I'm sorry. [Archive]

Gawain of Orkeny

12-13-2005, 16:57

This "Letter of Apology" was written by Lieutenant General Chuck Pitman, US Marine Corps, Retired:

For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day massacre.

I humbly offer my opinion here:

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic Arabs.

I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships.

I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media.

I am sorry that Yassar Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and high-jacked the Palestinian "cause."

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA for all their problems.

I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements of our society like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.

I am sorry that those same bombers are brainwashed thinking they will receive 72 virgins in "paradise."

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other noncombatant civilians are legitimate targets.

I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making.

I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site."

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, etc....etc!

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do.

We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?

Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujahans.

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait! You have a better chance of finding those seventy-two virgins.

Chuck Pitman

Lieutenant General, USMC (Ret)

Ja'chyra

12-13-2005, 17:01

LOL :san_laugh:

Ianofsmeg16

12-13-2005, 17:07

Give that man a round of applause!
It's people like him that you need at the top of your country's politics

I totally agree Mr Pitman sir!

Duke Malcolm

12-13-2005, 17:14

Wonderful! Simply Wonderful! Why is it that it is the Army Officers that seem to be some of the best Orators (although this is a letter...) of our time, what with Colonel Tim Collins of the Royal Irish Regiment and now Lieutenant-General Chuck Pitman of the United States Marines. What an excellent letter!

Fragony

12-13-2005, 17:19

I'd kiss him but he would probably kill me :san_grin:

master of the puppets

12-13-2005, 17:27

HURAY, now that is a real man, he explains it all. and he is disturbingly correct... that is why we must respect the armed forces, cause there the only thing left to be respected, not polititions, not media, not foreign diplomats, not religios figures...ect...man the world sucks:san_cry:

doc_bean

12-13-2005, 17:48

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).

Hey we told you this time it would be a bad idea :san_laugh:

Seriously though, he has some good points, but does he have a good, idea of how we can stop the terrorists and protect the innocent people of those Islamic countries against fundamentalists ? I'd like to hear it then... :san_undecided:

English assassin

12-13-2005, 17:48

We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff

yeah....riiiiiiight. Absolutely prisoner abuse was a few low grade troops acting totally on their own and there has been no cover up. Absolutely we don't ship people around the world to countries where they can be more "conveniently" "questioned" and certainly no one is dying in afgan jails where CIA people just happen to be on vacation. Absolutely we don't invent convenient legal catagories justifying indefinite detention without trial and we certainly didn't try to prevent the prisoners finding out about the "evidence" we alleged supports their detention.

Absolutely I remember what values it was we went to "war" to defend...

lancelot

12-13-2005, 17:51

Well, I'll play devils advocate on this one....

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?

Sorry but no amount of benevolent behaviour on the part of the americans will ever make 'making fun out of a few prisoners' justifed. That is one of the major problems in just war theory that people tend to gloss over. Retaliation, coz 'someone else started it first' (and yes, like British bombing of German cities in WW2, after they done it first) is NOT legitimate.

I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements of our society like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).

Kinda patronising to anyone with a differing opinion but whatever. ~:rolleyes:

We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

Lets not kid ourselves into believing that the US is the cuddly, fluffy all-benevolent force that does no wrong. What of CIA teams sent to prop up and train anti-communist secret police forces, particularly in South america, who's tactics included training animals to rape female 'suspects'.

Point being- This we dont hide anything talk, is a load of cobblers.

And finally, he could have added.

I am sorry the USA invaded Iraq under the perfectly legitimate pretense of forcing compliance with UN regulations and then thought we might as well do a bit of completely illegal regime change...you know...as we were in the area...~:rolleyes:

master of the puppets

12-13-2005, 17:55

yeah....riiiiiiight. Absolutely prisoner abuse was a few low grade troops acting totally on their own and there has been no cover up. Absolutely we don't ship people around the world to countries where they can be more "conveniently" "questioned" and certainly no one is dying in afgan jails where CIA people just happen to be on vacation. Absolutely we don't invent convenient legal catagories justifying indefinite detention without trial and we certainly didn't try to prevent the prisoners finding out about the "evidence" we alleged supports their detention.

Absolutely I remember what values it was we went to "war" to defend...

...would you rather be in the hands of americans as a POW or of some insurgent, tell in which you would expect to find mercy and goodness. comparativily, we are civil to no end.

Duke Malcolm

12-13-2005, 18:13

civil to no end? Re-read EA's post and re-think the choice of words...

Comparatively Ireland is civil to no end. America is, while more civil than the insurgents, certainly not civil to no ends...

Tribesman

12-13-2005, 19:12

Hey wow , a defense contractor defends the war . Its good for business don't ya know .

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other noncombatant civilians are legitimate targets.

Hey good point , but ......
I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.

Now then ,would that be killing lots of non-combatant civilians , or would he take the precaution waiting until the people had been sent back into the city just to make sure he was killing non-combatant civilians ? What an rswipe

Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujahans.

Ah but he is compasionate about some mercenaries who didn't manage to collect their final fat paycheck so that Ok then , slaughter the population .

Gawain you surprise me , its been doing the rounds since March , what took you so long to post it ?
Out of curiosity Gawain , did you serve under him , he was into photography during part of his service ?

Upxl

12-13-2005, 19:22

Only thing this proves is the I.Q. off the average (US) officer.

KafirChobee

12-13-2005, 19:24

The Generals, "I'm sorry", rant sounds all to familiar. A justification for the good to be bad, because the bad are so good at being bad. Nonsense put in a package for his choir to somehow justify the ill deeds committed under the banners of democracy and justice for all. It is like saying it is OK that our government is permitting torture - they are doing it in a nice way. That torture is now justifiable because they attacked us first (9/11/01), and the end justifys the means.

Same old weak story line, just another day on the far right.

Lemur

12-13-2005, 19:59

Excellent oration, and far better than anything we'll see from a politico for the next decade.

Deceptive, however, in the Lt. General's treatment of the torture question. But what can you expect? He's a staff officer, and those guys are politicos in their own way.

[edit]

Specifically:

We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?
You have to be willfully blind to think that the torture problem is contained with "humiliating" a few prisoners. It also helps if you don't read much.

A.Saturnus

12-13-2005, 22:33

Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?

Yes. That´s really all that has to be said.

Leet Eriksson

12-13-2005, 22:41

I'm sorry chuck becuase Mr.Adams here has already beaten you to apologising to your arab friends.

http://www.americasvoices.org/archives2004/AdamsM/AdamsM_061604.htm

Adrian II

12-13-2005, 22:50

I'm sorry chuck becuase Mr.Adams here has already beaten you to apologising to your arab friends.

http://www.americasvoices.org/archives2004/AdamsM/AdamsM_061604.htmSo our 'Chuck' is just another blog rip-off. What a surprise.

Ice

12-13-2005, 22:54

Only thing this proves is the I.Q. off the average (US) officer.

Oh, how creative.

Leet Eriksson

12-13-2005, 23:07

So our 'Chuck' is just another blog rip-off. What a surprise.

there are probably others like chuck, but i give chuck a cookie for removing any apology made to lefties and liberals, and replacing it with his Abu Ghraib tripe.

Edit: i'm sorry to all who didn't get my post, this link should explain my comment.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/mikeadams/2004/06/14/12021.html

Samurai Waki

12-13-2005, 23:17

meh. Got some points...but from reading between the lines, is also quite a hypocrite.

Strike For The South

12-13-2005, 23:58

Taffy_is_a_Taff

12-14-2005, 00:05

SFTS:
are you getting it on with some MoveOn chick or something?

Strike For The South

12-14-2005, 00:08

SFTS:
are you getting it on with some MoveOn chick or something?

Ill move on you

Taffy_is_a_Taff

12-14-2005, 00:13

:san_grin: I'm sorry but I'm not that way inclined.:san_grin:

Tribesman

12-14-2005, 00:45

Byzantine Prince

12-14-2005, 00:47

I too am sorry, chuck, I'm sorry for your simplicity, hypocricy, and rip0ff tendencies.:san_grin:

Kaiser of Arabia

12-14-2005, 00:57

Only thing this proves is the I.Q. off the average (US) officer.
154 I estimate.

JimBob

12-14-2005, 01:45

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.
No there wasn't because we knew it wouldn't come. We did call for bin Laden to be captured and brought to justice. Unfortunatly we have a leader who doesn't much care about bin Laden.

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic Arabs.
So?

I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships.
Damn well should be seeing as we put alot of them in place, and that we helped fund many of them.

I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements of our society like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).
Yes radical professors are leading a Maoist revolution right now in our streets. Stop hiding from shadows, the liberals don't bight (now socialists thats another story:san_wink: )

I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making.
And yet throw them into secret jails, bomb their cities to the ground, and then don't even try to say sorry for it.

I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.
Who else is there?

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.
Why? So you can fulfill some sick perverted act of revenge? Is your gun not a fulfilling phallic symbol anymore? Need a few dead innocent kids?

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.
What are we six? Haha he's fat.

We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?
Yes, because when you claim the moral high ground you damn well better earn it and keep on the straight and narrow. And when you slip, you say "oops" and clean up after yourself. If you don't you're just a bully, a bully for 'freedom' maybe, but a bully all the same.

Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujahans.
When there are Iranian contractors patrolling our streets and telling us what to do and you don't have a desire to strike back you may speak. Until then you can shut the hell up.

now that is a real man,
what makes him a real man? He talks tuff? What makes him anymore of a man than you or me?

...would you rather be in the hands of americans as a POW or of some insurgent, tell in which you would expect to find mercy and goodness. comparativily, we are civil to no end.
try neither, not big on dying, nor on being held indefinatly and being forced into homoerotic positions.

SFTS +1

Ice

12-14-2005, 03:21

We need to cut and run. Or be faced with more death for something that will eventually become an even bigger shit storm

Cut and run? Brilliant idea, so all the money we spent and lives that were given can go down the shithole? I think not. I'm not saying we should have gone, but have committed, so we should stay.

Edit: Also, if we cut and run, three new countries will declare independence. One of these will be Kurdistan. Now Kurdistan will want to Annex part of Turkey, which said that will never happen. Turkey along with a Shittee/Sunni State coalition with invade and take over Kurdistan. They will then proceed to war with each other. It will be a God damn mess. So no to leaving.

Reverend Joe

12-14-2005, 03:26

Cut and run? Brilliant idea, so all the money we spent and lives that were given can go down the shithole?

It will still go down the ****ter if we stay. I mean, do you really expect the ARVNs- sorry, the Iraqi security forces ~;)- to keep stability for more than a year, at the most?

Strike For The South

12-14-2005, 03:40

It will still go down the ****ter if we stay. I mean, do you really expect the ARVNs- sorry, the Iraqi security forces ~;)- to keep stability for more than a year, at the most?

YUP. The goverment is going to fail so I choose the option where not as many americans die for a country which will just break up anyway

Taffy_is_a_Taff

12-14-2005, 03:45

I love my crystal ball too.

Edit: *scrying away*, woooooooooooo

Strike For The South

12-14-2005, 03:48

I love my crystal ball too.

Dont you...I love my pride as well

Taffy_is_a_Taff

12-14-2005, 03:51

All you need is pride and clairvoyance.

~:thumb:

Xiahou

12-14-2005, 03:53

YUP. The goverment is going to fail so I choose the option where not as many americans die for a country which will just break up anyway
That's nonsense. A breakup and civil war are not forgone conclusions. Most Iraqis want democracy to succeed and this current round of elections promises to have an unprecedented turn out. Our forces need to remain to provide stability until democratic institutions take hold. We also need to continue clearing insurgent strongholds and garrisoning them with Iraqi forces.

Strike For The South

12-14-2005, 04:02

That's nonsense. A breakup and civil war are not forgone conclusions. Most Iraqis want democracy to succeed and this current round of elections promises to have an unprecedented turn out. Our forces need to remain to provide stability until democratic institutions take hold. We also need to continue clearing insurgent strongholds and garrisoning them with Iraqi forces.

I havent seen any democracy loving Iraqis. Everyday its "Suicide bombing, ambush, beheading." Sure there are probably some but its not enough. We are just breeding more hate from the Iraqis towards us towards the ethnic groups in the reigon. Hell these guys are fighting eachother now with us there. Sure we can kill insurgents but we will never get all of them. I say leave and let them sort it out its not if but when and I perfer we leave now

Ice

12-14-2005, 04:09

It will still go down the ****ter if we stay. I mean, do you really expect the ARVNs- sorry, the Iraqi security forces ~;)- to keep stability for more than a year, at the most?

We aren't going to leave anytime soon. I predict we will have bases and mass troop numbers for 50+ years. If we leave, shit will break lose.

STFS SAID

I havent seen any democracy loving Iraqis. Everyday its "Suicide bombing, ambush, beheading." Sure there are probably some but its not enough. We are just breeding more hate from the Iraqis towards us towards the ethnic groups in the reigon. Hell these guys are fighting eachother now with us there. Sure we can kill insurgents but we will never get all of them. I say leave and let them sort it out its not if but when and I perfer we leave now

The insurgents and bombers dont speak for all Iraqi people, just like Islamic terrorists dont speak for all of Islam. You actually haven't see any democracy loving Iraqis? I'm pretty sure that day they tore the statue of Saddam down, there were some people cheering there. They sure as hell weren't dictator loving people. They want to go to school, run businesses, and live without fear just like the rest of the world.

Strike For The South

12-14-2005, 04:14

The insurgents and bombers dont speak for all Iraqi people, just like Islamic terrorists dont speak for all of Islam. You actually haven't see any democracy loving Iraqis? I'm pretty sure that day they tore the statue of Saddam down, there were some people cheering there. They sure as hell weren't dictator loving people. They want to go to school, run businesses, and live without fear just like the rest of the world.

Yes they hated Saddam and they hate us to. They may want to do all that Ghost but provided a couple things

1.No Americans
2.Domianice over the other ethnic group

They majority dont wont democracy they want power. I refuse to sit here and allow America get in the crossfire of a barbic civil war

Soulforged

12-14-2005, 04:21

I don't know what's really the purpose behind this apology, but it's the most futile, trivial and inhumane piece of crap that I had read in many time. I don't know how this can be called an apology when the same writer makes the same mistakes that were criticized over the administration over and over.

I'm sorry that apologies don't change the real world.:san_rolleyes:

Proletariat

12-14-2005, 04:22

SFTS, what you're saying seems tantamount to saying that all black guys steal TVs because that's what gets the coverage on the 11 o'clock news each night.

Do you think Iraqis are incapable of democracy? Have you seen the latest polling out of Iraq?

http://bareknucklepolitics.com/?p=466

Ice

12-14-2005, 04:22

Yes they hated Saddam and they hate us to. They may want to do all that Ghost but provided a couple things

1.No Americans
2.Domianice over the other ethnic group

They majority dont wont democracy they want power. I refuse to sit here and allow America get in the crossfire of a barbic civil war

Its understandable they don't want us, but this to work we have to be there for a while. They only hate us because of what is going on. We are getting the brunt of shit when a carbomb goes of or some runs a jeep filled with explosives into a full cafe. Like I said before though, we got ourselves into it, we need to get ourselves out. Leaving won't do shit besides make everything else work. Dominace? The Shiitte should have dominace, they have the majority of people. That is what democracy is all about, it's the will of the people. I hate to say it, but the Kurds and Sunnis are going to have to except this under the new system. Yes people want democracy, yes people want power. You will always have ur power whores in every country.

Xiahou

12-14-2005, 05:29

I havent seen any democracy loving Iraqis. Everyday its "Suicide bombing, ambush, beheading."Blame the media for that- not the Iraqis. What about the millions that risked their lives by coming out to vote in the last 2 elections or the millions more that will be coming out this week to elect their first democratic government in decades. Why are they risking murder and death to vote?

Tribesman

12-14-2005, 09:08

this current round of elections promises to have an unprecedented turn out.
Yes Xiahou , some areas that had almost full turnout at the previous elections are expecting a miraculous 500% increase in their turnout .
The electoral commission are very happy with this voter miracle~;)

drone

12-14-2005, 16:41

Editorial in the Washington Post written by a Marine major getting ready to go back for his third tour:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301502.html

The Truth On the Ground
By Ben Connable
Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Page A29

When I told people that I was getting ready to head back to Iraq for my third tour, the usual response was a frown, a somber head shake and even the occasional "I'm sorry." When I told them that I was glad to be going back, the response was awkward disbelief, a fake smile and a change of subject. The common wisdom seems to be that Iraq is an unwinnable war and a quagmire and that the only thing left to decide is how quickly we withdraw. Depending on which poll you believe, about 60 percent of Americans think it's time to pull out of Iraq.

How is it, then, that 64 percent of U.S. military officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue our work? Why is there such a dramatic divergence between American public opinion and the upbeat assessment of the men and women doing the fighting?

Open optimism, whether or not it is warranted, is a necessary trait in senior officers and officials. Skeptics can be excused for discounting glowing reports on Iraq from the upper echelons of power. But it is not a simple thing to ignore genuine optimism from mid-grade, junior and noncommissioned officers who have spent much of the past three years in Iraq.

We know the streets, the people and the insurgents far better than any armchair academic or talking head. As military professionals, we are trained to gauge the chances of success and failure, to calculate risk and reward. We have little to gain from our optimism and quite a bit to lose as we leave our families over and over again to face danger and deprivation for an increasingly unpopular cause. We know that there are no guarantees in war, and that we may well fail in the long run. We also know that if we follow our current plan we can, over time, leave behind a stable and unified country that might help to anchor a better future for the Middle East.

It is difficult for most Americans to rationalize this optimism in the face of the horrific images and depressing stories that have come to symbolize the war in Iraq. Most of the violent news is true; the death and destruction are very real. But experienced military officers know that the horror stories, however dramatic, do not represent the broader conditions there or the chances for future success. For every vividly portrayed suicide bombing, there are hundreds of thousands of people living quiet, if often uncertain, lives. For every depressing story of unrest and instability there is an untold story of potential and hope. The impression of Iraq as an unfathomable quagmire is false and dangerously misleading.

It is this false impression that has led us to a moment of national truth. The proponents of the quagmire vision argue that the very presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is the cause of the insurgency and that our withdrawal would give the Iraqis their only true chance for stability. Most military officers and NCOs with ground experience in Iraq know that this vision is patently false. Although the presence of U.S. forces certainly inflames sentiment and provides the insurgents with targets, the anti-coalition insurgency is mostly a symptom of the underlying conditions in Iraq. It may seem paradoxical, but only our presence can buffer the violence enough to allow for eventual stability.

The precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops would almost certainly lead to a violent and destabilizing civil war. The Iraqi military is not ready to assume control and would not miraculously achieve competence in our absence. As we left, the insurgency would turn into internecine violence, and Iraq would collapse into a true failed state. The fires of the Iraqi civil war would spread, and terrorists would find a new safe haven from which to launch attacks against our homeland.

Anyone who has spent even a day in the Middle East should know that the Arab street would not thank us for abandoning Iraq. The blame for civil war would fall squarely on our shoulders. It is unlikely that the tentative experiments in democracy we have seen in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere would survive the fallout. There would be no dividend of goodwill from heartbroken intellectuals or emboldened Islamic extremists. American troops might be home in the short run, but the experienced professionals know that in the long run, quitting Iraq would mean more deployments, more desperate battles and more death.

Sixty-four percent of us know that we have a good shot at preventing this outcome if we are allowed to continue our mission. We quietly hope that common sense will return to the dialogue on Iraq. Although we hate leaving our families behind, many of us would rather go back to Iraq a hundred times than abandon the Iraqi people.

A fellow Marine and close friend epitomizes this sentiment. Sean has served two tours in Iraq as a reserve officer. During his last tour, he was informed of the birth of his baby girl by e-mail, learned his father was dying of cancer, and was wounded in the same blast of an improvised explosive that killed his first sergeant on a dirt road in the middle of the western desert. Sean loves his family and his job, but he has made it clear that he would rather go back to Iraq than see us withdraw.

Everyone in uniform does not share this sentiment. Thirty-six percent of military officers are less confident in the mission. But these officers will continue to work as hard as the rest of us toward success because they, too, are professionals. With men and women such as this, the United States has an excellent chance of success in Iraq. We can fail only if the false imagery of quagmire takes hold and our national political will is broken. In that event, both the Iraqi people and the American troops will pay a long-term price for our shortsighted delusion.

master of the puppets

12-14-2005, 17:26

nice, drone, great example. like i said before i can't trust the media or polititions i would rather see a military war paper than the new york times when it comes to the subject of war. i care about the opinions of the people who were there, who saw the faces of those people and know what they think, a grunt in the army has no reason to lie to the public, even an officer does'nt cause it woulds seem that there only desire is to see there country prevail.
so as soon as my 18th b-day rolls around i'm going to the military, just not sure of which branch yet...suggestions?

Geoffrey S

12-14-2005, 19:30

...would you rather be in the hands of americans as a POW or of some insurgent, tell in which you would expect to find mercy and goodness?
That this should even be a matter of debate, that it should come down to a comparison between the way the US treats prisoners relative to prisoners' treatment from terrorists, shows how deep the problem runs. There's no way the US should even allow themselves to be seen to be on the same level as those they oppose, let alone actually sinking that low.

Kaiser of Arabia

12-14-2005, 19:39

Hurin_Rules

12-14-2005, 19:40

Only 64% of US soldiers think they have a chance of winning?

And this is cited as a good sign?

:san_shocked:

Hurin_Rules

12-14-2005, 19:40

Just so you know, most of the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq are imports from Syria.

And you can prove this contentious allegation how?

Ja'chyra

12-14-2005, 19:48

And you can prove this contentious allegation how?

Duh, he asked them :san_grin:

Kaiser of Arabia

12-14-2005, 20:06

Only 64% of US soldiers think they have a chance of winning?

And this is cited as a good sign?

:san_shocked:
64% is a majority. Ask the men on the Bataan marches if they thought they'd make it out alive.

And you can prove this contentious allegation how?
Can you disprove it?

Almost all of the terrorist groups operating in Iraq are led by non-Iraqis and made up primarily of non-Iraqis. You just want to sabatoge our actions in the Middle East to further your sick political goals.

Ser Clegane

12-14-2005, 20:09

You just want to sabatoge our actions in the Middle East to further your sick political goals.

I suggest that you refrain from making personal attacks :stare:

Hurin_Rules

12-14-2005, 20:39

64% is a majority. Ask the men on the Bataan marches if they thought they'd make it out alive.

Yes, and we all know how well that worked out. :san_rolleyes:

Can you disprove it?

Sorry, but you made the allegation, and so the onus is on you to prove it.

Here are links to considerable evidence to the contrary, from liberal and conservative sources alike, including the Christian Science Monitor, various Washington think tanks, the Associated Press, etc.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html

Note the conclusions:
"The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don’t come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report (PDF) from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS)."

You just want to sabatoge our actions in the Middle East to further your sick political goals.

I don't reply to personal attacks.

Ice

12-14-2005, 21:30

Glad to see another article posted by a senior officer. I agree 100% with what he said.

Xiahou

12-14-2005, 21:51

Tribesman

12-14-2005, 22:18

So, do you have any evidence for that or are ya just talking out of your ass as per normal?

Ah such venom from the dearest Xiahou , it must be that time of the month for elections .
So which evidence would you like , would you like the statement from one of the Kurdish parties saying how their registration campiaign is really going to pay off ?
Or would you like the one from the electoral commission saying WTF , do you think we are really that stupid ?

Xiahou

12-14-2005, 22:47

So, do you have any evidence for that or are ya just talking out of your ass as per normal?

Ah such venom from the dearest Xiahou , it must be that time of the month for elections .The smilie means it's a joke- you of all people should know that. ~;)

Good job still not providing anything to back up your claims though. Maybe I was right?~D ~D

Adrian II

12-14-2005, 22:55

Glad to see another article posted by a senior officer. I agree 100% with what he said.Since when is Mike Adams a senior officer? :san_grin:

Hurin_Rules

12-14-2005, 23:38

I think this is all getting us rather far from the salient fact:

We all now know that the article in the original post that started this thread was fake. Is 'Chuck Pitman' even a real person? Who knows.

But it does suggest a few things:

1. Post links to your sources, so that they can be properly evaluated.

2. Refrain from making allegations that you can't back up with facts.

3. Know the difference between blogs (on the right or the left) and more credible news sources (the latter being the ones that double check their sources and provide evidence for them).

Mistakes are inevitable, of course, but so long as you post the links and sources so that we can evaluate them in an honest and objective manner, we won't have to waste our time with such false, malicious crap.

Gawain of Orkeny

12-14-2005, 23:43

Know the difference between blogs (on the right or the left) and more credible news sources (the latter being the ones that double check their sources and provide evidence for them).

Nowdays are there any? :san_laugh:

Devastatin Dave

12-14-2005, 23:50

Only thing this proves is the I.Q. off the average (US) officer.
"off" the average US officer? Maybe your post shows your level of IQ as well.

Tribesman

12-15-2005, 00:05

Is 'Chuck Pitman' even a real person? Who knows.

Yep he is a retired UNMC General , now working in the defense industry his career was mainly admin , but he also done a stint of photographic work during the Vietnam conflict and was wounded in Laos .

He is a real person , but it says something about the rightist mindset when they take an article by a ranting columnist and falsely wrap it in the flag by attributing it to a veteran to try and make it more credible .

If they want a genuine rant from a vet they could always use one of Ollie Norths .
But of course with him being ever so slightly traitorous to his country it does dent his credibility somewhat .

Byzantine Prince

12-15-2005, 00:45

"off" the average US officer? Maybe your post shows your level of IQ as well.
Is English YOUR third language?

Reverend Joe

12-15-2005, 01:23

Wow... what were the first two?

Devastatin Dave

12-15-2005, 01:42

Is English YOUR third language?
Did you read what I was quoting or are you showing your IQ as well?

Sasaki Kojiro

12-15-2005, 01:44

Upxl is from Belgium...

Byzantine Prince

12-15-2005, 01:46

Did you read what I was quoting or are you showing your IQ as well?
Yes I read, but you didn't understand. He is from Belgium, he doesn't have to be perfect in English to be intelligent. If he can do enough to communicate on these boards then that's more then YOU can do on Belgian boards.

PS: My IQ is pretty high.

Devastatin Dave

12-15-2005, 01:50

Yes I read, but you didn't understand. He is from Belgium, he doesn't have to be perfect in English to be intelligent. If he can do enough to communicate on these boards then that's more then YOU can do on Belgian boards.

PS: My IQ is pretty high.
Then I'm sorry, I just found it rather funny for someone to criticize someone's intelligence when they make a mistake with the words "off" and "of".

PS: You're still a pretentious little board troll...:san_grin:

Kaiser of Arabia

12-15-2005, 02:28

Kaiser of Arabia

12-15-2005, 02:31

I suggest that you refrain from making personal attacks :stare:
Was it a personal attack? Or was it a Political Attack?

http://static.flickr.com/16/21139740_b19df5236f.jpg

Reverend Joe

12-15-2005, 02:40

Then I'm sorry, I just found it rather funny for someone to criticize someone's intelligence when they make a mistake with the words "off" and "of".

PS: You're still a pretentious little board troll...:san_grin:

:thinking: Uh...

:jester:

Devastatin Dave

12-15-2005, 02:52

:thinking: Uh...

:jester:
I was talking to BP, you have actual substance to your posts...

Reverend Joe

12-15-2005, 02:55

I was talking to BP, you have actual substance to your posts...

:stunned: When?!

(And I was messin' with you.)

Ser Clegane

12-15-2005, 09:53

Was it a personal attack? Or was it a Political Attack?

The choice of words made it a personal attack - funny pictures of Saddam do not change that.

For further discussion on the nature of personal attacks you can PM me.

Adrian II

12-15-2005, 17:04

Maybe your post shows your level of IQ as well.'Level' means: relative position on a scale. 'IQ' means: the ratio of a person's measured intelligence to his chonological age, multiplied by 100. Hence, IQ already indicates a level.

'Level of IQ' is a tautology. :san_cool:

*wallows in 137 IQ*

Proletariat

12-15-2005, 17:09

Hurin_Rules

12-15-2005, 17:14

Adrian II

12-15-2005, 17:18

Isn't tautological when you have an expression like, 'I wouldn't pay a red cent for that car' because saying 'I would pay a red cent for that car' makes no sense?

I thought it had to do with logic only working in one direction, not really redundancies. Any linguists around to weigh in?

*wallows*

Edit: Eh, I answered my own question already. Shoulda just googled it in the first place.

*wallows on*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000 (http://www.bartleby.com/61/17/T0061700.html):

Tau·tol·o·gy: 1a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy. b. An instance of such repetition.

*wallows in gratuitous redundancy :mellow:*

Proletariat

12-15-2005, 17:20

Thanks, Hurin. I had just realized that. I think I remembered the first bit more easily thanks to a linguistic proffesor who harped on it for about an hour to a class that just wasn't getting it, a few years back.

(What? No French Revolution Liberty Cap smilie for the respectfully bow/nod?)

Adrian II

12-15-2005, 17:22

It can be either.

Redundancy:

This book is a codex.

Vacuous statment:

Either it will rain tomorrow, or it won't.

Both are tautologies.What, no wallowing? :stare:

Hurin_Rules

12-15-2005, 17:36

What, no wallowing? :stare:

Me, I prefer to luxuriate. Although the difference between the two is purely tautological. :san_smiley:

master of the puppets

12-15-2005, 17:38

WALLOW yaya WALLOWING IS FUN WHEN THE MUD IS DEEP . (you can tell I have a high IQ:san_tongue: .

Incongruous

12-15-2005, 20:18

Not as high as mine.

Incongruous

12-15-2005, 20:18

Oh really?

Incongruous

12-15-2005, 20:20

Um yeah...
Who are you?

Incongruous

12-15-2005, 20:21

I am your brain.

Incongruous

12-15-2005, 20:21

Oh s**t!

Ser Clegane

12-15-2005, 20:23

Stop spamming :stare:

Incongruous

12-15-2005, 20:26

I do apalogey good sir.

Byzantine Prince

12-15-2005, 22:41

Check out everyone going crazy over showing how smart they are. That shows a lot of insecurity on the part of most members.

Kanamori

12-16-2005, 00:15

Tautologies aren't only semantically redudant in nature, like saying "SPIN (Special Prize ID Number) Number" in those stupid wheel of furtune commercials.:san_angry:

They can also be used to form false conclusions, like trying to say: Red skittles are always red; therefore red is a primary quality (of the Lockean type) of red skittles, for to be a red skittle it must always be red.:san_smiley:
(Santa's chuckle always gets me:san_grin:)

Anyways, I'm sorry for the digression.:san_tongue:

solypsist

12-16-2005, 02:23

i prefer these I'm sorry (http://sorryagain.com/)-ies....

Strike For The South

12-16-2005, 02:27

i prefer these I'm sorry (http://sorryagain.com/)-ies....

Wait why are they going to kill my dog???????????!!!!!!!!!!

Spetulhu

12-16-2005, 06:33

So now we can add a marine general to the airforce general ,the marine colonel , the army major , the special forces senior NCO , the Captain with the Airbourne.
I wonder who will be attributed to the next right wing blogsphere masterpiece , a navy Admiral perhaps , retired of course .:san_laugh:

The Admiral might be able to read maps. That way he can at least say he's sorry for invading the wrong country. The 1109 hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, the big country south of Iraq. :san_wink:

Divinus Arma

12-16-2005, 07:37

I always like it when one of these blogs come out put forth these "Retired marine genral with 3423 purple hearts says F**K the Arabs" I mean I seriously thought these guys could come up with something better. Iraq has brought nothing but death and haterd to America and that wont change not when we leave and after 2 months the goverment falls and Iraq is thrown into anarchy creating a bigger mess. We need to cut and run. Or be faced with more death for something that will eventually become an even bigger shit storm

This was worth coming out of hibernation for.

SFTS, a few months ago you quoted me in your sig. Can't remember what it was, but it was pro-war. You have taken a turn down a sad sad road my friend.

You see, the liberals and Democrats would have all of us believe that this war is unwinnable. They tell the Amercian public, "We cannot win, we must surrender." Withdrawl now IS surrender, because the infant Iraqi government is incapable of defending itself.

The liberals see America as the world's greatest problem. The liberals want us to believe that we will fail and that we must give in to the terrorists of Iraq. The liberals say this because it will help them politically. Because this is all they have left. They have no platform. They have no argument. All they have to offer is American defeat. The Democratic Party, this once great party of Truman, JFK, and Roosevelt, has become irrelevant and stands against America.

Because what is bad for America... Is good for the Democrats.

I am deeply saddened to see you take this road SFTS. But you are a Texan. And an American. And I also know that you are still formulating your view of how our country should be led.

There is NO wrong in questioning our leadership. There is NO wrong in voicing your beliefs. There is NO wrong in making your points heard.

But we must never, ever, ever play to the enemy in order to make gains politically. We must NEVER pursue American failure to promote a political ideology.

And make no mistake: The Liberals want America to fail. If America fails, then the Republican party fails. And if the Republican party fails, then the Democrats will increase their power.

The failure of America is Democratic Party policy when conservatives lead the nation.

Lemur

12-16-2005, 07:41

Really, is there anything wrong in the world that we can't blame The Liberals for? I think not.

So DA, what percentage of Americans do you believe are rooting for America's failure? Just curious. I'd love to hear a number, and not just about The Liberals, whom you seem to have an intimate understanding of.

Xiahou

12-16-2005, 09:10

You see, the liberals and Democrats would have all of us believe that this war is unwinnable. They tell the Amercian public, "We cannot win, we must surrender." Withdrawl now IS surrender, because the infant Iraqi government is incapable of defending itself.Well that much is accurate- at least when it comes to the Democratic leadership and the "liberals" on this board.

Because what is bad for America... Is good for the Democrats.
This is also true. Failure in Iraq? - good for their party. Recession? -good for Democrats. I'll leave it up to the reader to do the math themselves on Iraq, but no doubt, economically Democrats have been striving to paint a negative picture despite strong growth in almost every statistic and low unemployment.

Clearly, any opposition party benefits when things go bad for the majority party. The question is, are they rooting for failure? Personally, I think Democrats would be doing much better if they were making real suggestions or constructive criticism rather than just being negative.

AntiochusIII

12-17-2005, 01:38

Well that much is accurate- at least when it comes to the Democratic leadership and the "liberals" on this board.Perhaps, just perhaps, it's because, the war is unwinnable? :san_laugh:

Just playing with you.

[Addressed to others] But I'll have to get back to my gay porn now, and to finish the Communist Manifesto. In fact, I might need to print out another dozen of the Che posters with my welfare money.

Liberals, sir, can be blame for anything. For we are the progressive ones. We change, and for that, we are hated.

Now, that sounds cool. :san_wink:

This is also true. Failure in Iraq? - good for their party. Recession? -good for Democrats. I'll leave it up to the reader to do the math themselves on Iraq, but no doubt, economically Democrats have been striving to paint a negative picture despite strong growth in almost every statistic and low unemployment.

Clearly, any opposition party benefits when things go bad for the majority party. The question is, are they rooting for failure? Personally, I think Democrats would be doing much better if they were making real suggestions or constructive criticism rather than just being negative.Some of what you said is certainly true, but others are not necessarily so. If Iraq fails, and the Dems win the election for president (which, if Iraq fails, is likely, unless they face a magical Republican spin -- ha! A realistic possibility considering America's majority idiotic voting blog who seems more concerned with women and their wombs and how God should be prayed (or not) than economic and political issues in an increasingly hostile world), they will inherit the problem at its worst. The economy is a natural tactic.

The Dems would not be realistically doing much better by giving constructive criticism if only because the dominating Republicans will not hear them in the first place. Remember: the Republicans control the government; the Supreme Court, the House, and the Presidency. And they won't like to show themselves as weak to (some of) their voters who "hate the traitorous Left."

Slyspy

12-17-2005, 02:38

Reverend Joe

12-17-2005, 03:32

This was worth coming out of hibernation for.

SFTS, a few months ago you quoted me in your sig. Can't remember what it was, but it was pro-war. You have taken a turn down a sad sad road my friend.

You see, the liberals and Democrats would have all of us believe that this war is unwinnable. They tell the Amercian public, "We cannot win, we must surrender." Withdrawl now IS surrender, because the infant Iraqi government is incapable of defending itself.

The liberals see America as the world's greatest problem. The liberals want us to believe that we will fail and that we must give in to the terrorists of Iraq. The liberals say this because it will help them politically. Because this is all they have left. They have no platform. They have no argument. All they have to offer is American defeat. The Democratic Party, this once great party of Truman, JFK, and Roosevelt, has become irrelevant and stands against America.

Because what is bad for America... Is good for the Democrats.

I am deeply saddened to see you take this road SFTS. But you are a Texan. And an American. And I also know that you are still formulating your view of how our country should be led.

There is NO wrong in questioning our leadership. There is NO wrong in voicing your beliefs. There is NO wrong in making your points heard.

But we must never, ever, ever play to the enemy in order to make gains politically. We must NEVER pursue American failure to promote a political ideology.

And make no mistake: The Liberals want America to fail. If America fails, then the Republican party fails. And if the Republican party fails, then the Democrats will increase their power.

The failure of America is Democratic Party policy when conservatives lead the nation.

Divinus,

You are a rather intellegent fellow, and I respect you. But this last post of yours is shocking and grotesque. I remember when I first wandered, half-drunk, into the backroom, and early on, you encouraged me to really think for myself. (Admittedly, you thought that I could be converted to conservatism by using this method.) Back then, I would actually make a coherent post in the backroom, this being before I became so burnt out on political crap that I just decided to spam at random. Strike still tries to make sense, and care about the issues that come up back here. In fact, he is finally thinking for himself politically, and he is formulating his own political ethos. And now, you try to discourage him from taking his own course of action, and scare him away from individualism. Do you not see what is wrong with that?

Then again, if he had started left, and had slid to the right, I would be rooting for whoever tried to scare him back to the left. ~:joker: But still consider what you are doing.

Strike For The South

12-17-2005, 04:20

[/QUOTE]
This was worth coming out of hibernation for.

SFTS, a few months ago you quoted me in your sig. Can't remember what it was, but it was pro-war. You have taken a turn down a sad sad road my friend.

You see, the liberals and Democrats would have all of us believe that this war is unwinnable. They tell the Amercian public, "We cannot win, we must surrender." Withdrawl now IS surrender, because the infant Iraqi government is incapable of defending itself.

The liberals see America as the world's greatest problem. The liberals want us to believe that we will fail and that we must give in to the terrorists of Iraq. The liberals say this because it will help them politically. Because this is all they have left. They have no platform. They have no argument. All they have to offer is American defeat. The Democratic Party, this once great party of Truman, JFK, and Roosevelt, has become irrelevant and stands against America.

Because what is bad for America... Is good for the Democrats.

I am deeply saddened to see you take this road SFTS. But you are a Texan. And an American. And I also know that you are still formulating your view of how our country should be led.

There is NO wrong in questioning our leadership. There is NO wrong in voicing your beliefs. There is NO wrong in making your points heard.

But we must never, ever, ever play to the enemy in order to make gains politically. We must NEVER pursue American failure to promote a political ideology.

And make no mistake: The Liberals want America to fail. If America fails, then the Republican party fails. And if the Republican party fails, then the Democrats will increase their power.

The failure of America is Democratic Party policy when conservatives lead the nation.

Alright brotha I hear ya. First of all I dont want to see America fail in Iraq I just dont see even if we stay for 10 years and leave that the country will be able to support itself. If we stay I think a large amount of troops for a long time will be necesarry. I just dont think thats feasable or our country has the stomach for it. We are a milatary not the popo

But you are a Texan

Which means me Redleg Red Harvest and soon you are 121312423 times better than anyone else here... I still got my Texan pride:san_cool:

Taffy_is_a_Taff

12-17-2005, 05:45

SFTS:

I may join your special club in the not too distant future too.
I'll invite you over for a beer/cup of tea if I do.

KafirChobee

12-17-2005, 06:41

Editorial in the Washington Post written by a Marine major getting ready to go back for his third tour:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301502.html

The open divergence from the original topic; and this response, inclines me to respond in kind. First off, just because someone is dumb enough to take 4 tours of duty in an unwinnable situation doesnot make them a spokesman for others that are being forced to do the same - like it is impossible to leave the military now 'til you have served 6 years.

Two: Just because someone is an officer does not grant them wisdom ... of a military or hearts and minds nature. That someone says "60% of military officers" think we can win is nat a new deal - the same proportion thought the same in 'nam, Lebanon - name a lost cause (the Rebs during our Civil War thought they'ld win in a year - including Lee).

Three: At any time one sees or hears the use of "officers" as a source for winning an unwinnable situation - they must reffer back to WWI for a reality check on who they are listening to (men that need a war for promotion).

Four: Back to the cutesy "retired USMC General" that started this entire tirade. Go look him up. Check out his record. Find out how many men were ever under his command - and if any? How many gave their all - and how many letters of condolence did he actually write (versus "your son was a good marine that died well in the service of his country").

The occupation in Iraq may very well be a noble and necessary "thing". But, proposing the idea that the men dying there are doing it for anything but the ego of lesser men is bogus. If we pull out tomorrow or in 10 years, it will all be the same - except for the number of Americans on the newly planned "Wall".

Divinus Arma

12-18-2005, 16:10

Remember: the Republicans control the government; the Supreme Court, the House, and the Presidency. And they won't like to show themselves as weak to (some of) their voters who "hate the traitorous Left."

Uhm. No. The Democrats control the Supreme Court. Observe:

Conservatives:
Thomas
Scalia
Roberts
O'Conner, soon to be Alito

Liberals:
Ginsberg
Souter
Kennedy
Stephens
Breyer

And you will notice that it is along these party lines that the wrecthed liberals have managed to pass this heinous treacherous horrific ruling.
Washigton Post Article (article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html)
Kelo v. City of New London , No. 04-108. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108)
Off topic, but you would imagine that "evil" big business and therefore, republican support, would be dominant here, right? Wrong. Proof of the liberal elite. They say that government knows what is best, not free individuals. Taking homes away from the poor just to give the land to the rich. Truly hypocritical and a national disgrace. This ruling represents the elimination of private property rights in the U.S. because any company can take land away from the working class simply because it will increase the tax base and stimulate the economy. Blight is one thing. This is something far more dangerous to freedom and wholly socialist. It means that no one has property rights. Period. The government may take your property and give it another private individual if he can make more money from the land!

This is why I hate the libs. And BTW, I don't give a crap about abortion, and neither do alot of conservatives. I care about the misinterpretation of the constitution to serve a political agenda. The liberals, or "progressives" as the term they like to now hide behind, want to interpret the constituion to serve the prevailing mood of the era. The miracle of the constituion is its ability to govern despite temporary social trends. It is the rock of the nation, an anchor of our society. We should not be so quick to bend it excessively because of "modern" concepts. The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew how it has been raped. And remember, I WAS a Democrat! I WAS a working class stiff who favored broader government authority! And I am NOT a religious zealot. My interest is in civil liberties and limited government. I am not wholly pleased with many Republican policy issues, but work within the party to promote the most conservative of agendas. Sodomy laws, homosexual laws, and abortion laws all represent a gross intrusion into freedom. Conservatives should be politically conservative, NOT socially conservative.

Oh and on topic: SFTS: We STILL have troops in Germany and Japan. Ten years is nothing. Us spoiled Americans live in a consumer oriented, throw-away, instant gratification society. The modern generation is used to getting its way and getting it NOW. Any military effort of worth in recent decades has required a sustained commitment to victory: WWI, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Muslim nation mini-wars of Bosnia, Kosovo and etc. The GWOT is no different.

Okay. That is the end of my rant.
I will go back to lurking again.

AntiochusIII

12-18-2005, 22:12

And you will notice that it is along these party lines that the wrecthed liberals have managed to pass this heinous treacherous horrific ruling.
Washigton Post Article (article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html)
Kelo v. City of New London , No. 04-108. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108)Perhaps you forget that the outrage against that ruling wasn't along party lines at all. Traitorous liberals... :san_rolleyes: This decision clearly supports the business, no? Remember: if the decision to evoke the power of eminent domain better benefits the public, i.e. taxes...

Guess what makes more taxes? Offices and shops, or people's homes?

Off topic, but you would imagine that "evil" big business and therefore, republican support, would be dominant here, right? Wrong. Proof of the liberal elite. They say that government knows what is best, not free individuals. Taking homes away from the poor just to give the land to the rich. Truly hypocritical and a national disgrace. This ruling represents the elimination of private property rights in the U.S. because any company can take land away from the working class simply because it will increase the tax base and stimulate the economy. Blight is one thing. This is something far more dangerous to freedom and wholly socialist. It means that no one has property rights. Period. The government may take your property and give it another private individual if he can make more money from the land!The liberal elite? :san_laugh: If there is one I'd like to see; and please, real liberal elites, not political elites who like to ride behind the people's voice just to gain votes.

Sorry, but this is NOT a liberal decision at all, not by any non-deragatory definitions; the ones not used by Pat Robertson, you know.

Also, it is my understanding (that could be very, very wrong -- correct me if I am) that the power of eminent domain has an ancient root and that similar powers could be found in British common laws; I also believe (might be wrong, badly) that the power has long been established for centuries until recently (in legal terms) removed and then reinstated in Kelo vs City of New London.

This is why I hate the libs.Hatred... :san_laugh:

No doubt you'll make a good patriot...like the ones in the Revolutionary War, you know...

Hate thy neighbors, or oppress them, if they are too friendly with the Redcoats. Or the libs, in modern times.

And BTW, I don't give a crap about abortion, and neither do alot of conservatives. I care about the misinterpretation of the constitution to serve a political agenda. The liberals, or "progressives" as the term they like to now hide behind, want to interpret the constituion to serve the prevailing mood of the era. The miracle of the constituion is its ability to govern despite temporary social trends. It is the rock of the nation, an anchor of our society. We should not be so quick to bend it excessively because of "modern" concepts. The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew how it has been raped.We might as well reinstitute slavery if you take that mindset, mind you. And why should we not listen to what the people has to say?
And remember, I WAS a Democrat! I WAS a working class stiff who favored broader government authority! And I am NOT a religious zealot. My interest is in civil liberties and limited government. I am not wholly pleased with many Republican policy issues, but work within the party to promote the most conservative of agendas. Sodomy laws, homosexual laws, and abortion laws all represent a gross intrusion into freedom. Conservatives should be politically conservative, NOT socially conservative.And you support the Republican party, which lately has been a voice for the "Morality Right" or whatever they called themselves (Christian Right?). I can't blame you that much, though. The opposition party doesn't have a clear opposing standpoint. They just can't take the liberal position if only because the magical spin caused "liberals" to be a bad word nowadays, as your words gladly show.

Oh and on topic: SFTS: We STILL have troops in Germany and Japan. Ten years is nothing. Us spoiled Americans live in a consumer oriented, throw-away, instant gratification society. The modern generation is used to getting its way and getting it NOW. Any military effort of worth in recent decades has required a sustained commitment to victory: WWI, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Muslim nation mini-wars of Bosnia, Kosovo and etc. The GWOT is no different.Let's see...

The bases in Germany seems to be used as springboards for Middle Eastern/Balkans operations; the strategic value of the garrison themselves is limited to that. The Germans aren't going to start a new war very soon, with or without the US garrison.

The forces in Japan are stationed there not to keep Japan in check. If yes, why would the US pressure Japan to build a military once again, with Japanese resistance, nonetheless? They stayed there to keep an eye on China, I suppose.

So I guess you could say they have value...but I don't either countries fought back against the American occupiers so ferociously like Iraq, no?

WWI: you can't possibly compare this to Iraq. It was a major--the largest war yet--in Europe. America, in fact, held back (even though leaned towards the allies) for years until the public mood turned to conflict. America, in fact, entered the war against an exhausted Central Powers. It had much to gain from victory, and it did.

WWII: Hitler's blitzkrieg on Europe no doubt left America uneasy; what else, it's Pearl Harbor, an open effort by a country to attack America, that put the nation into war. Don't compare that to 9/11, where it is a terrorist network's effort. And don't give me crap about Saddam's ties to bin Laden.

Korea: An international effort spearheaded by the US against a direct, open, dangerous invasion of Korea by the Chinese forces following Truman's anti-Communist rhetoric and the "Red Threat" still hot and young. How is that similar to Iraq, considering a clear objective in Korea from the start?

Vietnam: was a failure. And please, don't blame the activists. Cowards do that. Even then, America's efforts aren't pre-emptive. They entered to keep South Vietnam alive from Communist North Vietnam's invasions; apart from all the "conspiracy" involved. That was the goal.

The Balkans: there was a huge civil war, a mess, in the Balkans. Again, the effort was NATO's. Don't tell me it was a perfect job, either. Nonetheless, there was a clear goal: to bring order to a completely messed-up area near the homes of many NATO leaders.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a pre-emptive invasion based on inconclusive evidence and screwed-up reasons against a sitting duck that allowed extremists in the Arab world a golden opportunity to enter that nation and make a mess out of it and the world. What is the goal there? "Democracy," "Liberty," "Iraqi Freedom..." HA! With all the torture, assassinations, the new Sharia Constitution, the split, and all those troubles, I don't see our Western ideals embraced at all.

And I opposed the war from the start...while I was still not in America, and my opinion concides with many. The world knew this war is bull from the start. Now you can find reasons to attack by unpatriotic-ness because I am not one of the citizens of this country now, if you wish.

Geoffrey S

12-18-2005, 23:25

Bugger, could have sworn I posted a lengthy and well-reasoned post here on the nature of Republicans and Democrats. But it seems I didn't, and I can't be arsed to do so again. So just assume I was right, and you were all wrong. :yes:

Divinus Arma

12-19-2005, 04:08

Perhaps you forget that the outrage against that ruling wasn't along party lines at all. Traitorous liberals... :san_rolleyes: This decision clearly supports the business, no? Remember: if the decision to evoke the power of eminent domain better benefits the public, i.e. taxes...

Guess what makes more taxes? Offices and shops, or people's homes?
The liberal elite? :san_laugh: If there is one I'd like to see; and please, real liberal elites, not political elites who like to ride behind the people's voice just to gain votes.

Sorry, but this is NOT a liberal decision at all, not by any non-deragatory definitions; the ones not used by Pat Robertson, you know.

Also, it is my understanding (that could be very, very wrong -- correct me if I am) that the power of eminent domain has an ancient root and that similar powers could be found in British common laws; I also believe (might be wrong, badly) that the power has long been established for centuries until recently (in legal terms) removed and then reinstated in Kelo vs City of New London.
Hatred... :san_laugh:

No doubt you'll make a good patriot...like the ones in the Revolutionary War, you know...

Hate thy neighbors, or oppress them, if they are too friendly with the Redcoats. Or the libs, in modern times.
We might as well reinstitute slavery if you take that mindset, mind you. And why should we not listen to what the people has to say?And you support the Republican party, which lately has been a voice for the "Morality Right" or whatever they called themselves (Christian Right?). I can't blame you that much, though. The opposition party doesn't have a clear opposing standpoint. They just can't take the liberal position if only because the magical spin caused "liberals" to be a bad word nowadays, as your words gladly show.
Let's see...

The bases in Germany seems to be used as springboards for Middle Eastern/Balkans operations; the strategic value of the garrison themselves is limited to that. The Germans aren't going to start a new war very soon, with or without the US garrison.

The forces in Japan are stationed there not to keep Japan in check. If yes, why would the US pressure Japan to build a military once again, with Japanese resistance, nonetheless? They stayed there to keep an eye on China, I suppose.

So I guess you could say they have value...but I don't either countries fought back against the American occupiers so ferociously like Iraq, no?

WWI: you can't possibly compare this to Iraq. It was a major--the largest war yet--in Europe. America, in fact, held back (even though leaned towards the allies) for years until the public mood turned to conflict. America, in fact, entered the war against an exhausted Central Powers. It had much to gain from victory, and it did.

WWII: Hitler's blitzkrieg on Europe no doubt left America uneasy; what else, it's Pearl Harbor, an open effort by a country to attack America, that put the nation into war. Don't compare that to 9/11, where it is a terrorist network's effort. And don't give me crap about Saddam's ties to bin Laden.

Korea: An international effort spearheaded by the US against a direct, open, dangerous invasion of Korea by the Chinese forces following Truman's anti-Communist rhetoric and the "Red Threat" still hot and young. How is that similar to Iraq, considering a clear objective in Korea from the start?

Vietnam: was a failure. And please, don't blame the activists. Cowards do that. Even then, America's efforts aren't pre-emptive. They entered to keep South Vietnam alive from Communist North Vietnam's invasions; apart from all the "conspiracy" involved. That was the goal.

The Balkans: there was a huge civil war, a mess, in the Balkans. Again, the effort was NATO's. Don't tell me it was a perfect job, either. Nonetheless, there was a clear goal: to bring order to a completely messed-up area near the homes of many NATO leaders.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a pre-emptive invasion based on inconclusive evidence and screwed-up reasons against a sitting duck that allowed extremists in the Arab world a golden opportunity to enter that nation and make a mess out of it and the world. What is the goal there? "Democracy," "Liberty," "Iraqi Freedom..." HA! With all the torture, assassinations, the new Sharia Constitution, the split, and all those troubles, I don't see our Western ideals embraced at all.

And I opposed the war from the start...while I was still not in America, and my opinion concides with many. The world knew this war is bull from the start. Now you can find reasons to attack by unpatriotic-ness because I am not one of the citizens of this country now, if you wish.

You never addressed my first point, which is that the Supreme Court is liberal dominated 5-4. Would you like to retract your statement, or can you show me a series of rulings that reflect the "conservative" nature of any of these five?

Fact: Eminent Domain in the United States could previously only be undertaken in two instances: (a) blight or (b) public use, such as highways, etc. Never before has any body of the government said that eminent domain is justified as this ruling has established. The fact of the matter is that with this ruling any private party can take another's land and real estate if the new owner will develop it in a way that generates more tax revenue.

My assertion: We see the very beginnings of this now, but certainly you must see the consequences? This ruling has completely eliminated private land ownership in the United States!

Fact: The Supreme Court decided this right along ideological lines. Sandra Day O'Connor clearly expressed her outrage through her dissenting opinion over what this ruling means for private property rights. Read it. This is a fact, not my opinion.

My assertion: The problem here is the ideology behind the Democratic Party. When leaning to the left, the government takes on socialist policy. This ruling is socialist to the bone! It has nothing to do with gain for businesses, it has to do with "what is best for society". When I say liberal elite, I am refering to the core foundation of modern liberal social theory, i,e,: redistribution of wealth.

Let's make some distinctions here if I am to continue this conversation, shall we? In my vocabulary, the terms liberal and conservative refer to two seperate social concepts: (1) Constitutional interpretation, and (2) A collective body of national understanding including values, ethics, existential perspective, and the various theories on social responsibility, social interaction, etc, which I will just term here as "culture". constituional interpretation and culture are not mutually exclusive and an individual can be liberal in both or liberal in one and conservative in the other.

It is unfortunate that we (and I am included here) do not make the distinction between constitutional interpretation and culture for the purposes of political social theory. It has been left to the party leadership to define for themselves what is in the party's best interest in relation to American political motivation. More justly, Americans would decide the party tilt. In other words, Americans are left to choose between a turd sandwich and a giant douche because we cannot choose how a party will "lean".

I am a pure constitutional conservative. It is my opinion that culture is secondary to the constitution, not the other way around. Because of this, I have a problem with dramatic constitutional interpretations that attempt to meet the needs of a "modern" society. This is succinctly expressed in Scalia's originalism.

Because Conservatives place constituional interpretation before culture, we view liberals through the light of constitutional interpretation. This is why conservatives are so outraged over liberals.

Conversely, liberals place culture before the constitution, believing that the constituion should be interpreted to meet the prevailing collective opinion on social theory. Thus, Liberals view conservatives through culture first. Liberals see "the religious right" and pro-life and other socially restrictive concepts and instituions as being culturally conservative.

If you can attempt to view the concept of conservativism as applying to the constitution instead of culture, you may find yourself exposed to a whole new perspective of thought.

Or not. In which case we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Divinus Arma

12-21-2005, 23:34

Bump.

Well?

Adrian II

12-21-2005, 23:43

Bump.

Well?God, we have another jojo.

"I'm lurking. Now I'm posting! Now I'm lurking again. Now I'm posting. I can't stand the Backroom. I love the Backroom. I'm hibernating, guys. Look, I'm out of hibernation!"

What's it gonna be, Mr Flip-flop? :san_rolleyes:

Goofball

12-22-2005, 01:17

Uhm. No. The Democrats control the Supreme Court. Observe:

Conservatives:
Thomas
Scalia
Roberts
O'Conner, soon to be Alito

Liberals:
Ginsberg
Souter
Kennedy
Stephens
Breyer

Uhm. No. Observe:

Thomas: Appointed by a Republican (Bush Sr.)
Scalia: Appointed by a Republican (Reagan)
Roberts: Appointed by a Republican (Bush Jr.)
O'Connor: Appointed by a Republican (Reagan)
Ginsberg: Appointed by a Democrat (Clinton)
Souter: Appointed by a Republican (Bush Sr.)
Kennedy: Appointed by a Republican (Reagan)
Stephens: Appointed by a Republican (Ford)
Breyer: Appointed by a Democrat (Clinton)

It's interesting that you claim the Democrats "control" SCOTUS there are only two Democrat nominees out of a total of nine currently sitting on the Court.

:san_rolleyes:

What is happening on the Supreme Court is what is supposed to happen: the Justices are rendering their decisions based on whether or not they believe the decisions are in keeping with the Constitution, regardless of who gave them the job. The SC is not supposed to vote along party lines.

Unfortunately, Republicans can't seem to get this through their heads.

Proletariat

12-22-2005, 01:30

Unfortunately, Republicans can't seem to get this through their heads.

The liberal judges on the bench decided personal property bedamned, big government can and will own your property as they see fit. It doesn't matter who appointed who. The fact that the Republicans have appointed many moderates and left-leaning judges means nothing here. This became a right/left issue when all the left members of the SCOTUS decided private property can be seized any time the government can make more cash off of it than they can with you there.

Don't even bother bringing up the Constitution here, it's ignorant. Anyone who's familiar with the Constitution and the history of this nation knows that freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom to worship the moon fairies, all were icing on the cake after securing the right to own your own property.

The scumbags who voted in favor of this ruling should be waterboarded and so should Bush for considering another possible Souter with his personal lawyer stunt.

Kaiser of Arabia

12-22-2005, 03:57

i prefer these I'm sorry (http://sorryagain.com/)-ies....
Which is why we should grant CA independance, say they seceeded, then bomb them.

Problem Solved.

Divinus Arma

12-22-2005, 04:04

1st point:
4 or 5 posts in one thread worth hitting up and a total of maybe 6 or 7 in the last couple of months compared against my usual 10+ per viewing day. Even the moderators could probably tell you that my actual lurking/thread-viewing status has taken a gigantic dump. I thought this was a conversation worth getting into. So there.:san_tongue:

2nd (and more important) point:

The idea that a Republican or Democrat put a judge on the bench is irrelevant when you look at the rulings they make. Souter is the Republican rallying cry for more careful judicial nominations. This is a perfect example of a Republican pick who instantly went left once on the bench.

The idea that Kennedy, Souter, and Stephens are conservative simply because a republican nominated them is absolutley groundless. You are essentially arguing that because they were picked by the GOP, therefore every ruling they make is somehow conservative, regardless of how they came to their conclusions, what the results of the rulings were, and how the constitution was interpreted. So EVERY ruling these justices make are AUTOMATICALLY conservative and republican leaning simply because they were picked by the republican party years and years ago?!?!

I don't mean to be offensive here, but your argument displays a very real lack of understanding in regards to constitutional interpretation.

When justices begin to make assumptions and stretch constitutional application to fit an ideological point of view, they are then liberally interpreting the document regardless of original or stated party affiliation.

The expansion of federal power under the commerce clause is a perfect example of liberal interpretation The ruling makes the assumption that the federal government has the power to regulate commerce both between the states and within the states, regardless of whether interstate activity transpired or could transpire. They concluded that because the activity may affect trade between the states, it therefore falls under one of the enumerated powers of the federal government: the commerce clause.

The commerce clause states that the federal government has the limited power:
"to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes".

Regulate commerce among the states. Among. Not activity within an individual state where no interstate activity occurs. Among.

Does this make sense goofball? If not, then please explain to me how the current sitting justices represent a conservative majority. I'll stick around provided this stays interesting. Not that anyone gives a rats arse.

Soulforged

12-22-2005, 05:43

This became a right/left issue when all the left members of the SCOTUS decided private property can be seized any time the government can make more cash off of it than they can with you there.If the issue navigates between left and right tendences, and talking about Courtrooms, then there's a bigger problem than any ruling.
This non-private property amazes me, but being a capitalist economy that will not last much longer, the law will fall in desuse, it will become useless because it ignores a prime material reality, the economic one. Everything that's not just tends to fall very quickly.

Goofball

12-22-2005, 18:34

The idea that Kennedy, Souter, and Stephens are conservative simply because a republican nominated them is absolutley groundless. You are essentially arguing that because they were picked by the GOP, therefore every ruling they make is somehow conservative, regardless of how they came to their conclusions, what the results of the rulings were, and how the constitution was interpreted. So EVERY ruling these justices make are AUTOMATICALLY conservative and republican leaning simply because they were picked by the republican party years and years ago?!?!

If you are going to create a straw man, at least creat one that has some resemblence to what I actually said. I was simply responding to your claim that (and I quote you here, so there can be no confusion):

The Democrats control the Supreme Court.

I made no claims about whether individual Justices were right or left leaning; conservative or liberal. I simply pointed out that 7 of the 9 were Republican appointees, therefor any claim that the Democrats "control" the SC is simply sublime in its idiocy.

I don't mean to be offensive here, but your argument displays a very real lack of understanding in regards to constitutional interpretation.

Perhaps, if my argument actually was what you were trying to make it out to be.

I personally think that your arguments display a very real lack of understanding about how your own Supreme Court functions. Your statement that a political party controls the SC is just ludicrous. No political party controls the SC, beyond what little influence they can exert by trying to nominate Justices they believe to be "friendly" to their cause.

SC Justices are appointed for life. Once they attain the position, they need have no loyalty to whomever it was that appointed them, and they don't have to worry about getting reelected. They are beholden to no political party. This leaves them free (as I said before) to make rulings that they believe are in keeping with the Constitution. You may disagree with their decisions (as do I, especially with respect to the property rights issue), but I still maintain that they each believe they are making the right decisions based on the Constitution.

So please stop trying to sell this "Democrats control the SC" crap. It just makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about, and based on some of your other posts I know that's not really the case.

Divinus Arma

12-23-2005, 09:49

I made no claims about whether individual Justices were right or left leaning; conservative or liberal. I simply pointed out that 7 of the 9 were Republican appointees, therefor any claim that the Democrats "control" the SC is simply sublime in its idiocy.

Very well. I will correct my original point: The liberals control SCOTUS. And I make this judgment based on their rulings exclusively.

I personally think that your arguments display a very real lack of understanding about how your own Supreme Court functions. Your statement that a political party controls the SC is just ludicrous. No political party controls the SC, beyond what little influence they can exert by trying to nominate Justices they believe to be "friendly" to their cause.

SC Justices are appointed for life. Once they attain the position, they need have no loyalty to whomever it was that appointed them, and they don't have to worry about getting reelected. They are beholden to no political party. This leaves them free (as I said before) to make rulings that they believe are in keeping with the Constitution.

I have to disagree with you on much of this, but not all. An ideological persuasion controls SCOTUS and that ideological persuasion is the foundation of the Democratic party. The court is ruled by leftist thinking, the Democrats are leftists, so therefore Democrats have the greater influence within SCOTUS than do Republicans. I agree with you that that they are beholden to no party because they are unelectable, a critical component of the checks and balances within our government despite what some would say about it now. However, their ideological perspective of culture and society in relation to the constitution still makes the Supreme Court a Left-dominated government entity. They are Democrats in all but name; walks like a duck, etc.

You may disagree with their decisions (as do I, especially with respect to the property rights issue), but I still maintain that they each believe they are making the right decisions based on the Constitution.

I completely concur with this statement. I do not believe that any within the court are actively seeking the anihilation of the United States. Are they making the right decisions? That is for them to decide and us to despise.

So please stop trying to sell this "Democrats control the SC" crap. It just makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about, and based on some of your other posts I know that's not really the case.

See the above argument. Constitutional-Cultural Liberals control the Supreme Court. These Republican justices are party affiliated in name only. The rulings of the recent court do not represent the tenets of Republican governance theory.

Divinus Arma

12-23-2005, 10:10

So DA, what percentage of Americans do you believe are rooting for America's failure? Just curious. I'd love to hear a number, and not just about The Liberals, whom you seem to have an intimate understanding of.

I am, of course, refering to the public figures within the Democratic Party. There are exceptions, such as Lieberman.

The "grass roots" liberal is usually just a social liberal and simply desires more civil liberties and a little oversight of capitalism. I believe that many of these individuals would actually find themselves to be constituionally conservative.

After all, if you are a strict constitutional conservative, then you will almost automatically become a social liberal. Why? The constitution does not define marriage. So let polygamy and homsexuality be embraced. The constitution grants the Federal government enumerated powers. The bastardization of the Commerce clause via the Supremacy clause has resulted in the "enumeration" of a limitless power to interfere in State Affairs. Gay marriage, drug laws, prostitution, pornography, laws of indecency: These are state affairs and the federal government has no place here.

Most "liberals" fear and distrust Republicans and the blanket term "conservatives" because they view them as socially conservative only. I too take issue with social conservatives because they are willing to rape the Constitution in order to force their existential values upon others. These social conservatives are blind liberals under the banner of conservatism. They don't even realize that they are liberals all the while screaming about how they hate liberals!

From now on, I will address apples as apples and oranges as oranges. Never again will I put the fruit in the same basket. This discussion has shown me the error of this thinking. I will define my issues with conservative/liberal cultural-constitutional perspectives in mind.