking you would be more about my inability to assess reality than it would be about defending my family.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM

As I look at the world, there most definitely is a threat. And it did not start with Bush and Cheney entering office -- or even Clinton. You can go back to at least the Carter years and track the threat of the militant factions of Islam.

Yes. Therefore we must attack Egypt, right?

Oh, wait, not every nation in the Middle East is a direct threat to us.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM

A very strong case can be made that pulling out now would be worse than if we had never invaded in the first place. Even Hillary Clinton has conceded in a recent interview that some American troops would need to stay. Pulling out without some clear victory would only embolden the terrorists. This is not a matter of preserving Bush's pride. This is a matter of making it clear that attacking America is not worth the effort.

Right. Because if you attack America, we'll attack a nation that wasn't involved in that attack and divert resources against our actual enemies.

I don't see much deterrent value in that strategy.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM

But redefining "supporting the troops" to simply make Bush and Cheney look like it is solely about their power and pride accomplishes nothing. The reality is they DO believe they are doing what is best for the country.

And you know this... how? I don't think any of us can read their minds. We can only judge their actions. Whether they are sincere or not, they have proven to be incompetent leaders. Every assumption they made about Iraq has proven to be wrong. Therefore, I don't care what they BELIEVE. They have bungled this war and cannot be trusted to run it.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM

If there is a better way to accomplish the protection of America, let's hear it.

Investing in more human intelligence, learning the culture of the Middle East, letting intelligence dictate what the administration believes rather than the other way around would be a good start. An even better start would be unleashing a full-court diplomatic effort to create a political solution for Iraq. That's what's needed, after all. Our goal wasn't to simply mow down one government and leave. It was to mow down one government and grow another in its place. That's not solely a military task, it's also a poltical one.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 17, 2007 03:56 PM

Even if it is a belief pulling out now is better, that is fine (even if I disagree). But assigning motives to Bush and Cheney does nothing to deal with the situation.

Yes, it does. People's motives have to be taken into account before deciding how much trust we can invest in them.

Iowa Jim, I believe your strongest argument is that pulling out of Iraq will make things worse, not better. I suspect that pulling out of Iraq will have direct negative consequences for the U.S., but I am certain it will make things far worse for the Middle East. We went stomping into Iraq without being asked. We have a responsibility to the people in Iraq and the surrounding area to clean up the mess we made.

Your weakest argument is the idea that Iraq was ever a front on the war on terror. There is no evidence to support this and plenty of evidence that suggests the contrary. Osama bin Laden often referred to Saddam Hussein as an enemy after all.

Vietnam should have taught us a lesson about the folly of foreign adventurism, but apparently we have short memories. The lesson we should have learned is this: we should fight the wars we NEED to fight, not the ones we WISH we need to fight.

Jim--don't feel like you're being ganged up on, first off. Just a question, though. How is "But redefining "supporting the troops" to simply make Bush and Cheney look like it is solely about their power and pride" any different from redefining just about everything that the administration doesn't like as "helping the terrorists?" That's why I don't like catchphrases.

Iowa Jim, let me echo Sean's sentiments: no intent to gang up on the conservative minority here.

In fact, I regret the sarcasm I used when I addressed you. It wasn't necessary and I'm sorry.

I generally disagree with you, but I nevertheless believe you to be an intelligent person of goodwill.

Bill, I was considering posting that you addressed Iowa Jim rather harshly considering he made a respectful and thoughful post (unlike Mr. Preston). But then I realized that there is no need to say anything, because you are sensitive enough to notice this yourself, and to make the necessary apologies.

Anyone else find it interestingly timed that a flick like "300" came out while Congress is debating whether or not to allow for the troop surge? As though it might be a bit of public opinion manipulation? Possibly naught but paranoia, but just a thought...

Dude, 300 was messed up. They tell you in the opening the puny and mishaped infants are killed. So when the 300 were cheering their fight to preserve their freedom, they apparently meant their freedom to throw babies off of cliffs. Not many people realize our national pastime of baseball was based on the ancient Greek sport of "babiesball."

It was a Sparticus remake with fights like the Matrix and Lord of the Rings special effects -- but without the dramatic pay-off.

I heard at one of the film premiers reporters tag-teamed asking if the Xerxes invasion was meant to represent the US invasion, and if the defense department had subsidized the movie.

"As far as presumptions go, I was raised to not call someone by their first name until they gave me permission to do so. That was considered presumtuous."

In the words of the esteemed Sgt. Hulka, "Lighten up, Francis."

Jim, as has been stated above, the "threat" from Iraq has more to do with Dubya's inability to tell the difference between internal and external reality than with any actual threat per se. Dubya's advisors intercepted communiques to Saddam's royal palace, failed to take into account the simple fact that Saddam killed anyone who dared tell him what he didn't want to hear, and concluded that the nutbar actually was a danger to more than just his own country. Thus, our forces were sent into a place they didn't need to be, to overthrow a madman who didn't need overthrowing, and took the lid off a can of explosive worms (to Mixmaster a metaphor). Now we're kind of stuck there, because the situation was destabilized by Dubya's attack.

Bill M, attacking Egypt actually would make some sense. After all, the 9/11 terrorists had all been school in the Wahhabi belief system - which is most strongly grounded in the slums of Cairo. Saudi Arabia would be another valid target - 17 of the 19 people involved in the hijackings came from there. (It's also a nation ruled over by a tyrannical dictator - but I digress.)

Iraq? Well, they threatened to kill GHWBush - after he had left office, mind you, but the threat was made. And trying to kill Dubya's daddy is of much greater import than actually killing almost 3000 people Dubya doesn't know, some of whom weren't even Americans - right?

Micha, you are correct: I could have phrased the same points to Iowa Jim in a much less confrontational manner. I should have accorded him the respect that he showed to others in disagreeing politely.

Again, Iowa Jim, I am sorry. I stand by my arguments, but not the sarcasm with which I phrased them.

PAD,
"When I think of supporting the troops, I'm thinking of supporting their right not to be mired in an ill-defined mission"

President Bush has said repeatedly that the mission is to have the Iraqi government be stable and be capable of defending themselves.

"that treats their lives as easily disposable commodities"

I doubt anyone except the fringe elements see our soldiers' lives as "easily disposable commodities". But every soldier knows when he signs up that the possibility of losing it on the battlefield is a very real one. That is not to take it lightly. My twin brother could still theoretically go although he is older so the chances are a bit more remote than some. One of my friends from my hometown went. And the son of a local township supervisor was killed over there.

"I support their right to keep sucking oxygen"
As do most rational people.

"I support their right to an honest government"

Nice. But will this help us win and achieve our objectives?

"that should admit they were sent over there on political pretext"

They should admit to something that is purely your opinion? Unless someone can prove wht the political pretext was, I thing we should focus on winning.

"to search for weaponry that wasn't there"

B. Clinton, Kerry, H. Clinton and many others felt the WMD were there. Bush waited five months from receiving authorization to use force against Iraq and actually using it. Plenty of time to have the weapons relocated to Syria, as was widely reported then. Not so much now.

"and is now operating on fumes in the middle of an ongoing civil war that's going to be waged whether we're there or not"

If we are 'operating on fumes'- which i don't agree with - then we should actualy send more troops to ease the burden of those already there, don't you think? Having John Murtha not threatening to withold funds for the war unless Pelosi gets a bigger plane would help, as well.
In the end, the troops' morale is of the utmost importance.

"As opposed to Cheney, for whom "supporting the troops" is code for "giving Bush carte blanche".

I disagree. I find it impossible to know that this is what Cheney is thinking. And i find it highly probable that if more Democrats - and cowardly Republicans - actually had the balls to criticize bush when they thought he was wrong but stand united for victory, this war would have been won by now.

Dear Mr. Scullion and Mr. Myers,

Please, gentlemen, call me Robert. Since I am unfamiliar with communicating this way, I’ll respond to your comments in order of importance.
Mr. Myers: Democracy is NOT the “American Way”. At no time does the word democracy ever appear in either the Declaration of Independence or The Constitution. Our founding fathers were very wary of Democracy as it used by the political Left today. That word should be carefully considered when applying it to the United States. There is a reason why Al Gore is not in office. Thank God. If you need a further example, consider this. Fifty percent of the people you meet are below average.
After 9-11-01(the Attack) I was furious also. I still am. However, I thought that after Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, or even Saudi Arabia would have been a viable target as well as Iraq. The President chose Iraq for reasons strategic, as well as political. I support the reaction, but not the prosecution for the war. Time will tell.
As to judging people by their words. Let them write more words, and I will read them as they are written. All I have to go by is what’s there on record. From what I can determine, I have a pretty good idea of where most on this site stand on certain issues. If a question is asked, I will not disparage the honesty of the answer. As I stated before, I’m new to this.
Soldiers would not be soldiers if they didn’t follow orders, but do not pretend that they are mindless automatons. That’s rude and disrecpectful. These men believe in the United States of America. More to the point, their job is to kill people and break things. Most of them really do enjoy kicking the crap out of THE BAD GUY S. You know, the ones who are shooting at them? The ones who want to drive buses of innocent people into more innocent people and murder them? You know, those people.
Anecdotal evidence is all that most on the Internet have to go on. As for respect, earn it. Theodore Roosevelt chose his Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee because the man knocked him on his ass in a boxing ring. I doubt that Ruth Ginsberg would ever have the guts. I defy you to cite an example of me insulting anyone’s patriotism. I don’t do that.
As for debating, I am very open to that. However, while I enjoy playing Devil’s Advocate, I was once thrown off of a high school debate team because my idea of a rebuttal is “F!@#$%^&*K YOU!!! Be warned. My email address is rttss@hotmail.com.
Mr. Scullion: Yes I do come from a military background. Although I never served myself, I wish that I had. And we seem to be closer in opinion on the Washington B.S. than most people these days.
As for your uncle at Pearl Harbor, my best to him. I have two that were in the Navy in the Pacific. One, Lynn, is a codger, lifetime Democrat, and one of the toughest men I have ever met. If you want, I’ll tell you about the U.S.S. Finback. His sub fished a downed pilot out of the water once.
My only reason for mentioning Bastogne, is the fact that I firmly believe that most of the complaining about our lack of funding comes from the major media sources, who, it seems, will say anything to make any war effort nowadays look bad. Imagine if WWII had been reported to the American public using today’s modern media techniques? Would we have won?
To both gentlemen: Please forgive my spelling, and grammar. I’m a lousy typist. If I seem two-dimensional, it is only because the page appears that way. All questions will be answered honestly. And my name is my own. I’m in the book.

Good talking to you,

Robert Preston
p.s.-If I didn’t address all of the differences noted by you gentlemen above, don’t worry. I’m sure there will be more.

David Van Domelen,

"Of course, anyone wanting to bring the troops home wants the terrorists to win"

If we are seen as being "driven out" of Iraq, how exactly do you feel that will be viewed by terrorist factions? By the Mideast? By those in Iraq who have risked so much, from training with American soldiers to policing the streets to those who are helping us build schools?
It has been over three decades and the country still has a Vietnam Syndrome. ur departure there hurt us in the eyes of the world and helped lead to the deaths of over three million people. If we were to simply boly, how could we be trusted again by those we seek out as allies? And what will an ever-more-aggressive Russia, powerful China, North Korea and Iran think?

Scott Bland,
"It's too bad the Dems are repeatedly spineless when it comes to standing up to Bush. what's the biggest thing we've done so far? They passed a non-binding resolution saying they disagreed with sending more troops to Iraq. Bush promptly gave them the middle finger and ignored them."

As well he should have. hat vote was so cynical, it's no wonder people hate politicians. To have that kind of vote with no bite is simply a way to appeal to the MoveOn crowd by saying they were "against it" without actually cutting off funding. If they are truly against the surge, why appoint a new man who will be leading it? because on the chance the surge succeeds, they can then say they put "pressure" on the President.
Oh, and violence is down 80% since the troop surge - mention of which I have not seen in any of the mainstream media.

Michael D,
"I'm always amazed that for some folks Criticism of the President (and/or his policies) = Criticism of the Troops (and/or Hatred of America). I just don't get it and I don't think I ever will."

Reasoned dissent is fine. Conservatives like George Will have made intelligent cases against the Iraq War. But when you have Rosie o'Donnell spouting "We invaded and occupied them" - well, who is doing the invading and occupying then? Our soldiers. when you have her cohort Behar say "They are thieves and murderers" in regards to the Administration...well, unless Bush was driving a Ford Bronco in 1994 or something does that not imply that the troops are "murderers" or, at the very least, "instruments of murder". It is impossible to say things like that and then say you support the troops.

William Gatevackes,
"I think this whole "not supporting the troops" statement the Republicans keep making is scurrilous at best."

No. If you listened to some of the people at the anti-war rally a few weeks ago, many of whom blamed the U.S. for a variety of the world's ills, dramatically inflated the number of civilian casualties and blamed our involvement in Vietnam for causing the 3 million deaths I mentioned earlier, it is clear many were amti-military. those are just a mild sample. Also, when neither David Letterman nor O'Donnell can reply "yes" to a being asked whether or not they want the U.S. to win, then that is a clear message of non-commitment at best and non-support.

"The Democrats just want them out of harm's way and reunited with their families."

Well, they would never be in harm's way if we never sent them anywhere. If we are to survive as a nation, that is not an option. The world is an increasingly dangerous place these days. I would rather deal with these threats before they grow. would we not be better off if we had dealt with North Korea more sternly in 1994 or Iran even five years ago?

sneezythesqid,
"Bush has approval ratings in the '30s"

Still higher than the 25% Truman left office with in large part due to Korea. History has treated him more favorably than his contemporaries. It is my opinion the same thing will happen with Bush.

"the Dems swept Congress"
Well, they won both houses. But neither by an overwhelming margin.

"why the hell are they still acting like scared rabbits"

good question.

'afraid of what the President or Fox News will say about them"

Again with Fox News. The coverage of the war by the mainstream press has ben extremely negative. even Bill O'Reilly says Iraq is "a mess". But we have 60 Minutes finding 10 soldiers, ALL OF WHOM DIDN'T SUPPORT THE SURGE while claiming they couldn't find any who did. well, they must not have looked very hard. Sean Hannity has. Oliver North has. Why couldn't 60 Minutes?
Richard Engel on NBC routinely injects his anti-war opinions into his "objective" reports and Meredith Viera of "Today" actually took part in anti-war march.
If the mainstram press dedicated even 20% of their coverage to positive developments they would appear a lot more credible.

"They need to syop with the empty gestures and actually DO SOMETHING"

On this point, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

"And not be afraid to punch back when the Right Wing Spin Machine starts tossing mud."

Guess they're counting on the Left Wing Spin Machine including, Katie, Brian, Rosie, Diane, Air America's loudmouths,Clinton's buddy Kaplan and all the rest to do their work for them.

Denny,
"I never understood how "supporting our troops" means that we must send them to a foreign country for a pointless and baseless war so they can die in vain"

By saying the war is pointless and baseless you are saying that their actions are pointless and baseless. That's hardly the definition of support. Saying that they are dying in vain is ironic, since if we do not finish the job more people will see those who did die as doing so in vain.
If you do not support the war, that alone does not make you anti-American. But it sure means you aren't supporting them in any meaningful way.

Brian Douglas,
"You have to remember, this is Cheney...So, what he's actually saying is that by not supporting Bush, the Democrats are in fact supporting the troops."

It means no such thing. Yet again, the personal and sometimes irrational distrust and even hatred of Bush and Cheney is emphasized and substituted for a rational solution. Is it at all possible to hate the men but respect the objective.

Bill Myers,
"They bungled this war and cannot be trusted to run it."

Then the Democrats should say so and talk serious with the American people about their solutions and what they are and what they hope to achieve rather than engaging in the cynical political games they are right now.

Robert--two things, really quick, because then I have to get back to work.

First, my uncle--when I talked about Uncle Oscar, I should've written my LATE Uncle Oscar. Sorry for the the omission and the misunderstanding, but thank you for the well-wishing. My best to your two.

Second--haven't really noticed any problem with your typing or grammar. Trust me, as a writer, it always rankles me when people don't communicate clearly, I WOULD have noticed.

Anyone else find it interestingly timed that a flick like "300" came out while Congress is debating whether or not to allow for the troop surge? As though it might be a bit of public opinion manipulation? Possibly naught but paranoia, but just a thought . . .

Well, it was written several years before the war and it's pretty close to the comic...and it's based on events that happened a few thousand years ago...and the producers would have had to be psychic to have predicted that we'd be debating whether or not to allow for the troop surge when they stared filming it...so I'm going to come down squarely on the "paranoia" theory.

300 was, I might add, a ripping good movie and the best I've seen this year. It might be quickly dethroaned by Grindhouse though.

Hey, I just realized that my link to the Army Times™ article -- that periodical whose readership is active Army -- on the shitty way George Bush's defense department is treating wounded soldiers is broken:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/TNSmedholdmoney070222/

I'm mortified that link was broken. I bet all those wounded soldiers are healed by now and ready to join in on the surge.

Jerome: Point still stands. Doesn't matter what the terrorists actually think, anyone making a case for leaving will be tarred with the "pro-terrorist" brush. Personally, I doubt the terrorists will be more or less happy regardless of what we do. They may change their details, but they still want to kill people and spread terror, any excuse will do, and no field-army can stop that sort of thing.

"By saying the war is pointless and baseless you are saying that their actions are pointless and baseless."

No. It isn't. And to say that if a person doesn't support the war, they aren't supporting the troops in any meaningful way is empty rhetoric. And your "who is doing the invading and the occupying" is likewise. Who would you like to do this country's invading and occupying? The Girl Scouts? The New York Giants, perhaps? And not two hours ago, I watched one of the pro-war protestors in DC being interviewed, and she was also of the opinion that anti-war means anti-troop. And yet, most of the anti-war types that I know have family in the military. Yeah, they're likely to look down on the troops.

Bill Muligan wrote:
"300 was, I might add, a ripping good movie and the best I've seen this year. It might be quickly dethroaned by Grindhouse though."

The Moor Next Door, who is a young Arab-American blogger who holds moderate conservative political views, wrote a review of 300.
http://wahdah.blogspot.com/2007/03/fantastic-waste.html

Bill Myers wrote:
"Micha, you are correct: I could have phrased the same points to Iowa Jim in a much less confrontational manner. I should have accorded him the respect that he showed to others in disagreeing politely."

My intention was not to criticize you but rather to praise you.

About Bastogne. WWII have become a yardstick against which all wars are measured. There is a desire to return to the certainty of that war. But most wars are not like that. The war against Islamic Radicalism is certainly not like that. It is more like the war against communism.

I was going to post a long reply to all the issues, but I started boring myself, so I gave it up.

Bill,

Your conclusion does not logically follow from its premises. Just because one believes something to be true doesn't make it so.

That was not my point. My point is that PAD basically said Cheney and Bush want a blank check for a war that was started under false pretenses. If the last part is not true (they did not start it under false pretenses), then they are not asking for a blank check but are doing what any commander would do, doing what is needed to actually win.

I understand you (and others here) do not see Iraq as an essential part of the war on terror. I disagree, but it is late and I need to get some sleep. I respect your disagreement on this. It doesn't change the fact that what's done is done, and we have to work with the present situation.

Yes, it does. People's motives have to be taken into account before deciding how much trust we can invest in them.

I get that, but it misses the point. If you demonize the opposition (as "my side" did with Clinton), you don't deal with the real issues. Bush's actions have been highly consistent with a belief this actually is a war on terror. I can respect those who say it has been handled poorly (I agree even on a few of the examples some have given). But it is hard to respect those who assume Bush is in any way deliberately lying and using this for his own political gain. If that was true, he wouldn't have such horrible approval ratings. To be political for a moment, Clinton would never have "stayed the course" with his poll numbers in the 30's. Whatever faults Bush may have, he is not in this for public opinion, nor (as far as I can tell) is he profiting from this (the past oil connections issues some raise are extremely weak and circumstantial).

Do motives matter? Yes. But they are extremely hard to judge. When someone's actions are consistent with his stated beliefs, even in the face of ridicule and opposition, that tends to demonstrate some internal consistency (at least in most cases). And when we are at war (and we are), it is not really helpful to assign motives for political reasons when doing so actually emboldens the enemy.

Do I think PAD is patriotic and loves this country? Yes. But the fact that he is sincere doesn't make it a good idea to not support our troops in the way that really matters right now -- allowing them to actually win this war.

I close with a link. The people in Iraq recently agreed in a poll that things are better now than under Sadaam -- even with all of the bombings, etc.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

We DO have a real chance to win this war in Iraq if we stick with it. It is not certain, and it depends on the Iraqi's, but putting our troops in harms way IS making a difference.

Iowa Jim

David, It matters what they think if it encourages them to "hold on" until we will eventually retreat. Some Arab scolars have even pointed to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam to embolden them. They have taken it as a lesson that if they inflict enough pain and give the perception that the war is lost by causing enough casualties, America will no longer have the stomach for the fight.
Frighteningly, they may be right.

Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM

Please, gentlemen, call me Robert.

I would have done that anyway.

Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM

As for respect, earn it.

I'm not overly concerned about your opinion of me.

Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM

My email address is rttss@hotmail.com.

Uhm, thanks, but no thanks. You don't strike me as someone I want to get to know.

Iowa Jim, your last post deserves a thoughtful response and I'm not in a position to give it one at the moment. So let me instead merely say "thank you" for taking the high road when I didn't. You're a class act.

The Moor Next Door, who is a young Arab-American blogger who holds moderate conservative political views, wrote a review of 300.
">http://wahdah.blogspot.com/2007/03/fantastic-waste.html

Obviously I disagree with his view of the film, for what that's worth. A few points:

Apparently, Spartans wore no breast plates and rushed into battle in no more than underwear, capes so large that they seem as if they would have obscured the ability to fight, and helmets.

Geeze, even back then they knew the power of artistic license. The Greeks often portrayed their warriors as fighting in a phalanx buck naked. So 300 is actually a bit more realistic in that regard. The damn thing isn't supposed to be a documentary.

Xerxes, the famed king of the Persian Empire
And all around bastard, even by ancient standards.
is a Brazilian drag queen, or something like it.

I don't quite get the "Xerxes is gay" meme. He's 7 feet tall and has piercings, is that code for gay now?. The real Xerxes is portrayed on coins as having a big wooly beard. He'd be about as scary looking as C Everett Koop.

The point that the traitor Ephialtes is portrayed as a grotesque hunchback is also consistent with epic tales and/or Dick Tracy comics, where a character's evil is reflected in his physical appearance. I'm guessing this guy gets all fatootsed by Richard III as well).

He's correct that the Spartans were hardly a society most of us would want to be a part of but if the ancient accounts of Xerxes Persia are correct they were the lesser of two evils.

One famous story of Xerxes is that of Pythius the Lydian, a man of great wealth who offers his fortune to the king. Xerxes refuses his aid and instead gives him an even greater fortune. When Pythius asks that the oldest of his 5 sons be allowed to leave the army to take care of him in his old age Xerxes, enraged by this request from a mere vassal, releases the other 4 sons instead and has the oldest and most favored one torn in half so that the army can march between the halves of his severed body.

The Greek states were far far from perfect but I think most of us would prefer life there to one under such a despot.

300 may offer a simplistic idealized view of West vs East but I don't know that it's one that is all that bad for Easterners. The idea that the Greeks won in large part because they were free men fighting for their land against slaves to a tyrant is better than the alternative explanation that the Persians quite frankly sucked at war, getting their asses repeatedly kicked by the Greeks and, later, Alexander the Great, despite always having superior numbers.

"They would lay down their lives, for you, if neccessary. None of those posting here would do the same for them, or me, or most people that they've ever met."

Wow. I've been playing catch up on a days worth of reading and that has to be the single most asininely stupid thing I've read all night. You don't know a single one of us at all, but you come in and make an insulting blanket statement such as that based only on the fact that we disagree with you on the war. So, your POV on the Iraq War debate is basically that the people that agree with you are kind, noble and good while the people who disagree with you are cowardly, bad and would run away and let someone die just to save themselves. Gee, that's good sign that debate with you will be meaningful and of substance.

And your spelling problem has an easy fix. Open a hotmail "new message" window and type your posts into that. Then you can spell check it, cut it and paste it into the blog. If you have Word on your computer, do the same. that'll also get some grammar goofs.

Robert, I wssn't going to respond to your paralogisms point-by-point. But after reading Jerry Chandler's last post I realize that there are some outrageous statements you've made that shouldn't go unchallenged. So I shall plug my nose and here goes...

Posted by: Robert Preston at March 17, 2007 08:11 PM

Please, gentlemen, call me