» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Mushroom on 07/14/08 at 9:20 pm

I have been thinking of writing this since I got home last weekend, but decided I wanted to calm down a bit first.

On the 4th of July holiday I traveled to Los Angeles to spend it with my wife and son.  We had a great time, and on 7 July I headed back to LAX to return to El Paso.

Now one thing I have gotten used to is how much support I get around the country, especially when I travel in uniform (which I always do when I fly, Airport Security is more relaxed towards military in uniform).  And since we got to the airport area earlier then expected, we decided to kill some time shopping.

Now I was realizing that nobody was thanking me for serving, but that was no big deal.  But when I went outside for a smoke, I got the other side of the stick.  First came a car with 3 guys in it, who yelled at me through the open window "F**c Bush, F**c the Army, F**c the war!".  I just stared at them as they drove past, unsure what to even say.  But several people around me applauded their sentiment.  Then right before I headed back in, a young lady walked by, looked at me and simply said "Fascist!".

I am wondering if this is just an isolated California thing, or if people are starting to get closer and closer to starting to yell things like "Baby Killer" at returning veterans.

And I do worry about things like this, because today I got my Movement Warning Order.  Effective 1 October, I am on 72 hour deployment warning to go to CENTCOM (Central Command).  For those that do not know Army Talk, that means South West Asia.  In particular, Quatar-Kuwait-Iraq.

Now the expected ship date is sometime in April, but after October 1 I could be on a plane with as little as 3 days warning.  I just hope that if it comes early, it at least waits until December.  That is because my wife is planning on moving to El Paso in November, and I would like to spend at least a little time with her before shipping out.  But she understands, being with me for 7 years while I was in the Marines.  She understands deployments, but after reconciling following 16 years of seperation, we would like at least some time together.

But mostly, I worry about my own country's reaction to me.  When I return in 2010, will I get the same reaction my Uncle did after his service in Vietnam?  Will some movie be made in another 10-15 years, about a OIF-OEF veteran snapping and shooting up a small town with machineguns?

Because it seems to me that more and more people are getting personal against the servicemembers themselves that like me choose to serve.  And I hope it is just isolated to the "fringe states" like California.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Reynolds1863 on 07/14/08 at 11:45 pm

The same thing happened during Nam.  You have people who don't understand that the war may or may not be justified however taking it out on the average soldier is asinine.  Personally I am not for this war.  However my main concern is for the troops coming home.  Most will have PTSD, and don't need people vilifying them for what they endured over there.  Too many Vietnam vets killed themselves because they couldn't handle it.  Now were seeing some Iraqi War vets doing the same thing.  Rest assure you'll never hear that kind of stuff come out of my mouth.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/15/08 at 12:01 am

Don't let the bastards grind you down, Mush. 

If there are people so immature as to yell obscenities and political epitaphs at men and women in uniform that is their problem.  I'm not saying it will ever be pleasant, it just says more about them that it does you. 

There are cities in the country such as Berkeley or Cambridge where armed services personnel might feel unwelcoming any time.  However, if this war continues to plummet further and further out of favor, you might encounter hostility even in the middle of Texas. 

When I see somebody in uniform, I make no assumptions about why that person chose to serve or what his or her political convictions are likely to be.  People join for all kinds of reasons. 

Nobody benefits from shouting at soldiers.  Condemning others for who they are or what they do doesn't motivate change. 

Anyway, just my two cents.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Foo Bar on 07/15/08 at 1:17 am

  First came a car with 3 guys in it, who yelled at me through the open window "F**c Bush, F**c the Army, F**c the war!".  I just stared at them as they drove past, unsure what to even say.  But several people around me applauded their sentiment.  Then right before I headed back in, a young lady walked by, looked at me and simply said "Fascist!".


I live in the Bay Area.  Yeah, that Bay Area.  Stone's throw from Berzerkeley.  I spent the Fourth watching as good a Fourth of July Parade as I've seen anywhere in America.  And on behalf of California, let me just say "frack the three idiots in the car, and frack the young lady in question."

Warning:  Skinny-Puppy-Lyrics-Style Rant commences here.  (Edit: Couple of edits based on what was playing while I was typing this up.)

As a civilian, I've got the luxury of bitching about not must my fellow civilians, but I've also got the luxury of bitching about the civilian leadership; the worst the government is likely to do to me is log this post as Insufficiently Patriotic, put me on a watch list and give me the double-glove treatment whenever I travel by air.  (Remember back in the day when Yakov Smirnov's "In Soviet Russia, TV watches you" was funny...)

But I digress.  I supported the war, and if I thought the present civilian leadership (whether in the Executive or Legislative branches, and whether they follow the tribal totems of the Elephant or the Jackass) had any interest in winning it, as opposed to making political points against each other at the expense of the taxpayers, I'd still support it.  The reason I no longer support it because I think we're basically throwing good money after bad at this point; we made a decent bet, and we lost.  Because sunk costs shouldn't enter into any rational economic decision, at this point, the right financial move would be to cut our losses, pull everyone out, nuke the site from orbit, and dig the oil out ten years from now when the radiation's died down.  (If we'd done it five years ago, it'd be like Japan in 1951; every major city razed to ashes, and five years later, we thought of them as "those guys whose asses we had to kick, but now they just want to sell us stuff!")

But I've been slowly convinced by the decline in the number of random bombings in Iraq over the past year that maybe my "fuggit, nuke 'em!" position was premature.  (I remain skeptical; it could well be that the bad guys are merely lying low until Obama takes over.  I'll only know whether I was right or wrong by waiting until a year or so after the election.)

Shoot, at the rate our banks are failing (for God's sake, make sure none of you or your relatives ever have more than the $100K FDIC limit in any US account - no US bank is safe at this point), you might end up being safer by being in theater (and out of the urban centers) over the next few years.  No matter who wins in November, and whether we pull through this mess or implode into third-world chaos, by the time you get back in 2010, it won't the same country you left, and or better or worse, you'll in a better position to help yourself and your families than any of us civilians.

Now playing: "This government is illegitimate.  This government is unrepresentative.  This government is corrupt.  And this government is unfit to govern."
  - (very probably Nelson Mandela), as sampled in Nina Hagen's So Bad (1995)

And with the President at 28%, and Congress at 9% in the polls, most of us civilians trust you guys more than we trust our own civilian leadership.  If that isn't bitterly ironic proof that the country's toast, I don't know what is.  Do the right thing over there, just as you would do the right thing over here.  Take care of your friends, your family, and those about whom you care.  You owe us civilians nothing more, and you owe yourself, your family, and your friends nothing less.

I'm a civilian.  Thought I could make a buck off this war by just buying into defense and civilian surveillance stocks, and that we'd wind up with cheap oil after we pacified ((sic)) the natives.  Worked from 2003-2006, but I failed to realize the goal wasn't ultimately to win, but to wipe out the treasury, devalue the buck, and wipe out what was left of the investor class.  Now our dollar's barely worth toilet paper.  Oil's at levels Bin Laden wouldn't have fantasized about in 2001.  Civilian surveillance at a level that Stalin would have creamed his jeans at.  The economy's in shambles, and I'm down 30% for not having realized it in time.  Expatriation taxes a'la Chuck Rangel came in last month.  Capital controls probably aren't far behind. As soft as I've got it compared to 75% of my countrymen, it still sucks to be me, but it serves me right for gambling on the white-glove game for one more year rather than just walking away last year and letting the country collapse.  At least you were willing to get your hands dirty.  So I fail; the future doesn't belong to me.

Now Playing: 
"The future belongs to those of us still willing to get our hands dirty."
-  KMFDM, Back in the USSA (2002)

So as others have said - don't let the bastards get you down.  A Democratic Congress has a 9% (single-digits, lower than Bush by 20 points!), and that approval rating is lower in Democratic-controlled states than in Republican-controlled states precisely because you're going to be serving over there in 2009-2010 no matter who wins in November.  Don't confuse most civilians' contempt of the military's civilian leadership with contempt for the military tasked to carry out that leadership's policies; the Democrats hate their representatives even more than the Republicans hate theirs.  The reason idiots are hassling you is because most civilians are idiots -- they don't understand the distinction between the military and its civilian leadership, and it's probably futile (and you'd know the legalities) of trying to explain it to them. 

So don't bother. 

Back on topic, at long last:

"Never retreat, never explain, never apologize; just get the thing done and let them howl."
  - Canuckistani suffragete (yay, ahead of her time!) and prohibitionist (boo, hiss, grr!) Nellie McClung

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: CatwomanofV on 07/15/08 at 12:48 pm

History is repeating itself. I was hoping that people would learn the lessons from Vietnam but unfortunately they haven't.

Mushroom,

I must admit that I agree with the guy who said, "F**c Bush, F**c the war!" But I don't agree with the middle statement and I don't agree that these should be directed at you. These people do not realize that YOU have nothing to do with what is going on in the world. You are just following orders. As for the woman who called you a fascist, again, she is directing it at the wrong people/person. People are angry and being in uniform you represent the people who are making them angry so they are taking it out on you-it is blaming the messenger so to speak.

As you know, I do not agree with this war. I think it is a travesty to put men, women, & children in harms way for oil and profits. However, I admire you and everyone else in uniform who are doing their jobs despite the uneducated who will blame you for hell that this Administration has created.



Cat 

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: quirky_cat_girl on 07/15/08 at 12:51 pm


History is repeating itself. I was hoping that people would learn the lessons from Vietnam but unfortunately they haven't.

Mushroom,

I must admit that I agree with the guy who said, "F**c Bush, F**c the war!" But I don't agree with the middle statement and I don't agree that these should be directed at you. These people do not realize that YOU have nothing to do with what is going on in the world. You are just following orders. As for the woman who called you a fascist, again, she is directing it at the wrong people/person. People are angry and being in uniform you represent the people who are making them angry so they are taking it out on you-it is blaming the messenger so to speak.

As you know, I do not agree with this war. I think it is a travesty to put men, women, & children in harms way for oil and profits. However, I admire you and everyone else in uniform who are doing their jobs despite the uneducated who will blame you for hell that this Administration has created.



Cat 



karma...very well stated, Cat. :)

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: danootaandme on 07/15/08 at 3:30 pm

There will always be people, who, for whatever reasons, will act like this.  That's life.  That's America.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 07/15/08 at 3:40 pm

what's this four letter word that starts with "F" and ends with "C"? annoying though these guys in the car were, at least we can give them a point or two for creative cussing.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Dagwood on 07/15/08 at 4:31 pm

I'm sorry this happened to you, Mushroom.  Some people are just jerks.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Macphisto on 07/15/08 at 8:49 pm

I'm sorry you had to go through that, Mushroom.  California is pretty nuts.

One of the saner liberal states is New York, or so I hear.  Down here in NC, we get mostly conservative extremism rather than the liberal kind.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Marty McFly on 07/15/08 at 9:18 pm


I must admit that I agree with the guy who said, "F**c Bush, F**c the war!" But I don't agree with the middle statement and I don't agree that these should be directed at you. These people do not realize that YOU have nothing to do with what is going on in the world. You are just following orders. As for the woman who called you a fascist, again, she is directing it at the wrong people/person. People are angry and being in uniform you represent the people who are making them angry so they are taking it out on you-it is blaming the messenger so to speak.


I totally agree with this - alot of people have understandable, but misdirected anger. People really underestimate what soldiers and military people go through, like you were saying, with the stress Vietnam vets went through. And that was a stupid war many people opposed (probably most soldiers themselves), but they didn't have a choice.


Even though I'm a liberal and antiwar (with Vietnam and especially with Iraq, and I loathe the Bush administration in general) I applaud guys like you Mushroom. I'm concerned with the safety of the troops, not getting p*ssed at them for doing something they had no control over. I'm sure there's cops who don't want to give the guy going 59MPH in a 55 zone a speeding ticket, but they have to because it's their job. Same thing here.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Foo Bar on 07/15/08 at 10:24 pm


Even though I'm a liberal and antiwar (with Vietnam and especially with Iraq, and I loathe the Bush administration in general) I applaud guys like you Mushroom. 


Yeah, and just to make it clear, even though I'm economically conservative and think the war that started out as a risky (but fundamentally promising) gamble... has now turned into a WOMBAT: (Waste Of Money, Brains And Time), I also applaud guys like Mushroom. 

The difference between guys who wear the uniform and guys like me is that guys like him still believe.  I've given up on the Republic.  He hasn't.  And if the Republic is ever to rise from its ashes, it'll be because of guys like him - who still believe in the shining city on the hill - as opposed to guys like me, who think it's all downhill from here and that the only sane thing left to do is to rearrange the deck chairs, strike up the band, and enjoy one more round of drinks as the ship of state slips beneath the waves.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/15/08 at 10:39 pm


I'm sorry you had to go through that, Mushroom.  California is pretty nuts.


California says, Why, thank you!
:D

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Red Ant on 07/15/08 at 11:14 pm

I'm not opposed to war, but I am opposed to this one and the way it's being handled. That's not on you though, Mushroom: like other's have said here, I support the troops even though Iraq is an inescapable cluster fudge at this point.

"F**c Bush, F**c the Army, F**c the war": like Catwoman wrote, I agree with the first and third sentiments only. Directing those words at you is pointless as well as ignorant.

Ant

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Mushroom on 07/16/08 at 12:22 am


As for the woman who called you a fascist, again, she is directing it at the wrong people/person. People are angry and being in uniform you represent the people who are making them angry so they are taking it out on you-it is blaming the messenger so to speak.


Actually, I represent the people of the United States, all of them.  I do not represent any party, president, or administration.  In my 11 years of service, i have served under 4 different Presidents, and 7 different Congresses.  I followed all of them equally, because that is my job.

And for those that think this war is unpopular with the military, think about this:

We were facing 2 different deployments before the decision was made which we would be going.  We would go to either South Korea, or SW Asia.  The decision has been bouncing back and forth or the last 2 months.

At 9:15am on Monday, the anouncement was made that it was official, we were going to SW Aisa.  And my Battaion (of around 700 Soldiers) all cheered! Most of us (myself included) were actually happy with this decision.  We would much rather be actually supporting our fellow military members who are in harm's way, then in sitting on a mountain looking across the DMZ for months on end.

For the next 3 months, we have the option to request a transfer if we do not want to go to SW Asia.  And I would be surprised if more then 4 or 5 actually request that. 

And you are all right, California is insane.  I was born there, and lived there most of my life.  I was there during Gulf War I, and saw the protests first hand (even getting caught with a van full of injured Marines on a freeway shut down by protestors).  I even see my son who is a drug addict given marijuanna by a quack because he gets a prescription because he "can't sleep".

I have often joked that in 2003 I "escaped from LA" by moving to Alabama.  And the more I see of other areas of the country, the more I am sure that California is totally out of touch of the rest of the nation.  So as far as I am concerned, they are more then welcomet o live in their little "Fantasyland", with reality being pumped to them from Hollywood, Disneyland, and every other delusional source.

However, some people say this war is being run incorrectly.  How should it be run then?  Nuke them all and shoot them in the dark?  Not get involved, and let Saddam continue to slaughter his own citizens?  Maybe even turn a blindeye as he tries to assassinate a second former president?

I still could not care less about the price of oil.  Let gas go to $6 a gallon, I could not care less.  But the deaths of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 (the exact numbers will never be known) of Iraqi civilians by the Saddam regeime is my first, last, and only justification of removing him from power.  Even the deaths in Darfur do not reach the lowest estimates of Saddam's atrocities.

I have already quoted from John Stuart Mill, so no need to do it again.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Haman on 07/16/08 at 5:49 am

Dear Mushroom:

Unfortunately, most people think and act stupidly.

Moreover, these days many people seem to actually be proud of their stupidity!

You are a good man. You are a noble man. You are a warrior. You are the one who really has the right to be proud.

You do not need to waste your time answering back to stupid people. Simply smile and realize that when you are fighting like a man, they most probably will be whining and sniveling.

F**k them!

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: MrCleveland on 07/16/08 at 1:14 pm


I'm sorry you had to go through that, Mushroom.  California is pretty nuts.

One of the saner liberal states is New York, or so I hear.  Down here in NC, we get mostly conservative extremism rather than the liberal kind.


Where I'm at, It's a mixed-bag.

I live in a conservative state in a liberal area. We had 26 mayors who were Democrat, 22 who were Republican, 6 who were Whigs, and an Independent mayor.

So mostly, it's a Blue-collar city and we have been out-of-touch with most of Ohio.

And you may feel okay here...but then again maybe not. We had a Military soilder who got shot in the city where I reside while waiting for the bus. :-\\

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/17/08 at 1:04 am


Where I'm at, It's a mixed-bag.

I live in a conservative state in a liberal area. We had 26 mayors who were Democrat, 22 who were Republican, 6 who were Whigs, and an Independent mayor.

So mostly, it's a Blue-collar city and we have been out-of-touch with most of Ohio.

And you may feel okay here...but then again maybe not. We had a Military soilder who got shot in the city where I reside while waiting for the bus. :-\\

So long as it was just one soldier and just one bus, let's not make a big stink about it!

Sincerely,

The boys back at the press office

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: gibbo on 07/18/08 at 5:55 am

It doesn't sound like this incident is indicative of all public opinion. It sounds like a group of hoons, who probably stand for nothing at all, mouthing off to make each other seem witty and tough..... Forget it and continue to be proud of your service to your country.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: ladybug316 on 07/18/08 at 10:26 am


It doesn't sound like this incident is indicative of all public opinion. It sounds like a group of hoons, who probably stand for nothing at all, mouthing off to make each other seem witty and tough..... Forget it and continue to be proud of your service to your country.
Well said! 

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 07/19/08 at 4:09 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPR8yPlVQwo

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Rex on 07/21/08 at 8:52 am


It doesn't sound like this incident is indicative of all public opinion. It sounds like a group of hoons, who probably stand for nothing at all, mouthing off to make each other seem witty and tough.....


Unfortunately, those are the folks who will get air time on the news for all to see. Saying "thank you for your service" is not news, so no one sees that side.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 07/21/08 at 9:24 am

i disagree. the military is constantly being lionized in the press. they're often rather excessively idealistic about the invariable nobility of the soldiers, too. a lot of soldiers enlist because they're truly heroic. unfortunately, a lot also enlist who are sociopaths. it's simply the truth.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Rex on 07/21/08 at 11:11 am


i disagree. the military is constantly being lionized in the press. they're often rather excessively idealistic about the invariable nobility of the soldiers, too. a lot of soldiers enlist because they're truly heroic. unfortunately, a lot also enlist who are sociopaths. it's simply the truth.


I respectfully disagree with your point about press coverage. According to the latest Pew research the American public is becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the media coverage of the military. The percentage saying press criticism weakens American defenses has been increasing in recent years and now stands at its highest point in surveys dating to 1985.

As far as sociopaths in the military, Major David S. Pierson, US Army, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, states that sociopaths make up less than 4% of the force. That's still a significant number, though, and larger than the percentage in the general population.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 07/21/08 at 11:17 am

ok, and major pierson wouldnt have an ulterior motive to understate that figure, being as he's a member of the institution whose integrity is at stake? what study is he citing? who funded it? how is "sociopath" being defined? and how would major pierson reconcile his results with the results of this study?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402151_pf.html

if we say that "Less than half of Soldiers and Marines believed that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect," does that mean that more than half are "sociopaths"? or that war just does this to people?

i dunno, we can say what we like and there are certain ideals about the military and about war that we find comforting, but i dont think we can afford to keep up these rationalizations. war is monstrous and it makes monsters out of the people who fight it. that's not even their fault, necessarily, it's just that they're being forced to live in inhuman conditions and do inhuman things.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 07/21/08 at 11:21 am

and as for the pew study, how much you want to bet that approval of the press was higher in the runup to the war in 2003, when the press completely failed to be skeptical of all the unsubstantiated claims that the administration handed out about the war? it was the press's job to investigate nigerian yellowcake, aluminum tubes and all the rest of the administration's bogus evidence and they failed. now they've stopped cowtowing to the government and started reporting the bad news and i think people hate it, because bad news sucks. not sure i blame them but it's not the fault of the media that we're in the horrible place we are now. well, it is, actually, but not because they're reporting it.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: MrCleveland on 07/22/08 at 12:59 pm


and as for the pew study, how much you want to bet that approval of the press was higher in the runup to the war in 2003, when the press completely failed to be skeptical of all the unsubstantiated claims that the administration handed out about the war? it was the press's job to investigate nigerian yellowcake, aluminum tubes and all the rest of the administration's bogus evidence and they failed. now they've stopped cowtowing to the government and started reporting the bad news and i think people hate it, because bad news sucks. not sure i blame them but it's not the fault of the media that we're in the horrible place we are now. well, it is, actually, but not because they're reporting it.


My boss is part of the Gallup Poll and he disapproves of what the president is doing as well as the congress.

I'm not from Texas or the South so I can't praise Bush, nor I'm not from California or New England where Bush-bashing is my favorite thing.

No, I'm from a swinger state.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/22/08 at 7:15 pm


i disagree. the military is constantly being lionized in the press. they're often rather excessively idealistic about the invariable nobility of the soldiers, too. a lot of soldiers enlist because they're truly heroic. unfortunately, a lot also enlist who are sociopaths. it's simply the truth.


I agree, though I think it's more likely for a soldier to return from Iraq a sociopath rather than going there a sociopath.  The media beats the drums of war and intimidates dissenters behest of the corporate truth-makers. 

In general, I respect soldiers and sailors, but they're not entitled to it merely for being such.  If they behave like psychos or doojbags it's our duty to call them on it. 

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: audkal on 07/23/08 at 2:33 pm


However, some people say this war is being run incorrectly.  How should it be run then?  Nuke them all and shoot them in the dark?  Not get involved, and let Saddam continue to slaughter his own citizens?  Maybe even turn a blindeye as he tries to assassinate a second former president?

I still could not care less about the price of oil.  Let gas go to $6 a gallon, I could not care less.  But the deaths of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 (the exact numbers will never be known) of Iraqi civilians by the Saddam regeime is my first, last, and only justification of removing him from power.  Even the deaths in Darfur do not reach the lowest estimates of Saddam's atrocities.

I have already quoted from John Stuart Mill, so no need to do it again.


Karma for this.  We appreciate everything you guys are doing.  I'm praying for you and all the troops.  :)

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Step-chan on 07/23/08 at 4:25 pm

While I oppose the war myself, what those guys did was out of line.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: greenjello74 on 07/27/08 at 11:09 pm

I detest  Bush, but I think a great deal of thanks is due to all the brave service people, who are risking their lives for us.
For anyone who dares to call you names or put you down for doing your duty I say Fu** em.
Karma for your  brave service.
I have a nephew who is on his third tour in Iraq and another who is a Marine corps drill sergent.
My good thoughts and vibes go with you. Stay safe

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Mushroom on 07/27/08 at 11:51 pm


i disagree. the military is constantly being lionized in the press. they're often rather excessively idealistic about the invariable nobility of the soldiers, too. a lot of soldiers enlist because they're truly heroic. unfortunately, a lot also enlist who are sociopaths. it's simply the truth.


I would like to not think of myself as a sociopath.

I did my time, and more so.  I served from 1983-1993.  I am jokingly refered to by my platoon as "Grandpa", since I am 43 years old.  "Pops" is a guy that joined last year at the age of 36, having never served before that.  The average age in my platoon is 20.

I am the 2nd in charge of my platoon at the moment, and am by far the oldest and most experienced.  And while some question my reason for joining (at my age), none question my ability anymore.  That was made clear to most when they saw how I conducted training in Yuma a few months ago.  While I may not know much about the Patriot system, they quickly realized that I knew and understood infantry tactics (my specialty for 10 years).

Most of the "sociopaths" are kicked out rather quickly.  They may be good killers, but they are totally unsuited for the "military lifestyle".  Most do not make it past the screening phases, let alone boot camp.  But as in any field (law enforcement, medicine, etc), a few will sneak through.  And most of them do not last long in an environment where you must rely on your buddy's for survival.  After all, the military does not need killers.  It never has.  What it needs is people willing (and able) to put their life on the line for their buddies, and do what is ordered, reguardless to what may happen to themselves.


As far as sociopaths in the military, Major David S. Pierson, US Army, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, states that sociopaths make up less than 4% of the force. That's still a significant number, though, and larger than the percentage in the general population.


One thing many people have to remember:  There is no psychological testing done on people requesting to enter the service.  None.  The most you get is a general IQ test.

It is the job of the Drill Instructors (Marine) and Drill Sergeants (Army) to weed out the "Bad Apples".  And for the most part, they do a pretty good job.  And of those that do make it through, the majority of them end up in jobs they can do very little harm (supply, cook, administration).  Less then 10% of the military will ever look down a weapon at another human being.

In my platoon, there is only one person of 22 I question.  He recently comitted a robbery, and is pending a discharge.  This guy claims it is not his fault he did the crime, but he will probably finish his enlistment before he is discharged.  And when we go to SE Asia, he will be left behind.  Nobody in the platoon trusts him, and there is no way he is going to deploy with us.  But the discharge process takes so long (1-2 years on average), is it easier to simply let him finish his term then to try and force him out.


In general, I respect soldiers and sailors, but they're not entitled to it merely for being such.  If they behave like psychos or doojbags it's our duty to call them on it. 


And I am the first to agree with that statement.  It disgusts me to see people commit crimes, and try to say "the Military made me do it".  If you kill innocent civilians, then you pay the price.  Murder is murder.  There is no excuse for rape, murder, looting, robbery, or any of the other crimes comitted by members of the military.  If somebody in Uniform commits a crime, then they should face the consequences.  The Uniform is not a blanket to protect themselves with.

******

As things get closer to my deployment, things are changing even more.  I am now looking at a change in job (same unit, different position) and an expected promotion (myt 2nd in just over a year, from PFC to Specialist, soon to be Corporal, then by the end of the year a Sergeant).

And I am increasingly aware of my age.  My knees are almost constantly bothering me, and make me question my ability to handle another 10 years.  I just spent a week in the field, training in Convoy procedures (which was fun, but torture on my knees).  And even more training is expected between now and March (although it looks increasingly like we may deploy sooner, with the increasing tension from Iran).

But here is something I want people to seriously think about.  And disreguard any feelings they may have about the President, or anything else:

Is Iraq better off without Saddam in charge?

Since the surge began, terrorism is markedly down.  The Government is finally a real coalition government, with both Shi'ite and Sunni working to restore peace (with parallels with Ireland and their past factional problems).  People now only worry about the terrorists (which most want to go away), as opposed to living in fear of their government.

People are no longer killed because of their religion, or because their parents/grandparents/friends oppose the government.  Most people in the region are killed by lunatics that nobody wants there, as opposed to their government.  The Saddam regeime stands fifth in line, only behind the USSR, China. Cabodia, and Germany in the slaughter of it's own citizens.

They even tortured and killed their own Olympic Athletes because they did not perform well enough.

Personally, I state clearly and unequivicoally that anybody that opposes the intervention to remove Saddam is an activist to wholesale slaughter and genocide.  And supports any government that supports such activities.

Of course, many that oppose the war also support Communism, and the attrocities that have been comitted in the name of that horrid white elephant.  So why should I be surprised that some oppose a war that deposed the largest mass murderer in the last quarter of the 20th century?

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 07/28/08 at 6:12 am

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yS_n4NCpbpY

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: thereshegoes on 07/28/08 at 3:46 pm



Is Iraq better off without Saddam in charge?

Since the surge began, terrorism is markedly down.  The Government is finally a real coalition government, with both Shi'ite and Sunni working to restore peace (with parallels with Ireland and their past factional problems).  People now only worry about the terrorists (which most want to go away), as opposed to living in fear of their government.

People are no longer killed because of their religion, or because their parents/grandparents/friends oppose the government.  Most people in the region are killed by lunatics that nobody wants there, as opposed to their government.  The Saddam regeime stands fifth in line, only behind the USSR, China. Cabodia, and Germany in the slaughter of it's own citizens.

They even tortured and killed their own Olympic Athletes because they did not perform well enough.

Personally, I state clearly and unequivicoally that anybody that opposes the intervention to remove Saddam is an activist to wholesale slaughter and genocide.  And supports any government that supports such activities.

Of course, many that oppose the war also support Communism, and the attrocities that have been comitted in the name of that horrid white elephant.  So why should I be surprised that some oppose a war that deposed the largest mass murderer in the last quarter of the 20th century?


Why wasn't the war sold as that then? Why did America and their allies waited so long to remove Saddam when he was the president of a government who tortured their own citizens from day one? Why talk about nuclear weapons? And why Iraq? Why not Zimbabwe?
Why is anyone who supports the war surprised that many of us don't like being lied to?

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 07/28/08 at 4:08 pm

i personally think one shouldn't be allowed to say "iraq is better without saddam in power" unless one lives in a 130 degree climate with two hours of air conditioning a day, a lack of potable water, and no viable law enforcement or social services in their neighborhood. it's easy to sit in comfort and talk about whether or not iraqis are better off, but unless you're living in that level of privation, you really don't know.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Mushroom on 07/28/08 at 8:58 pm


i personally think one shouldn't be allowed to say "iraq is better without saddam in power" unless one lives in a 130 degree climate with two hours of air conditioning a day, a lack of potable water, and no viable law enforcement or social services in their neighborhood. it's easy to sit in comfort and talk about whether or not iraqis are better off, but unless you're living in that level of privation, you really don't know.


Well, guess what.  Chances are very high that within 8 months, I will be doing exactly that.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/28/08 at 9:23 pm


i personally think one shouldn't be allowed to say "iraq is better without saddam in power" unless one lives in a 130 degree climate with two hours of air conditioning a day, a lack of potable water, and no viable law enforcement or social services in their neighborhood. it's easy to sit in comfort and talk about whether or not iraqis are better off, but unless you're living in that level of privation, you really don't know.

I dunno if I could stand it.  I'd prolly go nuts.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Foo Bar on 07/28/08 at 10:14 pm


Since the surge began, terrorism is markedly down.  The Government is finally a real coalition government, with both Shi'ite and Sunni working to restore peace (with parallels with Ireland and their past factional problems).  People now only worry about the terrorists (which most want to go away), as opposed to living in fear of their government.


I'll refrain from eating the entire crow until a year after Obama pulls out the last troop from Iraq, or until 2010, whichever comes first.

But I'm not above nibbling on a plate of crow wings from now and then.  Maybe it's just the elections, maybe it's just what the media (both US-based and foreign) are reporting, but it really looks like the statistics on violence against both US forces and against Iraqi civilians are down, and are consistent with the hypothesis that (the "terrorists" notwithstanding), the militias (specifically those run by Sadr and his ilk) are really losing the battle for hearts and minds, and aren't just waiting - as one would normally expect with a "ceasefire" with a Muslim group - to resume the genocide as soon as our backs our turned.

So yeah.  I was wrong.  We've wasted a trillion dollars babysitting the Iraqi civil war, but insofar as we have no genocide in Iraq by January 1, 2010, I'll concede the points that (a) the surge worked, and (b) that the Iraqis were better off for our invention than without it. 

Economically, however, we're now a basket case, and nothing any of you guys can do over there can change that.

Politically, I'm a civilian who supports the principle of civilian rule over the military - however corrupt and incompetent the civilians in question may be, because history's pretty clear about how much harder the alternative sucks.  But I've had conversations with other civilians (thankfully, only with civilians -- vets and active servicemen seem to understand the principle and appreciate it way more than most of us civvies do) that suggest I'm part of a slowly-shrinking majority, and that scares the living frack out of me.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 07/29/08 at 6:03 am


I'll refrain from eating the entire crow until a year after Obama pulls out the last troop from Iraq, or until 2010, whichever comes first.

But I'm not above nibbling on a plate of crow wings from now and then.  Maybe it's just the elections, maybe it's just what the media (both US-based and foreign) are reporting, but it really looks like the statistics on violence against both US forces and against Iraqi civilians are down, and are consistent with the hypothesis that (the "terrorists" notwithstanding), the militias (specifically those run by Sadr and his ilk) are really losing the battle for hearts and minds, and aren't just waiting - as one would normally expect with a "ceasefire" with a Muslim group - to resume the genocide as soon as our backs our turned.

So yeah.  I was wrong.  We've wasted a trillion dollars babysitting the Iraqi civil war, but insofar as we have no genocide in Iraq by January 1, 2010, I'll concede the points that (a) the surge worked, and (b) that the Iraqis were better off for our invention than without it. 

Economically, however, we're now a basket case, and nothing any of you guys can do over there can change that.

Politically, I'm a civilian who supports the principle of civilian rule over the military - however corrupt and incompetent the civilians in question may be, because history's pretty clear about how much harder the alternative sucks.  But I've had conversations with other civilians (thankfully, only with civilians -- vets and active servicemen seem to understand the principle and appreciate it way more than most of us civvies do) that suggest I'm part of a slowly-shrinking majority, and that scares the living frack out of me.

al sadr has had a ceasefire for at least several months now. you'll rarely hear this mentioned in the news but this is probably the real reason for the reduction in violence, if the reduction is real. as you say, the press releases about the violence levels in iraq aren't reliable; several years ago, colin powell let the cat out of the bag when he said that the levels of civilian casualties in iraq were not a statistic that interested him. i think we can count on those numbers being manipulable, since the levels of civilian death in iraq were never reliably tabulated or measured anyway. i seem to recall yet another horrible suicide bombing involving four female suicide bombers that took several dozen casualties yesterday. try telling those people the surge worked.

also iraq has had several million refugees and after 5 years of sectarian killing the neighborhoods are pretty much segregated sunni-shia by this point anyway. another reason the level of violence could be down.

i guess the key question is, if "the surge worked," why are we still there? as you say, america is now bankrupt because of this sickening war, and i get the impression we'll wind up being there for years anyway, regardless of who's in office. we've been hearing this light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel happy talk since cheney said we'd be greeted as liberators, and there's no more reason to take it seriously now than there was then.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 07/29/08 at 7:18 am


Well, guess what.  Chances are very high that within 8 months, I will be doing exactly that.
they don't give soldiers water? that's something that should be looked into.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Foo Bar on 07/29/08 at 10:54 pm


al sadr has had a ceasefire for at least several months now. you'll rarely hear this mentioned in the news but this is probably the real reason for the reduction in violence, if the reduction is real.

i guess the key question is, if "the surge worked," why are we still there? as you say, america is now bankrupt because of this sickening war, and i get the impression we'll wind up being there for years anyway, regardless of who's in office. we've been hearing this light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel happy talk since cheney said we'd be greeted as liberators, and there's no more reason to take it seriously now than there was then.


The open question on Sadr is whether or not he's capable of bringing back the chaos, should he choose to do so.  Or if, after a few months of relative peace and quiet, he's drifted into irrelevancy.  If he's irrelevant, it doesn't matter whether he chooses to end his ceasefire -- because nobody's listening to him. 

As for why we're still there, and why we'll be there for the forseeable future, it's because it's be Really Useful to have airbases in the Middle East.  Gives us the ability to project power over the region without relying on Israel, and without tying up a carrier or two in the Gulf.  No more asking permission if we can bring an army through Turkey, no more needing to station troops in Saudi Arabia either (something about which Osama, a Saudi, was pretty butthurt; it was one of his gang's officially-stated justifications for the 9/11 attacks.  It was bad enough to have us infidels existing on the same planet as his followers, but he could have lived with that for a few years, as long as we got our filthy feet outa the same nation that housed his religion's two holiest cities.)

So we obliged him.  The ruling House of Saud fomented all this fundamentalism in the first place as a means to stay in power.  Our leaving would appeal the fundies, and in so doing, shore up popular support for the House of Saud, and they're the guys that run the oil racket.  Besides, Iraq's the better place to station one's airbases all along.  Easy access to every country in the Middle East, and having large fixed airbases mean you can airlift in troops and materiel in a matter of weeks, rather than haul 'em across the ocean over several months.

And sticking around would have been cheap if they hadn't been shooting at us for the past 5 years.  We went in with the intention of ending up with something like West Germany, and ended up with South Vietnam.  The original plan wasn't that bad.  It just didn't work.  If we'd paid attention to Shinseki and used 350K troops rather than 100K, the insurgency would never have taken root.  The plan might have worked.

Instead, we fired Shinseki and bet on the doctrine of transformation; a faster-lighter-cheaper-higher-tech force of 100K today could do what would have taken 350K men to do in the 80s.  And that, too, wasn't a bad bet.  We won the ground war (the military-vs-military part of the conflict) after the fastest and largest mechanized infantry operation in history.  Bigger and faster than D-Day, and virtually no casualties.  Ultimately, where that went wrong was that transformation's a great way to win a war, but it's no way to keep the peace. 

We might have forseen that in the way the Balkans conflict played out in the late 90s.  An air-to-ground campaign is a great way to break an enemy military, but it ultimately can't stop ethnic cleansing.  Gotta have boots on the ground. 

Problem was, we weren't looking at the Balkans conflict.  We were looking at Gulf War I, during which the Air Force did indeed win a war.  The ground war in GW1 was over before it began.  We forgot that the reason it ended is because the mission at the time wasn't to take over Iraq, but merely to drive an army out of Kuwait.  Saddam cut his losses quickly and left us with the false impression that air power alone was enough to win a war.  And the Balkans conflict didn't really disprove the idea either. 

The root cause of our defeat in Iraq was that our generals (or more accurately, the SecDef and other people in the civilian leadership) spent too long fighting the last war.  But if it's any consolation, "fighting the last war" has been the root cause of many a military defeat.  The invasion of Iraq just happens to be the latest in a series of "fighting the last war" failures that include the British wearing bright red coats and standing upright during the War of Independence, WW1 generals sending men over the top in the face of machine gun fire, WW2 generals believing the Maginot Line to be impregnable when Hitler had just invented Blitzkreig, the Japanese taking just a little bit longer than we did to figure out the value of aircraft carriers over battleships, our thinking that WW2 tactics would be effective in a guerrila war in Southeast Asia, Saddam thinking that he could waltz into Kuwait and present the world with a fait accompli, the hostages in 3 airplanes who complied with the bad guys' demands and waited for landing, "because hijackers always let people go after a couple of days" on 9/11, and finally, us for thinking that Gulf War 2 would just be a do-over of Gulf War 1 where we'd all be home before the dust settled.

As badly as it turned out, "fighting the last war" is the historical rule, not the exception.  So our leadership screwed up, but they're hardly alone in the pages of history.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 07/30/08 at 8:46 am

lol. who's this "we," paleface?

in terms of justifications for the war, i think you're pretty much dead on, although maybe a bit cavalier about whether this strategy was the right thing to do morally. (sorry to infuse that, but it does seem relevant.) in terms of real politik reasons why iraq is politically and financially profitable (read, "in america's strategic interests," which typically amounts to, "beneficial to our campaign contributors") don't forget that iraq has massive untapped oil reserves, and between the iraq war and a dozen years of sanctions they've been unusually lax in exploiting it. so that's fruit that's ripe for plucking.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Foo Bar on 07/30/08 at 9:28 pm


lol. who's this "we," paleface?


Guilty as charged.  To clarify, "we who originally supported, and/or who still do support the Iraq invasion".


in terms of justifications for the war, i think you're pretty much dead on, although maybe a bit cavalier about whether this strategy was the right thing to do morally. (sorry to infuse that, but it does seem relevant.) in terms of real politik reasons why iraq is politically and financially profitable (read, "in america's strategic interests," which typically amounts to, "beneficial to our campaign contributors") don't forget that iraq has massive untapped oil reserves, and between the iraq war and a dozen years of sanctions they've been unusually lax in exploiting it. so that's fruit that's ripe for plucking.


Only "a bit"?  Geez, I was working for better than that! 

Seriously, you hit the nail on the head.  I was arguing that the war was a decent gamble from the perspective of realpolitic, and realpolitik isn't about morality.  Kissinger himself put it best: "People have friends; nations have interests."

The Iraqi oil's a "nice to have", but it was probably more about having permanent bases in the region from which we could project power and control the oil supplies from the surrounding countries as well.  Nothing wrong with that; the Russians and Chinese are playing the same games to keep us out of Iran and India, and would be delighted to step in should we leave the region with a power vacuum.  (And the USA/USSR Cold War drove the whole conflict as far back as the 60s - the Shah, Sadat, Israel, the Russians' Afghanistan problem, etc...  Up until the Iran hostage crisis, you could tell who the good guys and the bad guys were depending on whether they flew planes that began with "F-" or "MiG-" :)

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: danootaandme on 07/31/08 at 4:41 pm




The Iraqi oil's a "nice to have", but it was probably more about having permanent bases in the region from which we could project power and control the oil supplies from the surrounding countries as well.  Nothing wrong with that; the Russians and Chinese are playing the same games to keep us out of Iran and India, and would be delighted to step in should we leave the region with a power vacuum.  (And the USA/USSR Cold War drove the whole conflict as far back as the 60s - the Shah, Sadat, Israel, the Russians' Afghanistan problem, etc...  Up until the Iran hostage crisis, you could tell who the good guys and the bad guys were depending on whether they flew planes that began with "F-" or "MiG-" :)



Problem is there aren't really any good guys, both guys are pretty bad.  Isn't it too bad all those innocent dead people(collateral damage) have to get in the way of their game.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 08/01/08 at 12:56 am


Problem is there aren't really any good guys, both guys are pretty bad.  Isn't it too bad all those innocent dead people(collateral damage) have to get in the way of their game.


And we R the good guys!  That's what Sean Hannity teached me!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_salut.gif

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Reynolds1863 on 08/01/08 at 8:29 am


And we R the good guys!  That's what Sean Hannity teached me!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_salut.gif



http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l121/skymuffin/Hannitized.png

Say it ain't so Max . . . say it ain't so!!! http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa87/kattofix/smilies/crysmiley1.gif

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 08/01/08 at 7:07 pm



http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l121/skymuffin/Hannitized.png

Say it ain't so Max . . . say it ain't so!!! http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa87/kattofix/smilies/crysmiley1.gif

Meh, turn off the waterworks ya liberal crybaby! Me 'n' Hannity 'n' Novak are going kitten-hunting at the animal rescue shelter on Saturday!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/fal.gif

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Reynolds1863 on 08/02/08 at 5:04 pm


Meh, turn off the waterworks ya liberal crybaby! Me 'n' Hannity 'n' Novak are going kitten-hunting at the animal rescue shelter on Saturday!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/fal.gif


You know the old saying, Conservatives are just liberals who've been mugged.  Wow, that's one heck of a knot you've got on your head.  :o

While you're out terrorizing defenseless animals don't forget to spray paint graffiti on your local ACLU chapter building.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 08/02/08 at 8:43 pm


You know the old saying, Conservatives are just liberals who've been mugged.  Wow, that's one heck of a knot you've got on your head.  :o

While you're out terrorizing defenseless animals don't forget to spray paint graffiti on your local ACLU chapter building.


First Bob Novak's gonna show me how to steal ice cream cones from little children from a moving golf cart!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/sagrin.gif

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Reynolds1863 on 08/02/08 at 11:12 pm


First Bob Novak's gonna show me how to steal ice cream cones from little children from a moving golf cart!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/sagrin.gif


Never a dull moment eh?  Let me guess, it's to prevent those miserable brats from having the dreaded brain freeze. ::)

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: A Perfect Stranger on 08/04/08 at 4:48 pm

I personally am not in favor of the war.  I'd like it if our men and women would be sent back home.  However, having a cousin over in Iraq right now who says to me, "If we were to pull out right now, those people(the Iraqi's) would have an even stronger hatred for us, than what they did during the Gulf War."  The way I see it, eveyone has an opinion, and their are facts, and validities to back up those opinions.  No one believes in something without what they believe to be just cause, or at least very few do.
    I'd like it if Wars didn't exist and never would exist again.  However, I'm not going to shadow myself away from the fact that they did exist, they do exist and they will exist.  World peace?  I suppose I can always invision.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: MrCleveland on 08/07/08 at 7:24 pm


I personally am not in favor of the war.  I'd like it if our men and women would be sent back home.  However, having a cousin over in Iraq right now who says to me, "If we were to pull out right now, those people(the Iraqi's) would have an even stronger hatred for us, than what they did during the Gulf War."   The way I see it, eveyone has an opinion, and their are facts, and validities to back up those opinions.  No one believes in something without what they believe to be just cause, or at least very few do.
     I'd like it if Wars didn't exist and never would exist again.  However, I'm not going to shadow myself away from the fact that they did exist, they do exist and they will exist.  World peace?  I suppose I can always invision.


+1 Karma for showing what politics, war, and the real world are about.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Mushroom on 08/14/08 at 9:13 pm


I personally am not in favor of the war.  I'd like it if our men and women would be sent back home.  However, having a cousin over in Iraq right now who says to me, "If we were to pull out right now, those people(the Iraqi's) would have an even stronger hatred for us, than what they did during the Gulf War."   The way I see it, eveyone has an opinion, and their are facts, and validities to back up those opinions.  No one believes in something without what they believe to be just cause, or at least very few do.


The problem of pulling out of any conflict is that you invariably leave a bigger mess behind then when it started.  Just look at Somalia, Cambodia, Lebanon, and almost any other conflict that was left before a peace was established.

And your Cousin is very correct.  I have talked to several Iraqi Soldiers in the last year.  They regularly come to my base for training.  I talked to one at length a few months ago, and he tells me that while he does not want the US there, he hopes we stay for at least another 5-10 years.  Because he feels it is the only way his country will be able to survive.  We are giving them the stability and security while they build their own Government and Military.


     I'd like it if Wars didn't exist and never would exist again.  However, I'm not going to shadow myself away from the fact that they did exist, they do exist and they will exist.  World peace?  I suppose I can always invision.


Believe me, I wish there were no wars also.  I am a lifelong pacifist.  I do not believe in fighting or killing.

But I am also a realist, and do not believe in simply rolling over and taking a beating because I will not fight back.

Several years ago, I read a story about what would have happened if Hitler had successfully invaded India.  It had a heroic Ghandi trying his Passive Resistance against the SS.  However, the Nazi's had no problem with slaughtering anybody in their way, and the story ended with Ghandi, his family, and over 5,000 of his followers being marched into a "Death Camp", with the order to round up 10% of any villiage that resisted and execute them in city squares.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 08/14/08 at 9:27 pm


Believe me, I wish there were no wars also.  I am a lifelong pacifist.  I do not believe in fighting or killing.

But I am also a realist, and do not believe in simply rolling over and taking a beating because I will not fight back.

well, at the expense of 4000 american soldiers, you've managed to get about 100,000 iraqis killed, so i think you're doing okay on the whole fighting back thing.

i think we can have a back and forth on this, but we should get one thing straight: the war in iraq has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with world war ii, and the folks who support the war in iraq need to find a way to explain why the hell america is seeping blood and treasure over there without bringing up hitler. because iraq has absolutely f**kall in common with nazi germany. quit using world war ii to justify the occupation of the middle east. cuz it turns out that after pearl harbor, we went to war with JAPAN... the country that did pearl harbor.  ;D this time who knows what the bushies were thinking when they spontaneously decided to invade iraq? i mean to me the reasons seem pretty obvious but there's probably never going to be a consensus. one thing's for sure though, it wasn't because iraq posed a viable threat to the united states. the idea is prespammersite.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 08/14/08 at 9:45 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2Ldi5sqICE

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: A Perfect Stranger on 08/14/08 at 11:30 pm


The problem of pulling out of any conflict is that you invariably leave a bigger mess behind then when it started.  Just look at Somalia, Cambodia, Lebanon, and almost any other conflict that was left before a peace was established.

And your Cousin is very correct.  I have talked to several Iraqi Soldiers in the last year.  They regularly come to my base for training.  I talked to one at length a few months ago, and he tells me that while he does not want the US there, he hopes we stay for at least another 5-10 years.  Because he feels it is the only way his country will be able to survive.  We are giving them the stability and security while they build their own Government and Military.

Believe me, I wish there were no wars also.  I am a lifelong pacifist.  I do not believe in fighting or killing.

But I am also a realist, and do not believe in simply rolling over and taking a beating because I will not fight back.

Several years ago, I read a story about what would have happened if Hitler had successfully invaded India.  It had a heroic Ghandi trying his Passive Resistance against the SS.  However, the Nazi's had no problem with slaughtering anybody in their way, and the story ended with Ghandi, his family, and over 5,000 of his followers being marched into a "Death Camp", with the order to round up 10% of any villiage that resisted and execute them in city squares.


The "What if" theory can really mess with you mind can't it?  That is a very scarey thought.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Mushroom on 08/15/08 at 12:29 am


well, at the expense of 4000 american soldiers, you've managed to get about 100,000 iraqis killed, so i think you're doing okay on the whole fighting back thing.


Well, the number is a tad high.  Even the highest estimates I have seen run from 84-93,000 deaths.  And that includes all deaths.  Including that of factional fighting (hich has happened even before the invasion), executions, and even the daths of the suicide bombers themselves.

These statistics to me are so often skewed that they are not reliable.  it is like the practice of HCI of adding suicides and the people killed by police and private citizens during the comission of a felony into the number of handgun deaths.

And even accepting the 100k figure, that is a lot lower then the number killed by Saddam and his regeime.  And the number has been on the decrease this year.  Most estimates have Saddam killing between 20-80k of his own people every year.  If anything, the number of deaths is lower then it would have been had we not gotten involved.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 08/15/08 at 6:30 am


Well, the number is a tad high.  Even the highest estimates I have seen run from 84-93,000 deaths.  And that includes all deaths.  Including that of factional fighting (hich has happened even before the invasion), executions, and even the daths of the suicide bombers themselves.

These statistics to me are so often skewed that they are not reliable.  it is like the practice of HCI of adding suicides and the people killed by police and private citizens during the comission of a felony into the number of handgun deaths.

And even accepting the 100k figure, that is a lot lower then the number killed by Saddam and his regeime.  And the number has been on the decrease this year.  Most estimates have Saddam killing between 20-80k of his own people every year.  If anything, the number of deaths is lower then it would have been had we not gotten involved.
right. and saddam had support from the reagan administration for most of the time when he was killing his own citizens. we've had this conversation countless times already, citing saddam's human rights violations as a reason for waging aggressive war against iraq is a nonstarter. it's plainly obvious that's not the reason bush invaded, and he doesn't even cite that reason himself! he blathered about WMDs that didn't exist.

dude, iraq has the misfortune to be sitting on our oil, and it's a place to establish military bases in the most strategically important region in the world at a time when the US can't base its troops in saudi arabia anymore. and it had been weakened by sanctions for 12 years so the bushies thought it would be easy pickins. the reasons the bush administration invaded are plainly obvious for anyone willing to remove the rose-colored glasses.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Mushroom on 08/15/08 at 8:04 pm


right. and saddam had support from the reagan administration for most of the time when he was killing his own citizens.


Yes, and the Soviet Union had the support of the Roosevelt Administration.  Carter supported the Shah of Iran.  Your point is?

Don't confuse geopolitics with approval.  Many nations supported Iraq simply as a way to dull the growing influence of Iran.  And then ther are nations that supported both (like the USSR).

Of course, don't forget that the country that probably gave iraq the most support during that era was Kuwait.  And look what happened to them when they refused to allow Saddam to write off his debt to them.

Once again, the amount of oil from Iraq sent to the US is a fraction.  The last report I read listed Iraq oil as somewhere near 3% of US imports.  Most of the Iraq oil is actually being sent to Russia, to pay for both debts of the Saddam regeime, and for imports (mostly construction equipment) since the end of the war.  The next major recipiants of Iraqi oil is France, Spain, and China.

So how exactly is the US making money off of this?  Or the "Oil Companies", since the production in Iraq is still nationalized.  I am still somewhat confused by this concept.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 08/16/08 at 6:04 am

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92042202

yes, iraqi oil is currently nationalized, but that's not going to be true much longer. making iraq privatize its oil market is why we went to war. obviously. i'm doing a circular motion on my cheek with my index finger right now.

and it's not about sending the oil to america. these guys don't care about americans. it's about CONTROLLING the oil. are we really still wasting our time with this? c'mon, man. this stuff really isn't that hard. do i really need to talk about no-bid contracts again? i feel like we've had this conversation a bunch of times already.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 08/16/08 at 6:10 am


Yes, and the Soviet Union had the support of the Roosevelt Administration.  Carter supported the Shah of Iran.  Your point is?

Don't confuse geopolitics with approval.  Many nations supported Iraq simply as a way to dull the growing influence of Iran.  And then ther are nations that supported both (like the USSR).
see though, many of the exact same people were actually in the administration during the 80s and now they cite the exact same human rights violations hussein committed with republican financial aid as a reason for invading him! it makes my head spin. i'm sorry, that was so not like roosevelt allying with russia. it's so obvious they didn't care about hussein's atrocities until it suited them to be outraged.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Mushroom on 08/16/08 at 9:05 am


see though, many of the exact same people were actually in the administration during the 80s and now they cite the exact same human rights violations hussein committed with republican financial aid as a reason for invading him! it makes my head spin. i'm sorry, that was so not like roosevelt allying with russia. it's so obvious they didn't care about hussein's atrocities until it suited them to be outraged.


Actually, in many ways it was.

Rooseveldt and his administration knew about Katyn Forrest.  But it was never brought up, for fear of driving a wedge between the Allies.  And compared to Stalin, Hitler ws a piker when it came to mass murder.  While most credit Hitler with around 20,000,000 deaths, over 61,000,000 are attributed to the "Friendly Bear".

And it is obvious to anybody that looks at the Iran-Iraq war that the US government did not want anybody to win.  They provided aid to bothsides in that conflict.  Just like the Soviet Union did and a lot of other countries.

By 1987, that support had evaporated.  Iraq and Iran both started to target neutral shipping in the Gulf, resulting in Kuwait paying to flag her tankers as US vessels, which entitled them to US Naval protection.

And during that time, Iraq attacked the USS Stark.  37 Sailors were killed in that attack. 

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Davester on 08/17/08 at 10:41 pm


Yes, and the Soviet Union had the support of the Roosevelt Administration.  Carter supported the Shah of Iran.  Your point is?

Don't confuse geopolitics with approval.  Many nations supported Iraq simply as a way to dull the growing influence of Iran.  And then ther are nations that supported both (like the USSR).

Of course, don't forget that the country that probably gave iraq the most support during that era was Kuwait.  And look what happened to them when they refused to allow Saddam to write off his debt to them.



  Are you seriously trying to justify American support for dictatorships with "because everybody's doing it"..?

  Nobody has ever made the case, here, that dealing with unsavory dictators serves anyone's best interest.  There is little to be gained from black-and-white comparisons with other countries.  In the present context, the United States has unfortunately been the leading supporter of dictators: That's not to say no other country has diplomacy and trade with dictators, but that no other nation props them up like the "Land of the Free"...

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Tia on 08/18/08 at 10:56 am


   Are you seriously trying to justify American support for dictatorships with "because everybody's doing it"..?

   Nobody has ever made the case, here, that dealing with unsavory dictators serves anyone's best interest.  There is little to be gained from black-and-white comparisons with other countries.  In the present context, the United States has unfortunately been the leading supporter of dictators: That's not to say no other country has diplomacy and trade with dictators, but that no other nation props them up like the "Land of the Free"...
i think the problem mushroom encounters here is he never looks at the financial incentives to wage war. there's a pattern of waging war only in countries with valuable exports, but if you have to pretend wars are only fought in pursuit of moral causes you end up having to go through these weird contortions: we invaded iraq because saddam hussein invaded iran and kuwait, but it's okay that we invaded iraq because everyone's doing it.

wars are fought for money and power. the patterns of war waging only make sense if you think of it in those terms.

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: Davester on 08/18/08 at 6:06 pm


i think the problem mushroom encounters here is he never looks at the financial incentives to wage war. there's a pattern of waging war only in countries with valuable exports, but if you have to pretend wars are only fought in pursuit of moral causes you end up having to go through these weird contortions: we invaded iraq because saddam hussein invaded iran and kuwait, but it's okay that we invaded iraq because everyone's doing it.

wars are fought for money and power. the patterns of war waging only make sense if you think of it in those terms.


  I honestly don't know which is less significant, Tia - the dictators we sponsor or the crimes we commit in order to get something someone does no want to give us...

  ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 

  I ask Mushroom, if (as the Founders explained) that dictatorship is a crime, how can collaboration with dictators be exempt?  In practical terms, how can the US economy function indefinitely while antipathy for the USA mounts due to our franchising of repressive regimes..?

Subject: Re: The War, and those that oppose it

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 08/18/08 at 7:47 pm


i think the problem mushroom encounters here is he never looks at the financial incentives to wage war. there's a pattern of waging war only in countries with valuable exports, but if you have to pretend wars are only fought in pursuit of moral causes you end up having to go through these weird contortions: we invaded iraq because saddam hussein invaded iran and kuwait, but it's okay that we invaded iraq because everyone's doing it.

wars are fought for money and power. the patterns of war waging only make sense if you think of it in those terms.

Yeah.  Karm +1

Check for new replies or respond here...