PDA

View Full Version : Johnny Got His Gun



KafirChobee
06-03-2005, 05:35
Every night on CBS News, they have a presentation "American Heroes" that depicts the life (100 words or less) of one of our men (or women) that have parished in Iraq. If I hear, "They were doing what they wanted to be doing", one more time I will scream.

Mr. Roony (CBS 60 Minutes, and decorated WWII vet) put it eloguently last week. He said (in affect), "No man he knew died for his country, he died for the men around him. He perished young, and was loved --- and only wanted to go home. No man that died ever said he wanted to. If asked he might tell you he would rather be in Philadelphia - or just home. No one that died in a war was doing what they wanted to be doing. That's a lie. It's a pretty lie, but it is a lie."

The new propagandizing of our involvement in Iraq, is sad. There is no other term that fits it - it is sad. To believe that men are willingly going into a war to die is scary at best, and makes one wonder if they have expolsives under their "flack" jackets (armor).

$200Billion so far, 2,000 dead (soon), 15,000 wounded (many severely) - for oil. For a boy to show up his Daddy. For WMD, to find Nuclear devices, to .... what ever the catch word or phrase is today.

Point is, no one can speak for the dead. If you asked the dead whether they would rather be breathing than rotting in a grave, I think most might take a breath. If you asked most if what they died for had meaning - they might tell you it must have .... for someone, not necissarily them.

When men write home from a war they always attempt to be encouraging to their loved ones. Stiff upper lip and all that crap. I'm doing good, they keep me around the base camp mostly (when you are really deep in the sheep), nothing happens around here much (we only get mortared nightly - and an occassional rpg). GI's lie to their families. Why make them worry? GI's try to make it out that nothing can ever happen to them (We're all going to live forever - that death crap is for thems not in the know).

GI's use to tend downplay their role in the war and send their love. Today, it sounds like they are up playing up their involvement, applauding patriotism (one of the opieuts to the masses), and mostly going along with the game (their orders).

In 68' & 69, I was in the honor detail for 30-50 military burials. From rifleman, to Sgt of the honor guard. Only a couple ring in my mind. One was for a Marine - we were Army (but, the boy's Daddy asked for us). It may have been our best performance - and the boy that did taps even made our eyes whell in tears (he was a true artiste). After the cerimony we went to our bus and broke out the beer (not out of joy, just a small reward for a thankless job). The boys were hyped, they knew they'ld done well - without a hitch (almost). I was standing in the door of the bus when a voice said, "Sir?". I turned and saw the father of the boy we had just honored. I (literally) snatched to attention (reflex).
"Son." he said, "that was the best of 'em all."
"Sir?"
"Five sons", he answered, " that's the last, and this was the best damn ceremony of them all."
"Sir?"
Yeah, first boy got shot down in 64, second in 65, third in 66, forth in 68 ... and now my last one. Each one went over to avenge the previous one, and then ones, ... and wasn't a damn thing they would listen to. Last son didn't have to go, just wouldn't listen."
"Sir?"
"Well, I noticed one of your riflemen miss fired, don't worry no one else coulda noticed, and I was wondering if I could have that round?"
I looked over my shoulder and saw Carter reject a round, bend down and bring it forward. He place it in the gentleman's hand.
With that he said thank you, turned and walked away with one clenched fist. We no longer felt like celebrating our success. For some they just realised they had buried a son.

:balloon2:

Papewaio
06-03-2005, 06:44
The true role of infantry is not to expend itself upon heroic physical effort, not to wither away under merciless machine-gun fire, not to impale itself on hostile bayonets, but on the contrary, to advance under the maximum possible protection of the maximum possible array of mechanical resources, in the form of guns, machine-guns, tanks, mortars and aeroplanes; to advance with as little impediment as possible; to be relieved as far as possible of the obligation to fight their way forward. ...

Voigtkampf
06-03-2005, 06:59
I must admit, Kafir, that this was truly a touching story.

I have one question though, regarding the US troops in Iraq; are those men and women conscripted, forced to their military service over there or have they enlisted in army by their own free will? If I am not gravely mistaken, the latter should apply.

And if the latter applies, perhaps they should have found themselves a job with lesser risk factor, don’t you think? Enlist in army, ok, receive paychecks, ok, get yourself through college, ok; actually go to war, fight and kill and possibly die, not ok. You do not enlist in the army to look pretty in your parade uniform, you enlist and get paid because there is a strong possibility that you will have to wage war for your country. And die for your country.

As for Mr. Roony, I do not acknowledge no man’s wisdom to be ultimate, and hence do not acknowledge and take for granted his own opinion. There are and there have been men and women willing to fight and die for their country; among Americans less then among European people, Americans came overseas and haven’t seen Nazi tanks rolling down the streets and firing squads killing randomly people in Oklahoma or Philadelphia ; if they, had they would be more prepared to do so.

There are people that are ready and willing to die for their country, and the men that fight on their side; it is true that are very few that want to die, but there are many that are ready and willing to sacrifice their life.

Believe it or not, the tree of freedom requires the blood of both guilty and innocent, all the time. The way of things.

Franconicus
06-03-2005, 07:10
Is it a good thing if someone is willing to die for his country. I think it is very stupid. A good man can serve his country much better if he is alive.
To die for your country is not something special for noble armies. There were many soldiers in the Nazi army searching death. I think there are several reasons for that:
1) Propaganda: It made 14 years old boys attack soviet tanks with insufficient weapons.
2) Desperation: If you see thousands of bombers flying to your home and willing to kill civilists.
3) Fear: Sometimes you fear being taken prisoner more than being killed.
4) Die because your commrades do.
Did I forget something?
All in all, not very noble reasons to me.

PanzerJaeger
06-03-2005, 07:18
GI's use to tend downplay their role in the war and send their love. Today, it sounds like they are up playing up their involvement, applauding patriotism (one of the opieuts to the masses), and mostly going along with the game (their orders).

Maybe thats because they are patriots and believe in what America stands for. Just because you are engrossed in your own cynicism because you had to fight in a war you didnt believe in doesnt mean others are unable to have nobler ideals.

sharrukin
06-03-2005, 07:57
Is it a good thing if someone is willing to die for his country. I think it is very stupid. A good man can serve his country much better if he is alive.
To die for your country is not something special for noble armies. There were many soldiers in the Nazi army searching death. I think there are several reasons for that:
1) Propaganda: It made 14 years old boys attack soviet tanks with insufficient weapons.
2) Desperation: If you see thousands of bombers flying to your home and willing to kill civilists.
3) Fear: Sometimes you fear being taken prisoner more than being killed.
4) Die because your commrades do.
Did I forget something?
All in all, not very noble reasons to me.

Well if someone wasn't willing to risk their life and possibly lose it in the fight against the Nazi's, then how exactly do you think they were going to be stopped?

bmolsson
06-03-2005, 09:23
Well if someone wasn't willing to risk their life and possibly lose it in the fight against the Nazi's, then how exactly do you think they were going to be stopped?

I am sure the Nazi said the same thing to their soldiers when they went out to the front. It's rather circular to argue that you have to die for your country because somebody else is told to do the same thing.

War is there only because there are armies standing against each other. A democratic process doesn't require nations and in the end that is the solution. A global society with local autonomy.

English assassin
06-03-2005, 09:48
KC isn't saying don't go to war, although he may feel it and he would be entitled to. What he is saying is if you do think war is the answer, take that decision like a adult, understanding what it means, and that peoples sons and daughters borthers, sisters etc, will die. And that yes, they may be willing to take the risk but no they don't want to.

Honestly I sometimes think some people's thinking about what it all actually means in real flesh and blood hasn't got beyond Commando Comic and "Achtung, Der Tommies, Arrgh".

(Sorry, you won't have got those in the US and they sure won't have been popular in Germany, they were UK war comics for boys in the 70s. I guess you all had your equivalents.)

doc_bean
06-03-2005, 10:01
It's true, the media and especially videogames are empahising that war is 'cool' . But how many people really believe that ?

A lot of people in Iraq signed up before the war, they are probably all very willing to fight for their country, but quite a few are likely to feel that running around in the desert isn't exactly for the good of the country. It's not like Iraq ever attacked the US (silly conspiracy theories aside).

That said, I think quite a few people have signed up after the war started, there are quite a few people who are willing to die for their country in some god forsaken desert.

I don't understand them, but it's their choice.

English assassin
06-03-2005, 10:21
It's true, the media and especially videogames are empahising that war is 'cool' . But how many people really believe that ?

Sexually frustrated teenagers and that part of the republican party which does not have service experience of their own IMHO.

t1master
06-03-2005, 15:26
stirring the pot again kafir :)

~:wave:

Redleg
06-03-2005, 16:25
Every night on CBS News, they have a presentation "American Heroes" that depicts the life (100 words or less) of one of our men (or women) that have parished in Iraq. If I hear, "They were doing what they wanted to be doing", one more time I will scream.

Then get prepared to scream - because people are still enlisting to become soldiers and marines. Maybe at lower numbers but the enlistment is still happening. Its a volunteer force - so it means that the individual who enlisted just might "be doing what they wanted to be doing."



Mr. Roony (CBS 60 Minutes, and decorated WWII vet) put it eloguently last week. He said (in affect), "No man he knew died for his country, he died for the men around him. He perished young, and was loved --- and only wanted to go home. No man that died ever said he wanted to. If asked he might tell you he would rather be in Philadelphia - or just home. No one that died in a war was doing what they wanted to be doing. That's a lie. It's a pretty lie, but it is a lie."


And Mr. Roony would be correct with this statement. Men go to fight for their nation - but men die for those immediately around them. Just read any Congressional Medal of Honor award.



The new propagandizing of our involvement in Iraq, is sad. There is no other term that fits it - it is sad. To believe that men are willingly going into a war to die is scary at best, and makes one wonder if they have expolsives under their "flack" jackets (armor).


No man goes to war willing to die - that is a propagandizing of your own. Men go to war because they feel its necessary to protect their country.



$200Billion so far, 2,000 dead (soon), 15,000 wounded (many severely) - for oil. For a boy to show up his Daddy. For WMD, to find Nuclear devices, to .... what ever the catch word or phrase is today.


Propagandizing again Kafir. To say the war is about oil or for a boy to show up his daddy is nothing but propaganda.



Point is, no one can speak for the dead. If you asked the dead whether they would rather be breathing than rotting in a grave, I think most might take a breath. If you asked most if what they died for had meaning - they might tell you it must have .... for someone, not necissarily them.


Someday you will learn maybe to just make your point verus throwing a lot of rethoric and propaganda in you posts.


When men write home from a war they always attempt to be encouraging to their loved ones. Stiff upper lip and all that crap. I'm doing good, they keep me around the base camp mostly (when you are really deep in the sheep), nothing happens around here much (we only get mortared nightly - and an occassional rpg). GI's lie to their families. Why make them worry? GI's try to make it out that nothing can ever happen to them (We're all going to live forever - that death crap is for thems not in the know).


How true -



GI's use to tend downplay their role in the war and send their love. Today, it sounds like they are up playing up their involvement, applauding patriotism (one of the opieuts to the masses), and mostly going along with the game (their orders).


Again you decide to ruin your above true point with your own propaganda.



In 68' & 69, I was in the honor detail for 30-50 military burials. From rifleman, to Sgt of the honor guard. Only a couple ring in my mind. One was for a Marine - we were Army (but, the boy's Daddy asked for us). It may have been our best performance - and the boy that did taps even made our eyes whell in tears (he was a true artiste). After the cerimony we went to our bus and broke out the beer (not out of joy, just a small reward for a thankless job). The boys were hyped, they knew they'ld done well - without a hitch (almost). I was standing in the door of the bus when a voice said, "Sir?". I turned and saw the father of the boy we had just honored. I (literally) snatched to attention (reflex).
"Son." he said, "that was the best of 'em all."
"Sir?"
"Five sons", he answered, " that's the last, and this was the best damn ceremony of them all."
"Sir?"
Yeah, first boy got shot down in 64, second in 65, third in 66, forth in 68 ... and now my last one. Each one went over to avenge the previous one, and then ones, ... and wasn't a damn thing they would listen to. Last son didn't have to go, just wouldn't listen."
"Sir?"
"Well, I noticed one of your riflemen miss fired, don't worry no one else coulda noticed, and I was wondering if I could have that round?"
I looked over my shoulder and saw Carter reject a round, bend down and bring it forward. He place it in the gentleman's hand.
With that he said thank you, turned and walked away with one clenched fist. We no longer felt like celebrating our success. For some they just realised they had buried a son.

:balloon2:

Sad story - but each son made his own choice did he not? The only one that might not have was the first.

PanzerJaeger
06-03-2005, 19:27
Sexually frustrated teenagers and that part of the republican party which does not have service experience of their own IMHO.

This coming from someone who is obviously a fountain of knowledge concerning the Republican party and being sexually frustrated. ~;)

sharrukin
06-03-2005, 21:02
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Well if someone wasn't willing to risk their life and possibly lose it in the fight against the Nazi's, then how exactly do you think they were going to be stopped?


I am sure the Nazi said the same thing to their soldiers when they went out to the front. It's rather circular to argue that you have to die for your country because somebody else is told to do the same thing.
The city fathers of Carthage might beg to differ with you, if their begging had them any good. It didn't.
There are predators in the world! Animals, men and nations. Non-violence simply breeds aggression in such predators and can only succeed against a moral opponent. Tribalism and territorialism are ancient animal and human instincts and to imagine that they will simply fade away is just wishful thinking. Put simply, we have a duty to defend others.



War is there only because there are armies standing against each other. A democratic process doesn't require nations and in the end that is the solution. A global society with local autonomy.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington

You are getting the cart before the horse. Armies exist to fight wars. Wars do not exist to fight armies. Without wars armies would cease to exist. Without armies wars would NOT cease to exist. If Poland had dissolved it's army in 1935 it would not have guaranteed peace. Czechoslovakia did this and it guaranteed nothing of the sort.

As for democracy "if you don't vote for me I am going to kill you". There ends your democracy unless you are willing to go to war in it's defence. Johnny better Get His Gun!

Pindar
06-03-2005, 21:26
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington

Good quote.

KafirChobee
06-05-2005, 00:22
I used the reference to the book, "Johnny Got His Gun" (by Dalton Trumbo) for this because I felt it was suiting.

The author was accused of being a Nazi sypathizer prior to WWII (book was banned in US during the war), and a Commie one after WWII (book was agained banned 'til 1964, or there abouts) - see somethings really do work both ways - for some. He was one of the men blacklisted by Ronny Reagans' testimony during the McCarthy Hearings. Even though he was a highly decorated hero of WWII (USA, of course). He still wrote screen plays and was one of the men referrenced in Woody Allen's spoof - The Front. He did the original "Moby Dick" (with Gregory Peck) and "20,000 Leagues beneath the Sea", both under pseudo-names.

Dalton, wrote the book in college after listening to some WWI vets and then hearing some politician talking about "our noble dead". It is, of course, an anti-war book that talks thru the main character's mind - as he can no longer communicate (having lost both arms, legs, and his face). It's an easy read, and many librarys still carry it - check it out.

For me, the most curious part is when he finally finds a means to communicate. The doctor asks him, "What do you want?" Think about it.

This Post was not about WWII, or even WWI, or Korea, or 'Nam - though there are similarities between 'Nam and Iraq [When they ask you why we died, tell them because our fathers' lied].

It was meant to be about realizing that sons. daughters, husbands, wives - loved ones are dying. Becoming the "noble dead", without a true purpose or a justified cause. Turning the purpose of our invassion from protecting our nation from WMD, to spreading democracy is bogus. Asking are the people of Iraq better off today than under Saddam is hyperbole and unrealistic. Are they? One must wonder, losing an average of 30-50 people a day to suicide bombers might make many long for Husseins rule - the good old bad days that they were.

Still, that is irrelevent. We are there and we are stuck there 'til it reaches some sort of conclusion.

Point is it seems only the parents, spouces, or relatives that agree with the war get any "air" time. Seems if one disagrees with the president's view or line of thought (oops no WMD, I meant to say "spreading democracy to the uncivilized world") - their views are masked. Ridiculed, even.
For someone to use the silented voices of this war's dead to propagandize the true meaning of this war - is wrong. To claim we must go forward sacrificing men (women) to justify the previous deaths, is a bit like continuing to smash one's finger with a hammer when the nail is on the other side of the room.
The war started to fight the terrorists, what it has done is promote them, create and justify their movement (jihad). It is a failure in reason, and it is only justifiable today because of the consequences that would probably ensue if we were to withdraw. Call it what it is. A fubar.
Our (all nations') military personell should be afforded all the respect and honor they normally would deserve. But, realize they are not there for some noble ideal - but, because they were lied to. And that lie grows, festers and is propagated by whitewashing the real reasons for our invasion. It wasn't WMD, we already know that was a lie. It wasn't to fight terrorism, we created the only terrorists in Iraq today - AlQuada wasn't there. So what was it initially that "forced" Bush43's hand to send in the troops? Oh, I know - Sadam was resistent about the investigators - no, that ain't it. Oh, well musta been pretty good since we went in with full congressional approval. The big lies work every time.

Further, about heroes.
There are a number of courtmartials in progress today of men refusing to return to Iraq or activeduty, because they don't buy into the changing reasons we are there. Some simply feel they've done enough - which the military and congress fervently disagrees with (We'll tell you when you've done enough - so our sons and daughters don't have to go). That is hypochracy at its best. Trashing heroes that did their duty, and now simply want to return to a normal life. These are the true heroes of this war - they can still think for themselves. God, knows we can't have them running around contaminating the zombies (j/k). Best make an "ax"ample of them to keep the rest inline.

btw, re-enlistments are down 60%. Enlistments are off 40%, and those completing their Reserve and NG duties are fleeing to their homes.

:balloon2:

Watchman
06-05-2005, 01:00
Well, when it comes down to it, the US army is a "professional" one - or if you would rather put it that way, mercenary. They're people who get paid to go out an kill people on orders from their duly empowered superiors. That's what an army is; a society's means of organized violence. That it can be employed for other things (domestic disaster relief is a common one) does nothing to change its fundamental nature.

Not to sound cold-hearted, but I don't have all that much sympathy to spare for professional military casualties - especially from one as active as the US one (which has since WW2 fought something like one major conflict per decade plus many more smaller actions). You sign up in one by your own free will, and if you're not aware of the risks involved it's frankly a personal problem.

It's still sad when they die of course, especially for any friends and family left behind, but then they also did agree to go out and risk their lives in return of various economical benefits. That they may have had some higher motives is conjectural and irrelevant - some did, others didn't, all voluntarily "took the king's shilling" and marched off under the banners.

Conscript armies, which basically work by training every single adult male (and sometimes female too) a soldier and then keeping them on reserve after their active duty are a bit different. You're not really asked if you want to serve under arms to (supposedly at least) defend your country - you're legally obliged to do it. Obviously since the element of voluntary choice is considerably reduced the equation is different from the essentially mercenary-volunteer professional troops...


That aside, Iraq is a total mess. By this point it's really a little irrelevant why exactly the Americans went in there - what's relevant is that they didn't do it right, and are now stuck in something eerily reminiscent of France's Algerian escapade in the Sixties. Put bluntly, they're stuck fighting a bloody guerilla war and thus far have shown few signs of winning it any time soon, if ever, at least without resorting to measures that simply are not done by any nation wishing to call (and more to the point be called) civilized.
Whether there existed a "right" way to take over Iraq so as not to create a guerilla heaven on the side can be debated, but is a little irrelevant as the US certainly didn't do anything of the sort at the time anyway...

I don't claim to know the soldierly psyche very well, but what I do know of it suggests that on the average troops deeply dislike dying because some idiot higher up in the hierarchy messed up. Right now, American soldiers in Iraq are to a very large degree dying for that very reason, although it would also seem they do not think of it in those terms. If this is a good or bad thing is, again, debatable, and I for one have no set stance on that particular dilemma.


Good quote.You know, Washington is known to have been what you might call a staunch decentralist; that makes said quote very politically biased and hence no better than any other political slogan...
Whether the basic point implied thereinis tenable has also been subject to lenghty and, unsurprisingly, unresolved arm-wrestling among scholars of Political Science; decentralisation vs centralization is one of the "eternal dilemmas" of the discipline.
(Sorry, I just happen to have an allergy about people treating the Founding Fathers and their ideas like some kinds of infallible divine revelations.)

Samurai Waki
06-05-2005, 01:20
Patton once said "The Object of War is not to die for your country; but to make the other bastard die for his."

I don't know much about Washington D.C. and Bureaucratics and what their real goals in this world is. I know that we might have been lied to about weapons of mass destruction, or that we went to give democracy to the Iraqis, maybe for oil... maybe not. We don't have the priviledge to know.
I find the remarks that American Soldiers are essentially mercenaries appalling. I have many good, and close friends who served (or are still serving) in the US Military, some want a better education out of it, others want more life expirience. But I know that none of them want to serve their country, to go to a war, and to die for it. They want to go to war to fight for it, and defend it. Not all them for sure, but the vast majority of them. My cousin is over in Iraq right now, at a little Fort between Baghdad and some other little Iraqi City called Fort McHenry. These are National Guard Soldiers stationed here, in the most volatile region in Iraq, they get mortared everyday, and 5 Soldiers out of the one battalion guarding it has been killed since January. They have disgusting toilets, their showers don't work, they get rotten food sent to them, and they serve 12-16 months instead of 6 months like the Regular Military. Why aren't the regular's there? why not the marines? While the main body of American troops over there are Full Time Regulars, They live in lax comfort for the most part in large bases. The men who wanted to defend their homes and family in American get stepped on by GWB and Donald Rumsfeld. This is the most disgusting thing America has ever done to our patriotic militia.

Watchman
06-05-2005, 01:34
Hey, I'm not privy to the exact organisation of American armed forces, although I do know there exists some kind of reservist system on the side of the professionals.

Still, if it's not of the "go to army or go to jail" (as it roughly works out here in Finland) variety but based on some sort of voluntary enlistement all those people have no complaint coming to me, thankyouverymuch. You sign up for it, you deal with it. If my little brother (who's serving his mandatory army time now) went and signed up for UN peacekeeping duty (which is "volunteers only") and then got killed by some gunman in Africa I would naturally grieve - he's family, after all - but I would also recognize that he knew what he was getting into and went anyway.
Not much of a comfort, that, but something to keep in mind.

sharrukin
06-05-2005, 01:36
You know, Washington is known to have been what you might call a staunch decentralist; that makes said quote very politically biased and hence no better than any other political slogan...
Whether the basic point implied thereinis tenable has also been subject to lenghty and, unsurprisingly, unresolved arm-wrestling among scholars of Political Science; decentralisation vs centralization is one of the "eternal dilemmas" of the discipline.
(Sorry, I just happen to have an allergy about people treating the Founding Fathers and their ideas like some kinds of infallible divine revelations.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson

War is there only because there are armies standing against each other. A democratic process doesn't require nations and in the end that is the solution. A global society with local autonomy.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington

The quote was in response to bmolsson suggesting that "A democratic process doesn't require nations". The point is that force exists in a state to make things possible, including democracy. Democracy IS NOT possible without a state or organization to enforce the rules. Force is required for democracy to exist.

Decentralization vs centralization has nothing to do with it. Governments are dangerous and can get out of control and this must be guarded against. That is at it's core what democracy is about. Being Canadian I carry no candle for the founding fathers of the American Republic but I do know wisdom when I hear it.

Watchman
06-05-2005, 01:39
I stand corrected, then. Sorry. It is getting rather late and my head's working a little sluggishly.

sharrukin
06-05-2005, 01:48
I stand corrected, then. Sorry. It is getting rather late and my head's working a little sluggishly.

No problem as I have done much the same myself.

bmolsson
06-05-2005, 03:45
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson

War is there only because there are armies standing against each other. A democratic process doesn't require nations and in the end that is the solution. A global society with local autonomy.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington

The quote was in response to bmolsson suggesting that "A democratic process doesn't require nations". The point is that force exists in a state to make things possible, including democracy. Democracy IS NOT possible without a state or organization to enforce the rules. Force is required for democracy to exist.

Decentralization vs centralization has nothing to do with it. Governments are dangerous and can get out of control and this must be guarded against. That is at it's core what democracy is about. Being Canadian I carry no candle for the founding fathers of the American Republic but I do know wisdom when I hear it.

To have a state doesn't require a nation. Patriotism and nationalism has nothing to do with a political system, it only classify people and place them in specified areas with guarded borders.

In the future political groupings and ethnic belongings will be dimished and found globally. It has already happened within certain groups. Law enforcement will go global. There are very little arguments, if any, for locally specific rulings and laws.

George Washington did base his statement on the way he built the Amercian revolution. With violence and terrorism of the existing central power. It is not valid in a modern society.

Somebody Else
06-05-2005, 05:41
The way I see it, people may well join up for all sorts of reasons, but I'd think them very strange if they viewed fighting, killing and being killed as a great thing.
Personally, I'm considering applying for a commisision once I finish university - not because of any deep-seated patriotism, but because I feel I could learn a lot from the army - organisation of manpower, self-discipline etc.
If I were required to go into combat - I would like to think that my main reason for being there would be to minimise the negative effects in any way I can - preventing my men from being injured, and likewise anyone unfortunate enough to be on the opposite side to me.
The way I see it, being in combat is one of the 'edges' of human civilisation, and if I can sway the balance of it the right way by being on that edge, I should.
You could say that though I don't feel much loyalty towards my country, I feel loyal to humanity - even if that sounds a little trite.

KafirChobee
06-05-2005, 10:25
Somebody! Read the fine print before you sign up! It is not a 4 or 6 year tour of duty any more - it is 'til the duration. Men that thought they had finished their required service have been recalled, forced to leave their employment, give up their homes (unprotected ny US law), and return to the servitued of the military. To be all they can be - so that others don't have to be.
One simply does not resign their commission in todays military.

I was 5 when my Dad was recalled for Korea. I remember it. I recall my brothers crying (3 and 2) when he was leaving, and my mother holding on to me for support. Me, I was stunned - at 5 one is never sure exactly what is going on, but they do realize when their world is about to change (I cried to, of course - when your mom does, you tend to also at that age).

Imagine what it must be like for some of the men and women serving (especially the Reservists and NGs') that had to give up positions they had "served their time for" at the office - only to be dragged back into the military to serve again. Because, they hadn't understood the "fine" print.

Never be curious enough about a subject (say war) to actually go beyond reading about it, or listening to those that experienced it.

Having grownup knowing that I was going to war - the entire 'nam era generation did, accepted it (we were all fatalists), simply knew. Only we thought (most of us) that we would only be sacrificed for the good of our nation, the world (HOPEFULLY), the betterment of mankind. oops - 56,000 on a wall is what we got (the oops generation).

What others have said here probably has more relevence than my own ramblings. Still, many hold true to the fact, that men can and do bend to the phraseology and patriotism of expounded by the powers that be, those that weld the ability to fabricate believable lies woven to extend their power over others. To make it unpatriotic to believe other than they wish people too.

It is a hard thing to accept that a loved one died for nothing, or for the philosophy, or profit of others. Took me 5 years, 'til 1969 to fully grasp the ideA that my buds had died for nothing but the wishes of corrupt dying old men. For the MIC (MilitaryIndustrialComplex). It is a hard reality to accept that people one loved were sacrificed for the profits of others - and nothing more. It is even more difficult to stop waving the (a) flag, proclaiming patriotism over individualism, or challenging the real intentions of those that created a war. Even harder to realize that one's patriotism is being used against them for the benefit of others - whom mouth the words we long to hear, but believe in nothing but profit (over the dying bodies of the true patriots).

Most accept that Hitler was a megallamaniac (etc, etc) that was intent on having his way with the world. He invaded nations and got away with it - up to Poland. Some like to point out that "appeasement" didn't work, then. Few ask why the allies of the time didn't simply kick Germany's butt when they had the chance. Simply, they recalled WWI, and wished to avoid it - as their predicessors were unable to do. It wasn't appeasement, it was a rational to continue peace. It simply did not work, when dealing with a madman. Sadam was not mad (Egomanianical, maybe), he simply didn't realize he was dealing with one.

What Bush43 did was create a situation that challenged the rest of the world to hate the USA, and for him to thumb his nose at them and say, "We ya'll don't need youse, we can do it alone." Upon being shown that the other 190+ nations might have a say in how the world politic is run, he then went on to the propagandizing method of blaming those that oppose him for all the worlds wrongs (no matter that 80% of the worlds population dislikes the US, or blames its corporations for their poverty). Cute idea though, blaming the poor for being poor? Classic.

Anyway. Somebody, I applaude you for wanting to serve. I warn you, that the rules (though unchanged) now all apply. It is a matter of enter at your own risk. Don't expect to sign up for 3 or 4 years and not serve 6 or 8, or 'til the duration of the end of hostilities. It's a new era in military slavery - one that previously never existed.

:balloon2:

Somebody Else
06-05-2005, 11:29
KafirChobee - just one thing, I'm British. Speaking to some of my friends - who are involved (in the OTC and TAs), the impression I get is that a 3 or 4 year commission is possible. Also, I plan to spend part of my time at uni in the OTC, in order to verify that I am suited to it.

*Addendum*

If, towards the end of my service, I was asked to go to war, and I had the choice to leave, I would go - I would never betray the men I serve with - even if I were scared witless. That's just not done.

Redleg
06-05-2005, 16:30
Somebody! Read the fine print before you sign up! It is not a 4 or 6 year tour of duty any more - it is 'til the duration. Men that thought they had finished their required service have been recalled, forced to leave their employment, give up their homes (unprotected ny US law), and return to the servitued of the military. To be all they can be - so that others don't have to be.


Its always been the duration KafirChobee both my grandfathers spent over 3 years under arms fighting during WW2. Reservists and the National Guard are getting the short end of the stick - I would have to agree with you.



One simply does not resign their commission in todays military.


Wrong - I know several that have since 2002.



I was 5 when my Dad was recalled for Korea. I remember it. I recall my brothers crying (3 and 2) when he was leaving, and my mother holding on to me for support. Me, I was stunned - at 5 one is never sure exactly what is going on, but they do realize when their world is about to change (I cried to, of course - when your mom does, you tend to also at that age).


Yep happens - it happened during Vietnam also and its happening now.



Imagine what it must be like for some of the men and women serving (especially the Reservists and NGs') that had to give up positions they had "served their time for" at the office - only to be dragged back into the military to serve again. Because, they hadn't understood the "fine" print.


When I signed my initial contract I understood it was for 4 years active duty and 4 years Individual Ready Reserve. If you sign something you better darn well read the whole document.



Never be curious enough about a subject (say war) to actually go beyond reading about it, or listening to those that experienced it.


LOL - don't go swimming because the sharks might get you.



Having grownup knowing that I was going to war - the entire 'nam era generation did, accepted it (we were all fatalists), simply knew. Only we thought (most of us) that we would only be sacrificed for the good of our nation, the world (HOPEFULLY), the betterment of mankind. oops - 56,000 on a wall is what we got (the oops generation).


And it shows in how you post - not a problem - until you go from being informative to ranting.


What others have said here probably has more relevence than my own ramblings. Still, many hold true to the fact, that men can and do bend to the phraseology and patriotism of expounded by the powers that be, those that weld the ability to fabricate believable lies woven to extend their power over others. To make it unpatriotic to believe other than they wish people too.


The web of deciet is woven by both sides of the arguement. Like the fallacy that it is only about the oil.



It is a hard thing to accept that a loved one died for nothing, or for the philosophy, or profit of others. Took me 5 years, 'til 1969 to fully grasp the ideA that my buds had died for nothing but the wishes of corrupt dying old men. For the MIC (MilitaryIndustrialComplex). It is a hard reality to accept that people one loved were sacrificed for the profits of others - and nothing more. It is even more difficult to stop waving the (a) flag, proclaiming patriotism over individualism, or challenging the real intentions of those that created a war. Even harder to realize that one's patriotism is being used against them for the benefit of others - whom mouth the words we long to hear, but believe in nothing but profit (over the dying bodies of the true patriots).


And if I remember right - you work for the same Military Industrial COmplex - your arguement here is nothing short of hypocritical if my memory serves me correctly. Your making a profit in your personal life off the sweat and blood of the young men that go off to war.



Most accept that Hitler was a megallamaniac (etc, etc) that was intent on having his way with the world. He invaded nations and got away with it - up to Poland. Some like to point out that "appeasement" didn't work, then. Few ask why the allies of the time didn't simply kick Germany's butt when they had the chance. Simply, they recalled WWI, and wished to avoid it - as their predicessors were unable to do. It wasn't appeasement, it was a rational to continue peace. It simply did not work, when dealing with a madman. Sadam was not mad (Egomanianical, maybe), he simply didn't realize he was dealing with one.


If you think Saddam was not a madman - then you haven't read what he has done to his own people. Yea right he definately was Egomanical - but saying President Bush is mad - without painting Saddam in the same brush stroke is again hypocrtical.



What Bush43 did was create a situation that challenged the rest of the world to hate the USA, and for him to thumb his nose at them and say, "We ya'll don't need youse, we can do it alone." Upon being shown that the other 190+ nations might have a say in how the world politic is run, he then went on to the propagandizing method of blaming those that oppose him for all the worlds wrongs (no matter that 80% of the worlds population dislikes the US, or blames its corporations for their poverty). Cute idea though, blaming the poor for being poor? Classic.


Explain Kuwait in 1991 then their oh enlighten one. Explain the 10 years that my brother in arms had to fly mission over Iraq, that the 1st Cav Division rotated in and out of Kuwait during the 90's. Oh yes Bush created the situation all by himself.



Anyway. Somebody, I applaude you for wanting to serve. I warn you, that the rules (though unchanged) now all apply. It is a matter of enter at your own risk. Don't expect to sign up for 3 or 4 years and not serve 6 or 8, or 'til the duration of the end of hostilities. It's a new era in military slavery - one that previously never existed.

:balloon2:


And your wrong again KafirCohee to the end of the duration of conflict has always existed - the only time it did not was Vietnam. And if I remember right Korea started out for the duration - but somewhere in the middle of the conflict they started out with a point rotation system. Funny thing is that the military kept on changing the required points for rotation based upon what was happening.

Pindar
06-05-2005, 17:32
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."


Good Quote

You know, Washington is known to have been what you might call a staunch decentralist...



Washington was a Federalist. The Federalist Party was the more 'centrist', more national in orientation, of the two political parties at the time.

The source does not change the impact of the quote.

Watchman
06-05-2005, 19:15
If Saddam was that bad, then pray explain why the nice and well-meaning US of A counted him among its allies for quite a while (about the whole Eighties, to be precise) when he was fighting the Iranian mullahs for them ?

Dunno about you, but where I'm from there's certain words applicable when you let an useful tyrant fight your enemies and only start criticizing his internal policies when he gets troublesome and you want to knock him off...
And they're not very flattering words, you know.

So much of that, please. The last I checked this thread wasn't about the collected foreign-affairs skeletons gathering dust in the United States' collective locker, or of Saddam's dubious management practices. (Side note: I fail to understand why someone would need to be mad to be a tyrant; cold-blooded sanity has always worked much better in that job.)

Gawain of Orkeny
06-05-2005, 19:28
If Saddam was that bad, then pray explain why the nice and well-meaning US of A counted him among its allies for quite a while (about the whole Eighties, to be precise) when he was fighting the Iranian mullahs for them ?

Allies? Did you know the Israelis suppled the Iranians with arms in this war? Do you think Israel ever thought of Iran as an ally? Its called the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Truth is that we and the Israelis wanted both countries to fight eachother and leave us alone. Besides Russia and France were the ones who supplied Saddam with almost all his weapons.

Redleg
06-05-2005, 21:48
If Saddam was that bad, then pray explain why the nice and well-meaning US of A counted him among its allies for quite a while (about the whole Eighties, to be precise) when he was fighting the Iranian mullahs for them ?

Dunno about you, but where I'm from there's certain words applicable when you let an useful tyrant fight your enemies and only start criticizing his internal policies when he gets troublesome and you want to knock him off...
And they're not very flattering words, you know.

So much of that, please. The last I checked this thread wasn't about the collected foreign-affairs skeletons gathering dust in the United States' collective locker, or of Saddam's dubious management practices. (Side note: I fail to understand why someone would need to be mad to be a tyrant; cold-blooded sanity has always worked much better in that job.)

Hell I always wondered where all those T-55, T-62's, T-72's, BMPs, BTRs came from - not to include the 122 and 152 mm howitzers, the soviet model mortars, and the Ak-47's that made up the equipment of the Iraqi Army during the 1980's and 1990's.sarcism on They must of been supplied by the United States.sarcism off

BDC
06-05-2005, 22:02
Hell I always wondered where all those T-55, T-62's, T-72's, BMPs, BTRs came from - not to include the 122 and 152 mm howitzers, the soviet model mortars, and the Ak-47's that made up the equipment of the Iraqi Army during the 1980's and 1990's.sarcism on They must of been supplied by the United States.sarcism off
Yes, they were trying to buy him too. Everyone wants to keep Iran down it seems.

ShadesPanther
06-05-2005, 22:22
The USSR was worried about the effect Iran would have on the majority Muslim republics in the south

Tribesman
06-05-2005, 23:44
Hell I always wondered where all those T-55, T-62's, T-72's, BMPs, BTRs came from - not to include the 122 and 152 mm howitzers, the soviet model mortars, and the Ak-47's that made up the equipment of the Iraqi Army during the 1980's and 1990's.sarcism on They must of been supplied by the United States.sarcism off
Hey hey Redleg , are you quoting a Russian General in Afghanistan who seemed a little bewildered about how the Mujahadeen seemed to be getting hold of so much Communist block weaponry . ~;)

bmolsson
06-06-2005, 03:44
I know that you can buy home made AK-47 almost every where in the world these days. In fact the drawings are on the net if you care to try...... ~;)

Redleg
06-06-2005, 12:23
Hell I always wondered where all those T-55, T-62's, T-72's, BMPs, BTRs came from - not to include the 122 and 152 mm howitzers, the soviet model mortars, and the Ak-47's that made up the equipment of the Iraqi Army during the 1980's and 1990's.sarcism on They must of been supplied by the United States.sarcism off
Hey hey Redleg , are you quoting a Russian General in Afghanistan who seemed a little bewildered about how the Mujahadeen seemed to be getting hold of so much Communist block weaponry . ~;)

LOL- I how how the Mujahadeen got soviet block weaponry - just like I know how Iraq got Soviet equipment. The difference is that something I wonder if you know.

Watchman
06-06-2005, 13:10
Doesn't change jack all the fact that American critique about Saddam's internal politics shines with its absence before about 1991, after which it is suddenly the talk of the town.

So no citing that as any actual motive to taking him out, please. Especially when you consider the minor detail that many of those LatAm dictators and military juntas the US has either actively backed or tacitly approved of often made *him* look like a lily-white Boy Scout...

That aside, I recently read that among the guns the Coalition troops have found on insurrectionists there are such oddities as honest-to-God WW2 German Sturmgewehr 44's, still using their original calibre too...
Just goes to show, if it works someone's willing to use it. The Third World notoriously saturated with borderline antique guns.

Redleg
06-06-2005, 13:47
Doesn't change jack all the fact that American critique about Saddam's internal politics shines with its absence before about 1991, after which it is suddenly the talk of the town.

The absence before 1991 - again then why the earlier comment? Don't let reality cloud your idealism. Iraq was fighting against the declared enemy of the United States - Iran. Then enemy of my enemy is therefor my friend appoach to international relationships. Not always the best motive behind aid and allaince - but its done all the time. Criticizing the United States for practicing an age old tactic is kind of narrow. Many nations do just this even today.




So no citing that as any actual motive to taking him out, please. Especially when you consider the minor detail that many of those LatAm dictators and military juntas the US has either actively backed or tacitly approved of often made *him* look like a lily-white Boy Scout...


Apples and oranges arguement. But show me where any South American or Central American dictator used chemical weapons on his own people to kill them. Or where they invaded another country to take their national resources. In those two areas alone Saddam has surpassed any South American or Central American dictator. And then I remember buddies of mine who did an operation down in Panama to remove a dictator.



That aside, I recently read that among the guns the Coalition troops have found on insurrectionists there are such oddities as honest-to-God WW2 German Sturmgewehr 44's, still using their original calibre too...
Just goes to show, if it works someone's willing to use it. The Third World notoriously saturated with borderline antique guns.
Again an Apples to oranges arguement. Your comment was not directed to what the insurgents are using for weapons but the nation state of Iraq under Saddam. Insurgents will use any weapon they can get their hands on that works - that has happened in every conflict where insurgency is involved.

Watchman
06-06-2005, 14:28
Hey, I'm not the one who cited Saddam's lousy treatment of his people as one of the reasons the US took him out. I was merely answering whoever did it. Go whine at him or her.

I'm not criticizing the US for using as-such perfectly normal and sensible if morally dubious tactics. I'm criticizing the way the state does it and nonetheless claims to have higher, nobler motives, and the way its apologists (a good part of them domestic) swallow said propaganda hook, line and sinker. Such rhetoric are naturally an integral part of the aforementioned usual and pragmatic but morally bankrupt methods, but I see absolutely no reason not to criticize them for it or tolerate silly people who believe such lies.

"The end justifies the means" is, you know, a morally thoroughly unsupportable argument. Terrorists and other violent extremists are among its main adherents, which alone should be enough to make anyone who wishes to be considered civilized and morally credible to shy away from it. I'm not saying that ethics and morals do not sometimes need to be compromised in pursuit of better goals; I'm saying that their inherent problematique should be acknowledged and moral responsibility taken instead of trying to excuse them or explain them away, nevermind that reprehensible means ought to be avoided if at all possible.


But show me where any South American or Central American dictator used chemical weapons on his own people to kill them. Or where they invaded another country to take their national resources. In those two areas alone Saddam has surpassed any South American or Central American dictator. And then I remember buddies of mine who did an operation down in Panama to remove a dictator.I utterly fail to see any relevance here, especially as I don't know of there having been any major outcry when Saddam went and gassed some of his domestic rebels or any hue and cry after his head. Indeed, by what I've read, the gas itself was that nasty VX nerve gas, supplied by Americans (presumably for use against the Iranians, who also got to be on the receiving end during the war), and American intelligence officers were among the first foreigners on scene. I find it perfectly credible they took notes; live-fire testing by proxy, even if by coincidence...

One nasty bugger does not make another nasty bugger morally justified in any way, or for that matter tolerating or supporting both. Neither does disposing of before ignored or supported nasty buggers once they stop being useful or start causing trouble - indeed, that could be called a "doublecross"...

Watchman
06-06-2005, 14:31
To wrap it up, I see no reason to tolerate any claims that there was anything morally justified about the US invading Iraq related to Saddam, and there's a dearth of other ethically sound reasons too that could be cited with any consistency.

Now can we wrap up this branch of discussion ? I dislike repeating myself.

Redleg
06-06-2005, 15:43
Hey, I'm not the one who cited Saddam's lousy treatment of his people as one of the reasons the US took him out. I was merely answering whoever did it. Go whine at him or her.

Neither am I - as I have pointed out before Iraq's violation of the ceasefire agreement back in 1992 was more then enough justification to return to a state of active warfare between the two nations - and I have condemned Bush Sr. several times on this forum and elsewhere for not enforcing the treaty then.


I'm not criticizing the US for using as-such perfectly normal and sensible if morally dubious tactics. I'm criticizing the way the state does it and nonetheless claims to have higher, nobler motives, and the way its apologists (a good part of them domestic) swallow said propaganda hook, line and sinker. Such rhetoric are naturally an integral part of the aforementioned usual and pragmatic but morally bankrupt methods, but I see absolutely no reason not to criticize them for it or tolerate silly people who believe such lies.


LOL - that has not been your arguement - but it seems that while critizing apologists - you have also fallen into the same trap you are accusing them of falling into.



"The end justifies the means" is, you know, a morally thoroughly unsupportable argument. Terrorists and other violent extremists are among its main adherents, which alone should be enough to make anyone who wishes to be considered civilized and morally credible to shy away from it. I'm not saying that ethics and morals do not sometimes need to be compromised in pursuit of better goals; I'm saying that their inherent problematique should be acknowledged and moral responsibility taken instead of trying to excuse them or explain them away, nevermind that reprehensible means ought to be avoided if at all possible.


warfare is amoral. And in some cases warfare is absolutely necessary to resolve the issue.



I utterly fail to see any relevance here, especially as I don't know of there having been any major outcry when Saddam went and gassed some of his domestic rebels or any hue and cry after his head. Indeed, by what I've read, the gas itself was that nasty VX nerve gas, supplied by Americans (presumably for use against the Iranians, who also got to be on the receiving end during the war), and American intelligence officers were among the first foreigners on scene. I find it perfectly credible they took notes; live-fire testing by proxy, even if by coincidence...


Then I guess you were not around a bunch of American GI's in 1992 - most of us were ready to go back and finish the job when Iraq violated the intitial ceasefire. But once again the politicans did not have the backbone to enforce a treaty that was signed. And I don't mean just American Politicians - but a whole bunch of them.



One nasty bugger does not make another nasty bugger morally justified in any way, or for that matter tolerating or supporting both. Neither does disposing of before ignored or supported nasty buggers once they stop being useful or start causing trouble - indeed, that could be called a "doublecross"...

You fight the battles that you can - and then their are others you fight by pure diplomatic means. 12 years of conflict and 14 resolutions that were failed to be enforce by the United Nations give evidence to that. It seems from this quote you are having a selective memory on the issue - Saddam broke whatever aspect of an alliance when he invaded the nation of Kuwait. But it seems that some still want to believe thier own propaganda.

Pindar
06-06-2005, 17:50
I'm not criticizing the US for using as-such perfectly normal and sensible if morally dubious tactics. I'm criticizing the way the state does it and nonetheless claims to have higher, nobler motives, and the way its apologists (a good part of them domestic) swallow said propaganda hook, line and sinker.

So your objection is that self-interest cannot have any additional attending good? Is that right? If I understood your position: what is the basis of this charge?




"The end justifies the means" is, you know, a morally thoroughly unsupportable argument.

You are arguing that utility arguments are thoroughly unsupportable? War is typically seen along utilitarian lines. Do you reject war as in any way legitimate? Are you a pacifist? If you are not, then your position seems strained. If you are, then you would have to reject say, the American Revolution.

Do you object to the U.S. supporting Stalin during WWII?

Watchman
06-06-2005, 21:22
*s-i-i-i-igh* So you *do* insist on following this. Oh what the heck, I'll humor you for a while.

Now look. I don't give a rat's ass about Saddam - good riddance for all I care, and the same goes for all heavy-handed tyrants. "Enlightened" dictators, such few as there now happen to exist (I'm willing to count Castro as one, mostly because he doesn't tyrannize very much and seems to make a honest effort at looking after his subjects to the extent his resources allow, and perhaps Qaddafi for much the same reasons), get largely ignored by me as long as patently nastier buggers are around.

What gets me is the patently hypocritical and opportunistic rhetoric the US of A used to justify the latest invasion, nevermind the distasteful smear campaign that was mounted against the critics of said propaganda. I'd have far less issues with the whole matter if Bush had just gone and said "you know, we kinda feel Saddam is long overdue to retirement, is a nasty bastard anyway we probably should never have even talked to to begin with, we figure now would be a good time to get rid of him and try to rebuild the place, and let's face it, all those oil barrels embargoed in there are a horrible waste." But no, what we *got* was a big stinking pile of Grade A organic manure straight from the rear end of a bull involving wild (and totally unsubstantiated) claims about weapons of mass destruction, religious extremist terrorists and high-and-mighty ideals involving human rights (which the US has negatively distinguished itself by trampling for the last four-odd years). The self-righterious complacency, nevermind the rude incompetency the whole thing was executed with (need I even mention ole Rummy, or the patently insufficient planning the invasion was made on ?), alone is enough to raise hackles.

Not to mention the insult against the listeners' intellect and judgement contained in the implied assumption people would indeed believe that crap at more or less face value... That I quite clearly understand the practical motivation behind the BS in no way equals accepting it, the same way as quite understanding Stalin's reasons for his massive state terror campaigns is rather different from considering the gulags in any way justified. A certain amount of straight-faced lying is pretty much a part of a politician's job description, and I don't really hold it against them as long as it's not harmful. But when we're talking about war, where lots of people die and even more get permanently mangled, and the dismantling of entire states, my BS tolerance runs out *very* quickly.

To paraphrase Pratchett, "there are many good reasons to hate you; but a lie is not one of them."


Then I guess you were not around a bunch of American GI's in 1992 - most of us were ready to go back and finish the job when Iraq violated the intitial ceasefire. But once again the politicans did not have the backbone to enforce a treaty that was signed. And I don't mean just American Politicians - but a whole bunch of them.Good guess - I wasn't. Doesn't mean much, though - grunts notoriously don't get much say in too many things. And do I even need to tell you why it is generally a good thing soldiers take their orders from civilians and get to like it or not as much as they please and not the other way around...?

Redleg
06-06-2005, 22:51
*s-i-i-i-igh* So you *do* insist on following this. Oh what the heck, I'll humor you for a while.

Its all humor to me there - especially when one throws rethoric out and uses the word propaganda in there statements.



Now look. I don't give a rat's ass about Saddam - good riddance for all I care, and the same goes for all heavy-handed tyrants. "Enlightened" dictators, such few as there now happen to exist (I'm willing to count Castro as one, mostly because he doesn't tyrannize very much and seems to make a honest effort at looking after his subjects to the extent his resources allow, and perhaps Qaddafi for much the same reasons), get largely ignored by me as long as patently nastier buggers are around.


Oh I could have so much fun with this - but I wont for now.



What gets me is the patently hypocritical and opportunistic rhetoric the US of A used to justify the latest invasion, nevermind the distasteful smear campaign that was mounted against the critics of said propaganda. I'd have far less issues with the whole matter if Bush had just gone and said "you know, we kinda feel Saddam is long overdue to retirement, is a nasty bastard anyway we probably should never have even talked to to begin with, we figure now would be a good time to get rid of him and try to rebuild the place, and let's face it, all those oil barrels embargoed in there are a horrible waste." But no, what we *got* was a big stinking pile of Grade A organic manure straight from the rear end of a bull involving wild (and totally unsubstantiated) claims about weapons of mass destruction, religious extremist terrorists and high-and-mighty ideals involving human rights (which the US has negatively distinguished itself by trampling for the last four-odd years). The self-righterious complacency, nevermind the rude incompetency the whole thing was executed with (need I even mention ole Rummy, or the patently insufficient planning the invasion was made on ?), alone is enough to raise hackles.


I have seen hypocritical arguements used by both myself and others in the opposite side of the issue regarding the invasion of Iraq. But I have seen with my own eyes the duplicity of the Iraq Regime on this issue. And have lots of second hand knowledge from concerning even more duplicity on this issue from the Iraqi regime - for me to doubt that Saddam was activitly pursueing WMD and nuclear tech. Certain missiles in violation of the ceasefire and several UN resolutions were found, and destroied just prior to the invasion - however it seems such instance are ignored in such arguements that you are using.

An examble of the duplicity of the Iraqi Regime -

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Chemical/3883_3896.html



Not to mention the insult against the listeners' intellect and judgement contained in the implied assumption people would indeed believe that crap at more or less face value... That I quite clearly understand the practical motivation behind the BS in no way equals accepting it, the same way as quite understanding Stalin's reasons for his massive state terror campaigns is rather different from considering the gulags in any way justified. A certain amount of straight-faced lying is pretty much a part of a politician's job description, and I don't really hold it against them as long as it's not harmful. But when we're talking about war, where lots of people die and even more get permanently mangled, and the dismantling of entire states, my BS tolerance runs out *very* quickly.


Yet you will use the same BS in making points.



To paraphrase Pratchett, "there are many good reasons to hate you; but a lie is not one of them."

Good guess - I wasn't. Doesn't mean much, though - grunts notoriously don't get much say in too many things. And do I even need to tell you why it is generally a good thing soldiers take their orders from civilians and get to like it or not as much as they please and not the other way around...?

However in 1992 it would of been the correct and moral thing to do. Saddam clearly violated the ceasefire agreements - and the world allowed him to do so.

Pindar
06-07-2005, 02:18
What gets me is the patently hypocritical and opportunistic rhetoric the US of A used to justify the latest invasion, nevermind the distasteful smear campaign that was mounted against the critics of said propaganda.


I didn't note any answer to my questions. I did note the above. This seems different from what is written below:


I see no reason to tolerate any claims that there was anything morally justified about the US invading Iraq related to Saddam

Are you simply objecting to the Government's rhetoric or are your attempting a larger ethical critique?

Watchman
06-07-2005, 11:27
Bah. I've no thime for this. How about you stop getting tangled up in the rather superficial details and figure out the finer points of morality and responsibility yourselves ? I'm hardly a qualified teacher on the topic anyway.

What you think of Saddam, Iraq, US foreign policy and so on is your business. As far as I'm concerned the whole current Iraq mess is a result of some most manifestly ill-conceived, underplanned, wistful, incompetent and ill-executed decision-making that ends up only reaching even some of its original goals (both stated and less readily publicized) only through some quite excessive difficulties and sacrifices, assuming the whole project wont eventually fall apart by itself, which get mostly paid by the Iraqi people, the American taxpayers and soldiery, and whoever down the road gets hurt by the effects of the publicity and prestige boost the whole cock-up is giving to the religious-terrorist movement on the side.

Put short, it's one big mess and probably did not have to be so. But now that the Americans now are there they might as well try to get the place on its feet again before butting out following the basic logic of "you break it, you fix it".

And, yes, IMHO better part of the responsibility sits on the lap of the morons currently occupying the White House. If they want to play power politics, one is allowed to expect them to at least do it competently.

Redleg
06-07-2005, 12:55
So in other words it is easier to just complain about something then it is to try to understand it, especially when all one has done is listened to one side of the arguement - while complaining about the other side believing its own propaganda.

Yep typical.

Watchman
06-07-2005, 13:24
You tread awfully close to getting personal here, you know. Anyway, your analysis is flawed - I understand quite well the complicated issues and dynamics involved, and the difficulty arises from trying to reconcile them with any sort of consistent ethical framework.

And... are you claiming Americans on the whole weren't pretty good at believing whatever the evening news and official statements tell them ? Certainly the nation's conduct abroad, and its inhabitants' overall reactions to them, would seem to suggest otherwise...

Redleg
06-07-2005, 13:52
You tread awfully close to getting personal here, you know. Anyway, your analysis is flawed - I understand quite well the complicated issues and dynamics involved, and the difficulty arises from trying to reconcile them with any sort of consistent ethical framework.

Yet it does not stop you from using the typical progaganda buzzwords for the view point now does it. You made an accusaction about several things - that are based upon the emotional appeal aspects of the issue and not the logic of the issue. Then when confronted with the opposing view - you don't have the time for the dicussion. That is the typical arguement of one that has only listened to the propaganda that they want to believe in.



And... are you claiming Americans on the whole weren't pretty good at believing whatever the evening news and official statements tell them ? Certainly the nation's conduct abroad, and its inhabitants' overall reactions to them, would seem to suggest otherwise...

No - I am claiming what I have stated - that there is a long history of conflict between Iraq and the United States that dates back to 1990-91. That there is more to the event then what has been reported in the media by both sides, and that some pick and chose what they want to believe about concerning the issue - and ignore other revelant facts regarding it. The media only reports what it wants to report because primarily they are after ratings - if one wants to be informed one must be willing to read and listen to all aspects of the arguement. I don't concen myself wether you change your opinion on the issue - but that the opinion is based more on facts then propaganda.



What gets me is the patently hypocritical and opportunistic rhetoric the US of A used to justify the latest invasion, nevermind the distasteful smear campaign that was mounted against the critics of said propaganda.

The said propaganda was done by both sides of the issue - and is still done to this day.


Bah. I've no thime for this. How about you stop getting tangled up in the rather superficial details and figure out the finer points of morality and responsibility yourselves ? I'm hardly a qualified teacher on the topic anyway.


And that statement is just a bad - get in a discussion and then claim you don't have time. Its a internet discussion board - you can make time whenever you want the discussion. Its just a duck and thats exactly what I stated. I attacked the arguement not the person. If I wanted to make it personal - I would of taken a different tact.

Watchman
06-07-2005, 14:08
As a general note, I'm somewhat getting the impression from your posts that you to a certain degree argue based on what you think American foreign politics, in this case vis-a-vis Iraq, could and should be rather than what they are. Or would you argue that the invasion did not have a fundamentally opportunistic character (from a decade of relative disinterest to a sudden all-out invasion, and let's not even touch the oil...), and both its groundwork and practical execution handled quite badly with the end result that at the moment both Iraqis and (to a lesser degree) Americans are dying at a frankly unacceptable rate given that the war was supposed to be over some two years ago ?

What Saddam and the White House did or did not over ten years ago has fairly little relevance to that topic, and that is what we were originally discussing here.

Redleg
06-07-2005, 14:22
As a general note, I'm somewhat getting the impression from your posts that you to a certain degree argue based on what you think American foreign politics, in this case vis-a-vis Iraq, could and should be rather than what they are. Or would you argue that the invasion did not have a fundamentally opportunistic character (from a decade of relative disinterest to a sudden all-out invasion, and let's not even touch the oil...), and both its groundwork and practical execution handled quite badly with the end result that at the moment both Iraqis and (to a lesser degree) Americans are dying at a frankly unacceptable rate given that the war was supposed to be over some two years ago ?

Not correct - I am arguing that the actions of today have a base in actions of the past. That the reasons for the invasion of today go back to 1991 - and not just today. If one goes back and reads President Bush's actual statements concerning Iraq and the justification for returning to war with an Invasion of Iraq one will discover that not only WMD was mentioned but the continued violations of the cease fire agreement. When one only listens to the media - one gets the impression that the invasion was only about WMD and terrorism. That is because that is what the media has focused on and what the President allowed the media to focus on - because it had he easiest explanation. Edit: Just on the WMD aspects alone - I again refer you to this link

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Chemical/3883_3896.html

One can not just ignore the previous 12 years of interaction and failure of policy of the United Nations and even the United States regarding Iraq when discussing the issue. However that is what the media has done - and that is what many have done in their emotional appeal against warfare, by only using the events that happened after 9/11. I guess Clinton's actions and statements regarding the necessity of a regime change in Iraq should be ignored also.



What Saddam and the White House did or did not over ten years ago has fairly little relevance to that topic, and that is what we were originally discussing here.

Quite true - but when one brings it up - one must be willing to discuss it. Its interwoven into the orginal aspects of Kafir's post and you mentioned it in your very first post.


That aside, Iraq is a total mess. By this point it's really a little irrelevant why exactly the Americans went in there - what's relevant is that they didn't do it right, and are now stuck in something eerily reminiscent of France's Algerian escapade in the Sixties. Put bluntly, they're stuck fighting a bloody guerilla war and thus far have shown few signs of winning it any time soon, if ever, at least without resorting to measures that simply are not done by any nation wishing to call (and more to the point be called) civilized.
Whether there existed a "right" way to take over Iraq so as not to create a guerilla heaven on the side can be debated, but is a little irrelevant as the US certainly didn't do anything of the sort at the time anyway...

Now if you want to go into the aspects of the actual fighting - I am more then willing to do that also. The "Iraq Mess" is not as one-sided as the media would like you to believe.

Pindar
06-07-2005, 18:05
Bah. I've no thime for this. How about you stop getting tangled up in the rather superficial details and figure out the finer points of morality and responsibility yourselves ? I'm hardly a qualified teacher on the topic anyway.


Put short, it's one big mess and probably did not have to be so. But now that the Americans now are there they might as well try to get the place on its feet again before butting out following the basic logic of "you break it, you fix it".

And, yes, IMHO better part of the responsibility sits on the lap of the morons currently occupying the White House. If they want to play power politics, one is allowed to expect them to at least do it competently.

Hmmm, I've read through your posts, but I can't say I picked up a coherent position. I understand you don't like Bush and do like adjectives, but each of your posts seems to take a different angel. Now it may be you want to argue each of these is a failure of the Administration, but that is not clear. Neither is it clear your position(s) can actually fit together into a larger criticism. I have asked a few basic questions trying to flush out what the actual issue is. You have not answered any of these from what I can tell. Let me ask another that might serve as a basis for discussion: did you consider the Saddam regime legitimate? If so, what would be the basis of that legitimacy?

Watchman
06-07-2005, 21:32
I guess Clinton's actions and statements regarding the necessity of a regime change in Iraq should be ignored also.Well duh - he didn't go and invade the place (although he probably should have; it is difficult to believe he could've done a worse job at it than Bush...). Political rhetoric is of little practical consequence unless it also has results and effects.


The "Iraq Mess" is not as one-sided as the media would like you to believe.Depends on what you mean by one-sided. It certainly is in terms of dead people...


Hmmm, I've read through your posts, but I can't say I picked up a coherent position. I understand you don't like Bush and do like adjectives, but each of your posts seems to take a different angel.That's because I have a rather many-sided view on things. Especially complicated ones that have black and white only as components of various shades of gray.


Neither is it clear your position(s) can actually fit together into a larger criticism.Oh, I long since gave up on trying to be very consistent or cohesive about my opinions. They have a few strong baselines (as a relevant example a general dislike of the way the US does things) which everything else builds on, but I've found out it simply does not pay to be dogmatic about issues. Stems from recognizing the truth that I'm never going to know all the necessary odds and ends about nigh anything anyway expect perhaps much, much later on, which sort of renders an overly fixed position rather absurd.


Let me ask another that might serve as a basis for discussion: did you consider the Saddam regime legitimate? If so, what would be the basis of that legitimacy?I happen to study PolSci, you know. I'm quite well aware that "legitimacy" is hardly anything fixed or objective. On a very basic level it can be said that any hierarchy that gets accepted and tolerated by its underlings, for whatever reason, is "legitimate" for most intents and purposes. But if one starts giving somewhat stricter definitions to the concept of legitimacy...

As for Saddam, by the number of uprisings against him alone it can be deduced that there were many groups (many of them repressed religious or ethnic minorities) who did not find his rule very legitimate; on the other hand the vast majority of Iraqis patently failed to revolt, which suggests that - by whatever means - he enjoyed a certain degree of baseline acceptance among the general populace. A large part of this obviously stemmed from his brutal and reasonably competent internal security apparatuses, but no regime survives as long as his did on just terror - tyrants who fail to accompany the stick with the carrot have usually had fairly short careers. Military juntas have been particularly prone to this sort of thing, and most haven't survived too long either.

Savvier dictators tend to offer well-behaving subjects something in return - or just something they don't want to lose (as people who've decided they've got nothing to lose are patently dangerous). Usually it is some combination of ideology (the Baath at least *claims* to be some sort of socialist party, AFAIK) and material benefits, ie. something approaching a "good life" most people would rather not be rid of. For his part Saddam apparently used to be genuinely socially progressive - I recall seeing mentions of him having been born to rather poor circumstances, and he may have been genuinely concerned with the overall well-being of "his people" besides the obvious populist reasons for such policies. Be that as it may, certainly before he started his drawn-out spate of major political misjudgements in the early Nineties, Iraq had about the highest standard of living, national healthcare and so on and so on in the whole Middle East (bar Israel) plus a very modern, "Westernized" society (Iraqi women, for example, being among the most emancipated in the Arab world). That would erode with the hard times that followed -91, when he no longer had the resources to keep more than his circles of cronies happy (as autocrats who fail to keep their local elites content tend to get their careers cut short...) and the later part too, partly owing to the general tendency of people in dire straits to fall back on dogmas for support (this being the Middle East, fundamentalistic religion) and partly owing to old arch-agnostic Saddam's tendency to start copping pious airs towards the end - no doubt in a straw-grasping attempt at some legitimacy.

Still, a great many other tyrants didn't do even that much to balance out the torture and terror and repression so that, if nothing else, has to be counted as a merit for the man. I find that in no way to conflict with the fact that he was a bloody-handed dictator; tyrants, too, can be complicated people.

So was Saddam's regime legitimate ? Depends on the criteria to go by. But judging by the way he didn't fall the way the East Block did in the cusp on Nineties, out of sheer shortage of credibility among its subjects, he had at least some domestically. By the standards of the nations of "the West", hardly; our governements base theirs on rather different and I daresay more humane factors, but then again "the West" also has a nasty habit of being perfectly willing to put up with the worst kind of murdering scum if there's a profit to it or nothing to gain from doing anything about them, which on the whole gives any self-righterious speeches given when one of those bastards gets taken down a rather hollow ring. Yes, I'm quite specifically referring to the US here - a nation that happily trained the death squads of assorted Latin American tyrants (the School of Americas; ever heard about it ?) has fairly little credibility when denouncing another erstwhile ally of theirs for human-rights violations when convenient.

Does the legitimacy of Saddam's regime, or lack thereof, in any way affect the lack thereof of the recent US invasion ? Hardly. "It's okay to lie 'cuz Timmy does it too" is a moral stance everyone above the age of ten knows to be untenable unless convinced otherwise by personal reasons. One ill does not justify another, although any happy results that might be produced on the side can perhaps be counted as something like mitigating circumstances.

But the jury's still out on that one and won't be returning before the bombs stop blowing in Iraq.

EDIT: As you may have deduced I found the topic of Saddam's legitimacy to be a far more interesting one than the meta-argument about the way people argument about each others' arguments about... Those are generally both fruitless, pointless and exceedingly tedious.

Redleg
06-07-2005, 21:47
Well duh - he didn't go and invade the place (although he probably should have; it is difficult to believe he could've done a worse job at it than Bush...). Political rhetoric is of little practical consequence unless it also has results and effects.

You have a lack of knowledge on the subject - Clinton ordered air and cruise missle strikes several times during his tenur in office, and had an agenda for regime change in Iraq.



Depends on what you mean by one-sided. It certainly is in terms of dead people...


Emotional appeal does not work for an answer in that regards. The statement about one-sided news reporting on only the negative news is because that is what sells. Very rarely will one have plastered on the front page of the news paper or a major television coverage of a postive event in Iraq. The election was one such item - and it recieved less coverage then several other minor negative events.



That's because I have a rather many-sided view on things. Especially complicated ones that have black and white only as components of various shades of gray.
........
EDIT: As you may have deduced I found the topic of Saddam's legitimacy to be a far more interesting one than the meta-argument about the way people argument about each others' arguments about... Those are generally both fruitless, pointless and exceedingly tedious.

Especially when one is only arguing based upon emotional appeal.

Watchman
06-07-2005, 22:07
You have a lack of knowledge on the subject - Clinton ordered air and cruise missle strikes several times during his tenur in office, and had an agenda for regime change in Iraq. So, just because whoever-it-now-was (I'm guessing Reagan or maybe Bush Senior, but that's not important) ordered air and missile strikes into libya in the Eighties after Qaddafi had pissed him off - would you say the US invaded Libya ? Did Bush Jr. (or was it Clinton ?) invade Sudan when he ordered a missile strike on an alleged chemical weapons plant or whatever the heck it now was thought to be ?

Of course not. Stop being a silly bugger and equating air and missile raids and planning an invasion with actually invading and conquering a country. That's about as sensible as saying throwing rocks in someone's window and planning to burgle his house are the same thing as breaking into said house.


Emotional appeal does not work for an answer in that regards.You quite misunderstand me, sir. I don't really bother with emotional appeal. I'm being snide.

But excuse me for being concerned about mounting civilian casualties. I presume you consider them to be of no consequence, then ?


The statement about one-sided news reporting on only the negative news is because that is what sells. Very rarely will one have plastered on the front page of the news paper or a major television coverage of a postive event in Iraq. The election was one such item - and it recieved less coverage then several other minor negative events.Might I point out that while you indeed implied the media was biased you also worded it so as to seem the conflict itself was not one-sided ? The wording was certainly quite vague enough for me not to have the slightest problem sarcastically putting in a perfectly truthful statement regarding to casualty rates...

Now look. How about you drop the "misunderstood martyr" tone ? The media keeps bringing bad news out of the country because it has such an abundance of dramatic ones, and while at least the newspapers around here both reported at lenght on the elections and their meaning and in general considered them a marked step forwards, and doesn't forget other positive developements either, all that is ultimately a little inconsequential so long as the country keeps looking a whole lot like it could turn into the next Lebanon inside a month.

Redleg
06-07-2005, 22:27
So, just because whoever-it-now-was (I'm guessing Reagan or maybe Bush Senior, but that's not important) ordered air and missile strikes into libya in the Eighties after Qaddafi had pissed him off - would you say the US invaded Libya ? Did Bush Jr. (or was it Clinton ?) invade Sudan when he ordered a missile strike on an alleged chemical weapons plant or whatever the heck it now was thought to be ?

It was Regean that ordered the air strike on Libya. Again one makes a statement that past actions have no bearing on the present - doesn't understand history.



Of course not. Stop being a silly bugger and equating air and missile raids and planning an invasion with actually invading and conquering a country. That's about as sensible as saying throwing rocks in someone's window and planning to burgle his house are the same thing as breaking into said house.

Pretending that the past has bearing on the current situation, and attempting to put words into my mouth that I have not spoke or in this case typed, reminds me of another arguementive style. Without Desert Storm in 1991, there would have been no cease fire treaty, without the cease fire treaty there would have been no inspection requirement, and so forth and so forth. Accuse me of being a silly bugger when you are ignoring all of the circumstances and facts around the situation. Now that is rich, and again typical.



You quite misunderstand me, sir. I don't really bother with emotional appeal. I'm being snide.

You might want to check out what emotional appeal means.



But excuse me for being concerned about mounting civilian casualties. I presume you consider them to be of no consequence, then ?


I consider them in a different manner then you do. Am I concerned about them sure - but in the aspects of the conflict now - more Iraqi civilians are being killed by insurgents then American war planes. But I image that fact is not relevant to you.



Might I point out that while you indeed implied the media was biased you also worded it so as to seem the conflict itself was not one-sided ? The wording was certainly quite vague enough for me not to have the slightest problem sarcastically putting in a perfectly truthful statement regarding to casualty rates...

Again warfare is not fair - if you want a fair war stick to video games and debates.



Now look. How about you drop the "misunderstood martyr" tone ? The media keeps bringing bad news out of the country because it has such an abundance of dramatic ones, and while at least the newspapers around here both reported at lenght on the elections and their meaning and in general considered them a marked step forwards, and doesn't forget other positive developements either, all that is ultimately a little inconsequential so long as the country keeps looking a whole lot like it could turn into the next Lebanon inside a month.

Another attempt at emotional appeal now is it? "misunderstood martyr" when expressing one's view point about the lack of media coverage of postive events. Someone sure likes to attempt to throw names and labels around.

It seems that your viewpoint is only based upon the now - not what is actually involved throughout the whole conflict.

Edit:




Emotion
Using emotions as a support for argument can be tricky. Attempting to play on your readers' emotions can smack of manipulation and is often mistrusted. To use emotional appeal successfully, you need to apply discretion and restraint. You need to choose examples that represent and illustrate your ideas fairly and then present your arguments as objectively as possible. The writer must carefully draw the connections between the ideas and illustrations, choosing diction in such a way that readers don't question motives as manipulative and sensational. Strong evidence accumulated by careful research often addresses this potential problem well. An example of an appeal to emotion is presented here: Rather than continuing these tax-and-spend policies, we plan to return your hard-earned tax money to you.


Being snide is an emotional appeal arguement. Just to help you out. :book:

Pindar
06-07-2005, 22:41
Oh, I long since gave up on trying to be very consistent or cohesive about my opinions.

I see. It shows in your writing.


They have a few strong baselines (as a relevant example a general dislike of the way the US does things) which everything else builds on, but I've found out it simply does not pay to be dogmatic about issues....

Given this general dislike of the way the US does things that surrounds your views and from which everything builds on: would it be fair then to say you are anti-American?



I happen to study PolSci, you know. I'm quite well aware that "legitimacy" is hardly anything fixed or objective. On a very basic level it can be said that any hierarchy that gets accepted and tolerated by its underlings, for whatever reason, is "legitimate" for most intents and purposes. But if one starts giving somewhat stricter definitions to the concept of legitimacy...

So was Saddam's regime legitimate ? Depends on the criteria to go by.

So you don't have a position. I did see this:


Does the legitimacy of Saddam's regime, or lack thereof, in any way affect the lack thereof of the recent US invasion ? Hardly.

I think your dismissal is misplaced. Legitimacy is tied to notions of justice. If a polity is illegitimate it has no moral standing. This effects any rights to governance. It also impacts any recriminations one could level about removal. Now if you are unable to come to a conclusion on this matter it seems problematic to nonetheless argue the U.S. has erred.

ShaiHulud
06-09-2005, 01:05
"$200Billion so far, 2,000 dead (soon), 15,000 wounded (many severely) - for oil. For a boy to show up his Daddy. For WMD, to find Nuclear devices, to .... what ever the catch word or phrase is today."

Oh! You had another point? I thought you were just bragging about how many cliches you'd swallowed in your lifetime......

Tribesman
06-09-2005, 01:45
LOL- I how how the Mujahadeen got soviet block weaponry - just like I know how Iraq got Soviet equipment. The difference is that something I wonder if you know.
Do I know ? Of course I know , he bought it at the local 7/11 because they had a sale on and he had collected a lot of coupons from the store so it was a real bargain .

Then of course there are some of the real stories , like entering a deal to buy huge amounts of weaponry from certain countries in exchange for help with his nuclear program , or certain countries making huge loans and grants to him to buy weapons to fight their wars for them , hey he actually invaded one of those countries when they had the cheek to ask for ther money back as he hadn't fulfilled his side of the bargain ~;)
But of course most of the soviet military equipment dated from the time during the cold war when Iraq has Soviet backed and Iran was Western backed .

Just out of interest Redleg , as you keep up to date on Military affairs , has America had any luck in their efforts to buy back the Stingers that they gave the Mujahadeen when the change in Soviet tactics started to turn the tide in Afghanistan , or have the nutters still got them ? ~;)

Redleg
06-09-2005, 02:36
LOL- I how how the Mujahadeen got soviet block weaponry - just like I know how Iraq got Soviet equipment. The difference is that something I wonder if you know.
Do I know ? Of course I know , he bought it at the local 7/11 because they had a sale on and he had collected a lot of coupons from the store so it was a real bargain .

Sarcism is not an answer and is normally the course taken by someone who rather try to upset someone verus answer the question.



Then of course there are some of the real stories , like entering a deal to buy huge amounts of weaponry from certain countries in exchange for help with his nuclear program , or certain countries making huge loans and grants to him to buy weapons to fight their wars for them , hey he actually invaded one of those countries when they had the cheek to ask for ther money back as he hadn't fulfilled his side of the bargain ~;)
But of course most of the soviet military equipment dated from the time during the cold war when Iraq has Soviet backed and Iran was Western backed .


I would go and show websites that either prove or debunk each of your points - but I am going on vacation, and I am sure you would be surprised by the answers. But since I am feeling slightly lazy tonight - see the above statement. - However it seems that you at least can ackownledge that the Soviet Union provided the primary military equipment to Iraq.



Just out of interest Redleg , as you keep up to date on Military affairs , has America had any luck in their efforts to buy back the Stingers that they gave the Mujahadeen when the change in Soviet tactics started to turn the tide in Afghanistan , or have the nutters still got them ? ~;)

Why don't you tell me - all knowing sacristic individual that you are. Why would I tell you everything I do know when you can find all the un-classified information out for yourself. THe answer will come about with a simple search - you might even find them on e-bay being sold by those crazy nutters.

Tribesman
06-09-2005, 09:43
I would go and show websites that either prove or debunk each of your points
Yes you could go to lots of websites to prove or debunk anything you wanted , but would they be true ?
Show me anything in that second statement that you highlighted that isn't true ?

Have a good vacation ~:cheers:

KafirChobee
06-10-2005, 04:54
http:downingstreetmemo.com/


Did Bush43 already have Iraq on his agenda from the outset of his taking office? Probably, 9/11 was a godsend for him to begin his intended invasion of Iraq.

Did he knowingly lie about WMD, or was he simply misled by faulty intelligence information? Of course when the men screening such info for the prez reject anything that doesn't play along with the (Bush43's) game plan, and fire, coerce, or browbeat their underlings to supply only the "facts" that conform with their premise - then possibly not. But, someone did.

Does it matter that Clinton wanted to remove Saddam? Maybe, but Clinton's mode of operendi was to use political and economic means. Bill wasn't much for sending men off to die in his name if there was still a political means available to.

Did the Bush43 team have a completed plan, other than dethrone the tyrant and all the Iraqis' will throw roses at us - instead of car bombs and rpgs. Seems they didn't. In fact, their position was "we'll worry 'bout that hog when we gotta slaughter it".

They were unprepared, and remain so. They live in rose garden where they truely believe that "the insurgents are in their final death-throws". One can almost hear the death rattle coming from the last of the guerillas in Iraq now. Someone might want to point out to them that the attacks are increasing - not decreasing. Then again why miss a good propaganda phraseology that some peon may actually by into.

I especially liked the pictures of the captured weapons this week (shown this week, happened a month ago) which proved we were winning. Of course, for an old sod such as me, it conjured up pictures of other arms caches - those in 'Nam that were shown to prove we were winning the war then too.

Did Bush43 intentionally lie? Or, was he simply missled? Was he a tool of those that wanted a war with Iraq, or was he a co-conspirator - possibly the the leader of it?

Were he personnally signing each "we regret to inform you" letter to our "honored dead" (Fallen heroes), I might have sympathy for Bush43, but I don't. As much as, I would love to believe that a president would never send his military into a situation under the false conjecture that their nation was endangered, or that to preserve our way of life it was absolutely necessary - I personally cannot find cause to believe this was the case. Especially, with the information leaking almost imperceivably from those that were in the know.

The main plan was on selling it to us, the public, the constituancy, the great unwashed. The decision had been made long before 9/11 ti invade Iraq, justification for it was needed and was the the primary goal - and ultimately it worked. Play on fear, patriotism, anger (over 9/11) and the supremacy concept of "how dare some little tyrant stand-up to the gweat and powerful USA. Works every time.

The Downing Street memo is barely the tip of the iceberg, the letters written by some of Bush43's croneys (being ignored by the news media) and those fired for not playing ball are the crust. The entire berg won't be revealed until a new Ginsberg or Felt (deepthroat) comes forward from the secret closet they have him, or her stashed in. Face it, not since Nixon have we experienced a more secretive administration - they even classify FDA, Dept. of education, Dept. of Travel, Dept. of Commerce, etc, documents and memo's. A rebirth in ignorance is bliss - keep the public in the dark about everything and soon they will question nothing. Further, do it properly and half of them will defend you for keeping it from them. National Security, you know?

BTW, yes, Red - I did work in the M-I-C. For over 20 years (not including my 3 years in the army). Projects, from the fuses for the MX to warheads for the TOW-2B, with all sortsa waste (pork) projects in between (all worked, but the delivery systems were right out of WWII - though, one or three are still around in different forms today). Was it hypocritical of me? Maybe, when I first started it was all I could find to feed my family - and I was good at my work (ergo, rose pretty fast monetarily). One takes what they can find, in the real world (unless their Daddy is in big oil, or such). Most of us were quite pleased about our little part in '91. Today, those I know that are still at it, don't really give it much thought - if they weren't there, someone else would be (good paying jobs are getting scarce - you know?). Even worked on Reagan's "Star Wars" - which everyone knew was a joke, but it was great propaganda (try having a friend shoot a needle in a barn, and you try to hit it with another needle). [Bush43's has worked 3 out of 7 or 10 times - though they did know where the target was going to be, amazing .... what a waste. Shame he can't simply apply more to diplomacy than he does to military conclusions] Still, while I was in it - it paid my bills and my childrens' educations - no complaints. I just wish someone would pay more attention to what is being done versus what we are paying for. Are gobs and gobs of waste there, and poor developement, design and manufacturing processes. Are some great "dog and pony shows", though. Have some incredulous stories, few would believe.

:balloon2:

KafirChobee
06-10-2005, 04:57
OOOOOOOOPS!

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

Redleg
06-18-2005, 18:30
http:downingstreetmemo.com/


Did Bush43 already have Iraq on his agenda from the outset of his taking office? Probably, 9/11 was a godsend for him to begin his intended invasion of Iraq.

The intent of the United States before 9/11 was to promote the regime change of Iraq by any means. Guess which President made it official policy?




Did he knowingly lie about WMD, or was he simply misled by faulty intelligence information? Of course when the men screening such info for the prez reject anything that doesn't play along with the (Bush43's) game plan, and fire, coerce, or browbeat their underlings to supply only the "facts" that conform with their premise - then possibly not. But, someone did.


Allegations that are unproven are just that Kafir. Provide evidence that shows exactly what you are mentioning. Several investigations by congress have not turned up any such issues. However it does not stop some from wishing it to be there. Having seen the WMD myself in Iraq on the Mortar and Artillery gun postions - I am a little more inclined to believe Saddam hid many things from the inspectors.



Does it matter that Clinton wanted to remove Saddam? Maybe, but Clinton's mode of operendi was to use political and economic means. Bill wasn't much for sending men off to die in his name if there was still a political means available to.

I wonder about the Airman that flew over Iraq from 1992-2000 during Clinton's term of office share that same feeling. Or the soldiers and airmen that went into Kosovo?



Did the Bush43 team have a completed plan, other than dethrone the tyrant and all the Iraqis' will throw roses at us - instead of car bombs and rpgs. Seems they didn't. In fact, their position was "we'll worry 'bout that hog when we gotta slaughter it".


I don't defend the administrations unprepared for the after-effects of the invasion. The basis for the reasoning for the invasion has not been shown to
be a lie - which was your initial and several others comments.



They were unprepared, and remain so. They live in rose garden where they truely believe that "the insurgents are in their final death-throws". One can almost hear the death rattle coming from the last of the guerillas in Iraq now. Someone might want to point out to them that the attacks are increasing - not decreasing. Then again why miss a good propaganda phraseology that some peon may actually by into.


And the Iraqi people are starting to turn in insurgents and terrorists - what of that? Was the military unprepared for the quick collaspe of the Iraqi Regime and the necessary tasks associated with an occupation. Sure they were - but that is not the arguement that was initially entered by your comments.



I especially liked the pictures of the captured weapons this week (shown this week, happened a month ago) which proved we were winning. Of course, for an old sod such as me, it conjured up pictures of other arms caches - those in 'Nam that were shown to prove we were winning the war then too.


And in the propaganda that is coming from both the anti-Bush crowd is not old sod?



Did Bush43 intentionally lie? Or, was he simply missled? Was he a tool of those that wanted a war with Iraq, or was he a co-conspirator - possibly the the leader of it?

And your point - not one of the questions you put forward has been shown to be an affirmative for the Bush Adminstration. If Bush was mislead about the WMD - he had a lot of company from many intellegence experts from across the world. Some believed that Saddam was completely disarmed - and just as many believed he had the weapons. Such was the success of Saddam's Intellience gamble - it made the world unsure of what was really there.



Were he personnally signing each "we regret to inform you" letter to our "honored dead" (Fallen heroes), I might have sympathy for Bush43, but I don't.

No President has ever done that - and I suspect you know that.




As much as, I would love to believe that a president would never send his military into a situation under the false conjecture that their nation was endangered, or that to preserve our way of life it was absolutely necessary - I personally cannot find cause to believe this was the case. Especially, with the information leaking almost imperceivably from those that were in the know.

A fair opinion - However it seems that you contradict this opinion often with your statements.



The main plan was on selling it to us, the public, the constituancy, the great unwashed. The decision had been made long before 9/11 ti invade Iraq, justification for it was needed and was the the primary goal - and ultimately it worked. Play on fear, patriotism, anger (over 9/11) and the supremacy concept of "how dare some little tyrant stand-up to the gweat and powerful USA. Works every time.

And who started the planning process. Don't for a second image it was dreamed up by Bush43. If you do that your just playing partisan politics.



The Downing Street memo is barely the tip of the iceberg, the letters written by some of Bush43's croneys (being ignored by the news media) and those fired for not playing ball are the crust. The entire berg won't be revealed until a new Ginsberg or Felt (deepthroat) comes forward from the secret closet they have him, or her stashed in. Face it, not since Nixon have we experienced a more secretive administration - they even classify FDA, Dept. of education, Dept. of Travel, Dept. of Commerce, etc, documents and memo's. A rebirth in ignorance is bliss - keep the public in the dark about everything and soon they will question nothing. Further, do it properly and half of them will defend you for keeping it from them. National Security, you know?

What of the Downing Street memo - its a third person account of another individuals preception of a meeting in Washington. As evidence its not conclusive. Does it support the possiblity of a deeper investigation into the adminstrations actions by Congress, - it can be used for that, but Congress and the 9/11 Commisions facts will have to also be used - and that clears many of the third party hearsay evidence that is in the Downing Street Memo.




BTW, yes, Red - I did work in the M-I-C. For over 20 years (not including my 3 years in the army). Projects, from the fuses for the MX to warheads for the TOW-2B, with all sortsa waste (pork) projects in between (all worked, but the delivery systems were right out of WWII - though, one or three are still around in different forms today). Was it hypocritical of me? Maybe, when I first started it was all I could find to feed my family - and I was good at my work (ergo, rose pretty fast monetarily). One takes what they can find, in the real world (unless their Daddy is in big oil, or such). Most of us were quite pleased about our little part in '91. Today, those I know that are still at it, don't really give it much thought - if they weren't there, someone else would be (good paying jobs are getting scarce - you know?). Even worked on Reagan's "Star Wars" - which everyone knew was a joke, but it was great propaganda (try having a friend shoot a needle in a barn, and you try to hit it with another needle). [Bush43's has worked 3 out of 7 or 10 times - though they did know where the target was going to be, amazing .... what a waste. Shame he can't simply apply more to diplomacy than he does to military conclusions] Still, while I was in it - it paid my bills and my childrens' educations - no complaints. I just wish someone would pay more attention to what is being done versus what we are paying for. Are gobs and gobs of waste there, and poor developement, design and manufacturing processes. Are some great "dog and pony shows", though. Have some incredulous stories, few would believe.

:balloon2:

Having been in a few projects myself - I am fully aware of the dog and pony shows. However having benefited from the MIC - does not some of your arguement seem sort of hypocritical now does it not?

Redleg
06-18-2005, 18:33
I would go and show websites that either prove or debunk each of your points
Yes you could go to lots of websites to prove or debunk anything you wanted , but would they be true ?
Show me anything in that second statement that you highlighted that isn't true ?

Not my point to prove or disprove now is it? You mentioned it - its your arguementive support to prove it true. Its to easy to find sites to disprove many of those allegations, especially when one only directs it at the Bush Adminstration (either 41 or 43.)




Have a good vacation ~:cheers:


An excellent vacation in Yellowstone. Several days of hiking into the backcountry and even an overnite in the deep back woods trying to find wolves and bears.

Pictures to be posted when they are developed in the front room.

Tribesman
06-18-2005, 20:22
especially when one only directs it at the Bush Adminstration (either 41 or 43.)
But Redleg you to jump to conclusions . Where did I say Bush or even America in that post , I said certain countries , there are more countries in the world than America or do you assume that when someone is being critical it must mean they are being critical of America ~;)
Anyway , welcome back ~:cheers:

Redleg
06-19-2005, 03:20
especially when one only directs it at the Bush Adminstration (either 41 or 43.)
But Redleg you to jump to conclusions . Where did I say Bush or even America in that post , I said certain countries , there are more countries in the world than America or do you assume that when someone is being critical it must mean they are being critical of America ~;)

One tends to assume when one continues to make the same comments over and over again. ~D



Anyway , welcome back ~:cheers:

Why thank you.

Tribesman
06-19-2005, 09:26
One tends to assume when one continues to make the same comments over and over again.

Well I thought the arms deal linked to the nuclear program would have been obvious enough , I mean what Western country had its technical experts there when Israel bombed it ?

I criticise any government , the only reason America seems to get more criticism is because there are more Americans on this forum willing to defend their governments position .

Redleg
06-19-2005, 16:27
I criticise any government , the only reason America seems to get more criticism is because there are more Americans on this forum willing to defend their governments position .

When the Government does what I believe it should I defend it. When it does what it should not do - I don't defend it.

The overthrow of the Saddam Regime is something I support because of the previous 12 years of violence, broken treaties by Iraq, the failure of the United Nations to enforce their own resolutions, and the first hand knowledge of WMD that I have, and the duplicity of the Iraq Regime in accounting for the destoried WMD. You can disagree all you want - but when you apply sacrism and other such arguements that you have done in regards to the issue, it only weakens your arguement.

For instance using the events of the 1980's to justify your arguement.

Well I thought the arms deal linked to the nuclear program would have been obvious enough , I mean what Western country had its technical experts there when Israel bombed it ?

In fact it was more then one country's nuclear program experts that werein the country. In fact it was more then one country's arms deal that were linked to the Iraq nuclear program. And it was Iraq that was in violation of the anti-proflication (SP) treaty when Israel bombed the power plant. And the country you are trying to blame for the this issue was only a very minor player in the event.

Try again with a better arguement that is complete and in context of the current discussion. Picking bits and pieces of the picture to support your postion makes it too easy to pick it apart.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm


The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.


The Israelis criticised the French and Italians for supplying Iraq with nuclear materials and plegded to defend their territory at all costs.


The Osirak reactor is part of a complex that includes a second, smaller reactor - also French-built - and a Soviet-made test reactor already in use.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm

Tribesman
06-19-2005, 20:26
Picking bits and pieces of the picture to support your postion makes it too easy to pick it apart.
what ? you mean like...
Hell I always wondered where all those T-55, T-62's, T-72's, BMPs, BTRs came from - ~D ~D ~D
oh dear that nasty sarcasm ~:cheers:

Redleg
06-20-2005, 03:59
Picking bits and pieces of the picture to support your postion makes it too easy to pick it apart.
what ? you mean like...
Hell I always wondered where all those T-55, T-62's, T-72's, BMPs, BTRs came from - ~D ~D ~D
oh dear that nasty sarcasm ~:cheers:

So where did the weapons come from Tribesman?

Yes I might of used a little sarcasm - but its back up with actual factual information - not the alluding to facts that you have tried to use. The type of weapons dictate who might of provided them and possibly helped financed them.

Your alluding to a certain country providing nuclear technology seems to be a country which you might not have intended with your arguement.

Or where you really trying to blame France with all of your alluding allegations?

KafirChobee
06-20-2005, 19:15
The intent of the United States before 9/11 was to promote the regime change of Iraq by any means. Guess which President made it official policy?

1. REGIME CHANGE BY POLITICAL MEANS IS NOT THE SAME AS INVADING TO HAVE YOUR WAY.

Allegations that are unproven are just that Kafir. Provide evidence that shows exactly what you are mentioning. Several investigations by congress have not turned up any such issues. However it does not stop some from wishing it to be there. Having seen the WMD myself in Iraq on the Mortar and Artillery gun postions - I am a little more inclined to believe Saddam hid many things from the inspectors.

2. THERE ARE NO WMD. WHEN WILL SOME REALIZE THAT? HAD HE HIDDEN THEM, RUSSIANS REMOVED THEM, BEEN SENT TO SYRIA OR BEEN BURIED IN A GOAT PEN - WE WOULD HAVE FOUND THEM. IT'S ALOT LIKE THOSE "CHEMICAL" TRUCKS THAT WERE FOUND TO BE trucks. OR, THE NUCLEAR RODS - THAT WERE NOT. SORRY, BUT BELIEVING IN A LIE DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY MORE REAL.

I wonder about the Airman that flew over Iraq from 1992-2000 during Clinton's term of office share that same feeling. Or the soldiers and airmen that went into Kosovo?

3. IT HAPPENS. SHAME BUCH43's TEAM DIDN'T LISTEN TO CLINTON's TEAM ABOUT Alquaida. Then again, Bush was to busy playing President and trying to get the limelight off his predicessor.

I don't defend the administrations unprepared for the after-effects of the invasion. The basis for the reasoning for the invasion has not been shown to
be a lie - which was your initial and several others comments.

4. WMD, a THREAT TO AMERICAS SAFETY? ER, WHAT IS A LIE BY YOUR DEFINITION?

And the Iraqi people are starting to turn in insurgents and terrorists - what of that? Was the military unprepared for the quick collaspe of the Iraqi Regime and the necessary tasks associated with an occupation. Sure they were - but that is not the arguement that was initially entered by your comments.

5. SAY WHAT? Bush was prepared for the occupation? Even by their own admittance - they were not. Museums, stores, hospitals, schools, private homes, etc. were sacked by meandering crowds of Iraqis out to get their share. Ammo dumps were left unsecured. Or, did you forget about the tons of explosives left unguarded? There were not enough boots on the ground to maintain even a facsimily of civil control, and the troops were not prepared for it. Remember, Rummy thought it would be a liberation of Paris senario - the dip.

And in the propaganda that is coming from both the anti-Bush crowd is not old sod?

6. Since when was the truth considered propaganda?

And your point - not one of the questions you put forward has been shown to be an affirmative for the Bush Adminstration. If Bush was mislead about the WMD - he had a lot of company from many intellegence experts from across the world. Some believed that Saddam was completely disarmed - and just as many believed he had the weapons. Such was the success of Saddam's Intellience gamble - it made the world unsure of what was really there.

7. And it has been pointed out, that Bush43's advisors only accepted what they wanted to hear - build the case around their premise or dismiss the information as being incomplete (in conflict with what they needed to go to war).

No President has ever done that - and I suspect you know that.

8. ???Bay of Tonkin (resolution) was the model the for Bush43, they perfected it.

A fair opinion - However it seems that you contradict this opinion often with your statements.

And who started the planning process. Don't for a second image it was dreamed up by Bush43. If you do that your just playing partisan politics.

9. Bay of Pigs, took +3 years of planning and was dumped on a President that allowed it 3-4 months into his presidency. It was a fubar, from the initial planning stages to the last shot fired. Castro knew the entire game plan - his troops just happened to be on the beaches where the exiles landed. Sure.

What of the Downing Street memo - its a third person account of another individuals preception of a meeting in Washington. As evidence its not conclusive. Does it support the possiblity of a deeper investigation into the adminstrations actions by Congress, - it can be used for that, but Congress and the 9/11 Commisions facts will have to also be used - and that clears many of the third party hearsay evidence that is in the Downing Street Memo.

10. Hearsay? I love that. When caught with their hand in the cooky jar, or in the big lie - it seems misdirection is a good way of diverting attention. Still, the jury and all information on this is not in, yet. So, you could be right - how, I don't know.

Having been in a few projects myself - I am fully aware of the dog and pony shows. However having benefited from the MIC - does not some of your arguement seem sort of hypocritical now does it not?

As for the MIC, laws should be passed barring all military personell from joining a company they have associated with or other DoD contractor for a minimum of 5 years upon leaving service. Lets face it, that is where the corruption begins - look at the numbers of Generals and Colonels that have DoD contractor jobs waiting for them when they leave the service of the military. Further, it would be a good idea to create an independent board (preferably, publicly elected - or randomly, like a grand-jury) to investigate MIC contracts, construction, manufacturing, etc. Especially the new uncontested awarded ones of the Bush-Cheney variety (imagine the outcry had Clinton handed $billions over to his friends, or a company he had been CEO to).

As for my, hypocrisy? I don't see how. I got my jobs through legitimate interviews, not as a reward for covering up a project while in the military, or rewarding a contract to one of the companys I worked with.
Hypocrisy, in the form that I worked with in the MIC? While disagreeing with the manner in which it often conducts business and wastes millions? Absolutely, guilty as charged. I once witnessed a hand-out of $50million to build an unneccessary "test" platform (real cost $500,000) because not to do so meant it would revert back to congress - end of the fiscal year, you know?

Hypocrisy; [a reply, acting a part, feigning, to play a part, pretend, to contend, dispute.] A feigning to be what one is not; the acting of a false part; a deception as to real character and feelings, especially in regard to morals and religion.

Sorry, hypocrisy just doesn't fit here. Ungrateful? Not really, but keep trying.

BTW. It has been documented that LBJ signed "all" his letters to the familys' of the fallen during his term of office. It was his personal reminder of the sacrifice being made because of his policy decissions. Not, that it changed matters any.
:balloon2:

Tribesman
06-20-2005, 19:50
Your alluding to a certain country providing nuclear technology seems to be a country which you might not have intended with your arguement.
So you are some sort of mind reader now ? well you are not very good at it are you ~;)
Or where you really trying to blame France with all of your alluding allegations?
Congratulations , have a cigar , though no , not all the allegations , that was just one of them , specifically the 1500million arms deal linked to the nuclear program .
Now I wonder if you can spot another country that I alluded to ?
he actually invaded one of those countries when they had the cheek to ask for ther money back
Now that must definately be America , I only ever criticise America and how could anyone forget the Iraqi invasion of the United States it was really big news at the time~:cheers:

The type of weapons dictate who might of provided them and possibly helped financed them.
Might and possibly .
Now isn't that where this topic went off on this tangent in the first place , where you might possibly have been quoting a Russian General in Afghanistan ~:cool:

Redleg
06-20-2005, 19:54
As for the MIC, laws should be passed barring all military personell from joining a company they have associated with or other DoD contractor for a minimum of 5 years upon leaving service. Lets face it, that is where the corruption begins - look at the numbers of Generals and Colonels that have DoD contractor jobs waiting for them when they leave the service of the military. Further, it would be a good idea to create an independent board (preferably, publicly elected - or randomly, like a grand-jury) to investigate MIC contracts, construction, manufacturing, etc. Especially the new uncontested awarded ones of the Bush-Cheney variety (imagine the outcry had Clinton handed $billions over to his friends, or a company he had been CEO to).

As for my, hypocrisy? I don't see how. I got my jobs through legitimate interviews, not as a reward for covering up a project while in the military, or rewarding a contract to one of the companys I worked with.
Hypocrisy, in the form that I worked with in the MIC? While disagreeing with the manner in which it often conducts business and wastes millions? Absolutely, guilty as charged. I once witnessed a hand-out of $50million to build an unneccessary "test" platform (real cost $500,000) because not to do so meant it would revert back to congress - end of the fiscal year, you know?

Hypocrisy; [a reply, acting a part, feigning, to play a part, pretend, to contend, dispute.] A feigning to be what one is not; the acting of a false part; a deception as to real character and feelings, especially in regard to morals and religion.

Sorry, hypocrisy just doesn't fit here. Ungrateful? Not really, but keep trying.

BTW. It has been documented that LBJ signed "all" his letters to the familys' of the fallen during his term of office. It was his personal reminder of the sacrifice being made because of his policy decissions. Not, that it changed matters any.
:balloon2:


LOL - put your comments all in quote so I will have to cut and past to make points.

1. REGIME CHANGE BY POLITICAL MEANS IS NOT THE SAME AS INVADING TO HAVE YOUR WAY.

The difference is in the method used - however they are exactly the same.


2. THERE ARE NO WMD. WHEN WILL SOME REALIZE THAT? HAD HE HIDDEN THEM, RUSSIANS REMOVED THEM, BEEN SENT TO SYRIA OR BEEN BURIED IN A GOAT PEN - WE WOULD HAVE FOUND THEM. IT'S ALOT LIKE THOSE "CHEMICAL" TRUCKS THAT WERE FOUND TO BE trucks. OR, THE NUCLEAR RODS - THAT WERE NOT. SORRY, BUT BELIEVING IN A LIE DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY MORE REAL.

Lets see the precruser that has been found, and several Sarin gas rounds used as IED's show that not all WMD was destroyed. It seems that believing that there is no evidence of Saddam's duplicty in destorying WMD - is also a lie.

3. IT HAPPENS. SHAME BUCH43's TEAM DIDN'T LISTEN TO CLINTON's TEAM ABOUT Alquaida. Then again, Bush was to busy playing President and trying to get the limelight off his predicessor.

So now Bush 43 is to blame for all the events that happened from 1993-2000 in regrads to Iraq, and even to blame for Kosvo. You are beginning to lose preceptive if this is truely how you feel.

4. WMD, a THREAT TO AMERICAS SAFETY? ER, WHAT IS A LIE BY YOUR DEFINITION?

Now are we wanting to talk about only the boundries of the United States, or has the President was refering to - the Interests of the United States and the safety of all Americans. Was it a lie - or was it normal political rethoric. Clinton also justified going into Kosvo on the grounds it would protect America. Was he to telling a lie, or was he using political rethoric?

5. SAY WHAT? Bush was prepared for the occupation?

You mis-read what I wrote - I stated that they were not prepared.

6. Since when was the truth considered propaganda? Who said it was the truth - most of what you point out is nothing but propaganda that is stated by those who dislike or even hate Bush.



7. And it has been pointed out, that Bush43's advisors only accepted what they wanted to hear - build the case around their premise or dismiss the information as being incomplete (in conflict with what they needed to go to war).

While that is a planning failure - its not the lie that you are alledging that it is. However once again there is no significant proof of even this statement. Independent inquires by Congress - have indiciated that no wrong doing was done by the adminstration in the intelliengce process. Is this also nothing but a lie?


8. ???Bay of Tonkin (resolution) was the model the for Bush43, they perfected it.

Now that is funny - not even close to the same model.

9. Bay of Pigs, took +3 years of planning and was dumped on a President that allowed it 3-4 months into his presidency. It was a fubar, from the initial planning stages to the last shot fired. Castro knew the entire game plan - his troops just happened to be on the beaches where the exiles landed. Sure.

Goes to support my point now doesn't. However the big difference between the two is that Saddam did not believe we would carry it out - and he again lost his gamble.


10. Hearsay? I love that. When caught with their hand in the cooky jar, or in the big lie - it seems misdirection is a good way of diverting attention. Still, the jury and all information on this is not in, yet. So, you could be right - how, I don't know.

You might want to look at the legal defination of Hearsay - the memo is nothing but hearsay and can not be used in any legal proceding. And you might need to read what I wrote again - I am not dismissing the memo - I stated it can be used as grounds for a deeper investigation - but it can not be used as evidence - nor does it show any conclusive evidence of wrong doing by the adminstration.


As for the MIC, laws should be passed barring all military personell from joining a company they have associated with or other DoD contractor for a minimum of 5 years upon leaving service. Lets face it, that is where the corruption begins - look at the numbers of Generals and Colonels that have DoD contractor jobs waiting for them when they leave the service of the military. Further, it would be a good idea to create an independent board (preferably, publicly elected - or randomly, like a grand-jury) to investigate MIC contracts, construction, manufacturing, etc. Especially the new uncontested awarded ones of the Bush-Cheney variety (imagine the outcry had Clinton handed $billions over to his friends, or a company he had been CEO to).

Agree completely and I would go a step farther - if one reaches the rank of General one can not work in the MIC until after 3 years from retirement.

Hypocrisy, in the form that I worked with in the MIC? While disagreeing with the manner in which it often conducts business and wastes millions? Absolutely, guilty as charged.

exactly my intent with the comment.

BTW. It has been documented that LBJ signed "all" his letters to the familys' of the fallen during his term of office. It was his personal reminder of the sacrifice being made because of his policy decissions. Not, that it changed matters any.

Good to know - I did not realize he actually signed all of the letters concerning the deaths of soldiers in Vietnam. I thought most were done by Western Union Telegraphs.