Sigh
February 26th, 2006 - 10:41 pm
Charlie Munn (politely) disagrees with my assessment of Iraq – and gives me a lot of things to think about.
If only those on the left would do more than insult and inflame (but let’s not inflame the Muslims!), then maybe they’d be an actual part of the national debate.
Well I can see that you’re propertly chastized by the commenters who told you how evil you are. Hey, I liked the lady who said that Saddam was only “semi-sucky.” That was a winner for sure.
For the other… yes. That is what it means to have a discussion, and it’s a very good thing.
I sent a copy/past from Wizbang to my folks. Looks like the people over there understand what’s important better than we often give them credit for.
I must say, Tbogg’s commenters are as articulate as they are thoughtful and well-informed.
I’ve spent 17 months in Iraq, working for the CPA in 03-04 and on reconstruction contracts for a couple of tours since. I probably am a “liberal” by your definition, and a retired reserve officer.
I’m in Iraq now, Green Zone Baghdad. I was listening to mortar fire yesterday afternoon. They (Sunnis? Ba’athists? someone else?) were shelling the neighborhood of one of my Iraqi co-workers, I later learned. I’m waiting for him to come into work now, he’s usually very early.
Not to mention whether we have to worry how, if the shit really hits the fan here, we are going to get out. The helicopter-off-of-the-roof-of-the-embassy theme is a recurrent mordant joke here.
Of course, this is the fruit of this undermanned and underresourced war, always on the razor’s edge of ruin, while Rumsfeld and Bush spout their happy horseshit. The thing is, it could have gone so much better with competent people in charge who followed the Weinberger and Powell doctrines, rather than the marginal and disorganized effort this has been from the beginning. I’ve always said one of the problems with this is that it is run by people whose philosophy is anti-goverment, and it is a situation where government is needed. They are not like the New Dealers who helped rebuild Europe and Japan. But hey, “stuff happens.”
Yes, I know that you might agree with me on that, but why not place the blame where it lies, instead of talking about how civil war might be a good thing.
The idea that some people might find your schadenfreude about an incipient civil war “insult[ing] or inflam[ing]” does not seem to occur to you.
You, apparently a military age male, follow that post with one talking about how much fun paintball is. Yes, shooting as a game, your fun war metaphor.
I suggest you apply for a direct commission in Army Reserve Civil Affairs, they need people desperately. You might also be able to get a job with a contractor on one of the reconstruction projects, maybe the new Regional Reconstruction Teams. Then you might learn that this shit is in earnest, not some parlor word game.
Listen, Vodkapundit [I can just feel the ego behind that name], it’s amazing how you knowingly inflame people with the things you say, so you’ll get to accuse them of insulting and inflaming you, and then point out that if “those on the left” were *polite* (like you and the like-minded, of course) then there would be an actual national debate. Please!
I think I’d rather have someone call me names or insult my intelligence than have some white boy who’s had a typically easy life and who lives half a world away decide that any number – if not most – of the people in my country are expendable (in the big picture as drawn by neo-con white boys) and we’d save him a lot of mental energy if we’d just kill each other quicker.
Now THAT opinion, *NeedsAA*pundit, is truly insulting.
And by the way, are you hetro and under 40 years old? Why haven’t you stumbled down to the recruiting station and signed up for this Glorious War on Terror and truly supported the cause that you have wanted others to support? Perhaps it could be you on the front lines in Iraq, deflecting those car bombs with your ego, shooting any number of brown people, and getting to be right in the middle of the civil war that you have determined is the “good news.”
But that would take some stones, and who needs stones when you have a keyboard?
Conservatives are an interesting bunch — callous enough to suggest that an international Muslim “civil war” resulting in thousands, if not millions, of innocent deaths wouldn’t actually be that bad, yet the minute a liberal dares to suggest how horrible this is, they’re pouting about getting “insulted.”
If you can’t take the heat, etc. . . .
I weep openly for your battered senses. We all know Filed Marshall Rumsfeld and Co. had things going just so swimmingly before this shit started.
The dead giveaway that someone isn’t interested in having a real discussion about the war on terror is when they throw out the “Why don’t you go put on a uniform” comment. When you have nothing to say, make it seem like anyone you disagree with isn’t qualified to have an opinion. That tactic got old a few years ago, maybe if the left had some ideas they might be able to develop a message that resonates.
Ah! So that’s what it’s called. The national debate.
An here I thought it was the delusional ass-covering circle-jerk after cheering wildly for the most collossally stupid decision in U.S. presidential history.
Thanks for the correction.
When you have nothing to say, make it seem like anyone you disagree with isn’t qualified to have an opinion.
No Jeff, that’s not what the chickenhawk argument is about at all. It’s about being a hypocritcal coward. Even hypocritical cowards are qualified to have opinions, as you so ably demonstrate.
Nobody – on what do you base your determinination that I am a hypocritical coward? Because I disagree with your crowd? Trust me, I certainly have the resume to be qualified to speak about the war no matter how anyone defines qualified. Funny how you jump right to that statement without having a clue.
Jeff,
Here’s what resonates off you:
1) you voted for Bush – twice;
2) you’d never, never consider enlisting in any branch of military service, but;
3) you would secretly hope that other men (and women) would enlist now, for Iraq, so the choices you’ve made might play out better.
Because it’s all about appearances, baby.
Now for the truth:
1) I voted for Bush twice – the second time by absentee ballot because I was not in the country.
2) I joined ROTC in college and was commissioned in the Army in 1996 and left active duty after my four year obligation.
3) I spent 13 months in Iraq after I voluuntarily left the IRR and returned to a drilling status, because I felt like it was the right thing for me to do – got there at the start of March 04 and left at the end of March 05.
Does any of that make me more qualified than anyone else to speak about the war? No, by virtue of being an American I have the freedom to say whatever I want, and unlike your crowd I do not try to silence those who I feel are so desperatly wrong when it comes to our national security.
Trust me, I certainly have the resume to be qualified to speak about the war no matter how anyone defines qualified.
Oh, yeah. I forgot. You’ve published several works of short fiction in academic journals, and you “did graduate work.” How impressive.
Does any of that make me more qualified than anyone else to speak about the war? No, by virtue of being an American I have the freedom to say whatever I want, and unlike your crowd I do not try to silence those who I feel are so desperatly wrong when it comes to our national security.
Actually Jeff, what that info does is make you one of the FEW who may have a qualified opinion on Iraq (because, let’s face it, you were there), and should make you want to help both sides understand the situation instead of drawing lines in the sand. I’m sure that the soldiers serving under you were split between Republicans and Democrats – because you were an officer, right? So it really is your responsibility to remind the nation of the service that BOTH sides provide.
You’re right, everyone has a right to their opinion – on the Left as well as the Right. And as someone who leans to the left and who is completely disgusted with the way this Administration has handled our domestic and foreign affairs, beginning with bin Laden not being captured, I would hope that you realize there are too many men on the Right who call for someone else to fight their battles, leaders who deferred service to their country, or “personalities” on radio and TV (Fox News comes to mind) who talk big and bad, but would never think of sending their own kids or themselves into this mess.
And thank you for your service to our country. We appreciate your sacrifice.
Hey Nobody, you’re just a pathetic pimple on the ass of life. Go somewhere else ans spew your bile.
Sigh.
It is sooo unfair isn’t it, to be calmly discussing the deaths of thousands of people as a good thing only to be called rude names by those nasty liberals?
Why do they have to make it personal? All you did was post a good wank fanta^w^w^w^w^wdiscuss an interesting hypothetical development…
Hey lookee over there! A TERRIST! Get under the bed, quick!
Yes, I know that you might agree with me on that, but why not place the blame where it lies, instead of talking about how civil war might be a good thing.
That’s funny… I seem to recall him saying it would be a bad thing. Hang on, let me see if I can find it… yeah, here it is.
An Iraqi Civil War would be a disaster. Every bit of reconstruction, every small gesture of friendship between peoples and sects, every last chance of keeping Iraq viable and whole
And the dodge to address a single point about both this idiotic, monsterous war AND the psychotic idea that ‘this civil war could work out to our advantage’ is to whine about civility and the dred ‘chickenhawk’ argument.
Answer the question Jeff — What do you believe? That civil war would be a good thing? That there’s something salvagable in Iraq now? Come on, you’re tossing around your credentials, give us an argument. And try doing it without blaming the media or the Democrats.
Those opposed to this ruinous war
(((((((((crickets chirping))))))))
Iraq: What’s Worse than Civil War? Civil War with 130,000 Americans On the Ground
…The hope is, of course, that Iraqi political leaders and clerics will succeed in their call for calm, securing a hiatus in widescale sectarian bloodshed. If that happens, we need to look seriously at whether there’s any justification for continuing to put American troops at risk. The Administration’s “strategy” – after dozens of reformulations and refinements – is failing. Its possible that the tactics being used now could have worked if adopted earlier, but they aren’t equal to righting Iraq in its present condition. With a losing strategy, we will not succeed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzanne-nossel/iraq-whats-worse-than-_b_16415.html
Jeff sez:
. . . unlike your crowd I do not try to silence those who I feel are so desperatly wrong when it comes to our national security.
Beg your pardon? When did any of us try to silence you?
All we’re doing is disagreeing with you and saying that you’re wrong — same thing you’re doing to us, looks like — yet apparently that’s all it takes for you to launch into a Scarlett O’Hara fainting spell and whine about being “silenced.”
But thanks for basically proving everything I said in my earlier comment. For folks who claim to be so strong on security and national defense, y’all sure are a delicate bunch of little flowers.
drunkasspundit:
“how dare you make unfounded statements that hurt my feelings, you obviously aren’t part of us partaking in the national debate about the issues of the day. now please read my next post on the possible positives to come from a nuclear war (millions dead / less hassle for parking!) and the profound sickness of max payne. engage in the national debate bitches!”
http://www.djpauledge.com/wewillnotbesilenced/
click ‘play’
“To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men”
- Abraham Lincoln
You know Jeff, while you did serve, and thanks to you for doing that and I hope you came home helathy without the need for benefits that the GOP is cutting, the point was VP and other chickenhawks keep cheering on the war while refusing to serve. Most of the Republicans in the House and Senate never did serve, never would serve, but will gladly send other young men to die. VP will will cheer, and think paintball is a really cool game, but will not put his ass where his mouth is. The Army needs men badly, and if he supports the war, he should go serve. And I am sorry, but if you still support the war and feel we should be fighting, you should be over their helping the troops who are stuck there. That would be supporting the troops. That would be putting patriotic action behind your beliefs. There are kids who do not want to be over there, and you could take their place.
And lets be serious, as an officer, your service was a bit different from others who served- “Don’t call me ‘Sir,’ I work for a living.” Rarely is an officer being shot at. I would be interested to know where you saw combat?
“And lets be serious, as an officer, your service was a bit different from others who served-”Don’t call me ‘Sir,’ I work for a living.” Rarely is an officer being shot at.”
Are you on crack?
Jesus Mary and Joseph, who linked to this post? Chickenhawks? officers aren’t really in the military?
No really, where are the trolls coming from?
GTTIM,
PLEASE don’t denigrate the service GIVEN to our country by officers or enlisted folks. Both are necessary and both can cause death and permanent disabilities. Duh?
(I think that comment was posted by a chickenhawk wanting to make liberals look bad, btw.)
“Don’t call me ‘Sir,’ I work for a living.”
Jesus. Did you see that line in a movie? Don’t act like you know anything about it because you’ve see movies.
Beg your pardon? When did any of us try to silence you?
By claiming that no one has a right to advocate war unless he’s in the military.
It’s a bullshit argument. I could just as easily argue that no one has a right to be anti-war unless he’s in the military. After all, are you qualified to say whether or not country X is a threat to us? What do you know about their military capabilities, their secret weapons programs, etc?
Have you proven that you’re not advocating peace just because you’re to scared to fight? It’s pretty damn easy to call men cowards when your political opinions automatically let you off the hook from joining up. Under what circumstances would you join the military to fight for your country? Under what circumstances do you believe this country has a right and a moral obligation to defend itself? Being a chickendove doesn’t give you a moral advantage over a chickenhawk. Being consistent about your cowardice doesn’t make you better than someone who is inconsistent about his bravery. At least the latter supports the men who were brave enough to go over and fight.
Anyone fighting in Iraq can feel to question my courage. The rest of you bitches need to shut up.
Yeah, ya gotta love the Powell doctrine, which amounts to “put on a good show and leave the problem for someone else to fix.”
doug
Being consistent about your cowardice doesn’t make you better than someone who is inconsistent about his bravery. At least the latter supports the men who were brave enough to go over and fight..
Wow. Just…Wow. Rarely can one person be so pig ignorant about so many things in such a short amount of space.
Just for the record, let me get it straight: those who opposed the war, and have subsequently had all of their concerns about the insanitity of it proven correct, are cowards?
But brave couch warriors like yourself are somehow braver because you support the volunteer’s right to get himself killed because of a monumentally stupid decision of the Commander in Chief?
Beyond that, by jumping on gttim’s statement about officers and grunts, you show how little you have to say about the main point of this: why would civil war be the least bad of all options? Why do still support this more than useless loss of American life? And, more than anything, how can you think this was, at any point, a good idea?
Being consistent about your cowardice doesn’t make you better than someone who is inconsistent about his bravery. At least the latter supports the men who were brave enough to go over and fight.
I believe the former supports the military – maybe MORE than the “latter.” Here’s how YOUR side “supports the troops:”
In a time of war the military (1) will get a 2.2% raise next year, which is the lowest increase since 1994 and well below the average for the last 10 years; (2) will see their benefits cut; (3) will see cuts in the army reserves to the lowest levels in 3 decades; (4) while watching billions more go down the unaccountability hole that is the DOD, spent on weapons systems and adding to the wealth of private contractors.
Bitch.
Damn boy you got the wackos going on this one.. lmao.
Well I don’t know if I agree completely but thanks for the post.
Doesn’t more weapons systems mean fewer people needed?
Drones can be run from any American city.
Won’t need as many battleships, either. Isn’t there something out there about a floating platform, but that was a few years ago.
Are you arguing for more American soldiers to be killed and less technology?
the military will get a 2.2% raise next year, which is the lowest increase since 1994
2.2% raise proposed by Bush: http://www.military.com/MilitaryReport/0,12914,87640,00.html
Will Congress override? Hopefully…
Just for the record, let me get it straight: those who opposed the war, and have subsequently had all of their concerns about the insanitity of it proven correct, are cowards?
Nothing “your side” has claimed about the war has turned out to be true. We were told that taking Baghdad would result in thousands of casualties. Nope. We were told a few days into the fighting that the offensive was stalled. Nope. Quagmire. Nope. Saddam has nothing to do with terrorism. Nope. Civil war. Not yet–keep hoping.
What does “your side” have to its credit? The WMD were not found. This is irrelevant for two reasons: 1) he had a whole year to hide them or move them out of the country; and 2) whether he had them or not, the only way we could find out for sure was by invading. He had never given a full accounting to the weapons inspectors, and had done everything he could to put them off and stall them.
The one thing I agree with that some of your people said in the beginning was that there were other countries that were more responsible for terrorism than Saddam: Syria, Saudi Arabia and especially Iran. I supported going into Iraq first because I knew that Bush would have no luck at all convincing our “allies” to sign up for a war with any of the other three, and he was too much of a wimp to go it alone. My hope was that Iraq would be just the first step to taking down Iran. If you were one of the people that argued that Iran made more sense as a target, then keep your fingers crossed–we may get our wish there soon.
Anyhow, it doesn’t matter. There was nothing, absolutely nothing Bush could have done that the anti-war crowd would have approved of. They hated him from day one, and it didn’t matter what he did, they would have declared it a disaster before it started, and they would have increased the chorus at every sign of trouble–just like is happening now with the bombing in Sammara.
I’ve been having this same argument with leftists for the past four years. It’s pointless. You guys need to wander back over to your side of the fence. There’s going to be no progress in the “national debate” here, because all you’ve come to do is bait the “loony Reps.”
Wow, this is quite some thread. Those who don’t serve in the military shouldn’t have an opinion on the war? I guess someone ought to tell George Clooney.
Hey, I’m not a policeman, so I guess I shouldn’t voice an opinion on whether we should fight crime. I’m not a doctor, so who am I to say that hospitals are a good idea?
But hey, at least these “progressive” “thinkers” have perfected the ad-hominem style of argument. Oh, and can they ever pile on the sanctimony.
“Don’t call me ‘Sir,’ I work for a living.”
“Jesus. Did you see that line in a movie? Don’t act like you know anything about it because you’ve see movies.”
lib — I went ahead and checked IMDB, because I was pretty sure that was Sgt. Hulka in Stripes. Pretty close:
“You don’t say ‘sir’ to me, I’m a sergeant, I work for a living.”
Hey, I’m not a policeman, so I guess I shouldn’t voice an opinion on whether we should fight crime. I’m not a doctor, so who am I to say that hospitals are a good idea?
Okay, you point? And since you’re NOT in the military, you’re advocating…
these comments should be a post unto itself, titled “Proving Steve’s Point.”
Yes, anony, it’s a real tough one to understand.
I’m not in the military, but in this case I’m advocating its use in Iraq. You can disagree, but don’t make the bogus claim that I’m not qualified to advocate when the military should be used, just because I don’t wear a uniform. It’s a stupid, ad-hominem argument that discredits you if you use it. Not to mention, automatically disqualifies all the non-military “anti-war” types as well, since they shouldn’t be voicing their opinion, either.
And being in favor of military intervention in Iraq while not serving in the military doesn’t make me a hypocrite, anymore than being in favor of public education while not being a teacher doesn’t make me a hypocrite. There are lots of jobs — in fact, 99% of all jobs in this world — that I think should be done, but that I personally don’t have the skills or desire to do.
I believe the former supports the military – maybe MORE than the “latter.” Here’s how YOUR side “supports the troops:”
Wrong.
First of all, I don’t have a side. I am not arguing for Bush or for the Republicans in Congress. I am arguing for my own point of view. If I were in charge of the budget, there would be no welfare, no farm subsidies, no corporate welfare, no medicare or medicaid, no set-asides, and we’d be phasing out social security. The one thing there would be is plenty of money to spend on the troops. That’s my point of view, and that’s the only one I will defend.
Second of all, if I had been in charge of the shock and awe campaign, they would have felt it in Paris. Our boys wouldn’t be slogging it out with insurgents on the ground, they would be digging people out of the rubble.
Third of all, the army isn’t a welfare program. The men who sign up know that, and while they want to get paid for their work, they don’t consider it “support” to keep them at home when there’s a war that needs to be fought.
And in that last sentence is the beginning and end of the whole disagreement. There is a war that needs to be fought. I believe that, and you don’t. Any other issue you drag into it is just fluff.
“Not to mention, automatically disqualifies all the non-military “anti-war” types as well, since they shouldn’t be voicing their opinion, either.”
No, that’s not it. You’re allowed to have an opinion; it just has to be the correct opinion. (Just like men don’t get thrown out of pro-choice rallies, but pro-life men are told their thoughts don’t count because they can’t get pregnant.)
So don’t worry about George Cloony. He’s Oscar-nominated in 3 categories.
The best part about gttm’s post was this:
And I am sorry, but if you still support the war and feel we should be fighting, you should be over their helping the troops who are stuck there. That would be supporting the troops. That would be putting patriotic action behind your beliefs. There are kids who do not want to be over there, and you could take their place.
The fact that Jeff volunteered for Iraq even though he was out of the Army, and served there for over 13 months, still isn’t enough for gttm. Jeff is still a chickenhawk! If he really believed in the war, he’d go back again!
This really speaks volumes. Gttm’s accusations have nothing do with Jeff, or Jeff’s hypocrisy or lack thereof; they are a reflection of gttm’s own inner struggle with cowardice.
I never used to think that antiwar liberals are cowards; that explanation seemed a little too easy, and besides, a lot of them are meterosexuals who don’t even seem to think in such terms.
But interestingly, there seem to be a lot of cowards out there. Not everyone who is opposed to the war is opposed out of fear, obviosuly, but this seems to me to be surprisingly common. A couple of years ago, I sent my resume to someone I knew who was working as a contractor over there and asked him to help me get a job with the CPA. I never told anyone about it, evne when people accused me of cowardice, etc. One day in the midst of an argument with a particularly shrill antiwar liberal who was making the usual accusations, I got tired of having my character questioned and told him that yes, I had indeed volunteered to go over there.
It wasn’t enough for that guy, either. Volunteering to work for the CPA, in Baghdad? That’s nothing. If I was really dedicated, I’d join the Army! I Not just the Army — the Special Forces. No, Delta Force! Etc.
The “chickenhawk” argument says a lot more about the antiwar crowd than it does about those support the war but aren’t in the military.
I’m not in the military, but in this case I’m advocating its use in Iraq.
I think the opinion that you express on this issue is a hypocritical one because 1)comparing military service in Iraq to public education / not being a teacher, or hopsitals / to not being a doctor is NOT comparable, as 2) the military is now over 2,285 deaths and thousands wounded – no arms, legs, eyes, etc. not to mention thousands of Iraqi citizens killed and maimed as well, for 3) what?
For what?
To advocate and promote your view that someone else SHOULD do something you would not consider doing yourself – or sending your own family to do – especially when it’s a life and death matter for those who are actually doing it, IS hypocrisy, E Nough.
Especially when you seem to advocate for purely political reasons. Stand by your man, and all of that.
Anony, as someone who is serving, I can say with a confident level of certainty that you are full of crap.
Calling someone a “chickenhawk” is faster-than-light way to get yourself labeled a bonehead.
Especially when you seem to advocate for purely political reasons. Stand by your man, and all of that.
This absolutely kills me. The ONLY reason I voted for Bush in 2004 was because the Democrats nominated an anti-war, faux “war hero.” If they had been able to nominate someone who actually believed in the war–like Lieberman, or like Edwards did until he lost the primary–I could have voted against Bush with a glad heart. Instead, they nominated Kerry, who was going to do exactly what he did in Vietnam: hang out for three months, collect his purple heart and go home.
I am anti-Bush, but pro-war. He has done nothing but disappoint me with his domestic failures. That stupid thing with Schiavo lost him every bit of his mandate to reform social security. My only solace is that Kerry would have been an even huger disaster.
You guys don’t know how lucky you are that he didn’t get elected. Four years of Carter kept you out of the White House for 12 yrs. Four years of Kerry would have kept you out for 20. Trust me, there are worse Republicans than Bush standing in line, and you’re going to need some credibility when you have to fight them. Kerry would have poisoned the well for a long time.
The only real difference between the filthy leftists and traitors is that traitors are not necessarily cowards as well.
You moonbats aren’t peace-lovers; you are simply anti-american, but to yellow to take up arms against us.
2.2% raise proposed by Bush: http://www.military.com/MilitaryReport/0,12914,87640,00.html
Your complaint is based on a lack of understanding of the process. Bush did not propose the raise, the Pentagon did. And the Pentagon can only propose raises in accordance with the law.
And what has typically happened after the Pentagon has made its raise recommendations?
Please be kind to anony, he’s emailing from the front lines in Afghanistan.
Either that or he’s a chickenhawk.
To advocate and promote your view that someone else SHOULD do something you would not consider doing yourself – or sending your own family to do – especially when it’s a life and death matter for those who are actually doing it, IS hypocrisy, E Nough.
How do you know what anyone has considered? How do you know whether the person you are arguing with is physically capable of being in the military, or of the right age, or anything else? You simply use the argument to put the person on the defensive, and regardless of what they say, you can knock it down–even if they say they have served, as Jeff did above.
It’s nothing but an ad hominem attack meant to shut people up. It has nothing to do with whether the war is right or wrong. You’re wasting your time with it.
Anony,
1. You clearly have no idea what hypocricy is, so don’t presume to lecture me.
2. You likewise have no idea how many friends or family members I have in the military. Not that it matters, but just dotting the i’s. So see #1.
3. If you’re going to argue over “for what,” that’s perfectly valid, but then I don’t see why my own record of military service or lack thereof has any weight in the argument. (The brief answer to your overdramatically put question is: to get rid of a homicidal dictator, with a history of WMD use, attempts to develop nuclear weapons, invading neighboring countries, and immunity-granting amounts of oil. I consider it to be worth the loss of American lives, deplorable as it is. Life rarely gives you easy paths to good solutions.)
For what it’s worth, I expected a lot more retaliation for the invasion of Iraq. I live in a major city in the U.S., and I was fairly certain that if anything could trigger more al-Qaeda mass attacks, that’d be it. So if you think that prior to the war, I thought sitting this one out back on U.S. soil would make me safe, please consider yourself corrected. I’m glad I worried for nothing, but I sincerely thought that the troops in Iraq were actually safer than Americans at home — at least they had armor and weapons. All we had was Threat Level Orange.
Finally: I know beating up strawmen is fun and all, but spare me the “stand by your man” references. Bush is hardly “my man,” and had he not invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein, I would have voted against him in 2004. Hussein was too dangerous to be left in power and no longer useful, so even if his removal results in Iraqis slaughtering each other, it’s still a sensible thing to do.
(As to whether Iraqis do end up slaughtering each other — I guess that sorta depends on them. To lay blame for this at the feet of Bush would be just a little racist, wouldn’t you say?)
I asked, “Beg your pardon? When did any of us try to silence you?” and Ardsgaine replies, “By claiming that no one has a right to advocate war unless he’s in the military.” When did anyone say that? Find the exact quote, I’ll give you a minute.
Then in that very same comment he replies — and this is really too delicious –
nyone fighting in Iraq can feel to question my courage. The rest of you bitches need to shut up.
Oh, booohooooo! Quit trying to silence me!!!1!111!!!!
“I certainly have the resume to be qualified to speak about the war no matter how anyone defines qualified.”
Assuming that “anyone’ includes me I have to disagree. You sir are a fool, a bufoon, a disgrace to humanity.
Yet apparantly it’s ok to pick out one self admittedly snarky blogger, and decide that based on his post, an entire political party is no longer a part of the “national debate”.
It’s called laziness. And yes, such laziness might prevent one from walking down to the local recruiting office.
Bush is hardly “my man,” and had he not invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein, I would have voted against him in 2004. Hussein was too dangerous to be left in power and no longer useful, so even if his removal results in Iraqis slaughtering each other, it’s still a sensible thing to do.
(As to whether Iraqis do end up slaughtering each other — I guess that sorta depends on them. To lay blame for this at the feet of Bush would be just a little racist, wouldn’t you say?)
No. I wouldn’t. Racist? Saddam not *useful* so we… invade a country? My God.
The responsibility for the chaos happening right now in Iraq (and all the death and destruction) and for the American soldiers lost and wounded and – especially – for the final outcome of Iraq’s fate because of the false reasons given to the American people to remove Saddam in 2003 will all be Bush’s legacy. Bush and his supporters.
Well, that and Osama bin Ladin (still free and plotting in 2006), Valerie Plame, Katrina, Harriet Miers, Abramoff, Delay, Hunting Accidents, Domestic Spying, Port Security
There is a war that needs to be fought. I believe that, and you don’t.
I believe there’s a war that needs to be fought. It’s in Afghanistan. Remember that one?
Assuming that “anyone’ includes me I have to disagree. You sir are a fool, a bufoon, a disgrace to humanity.
That’s a very nice ad hominem attack on someone who actually volunteered to go to Iraq. No class.
I believe there’s a war that needs to be fought. It’s in Afghanistan. Remember that one?
No, now it’s in the mountains of Pakistan. But you were close.
Yes, Anony, racist. As in, you think that if the Iraqis engage in a civil war, it will be not by their own volition as thinking human beings, but rather as some kind of lower animals responding to stimuli from Americans. This kind of denigration is the definition of racism.
If Iraqis prove immune to al-Qaeda provocation, that says something positive about them as people. If they fall for it, it says something negative about them as people. The decision and responsibility are solely theirs. All Bush & Co. did is remove the dictator that kept the “peace” by subjugating the population.
Saddam not *useful* so we… invade a country? My God.
You really can spare us the dramatics, ok? Saddam was useful in the 1980s, when we used him to contain and weaken Iran, thereby reducing the danger from both nations. Once the need for this ceased, Saddam was no longer useful, and his tendency to use WMD, chase nuclear weapons, and invade neighboring countries made him exceedingly dangerous to our interests and global stability. It would have been nice if we could simply call him and ask him to resign (well, that would create the same power vacuum we have now, but anyway…). Absent that option, we militarily invaded and removed his government. Which I supported, and continue to support, regardless of which president made it happen.
It would appear the commenter has decided the temple bombing is the work of Al Qaida.
Let’s hope to god he’s wrong. Because if so it will mean that Al Qaida has succesfully inflitrated both the Iraqi Police and Army which does not at all bode well for us civil war or no.
Of course Al Queada has inflitrated the Iraqi police and Army. This happens in every occupation/reconstruction. If not Al Quaeda, then certainly the Iranians, Syrians, former Ba’athists, etc.
During Vietnam, the VC inflitrated the ARVN. During the post WWII era, former Nazis served in the Weremacht. During WWII, Communist spies infiltrated the Manhattan project. There were plenty of Confederate sympathizers in the Union during the Civil War. See, e.g. John Wilkes Booth.
This sort of thing happens in every war. It is terrible, but to be expected. There is no way to stop all spies, terrorists, etc. You just have to push on.
The real question is whether the majority of Iraqis are willing to participate in a modern, secular democracy. There will always be terrorists and traitors, it is part of war.
if so it will mean that Al Qaida has succesfully inflitrated both the Iraqi Police and Army
where did you find this info that the mosque bombing was carried out by Iraqi police and military?
Well, let’s see if I can post this one…The system didn’t like my last attempt.
Here it is distilled: Ardsgaine, I can’t see why Hussein would have gotten rid of his weapons in the face of an invasion. That just defies the very logic of having weapons.
As for the rest of your argument, it’s the response of a guy used to arguing the GOP version of a liberal response. Short response: We’re stuck in a rapidly deteriorating situation (Bagdahd has fewer hours of electricity now than two years ago, they have fewer deployable troops NOW than last year.) and it’s really sweet that you think I cheer a civil war, but it’s the host here who said it might be the best in the long run.
It’s fairly astonishing that for someone who opposed this war for the legitimate reasons that Bush 41 outlined in his book, you accuse me of cheerleading for more bloodshed. But considering the source, it’s astonishing that I’m even fairly astonished.
“That’s a very nice ad hominem attack on someone who actually volunteered to go to Iraq. No class”
And now wants a civil war that would kill hundreds of thousands of people?
Oh sorry I forgot, he gets a pass cos he was dumb enough to join a low rent occupation force, but then smart enough to get out while the getting was good.
LETTER TO “STARS AND STRIPES” [see link below]
In the
A VERY interesting thread of comments. So what did I learn?
1.) Invading Iraq was Saddam’s fault.
2.) Civil war is the Iraqi peoples’ fault.
3.) Any difficulty in Iraq not attributable to Saddam or the Iraqi people is the liberals’ fault.
4.) The Bush administration isn’t as smart as a commenter here who knew the WMD had been moved, and all the experts who said there weren’t any to start with were just wrong.
5.) Sending Americans to die in Iraq and Afghanistan can be advocated by people who have, or have not, served in the military.
6.) Being against any invasions makes one a metrosexual.
7.) Something has to be wrong with the polling to have Bush at or under 40% when things are going so well in Iraq, you know, the stuff the liberals can’t sabotage.
8) Taking incredible swaths of administration spin created out of thin air and rewriting them as facts makes it real.
9) All in all, an instructive lesson in ummm “conservative” opinion.
“To advocate . . . that someone else SHOULD do something you would not consider doing yourself – or sending your own family to do – . . . IS hypocrisy, E Nough.”
I am always floored by the “sending your own family” line and the similar, “Why doesn’t Bush send his daughters?”
That’s easy. We have a volunteer military. Do you really think fathers can enlist or “send” their adult children? Why do you argue like that’s even possible, much less desirable?
If GWB somehow forced his daughters to enlist in the army against their will, would that really increase your respect for him? (I understand that it would be damned for your respect to decrease.)
Sigh.
What happened to the times where you could deabte civilized about the benefits of millions of people dying so you don’t have to admit what a miserable failure Bush is?
Tbogg barely scraped the surface of what a fantasitcally douchey person you are. You deserve nothing more than insults and inflaming.
“Tbogg barely scraped the surface of what a fantasitcally douchey person you are. You deserve nothing more than insults and inflaming.”
…a gambit that is certain to pay off big in the 06 elections.
Eventually you guys will learn that insults and “inflaming” (whatever that is) doesn’t exactly turn-on the moderate voters, but in the meantime I’m just glad you guys keep handing us seats in the house, senate, and white house.
Funny James. What I learned was that some people really *desperately* don’t want to be part of the national debate.
I learned that the worst thing about what Vodkapundit wrote wasn’t that he was wrong, but that he was *offensive.*
What I learned was that *trying* to look at the larger picture, *trying* to see the progression of history and march of nations, was *offensive.*
Not wrong. Not adressed with counter argument from History. Offensive. OH MY GOD!!!! Offensive.
Which is incredibly funny when the “other” side has been saying “Sure, Saddam had to go but now we need to get our troops home!” civil strife be damned. Or is there some other message to the “bring our troops home now” crowd other than to leave Iraqi’s to kill each other?
The peace movement’s First Mother is/was in Europe preaching that message… will be in the South preaching that message. Bring our troops home now! No more American deaths!
Iraqis can fill more mass graves, and who the heck cares?
But someone, not on the “peace” side, talks about what a civil war would mean and OH MY F*CKING GOD it’s offensive beyond belief!
Something good has come from it, though. I imagine Steve’s site meter is ticking up.
Denise… it’s also true that parents can not *prevent* their own kids from enlisting or being commissioned.
Kids *do* tend to follow their parent’s attitudes, however. Which is why I think this “no recruiting in schools” movement is so… illuminating. You’d think that a parent would have a deciding influence on their children. So either they *don’t* have that influence in their own homes or they are trying to force what happens in *other* people’s homes.
Like the recruiting station protestors who don’t think poor pitiful black people can make up their own minds about what is good for them.
“Iraqis can fill more mass graves, and who the heck cares”
And you care about the mass graves the US army filled at Fallujah?
“And you care about the mass graves the US army filled at Fallujah?”
The difference of course being that Saddam filled his graves with civilians, while we filled ours with insurgents.
I recommend more aggressive research before posting Sonic.
Right.
Ya see, Sonic. I believe it’s possible to commit sins of ommission. It’s a protestant thing, mostly. It’s the difference between thinking that the blood on my hands goes away if I’m not paying attention, and not. So Fallujah, yes. But the graves full of women and children being dug up and cataloged in the country as well. Certainly the ones put there between Desert Storm and OIF by Saddam. Do you think, somehow, that those aren’t your fault the way deaths of combatants in Falluja are?
And I don’t think people get this. Bring our troops home now, has exactly that problem, that denial of responsibility. Which is illustrated by the fact that you cried Falluja on me. Look what*we* did!! Oh, the humanity! But if we aren’t *there*, then what happens isn’t our responsibility?
So… is civil war bad or not? Are the “bring our troops home now” people going to take responsibility for what happens if we did that? Suppose it was a slaughter to the tune of Southeast Asia? Will they take responsibility for that?
Or is what upsets everyone so terribly much about what Stephen wrote the idea that the end result might not be bad? That if the whole place just slides into the depths of human carnage, that’s okay,(bring our troops home now) but if they struggle *though* that and come out *better* then it is evil?
At the moment it seems that the Iraqi people understand their position and are refusing the call of civil war. Sunni and Shi’ite leaders are appearing together and making statements and having rallies. These people can and *will* manage their country just fine. Bumps on the road are irrelevant to that, in the long run.
You know, if ya’all want to start advocating a larger presence in Iraq, more troops, do it right. Get some authorizations through congress. You might even make a political recovery.
If your fringe elements will *let* you, that is.
When Moonbats Attack!
Next on Fox!
And you care about the mass graves the US army filled at Fallujah?
Are we talking about the “mass” graves of Arabs that crossed the border to participate in their jihad killed by the coalition forces or the “mass” graves of citizens of Fallujah killed by the Arabs who used the town as a staging point for operations. The answer to your question depends upon your answer to mine.
I am sure Saddam and his chums argued that all the graves they filled were filled with “terrorists” just the way you warmongers seem to believe that a US 1000lb bomb is smart enough to avoid killing women and children.
Luckily enough the rest of the world is quite aware of what really happened, so save your imagined moral superiority for someone dumb enough to believe it.
>…a gambit that is certain to pay off big in the 06 elections.
Guh? Is Vodka running for President?
Would Bush making a speech from the repulsive and retarded post win votes with it?
Someone thinks that this comment thread is far more important than it really is.
Perspective Sparky, look into getting some.
Not this comment thread, sa. Silly you!
It’s stuff like what sonic is saying except in the larger context of the “national debate.”
If all of us Rovian agents can just keep encouraging sonic and whoever else to make public claims that there is no moral difference, only moral equivalence, then we’ve done our jobs.
And we get bonus points each time we can prod someone into making a claim of intellectual superiority.
Moral equivalence and intellectual superiority are what will hurt Dems in the ’06 elections.
Thanks to sonic I’ve got nearly enough points to mail in for my secret decoder ring. Yee-ha!
I would be most curious to hear Sonic’s expertise on precision guided munitions.
Dresden firebombing vs. Operation Iraqi Freedom? Does he really not know the difference in civilian casualties??
Sonic has got to be one of Rove’s secret agents, no one is that clueless.
Darn. If sonic is a plant I don’t get my points! We only get points for provably genuine statements.
Denise, Julie, I believe we’ve found your perfect
Hannidate!!
James had something of a recent learning experience:
No “fault.” Hussein acted in a way he thought would benefit him, and he miscalculated. The decision to remove him was the U.S.’s. The U.S. stands by it, and it was the correct and proper decision.
Any potential civil war certainly would be. War is generally the fault of those who start it. By definition, a civil war is the fault of the people that fight it. I had no idea this was even in dispute — just out of curiosity, if Iraqis choose to start killing each other en masse, who is responsible? What about other actions Iraqis choose to take? Does the nation of Iraq have a legal guardian?
Yes. Once again, I am curious as to why there is so much controversy on this point. Anyone can be an advocate on any subject if a good enough case can be made. Just because the lefties from Tbogg’s place are so monumentally incompetent at making arguments, doesn’t entitle them to blather on unopposed.
Glad to hear it. Certainly, this conversation has given me an illuminating view into the “thinking” of the “progressive” Left.
have at it… how did you know?
Interesting thing, though, what this bit of cuteness says about you and about whoever made up that rather bigotted faux dating ad. Fat is funny, huh? And making fun of “red necks” and christianity? Mocking with the use of deliberately bad english to imply stupidity or lack of education?
Until I got down to the comments I thought it was a legit dating ad instead of a progressive’s excuse for humor. What? Fat bikers can’t be looking for a relationship? Can’t be decent people?
Hey, I’m not perfect. I make bad jokes and feel guilty when I do. Did it even occur to you to feel guilty for finding something funny that depended on tearing down another human being… the fat biker guy, redneck, looking for a hooters born again christian girl… even if he’s not real?
I don’t laugh at fat people. I don’t make fun of those who aren’t so bright. No short-bus jokes allowed in this house.
Just who is supposed to be defending human dignity here? Huh?
Who the heck knows… maybe this is just one more example of the fact that underneath all the rhetoric about caring for people and tolerance and equality, it’s all just a lie. Some are more equal than othes. Some protected from riddicule. Unless… you’re a fat red-neck. Then pour it on cuz trailor trash is fair game.
Yup. Progressives… they’re looking out for the little guy, the poor. All those people that conservatives don’t give a rat’s *ss if they live or die. Pass another welfare bill darlin, just to prove it’s true.
Second interesting point… picking out Denise and me because we’re female.
Dang… just batting a thousand on this progressive thing, being *for* women’s issues and all that.
“War is generally the fault of those who start it”
Well nice to see you take some responsibilty at last.
“Dresden firebombing vs. Operation Iraqi Freedom? Does he really not know the difference in civilian casualties”
So as long as it not as bad as Dresden that’s ok then?
Muppet.
Fuck your service. Why any logically-challenged sentimentalist would automatically assume that its a good man wearing that uniform has forgotten that it has been proven beyond any doubt that a shitbag can follow a flag.
Shame you didn’t die over there whilst living by the sword. We’d have all been a little better for it.
You can rationalize the greater good of somebody else’s death? So can I.
I’m just not a hypocrite about it.
‘Oh six is looking more like a party for the Repubs every day.
It’s a pity, actually. Without a strong opposition who’s going to keep a lid on the excesses?
Actually, I believe technically Saddam started this war. But hey, I certainly accept the responsibility for the 2003-present phase of it, inasmuch as I did and do support it. There is no “at last” about that — I’ve continuously said that I was in favor of this war, that I still am, and that I would have voted Bush out had he not invaded Iraq.
As for rat-terrier, I suggest in the future staying away from rats that foam at the mouth and are afraid of water. but hey, nice to know that Lephties are consistent: if you support the war and you weren’t military, then you’re a hypocrite chickenhawk; if you support the war and you were military, and in the war zone to boot, then you’re a warmongering flag-chaser who should have died for your opinions. Beautiful.
Dubya may be at 34%, but with intellectual capital like this, no wonder the Left has lost every branch of government. Keep at it, gents, the checks from Karl Rove are in the mail.
‘Oh six is looking more like a party for the Repubs every day.
Seriously, put down the bong.
Damn. Haven’t seen so many tools littered around a site since the Home Depot got hit by a twister.
The good news for VodkaBoy is that if you write a post that eternally pisses everyone off, then by and large it is probably right on the money.
Of course, those on the left side of the spectrum live to be pissed off, and just don’t work right unless they have something or someone to be pissed off at. I guess the wingnuts are just better at couching their venom in more articulate ways.
There has already been a chance for the nation to render its opinion on the Iraq war, and that happened in November of 2004. Another one is coming up this November. If the left doesn’t come up with something better than some variation of “it’s all Bush’s fault!” or “war for OOOOOillllll” or “Chickenhawks!” then they are going to be left on the outside looking in, again. Something will not be beaten with nothing, no matter how much moveon.org invective is thrown in.
And whether or not there will be an Iraqi civil war is not in our hands. We could not transport enough troops over to Iraq to prevent one if it were to seem likely to start, nor could we stop it if it does. However, this conversation about it does result in some rather entertaining keyboard-based Onanism, though as we can see, it leaves some folks with rather regrettably sticky keys.
Seriously Marc, the bong isn’t necessary when people like rat-terrier are breathing the air…
Yeah, sure, I know he’s fringe. Non-representative and all that. But it all adds up and regular, middle of the road people, have no patience for it.
And the public statements aren’t all that far off… if it’s some city councilperson in SF saying how a big ole gun (the Iowa) is offensive to public sensibilities and how we shouldn’t even have a military, or Mother Sheehan’s simplistic anti-war view (not all anti-war sentiment is simplistic, no need for it to be so), or these little turd droppers like Rat-terrier saying how it’s too bad that someone didn’t *die*…
And saying that the Republicans are looking good in ’06 is an indication that I’m high? How do you figure that? All they have to do is to keep the opposition talking. How hard can that be?
Stephen
Unbelievably poor liberal commentary – this must be a Kos or DU link. Even Atrios does better than this.
Wow, how did this thread attract such a deficit of sane commenters, Stephen?
Wow, how did this thread attract such a deficit of sane commenters, Stephen?
by being posted on vodkapundit… that always seems to get the job done.
The Soldiers Speak. Will President Bush Listen?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: February 28, 2006
When President Bush held a public meeting with troops by satellite last fall, they were miraculously upbeat. And all along, unrepentant hawks (most of whom have never been to Iraq) have insisted that journalists are misreporting Iraq and that most soldiers are gung-ho about their mission.
Hogwash! A new poll to be released today shows that U.S. soldiers overwhelmingly want out of Iraq
Let me get this right. One has no right to support this war unless one has fought in it. Undermining it, however, demands no such qualification.
Chickenbrains.
Since a lot of you right-wingers seem to have a problem wrapping your brain around this, let me give you a hand.
You have a right to free speech. That means you have the right to call for, support, or otherwise promote a war whether you have fought in it or plan to fight in it or not.
However, we too have a right to free speech. That means if you throw around a lot of highfalutin talk about how vitally important this mission is and how everyone must support it, yet give us the “Bitch, you crazy?” look when we ask if you plan on supporting that mission with your service, we have the right to call you a douche.
Hope that clears everything up.
Anybody who thinks that enlisted men and officers see the same war is an idiot. IT is like the difference between real war and paintball- which VP would know if he had ever seen real war. There has always been animosity between enlisted men and officers. Being face-to-face with the enemy, and sitting back at a command bunker, if even that close, is very different. There is a reason “frag the lieutenant” became a popular phrase. And go call a Sergeant sir, and see how he responds.
I certainly support our troops, but support the enlisted men more. They are the girls and guys doing all the work.
gttim, you’re stuck on a romantic vision of the old military, the Carter era “bad old days” followed by a series of hollywood movies full of “fragging”, opium dens and asian child prostitutes.
It’s BS.
It’s a dance, really, with well choreographed steps. To imply that enlisted don’t respect officers is to miss… everything. To think that animosity typifies the relationship is delusional. The officer, as much as anything else, is a creation of the NCO. The NCO knows this. A bad officer is a personal shame to the person given the job of “care and feeding” the wet behind the ears LT. The officer is a servant, in a very real sense, and his or her troops appreciate this care with reciprocal care.
Sure, the dance includes steps, rituals, that symbolize opposing forces. Do wingnut and jarhead jokes indicate interservice hostility? Not at all.
And if you think having a bad officer is tragic, try having an incompetent NCOIC in a crisis. I’ve done that. Give me a weak officer any day, if I can have a sharp NCO, it’s all good.
Hey lookee over there! A TERRIST! Get under the bed, quick!
change your underwear first
Hope that clears everything up.
Still doesnt hang together with any sort of logic, but if it makes you feel better…
Vodkapundit,
It would be really great for urban development if your family home was engulfed in flames and destroyed. And, really, it would be best if you and your family were taken in the fire. It’ll be much easier for the community to build a quiet park on the location after that.
Can’t we have a polite debate about this issue?
Just askin’
Rightwingers can’t understand why it pisses off the rest of the country when they wave the flag and cheer for the war that they believe so strongly in yet are unwilling to support with their able bodies. Knowing full well that recruitment goals are falling dramatically short in every branch of the military. Rightwingers can’t understand how this makes them look cowardly. Well color me shocked.
Can’t you see it?
They’re all panicking.
Another week or so and we just may see the right pee itself.
Were the damage to our country not so great, it might be enjoyable to watch.
So, is there nothing that the left cares about at all? No one really supports the war in Afghanistan, condemns the violence in Dafur or cares about inner-city education?
Obviously by your own standards none of that really matters, or you would be supporting those efforts with your presence and not just from behind the keyboard.
Must be very liberating to have no convictions.
..and gttim, thanks for the laugh, you really have no clue about the military.
“What does “your side” have to its credit?”
Well, “my side” gets the credit for being consistently right, regardless of any red herrings that have been thrown up, such as WMDs. From the beginning, this war has been illegal. Start with Article VI Clause 2 of the US Constitution. Then, read the UN General Charter, a treaty we signed and ratified before you were likely even born. Foolow it up with a read of the “Convention Against Torture,” another treaty we signed and ratified. What I find most depressing about this war, in the end, is that it makes our nation truly hypocritical at the moment, as people use politics rather than the law to support their positions, all ignoring that the law is above politics. There is nothing that can be said which changes the fact that this war is illegal. One day, as a nation of laws, we will have to face that grim reality. That’s something for all of you political cheerleaders to think about. You have cheered on the violation of the very document which created this nation which does not exactly make me
optimistic about the immediate future of this nation.
Still doesnt hang together with any sort of logic . . .
What’s illogical about it? You have a right to your opinion, we have a right to ours, only it seems like when we express ours y’all get pissy and turn a simple difference of opinion into a “you’re censoring me and hurting my feelings” whinefest.
Hey monkey,
I wouldn’t pretend to speak for “the left” but as far as convicitons go, there are none stronger than my desire to see the raging inferno of disaster that is the Bush administration put out of its misery. Once this has been achieved and innocent people can go back to trying to live their lives without the fear that shock and awe may rain down on their worlds whenever this band of imperialist thieves decides they want to “liberate” a new corner of the globe, then some of the issues that were forced to the backburner by this needless, dishonest war of aggression can be put back on the radar screen. Unfortunately, when Republicans come to power, the worthy causes have to be put on hold so that we can stop their warmongering and the inevitable rape of the American Treasury. Please go back to your rock now, the adults are stepping in to clean up your mess.
Regarding the Chickenhawk term:
It is often claimed that those who opposed the war in Iraq demand that supporters must fight there in order to have an opinion about the war. That is bunk. Anyone can have an opinion.
Being a chickenhawk has nothing to do with having an opinion. It is about asking people to do things that you wouldn’t do yourself. Not what you are doing or have done. But what you would do, if necessary.
While I myself am not a firefighter or a policeman, the reason I am not is because of fear for my physical safety. I simply have chosen to pursue other goals with my life. Having said that, I don’t ask the police or firemen to do things that I wouldn’t do, if I had to. Furthermore, if there was a massive disaster (e.g. Katrina or 9/11) in my community and local emergency resources were overwhelmed, I would do my best to help and I wouldn’t ask my neighbors to do more than I would.
Now, how does that apply to war? Well, in short/small conflicts where the professional military appears capable of doing the job, no it is not necessary to run out and enlist. But in protracted conflicts, where our military’s limits are being pushed to the max, the outcome is in doubt, and/or large numbers or soldiers are being forced via stop-loss orders from leaving…you better sign your ass up unless you have a good excuse, chickenhawk.
Now, what are good excuses in my book? (1) Physical or mental incapacity. (2) You don’t support the conflict and/or don’t trust the leaders. (3) I really can’t think of any others.
See? That is why Clinton wasn’t a chickenhawk but virtually the entire GOP leadership was. Clinton wasn’t asking anybody to go fight in Vietnam. But Bush, Cheney, et al. were. Cheney supported the war, but had no problem taking 5 deferments. That is cowardice, pure and simple.
I hope that cleared everything up.
“What’s illogical about it? You have a right to your opinion, we have a right to ours, only it seems like when we express ours y’all get pissy and turn a simple difference of opinion into a ‘you’re censoring me and hurting my feelings’ whinefest.”
The left has given us quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the squelching of dissent, rending of garments over destruction of the first amendment, and moaning that disagreeing with Bush leads to having one’s patriotism questioned (all of which is at best a gross exaggeration).
All clear, Doug. You believe an ad hominem argument is not a fallacy.
Soldiers died while Clinton was CoC.
Clinton deployed our forces more than once.
I don’t know why I point this out. It’s not as though anyone could possibly be unaware of the fact.
after reading the commment from the soldier still in iraq doing the fascists bidding, i would have thought the freepers would have crawled back under thier rocks, i am sure that any freeper with a spine would have taken the guys advice and gone and joined up. but no just a bunch of aplogists for thier hero/leaders the draft evaders.
no wonder america is so fucked up
Ardsgaine earlier in the thread-
“My hope was that Iraq would be just the first step to taking down Iran. If you were one of the people that argued that Iran made more sense as a target, then keep your fingers crossed–we may get our wish there soon.”
That about sums it up. Ardsgaine sits on his ass and roots for war. What a dipshit. And, since he refuses to put anything other than the skin on his fingers at risk, a complete coward. A “renaissance fair” republican.
I offer the chickendove argument:
Unless you are willing to go to Iraq and serve as a human shield against the awful fascist American military, shut the hell up.
My last comment was sarcastic, of course. But let’s make one thing clear; the chickenhawk argument is sheer bunk, and anyone who resorts to it should be ashamed of himself. His opinions should certainly be ignored.
Why do Bush supporters twist and turn the facts to fit their own agenda?
Well, jimmyjeff, one can legitimately disagree with that soldier, as many of his comrades undoubtedly do.
What Brett wrote: “My last comment was sarcastic, of course. But let’s make one thing clear; the chickenhawk argument is sheer bunk, and anyone who resorts to it should be ashamed of himself. His opinions should certainly be ignored.”
Posted by: Brett at February 28, 2006 03:36 PM
What I read:
My last comment was bullshit and I only realized it after I hit “Post”, once I reread, it dawned on me how utterly ridiculous I must sound. But let me be clear, I cannot rationalize my cowardice so I will do my level best to undermine the name that’s been created exclusively for the degree of cowardice that I represent. Anyone that resorts to it will be swiftboated with all the courage that can be mustered from the safety of my mom’s basement. Whhaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
You have a right to your opinion, we have a right to ours, only it seems like when we express ours y’all get pissy and turn a simple difference of opinion into a “you’re censoring me and hurting my feelings” whinefest.
No problem – like I said, as long as you feel better. It’s just the part where you imply that we don’t have the right to form an opinion unless we sign up for this war that’s a bit repressive. Fortunately this sort of idiocy is readily ignored. As is this:
But in protracted conflicts, where our military’s limits are being pushed to the max, the outcome is in doubt, and/or large numbers or soldiers are being forced via stop-loss orders from leaving…you better sign your ass up unless you have a good excuse, chickenhawk.
Yawn. There it is again. So by your standards, only those who are either unqualified for military service or who are actually serving can support the Iraq war. Unless the war is going well, in which case anybody can support it. And the only way you can remedy any problems is by personally volunteering to reduce the manpower load by one.
This is why we can’t trust you guys with military or foreign policy.
J0351:
That’s just silly.
Knowing full well that recruitment goals are falling dramatically short in every branch of the military.
This is dated – the military has been meeting/exceeding recruiting goals for the past 6 months.
Just a few questions:
1. Since when did conservatives believe it is the job of the US to remove/change governments not to the US liking? And how is this ‘legal’?
2. In what way was Saddam a danger to the US?
3. Is the US a democratic Republic or an Empire?
1. Since when did conservatives believe it is the job of the US to remove/change governments not to the US liking? And how is this ‘legal’?
Since the government in question never complied with the original terms of surrender. That’s how it’s legal.
2. In what way was Saddam a danger to the US?
You mean other than trying to assassinate a US president? The right question, though, is “In what way did Saddam appear to be a danger to the US?” Because your question smacks of hindsight and historical revisionism.
So let’s see: maybe it was the support for terrorism; his desire for WMD; his past history with WMD; his past history at misleading our intelligence agencies as to his progress in WMD; his lack of cooperation with UN weapons inspectors; and the startling realization of how easy it was for a small low-budget group to wreak calamity on our citizenry. Just spitballing here…
How is war illegal?
I mean any war.
*Wrong* is not a synonymn of *illegal* so don’t pretend I’m saying war is good or something. But the claim that it’s “illegal” is… weird. How does one wage a *legal* war? I don’t think it’s possible. What *law* applies?
To answer your question… all foreign diplomacy, relations, and everything else leads to the “since when.” Despite periods of isolationism, the harder sell has always been to mind your own business, which I’d prefer, actually. The US has been medling in foreign governments for a very long time, propping or undermining leaders, supporting revolutions or creating them. Pretty darn crappy behavior if you ask me.
It does, however, answer the “since when” question.
What threat was Saddam to us? He was a threat in a lot of way, subtle or blatant. He was a sore spot in the region and a rally cry to jihadists (the cholorine and water thing I referenced elsewhere, just to start). But he’s just one step in the GWOT… which requires one side to change, significantly. The physical threat is real. Unless you want to give up your culture… because it’s just not possible to ignore those nutcases on the other side of the world anymore.
The third question? If we intended to own or to rule we’d be an Empire. This has never been about gaining territory or oil or any other source of wealth. (There’s easier ways to get it… reference Dr. Evil.)
>>But in protracted conflicts, where our military’s limits are being pushed to the max, the outcome is in doubt, and/or large numbers or soldiers are being forced via stop-loss orders from leaving…you better sign your ass up unless you have a good excuse, chickenhawk.>>But in protracted conflicts, where our military’s limits are being pushed to the max, the outcome is in doubt, and/or large numbers or soldiers are being forced via stop-loss orders from leaving…you better sign your ass up unless you have a good excuse, chickenhawk.<
Space:
Hmmmmm.
So, in other words, by maintaining your ‘anti-war’ view, you never have to face your own cowardice.
As long as you don’t agree with the war, you don’t feel compelled to sign up.
However, once you support it, you will be force to admit that you should sign up.
But you are a complete and total chickenshit with a yellow stripe up your back.
So in order to avoid confronting your own cowardice, you must continue to be against the war.
You have a personal problem (craven cowardice) that is impersonating a political view.
I have the luxury of supporting the war wholeheartedly because I am not a coward.
(and I’m in the Army.)
I can’t believe you guys are still trying to claim that Hussein had ties to al Qaeda. In fact, they hated each other.
Furthermore, all this talk about WMD programs ignores the fact that Bush told us he could launch an attack on the US in 20 minutes. I guess you’re going to tell me he meant to say, “20 minutes, plus however many years the sanctions continue, plus however many years it takes to actually develop WMDs”? Kind of changes the level of threat there, doesn’t it. One person even brought up the old canard about Saddam having WMDs, and somehow managed to move tons of material out of the country, thus relieving them of their only purpose – to be used as WEAPONS (you know, the W in WMDs).
Finally, I wouldn’t be so convinced of a good showing in November – not when your boy Georgie has a 34% approval rating (and sinking fast).
You’re right, Random Guy. I see the light.
We could have waited until Saddam actually killed a lot of Americans before we acted. We could have put it off until we got killed….
OK?
No Al Qaeda in Iraq? Hmmmmmm.
Is there Al Qaeda in Iran? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Turkey?
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
What countries border Iraq you geopolitical genius? You Hank Kissinger, you.
Posted by: geoff at February 28, 2006 05:39 PM
Geoff, the Army missed its recruiting targets for 05′ so they lowered their target numbers and their standards to compensate. Here’s a link to an excellent profile piece on Major General Thomas Bostick the man that heads up the efforts of 8,000 recruiters nationwide. If you can read this and you still come away believeing that the armed forces are having trouble recruiting, you’re simply ignoring reality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/national/05recruit.html?ex=1141275600&en=e21b9542480a712d&ei=5070
Yes, I see..
geoff:
You didn’t answer the first part of the question. And I didn’t mention any particular government. You assumed.
Attempted assasinations? Like how we attempted to assasinate Castro? (Would Cuba be justified in removing our President?)
“The right question, though, is “In what way did Saddam appear to be a danger to the US?” Because your question smacks of hindsight and historical revisionism.”
So you don’t like the quesion – it is what it is.
How did Saddam support terrorism against US? His history of WMDs…against us?
“his past history at misleading our intelligence agencies as to his progress in WMD; his lack of cooperation with UN weapons inspectors;” how was this a danger to us that justifies invasion?
Any country developing Nuclear/biological/chemical weapons would most likely engage in this behavior – are we supposed to invade them all? And does a sovereign nation have the right to develop weapons it feels it needs for it self protection?
And who defines its needs?
“and the startling realization of how easy it was for a small low-budget group to wreak calamity on our citizenry.”
So we invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 because a low budget group can wreak a calamity on us? Who’s next on the list – and how does that stop the next low budget group?
Julie:
“How is war illegal?”
Didn’t ask that…..you did and then you answered your own question! Good job!
“The US has been medling in foreign governments for a very long time, propping or undermining leaders, supporting revolutions or creating them. Pretty darn crappy behavior if you ask me.” I agree – but mostly done because we could – the nation be meddled with being weaker that US.
“What threat was Saddam to us? He was a threat in a lot of way, subtle or blatant. He was a sore spot in the region and a rally cry to jihadists”
“Subtle or blatant”? Strong justification to send humans off to kill other humans and to be killed.
Sore spot in the region? A rally cry to jihadists? These are strong justifications also? Really? The US goes to war because someone is a sore spot and a rallying cry? REALLY?
“But he’s just one step in the GWOT”
Ah yes, the War on Terror. How do we know when we’ve won? How do you defeat terror? Shall we arrest Stephen King?
Howd do you defeat a technique? Or an ideology for that matter?
“because it’s just not possible to ignore those nutcases on the other side of the world anymore.”
And its not possible to kill them all either. What to do?
“If we intended to own or to rule we’d be an Empire.”
We intend to rule, perhaps. We didn’t like this particular gov’t so we removed it.
We now want those people to have a democracy. Maybe they preferred a dictatorship, maybe they want a theocracy. We don’t know what they may end up – but we know what we want.
J03051;
I will revise my remarks to not paint the entire “left” with one brush. Apparently those that use the chickenhawk argument have nothing that they care about deeply because they themselves have sacrificed for nothing.
I also notice that the one thing you care about over all other issues is the one that you can “battle” from behind your computer and not the one that requires you to work water reclamation in the Sudan or hump a ruck in Afghanistan.
>If you can read this and you still come away believeing that the armed forces are having trouble recruiting, you’re simply ignoring reality.>If you can read this and you still come away believeing that the armed forces are having trouble recruiting, you’re simply ignoring reality.>If you can read this and you still come away believeing that the armed forces are having trouble recruiting, you’re simply ignoring reality.>If you can read this and you still come away believeing that the armed forces are having trouble recruiting, you’re simply ignoring reality.>If you can read this and you still come away believeing that the armed forces are having trouble recruiting, you’re simply ignoring reality.>If you can read this and you still come away believeing that the armed forces are having trouble recruiting, you’re simply ignoring reality.>If you can read this and you still come away believeing that the armed forces are having trouble recruiting, you’re simply ignoring reality.>If you can read this and you still come away believeing that the armed forces are having trouble recruiting, you’re simply ignoring reality.<
So, you sit on your yellow striped ass and poke fun at the men and women who still think your ill-used freedoms and rights are worth fighting for.
Either sign up, start drawing some funny pictures of Mohammed and supporting your goddamned country.
OR
Get on your knees and say the Shaddad, forswear pork, booze and sex-before-marriage.
I’m signed up. I’ll fight for your right to eat a ham sandwich and a beer!
There are many people that do prefer a dictatorship, but they only want one that they control. I however think that most would simply ask to be left alone to live their lives, the way that millions of Iraqi voters have, and the people that attended the solidarity rallies in Baghdad post Mosque bombing.
Apparently, “We hold these truths to be self-evident stops at Manhattan” the same way “wogs start at Calais.”
Evan:
My neighbor doesn’t like me. One time he punched my other neighbor. I should kill him before he kills me. I’m sure the police will understand.
And, no – there’s was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.
There were some in Afghanistan and there are some now – again – but there none in Turkey a US ally and hoping to get into the EU, Saudi Arabia where the monarchy shoots them when they find them, and Kuwait a MAJOR US ally who owes us big time after the last gulf war.
monkeyboy”
“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy”
John Quincy Adams talking about the US of A
>>My neighbor doesn’t like me. One time he punched my other neighbor. I should kill him before he kills me. I’m sure the police will understand.
There are no cops, only the Ladies Glee Club (The UN). They say it is up to you. They are far too ladylike to support violence.
They would rather see you die before using violence.
What is this weird idea that nations are like people? Anthropomorphism run wild. That’s wooly-minded liberal thinking of the worst kind.
Your neighbor is sharpening knives and loading magazines. He says he’s going to kill you. Now what?
>>And, no – there’s was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.>There were some in Afghanistan and there are some now – again ->but there none in Turkey a US ally and hoping to get into the EU,>Saudi Arabia where the monarchy shoots them when they find them,>and Kuwait a MAJOR US ally who owes us big time after the last gulf war.>>My neighbor doesn’t like me. One time he punched my other neighbor. I should kill him before he kills me. I’m sure the police will understand.
There are no cops, only the Ladies Glee Club (The UN). They say it is up to you. They are far too ladylike to support violence.
They would rather see you die before using violence.
What is this weird idea that nations are like people? Anthropomorphism run wild. That’s wooly-minded liberal thinking of the worst kind.
Your neighbor is sharpening knives and loading magazines. He says he’s going to kill you. Now what?
>>And, no – there’s was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.>There were some in Afghanistan and there are some now – again ->but there none in Turkey a US ally and hoping to get into the EU,>Saudi Arabia where the monarchy shoots them when they find them,>and Kuwait a MAJOR US ally who owes us big time after the last gulf war.>>My neighbor doesn’t like me. One time he punched my other neighbor. I should kill him before he kills me. I’m sure the police will understand.
There are no cops, only the Ladies Glee Club (The UN). They say it is up to you. They are far too ladylike to support violence.
They would rather see you die before using violence.
What is this weird idea that nations are like people? Anthropomorphism run wild. That’s wooly-minded liberal thinking of the worst kind.
Your neighbor is sharpening knives and loading magazines. He says he’s going to kill you. Now what?
>>And, no – there’s was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.>There were some in Afghanistan and there are some now – again ->but there none in Turkey a US ally and hoping to get into the EU,>Saudi Arabia where the monarchy shoots them when they find them,>and Kuwait a MAJOR US ally who owes us big time after the last gulf war.>>My neighbor doesn’t like me. One time he punched my other neighbor. I should kill him before he kills me. I’m sure the police will understand.
There are no cops, only the Ladies Glee Club (The UN). They say it is up to you. They are far too ladylike to support violence.
They would rather see you die before using violence.
What is this weird idea that nations are like people? Anthropomorphism run wild. That’s wooly-minded liberal thinking of the worst kind.
Your neighbor is sharpening knives and loading magazines. He says he’s going to kill you. Now what?
>>And, no – there’s was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.>There were some in Afghanistan and there are some now – again ->but there none in Turkey a US ally and hoping to get into the EU,>Saudi Arabia where the monarchy shoots them when they find them,>and Kuwait a MAJOR US ally who owes us big time after the last gulf war.<
We’ve stopped AQ attacks on our bases in Kuwait.
So, amazingly, AQ and other brother Islamic networks are operating and being supported inside every nation but Iraq after they through out our inspectors….
Right.
Woofah… ‘Preview’ is screwedola.
So, you sit on your yellow striped ass and poke fun at the men and women who still think your ill-used freedoms and rights are worth fighting for – Evan
Evan, in case you haven’t noticed, its the patriotic Amercians opposed to the Bush administration, the Iraq war, breaking the FISA law, leaking CIA operatives names for political retribution, smearing men that actually fought in Vietnam, dismantling the New Deal, allowing natural disasters to cause a great city to drown, torture, pissing on the Geneva Conventions the International Criminal court and the Kyoto Protocol…and on…and on…….that are standing up for what makes America great. This band of fools is ruining this nation for profit and you’re too ??? to pull your heads from your collective asses to admit you were wrong and do the right thing by stopping the drive over the cliff. I’m no liberal and I’m not ashamed to say that I think we need you and EVERY American that cares about the future of our kids to step up right now and draw a fucking line in the sand. We need every smart and serious American to recognize how bad things have become and why and to do everything in their power to stop it. Now! We can bicker about what happens next after these criminals are gone, we can get back to discussing policy and law and the Constitution and Supreme Court cases….but right now we need this Bush crew out of power before they do any more damage. Can we agree on that, at least?
Um Evan:
“Your neighbor is sharpening knives and loading magazines. He says he’s going to kill you. Now what?”
And I live across a real big river and have a M1 tank, an Apache Helicopter, oh and a nuke. So I’m afraid of him? Really?
How was Saddam a threat?
“AQ and other brother Islamic networks are operating and being supported inside every nation but Iraq after they through (threw) out our inspectors….”
Every nation? Canada, too? MY GOD!
And there’s no AQ in Iraq now? Who is Al-Zarqawi working for?
BTW – Posted 3/17/2003 5:40 AM
USA Today
U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
VIENNA, Austria (AP)
Its unbelievable to see people repeat complete debunked anti-war myths above such as falsely claiming that there were no Al Queda in Iraq. The links between Al Queda and Iraq have been repeatedly documented in several bipartisan Congressional reports and more recently in detailed reporting by Stephen Hayes.
And the nonsense by J03051 is even more bizarre. Misrepresenting basic facts about the Plame affair, and more. Evidently J03051 says we have been “pissing” on the Geneva Convention when nothing the administration has done has been in violation of it. Here’s another hint J03051, the US never ratified the International Criminal Court under the Clinton administration and the Clinton administration never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to ratification by the Senate because the Senate had voted 95 to 0 a resolution condemning it also during the Clinton administration.
But you give us this nonsense about the “Bush crew”? Evidently you came out of some sort of Pod on January 21 2001 and are ignorant of events predating.
“The links between Al Queda and Iraq have been repeatedly documented in several bipartisan Congressional reports”
Such as this one?
The AP reports:
The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States, contradicting President Bush’s assertion that such a connection was among the reasons it was necessary to topple Saddam Hussein.
In a report based on research and interviews by the commission staff, the panel said that Osama bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam even though he opposed the Iraqi leader’s secular regime.
A senior Iraqi intelligence official reportedly met with bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan, the panel found, and bin Laden “is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.”
“There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” the report said. “Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq.”
Do you just make this stuff up? Have you heard of Google? Are you on the the Internet?
You didn’t answer the first part of the question. And I didn’t mention any particular government. You assumed.
You’re right, I assumed. Based on the “Saddam” part of the question, the original post, and the content of the thread, it seemed a reasonable assumption. And conservatives have never “believed” that it is the job of the US government to change/remove governments not to its liking. So congratulations, you’ve moved from the realm of the remotely relevant to the realm of the speculative.
So you don’t like the quesion – it is what it is.
Which makes you a second-guessing pundit, I gather.
And does a sovereign nation have the right to develop weapons it feels it needs for it self protection?
Not after 1991 it didn’t. That was part of the agreement.
Who’s next on the list – and how does that stop the next low budget group?
Yes, exactly. What is the long-term strategy to defeating radical Islam? How do we stem the onslaught of Al Qaeda attacks? How are we, over the next two to three decades, going to ensure that the jihadi problem doesn’t continue to grow?
The neo-cons have an answer. The liberals have not yet put one forth.
Robin, where do I begin?
So Plame’s outing wasn’t an act of political retribution? Haha. Whose living in a bubble? I’m going to assume that you’re joking and move on.
The Geneva Conventions. Bush violated them here: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/02/07/usdom3729.htm
here: http://baltimorechronicle.com/geneva_feb02.shtml
here: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/09/judge_halts_legal_proceeding_at_guantanamo/
Oh and here’s a comprehensive list of violations of the Geneva Conventions by this administration for your records. Put that in your “nothing the administration has done has been in violation of it” pipe and smoke it.
more….
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/duggan2.html
Here is the truth about Clinton and Bush 43 regarding the International Criminal Court and I fear you’ve got this one wrong too.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/usindex.htm
On Kyoto Protocol, no debate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1248757.stm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=143
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/italy/03/29/environment.kyoto/
Where on God’s green earth do you get your information?
J03051:
please don’t quotes facts it harshes the buzz from the kool aid.
Oh and Robin, on the link regarding the International Criminal Court, I think you’ll especially like the “Chronology of U.S. Opposition”. It’s a real barnburner.
Geoff, the Army missed its recruiting targets for 05′ so they lowered their target numbers and their standards to compensate.
My understanding was that they reduced adjusted their annual targets to account for higher-than-expected retention rates, and shifted some of their monthly projections. They can’t arbitrarily reduce recruiting goals – the target numbers are set by Congress. Here is one example:
In addition, we should remember that Congress increased the size of the Army – they’re not just doing replacement recruiting.
I read the NYT article on Bostick – thanks for the link. Is he in trouble or not? Here’s what he says:
Note that the services made their goals every month from 6/05 to 1/06. We shall see, but I’m optimistic.
geoff geoff geoff:
“And conservatives have never “believed” that it is the job of the US government to change/remove governments not to its liking. So congratulations, you’ve moved from the realm of the remotely relevant to the realm of the speculative.”
Didn’t Bush – a conservative – state that he was against “nation building”?
How is that remotely relevant or speculative?
We didn’t like this gov’t so we removed it and are stuck..
“And does a sovereign nation have the right to develop weapons it feels it needs for it self protection?
Not after 1991 it didn’t. That was part of the agreement.”
Again you assume Iraq. What about Iran? But I’ll grant you Iraq, did it have WMDs? And no it didn’t move them to Syria. We may have had a few planes flying over head and some spy satellites that may have seen some very large trucks going to Syria at the time, you think? And it might be we have contacts in Syria that would tell us so.
But you still didn’t answer the question.
“What is the long-term strategy to defeating radical Islam? How do we stem the onslaught of Al Qaeda attacks? How are we, over the next two to three decades, going to ensure that the jihadi problem doesn’t continue to grow?
The neo-cons have an answer. The liberals have not yet put one forth.”
Again you are conflating the 9-11 attacks with the Iraq invasion. The neo-cons were hot after Saddam well before 9-11. Look up the letter they sent to Clinton. Also the Neo-con answer has only made things worse. Invade an Arab/Islamic country and don’t expect more anger and attacks? Let me go back to an earlier question:
How do we define victory on an -ism?
Is the strategy to invade one country after another? Is the what the United States of America has become? A frightened bully?
Maybe the “liberals” have not put forth an answer, but first you don’t do something to make matters worse.
BTW – the “liberals” aren’t in power.
We didn’t like this gov’t so we removed it and are stuck..
Isn’t that sweet – you went and lied. First you say that it’s not about Iraq, then you turn around and make it all about Iraq. I already answered your questions about why we invaded Iraq, and none of the answers involved us not liking the Iraq government.
What about Iran?
I like the way you keep flipping around on the countries – keeps things lively. But in the case of Iran: does a sovereign government have the right to develop nuclear weapons when it has expressed a hostile intent to another country? And when it has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
We may have had a few planes flying over head and some spy satellites that may have seen some very large trucks going to Syria at the time, you think?
Uh, I believe they *did* see very large trucks going to Syria shortly before the invasion. I’m not claiming that the trucks contained WMD, but the caravan was there.
Also the Neo-con answer has only made things worse.
Could be. I’m more optimistic. And I don’t think you fully apprehend the neo-con approach. Just as well.
BTW – the “liberals” aren’t in power.
And they never will be until they propose a solution.
geoff,
You may not like it or agree with it, but John Murtha proposed a very solid plan on how we should handle Iraq going forward. It called for strategic redeployment on the “horizon” of the current theatre to keep U.S. military force at arms length to ensure American interests were stable. Murtha is a goddamned hawk, a 30+ yr. Marine veteran and a very decent and honest guy. That plan works. Please stop repeating the line that the supposed opposition party has no solution. They do, and it’s a damn good one that would surely save scores of American lives. If you haven’t read his plan, you ought to.
There ya go again….
The moonbats are not antiwar. They are on the other side but too cowardly to take up arms against us.
They would be traitors but for their shrinking courage that keeps them on the sidelines as ‘peace protestors’.
Either get on your knees, cowards, and say the Shaddad and welcome your Muslim overlords or get the hell out of the way for the better men fighting for your freedom.
We are in the midst of fighting the inevitable battle against the most repressive, anti-progressive countries in the history of mankind and our ‘progressives’ are quislings–nominally in their side.
Shut the hell up and let us fight for your free-love, bacon and booze!
Murtha is a Party Animal–a socialist apparachik.
He would sell his own mother for power in the Democratic Bolshevik Party.
He was a Marine Reservist seeing about as much combat as Al Gore did.
He was never a hawk and opposed the first Gulf War and argued to cut defense budgets.
Screw that guy.
Oh yes, the Murtha plan. Is that really the plan the liberal set wants to sign up to? Because I’ll certainly take back my comment about the liberals having no plan if that’s the case. Very happily, in fact, from a political perspective. Sadly, from a success-oriented perspective.
Gee, maybe all the lefties are right: the US should never go to war because their half of the population isn’t worth defending.
“Isn’t that sweet – you went and lied. First you say that it’s not about Iraq, then you turn around and make it all about Iraq”
Where did I lie? In general I asked if conservatives are in favor of removing gov’ts not to our liking – you said no
“And conservatives have never “believed” that it is the job of the US government to change/remove governments not to its liking”
I didn’t make anything all about Iraq. I used Iraq as an example. But you seem to be caught in a contradiction so you call me a liar. Fine.
As to the particular case of Iraq -
“I already answered your questions about why we invaded Iraq, and none of the answers involved us not liking the Iraq government.”
But none of your reasons have any validity.
“So let’s see: maybe it was the support for terrorism;”
Supporting terrorism against the US..when, where? Please cite examples.
“his desire for WMD; his past history with WMD;”
his “desire” may have been in violation of the agreement at the end of the 1st gulf war but a “desire” is not a reason to invade. His past history with WMDs was not against the US so how were we at risk?
“his past history at misleading our intelligence agencies as to his progress in WMD;”
But we know he had no WMDs so where was the progress. And is this a justification for invasion?
his lack of cooperation with UN weapons inspectors;
Lack of cooperation – a reason for an invasion? Why couldn’t we have told him that the inspectors are going to inspect a site at a certain time and if they are not allowed entry the site will be destroyed by air attacks? Invade?
“and the startling realization of how easy it was for a small low-budget group to wreak calamity on
our citizenry”
But what did Saddam have to do with that? Can’t a low budget group still be able to do that?
The administration said we had to remove Saddam because he was a threat to us, but how was he a threat? Of course everyone “knew” he had WMDs, but where are they? The neo-cons dream was to replace the repressive Saddam regime with a democracy so as to stabilize the Mid-East, this admin didn’t like the Saddam gov’t so it removed him.
“Could be. I’m more optimistic. And I don’t think you fully apprehend the neo-con approach.”
Optimism must be nice when its not your country being destroyed and your people being blown up. Tell me, what is the neo-con approach? It seems to be….invade.
“What about Iran?
But in the case of Iran: does a sovereign government have the right to develop nuclear weapons when it has expressed a hostile intent to another country? And when it has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty?”
What does “hostile intent” and being a signatory to a treaty have to do with a sovereign nation developing weapons systems? North Korea, China, The Soviet Union had hostile intent towards us, did we stop them from developing nukes? What if Iran withdraws from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and makes nice sounds? Is that okay?
My question is does the US and this administration have the right to tell other nations what security arrangements they should have?
J03051, on the ICC, I enjoy how you “prove” your point by linking to a “chronology” that starts in 2002. Even your source has to admit that the Clinton administration opposed what became the final ICC.
As for the 911 commission report, that was not a bipartisan congressional report. Nonetheless, it contained discussion of several links between Iraq and Al Queda – it just concluded that there was no operational links. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Nonetheless, the 911 commission did not deal with a lot of evidence that was known at the time and that we’ve learned since.
The HRW report you first link to does not establish your claim at all. It merely claims that the Bush administration was wrong in declaring the Taliban and Al Queda detainees as illegal combatants without POW status without any analysis at all. But never lists any actual violations of the Geneva Conventions as you purport to claim.
Gee, don’t bother to even read your own links do you?
The Baltimore Chronicle link is a story by ANSWER. Besides being abject propaganda, it also lists no actual violations of the Geneva Convention.
Lastly, you cite a district court opinion in the Hamdan case that has actually been essentially reversed on appeal. The DC circuit completely vacated the district court’s opinion and reasoning.
What is clear is that you don’t actually have a clue what you are talking about.
But you seem to be caught in a contradiction so you call me a liar.
My synopsis of the conversation so far:
SK: Why do conservatives think it’s OK to replace gov’ts they don’t like?
geoff: That’s not why we invaded Iraq.
SK: I wasn’t talking about Iraq. I was talking in generalities.
geoff: All right – in general we don’t think that it’s OK.
SK: Aha! What about Iraq?
geoff: WTF?
Supporting terrorism against the US..when, where?
I didn’t say Saddam supported terrorism against the US, though he did: Saddam Hussein’s Support for International Terrorism
But we know he had no WMDs so where was the progress.
This refers to the surprising progress he had made with his nuclear weapons program in 1991 – far beyond what the intelligence agencies had predicted. Given that history, deciding to err on the side of caution in intelligence estimations seems like an appropriate strategy.
his “desire” may have been in violation of the agreement at the end of the 1st gulf war but a “desire” is not a reason to invade. His past history with WMDs was not against the US so how were we at risk?
These points were directed toward establishing motive and criminal history. And of course, now that the alternate delivery system had been demonstrated, it was trivial to extrapolate a risk.
Lack of cooperation – a reason for an invasion?
Uh, yeah. Again, this was part of the surrender terms and the subject of something like 13? 17? UN resolutions.
Can’t a low budget group still be able to do that?
Not without WMD – like the ones Saddam refused to prove that he destroyed.
North Korea, China, The Soviet Union had hostile intent towards us, did we stop them from developing nukes?
Are you serious? Are you that oblivious to history?
What if Iran withdraws from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and makes nice sounds?
Then we bomb them once we get some sort of nod from the Russians.
My question is does the US and this administration have the right to tell other nations what security arrangements they should have?
Well that’s the point of the UN inspections in Iran, isn’t it? The US is simply implementing the UN policy which the UN can’t implement itself.
Robin:
From the 911 commission web site:
“The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002,”
Sounds like a bipartisan commission to me. Set up by Congress, so its congressional.
Or are you correct and not the official web site?
It discussed contacts between AQ and Saddam, none that came to fruition.
Where are you sources for actual operational links? Where is that “lot of evidence that was known at the time and that we’ve learned since.” Or are you making that up too?
No Al Qaeda in Iraq? Hmmmmmm.
Is there Al Qaeda in Iran? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Turkey?
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
What countries border Iraq you geopolitical genius? You Hank Kissinger, you.
WTF? Are you really saying that it’s okay to invade a country with no ties to al Qaeda if they happen to border on countries that do have ties to al Qaeda? If you are, that’s so wrong I don’t know where to begin.
I’ll try that again…
No Al Qaeda in Iraq? Hmmmmmm.
Is there Al Qaeda in Iran? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Turkey?
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
What countries border Iraq you geopolitical genius? You Hank Kissinger, you.
WTF? Are you really saying that it’s okay to invade a country with no ties to al Qaeda if they happen to border on countries that do have ties to al Qaeda? If you are, that’s so wrong I don’t know where to begin.
My question is does the US and this administration have the right to tell other nations what security arrangements they should have?
Howard Dean certainly thinks so:
Geoff:
Your synopsis is incorrect:
“SK: Why do conservatives think it’s OK to replace gov’ts they don’t like?”
I asked DO conservatives think its OK, not why do they. There is a difference.
“geoff: That’s not why we invaded Iraq.
SK: I wasn’t talking about Iraq. I was talking in generalities.”
In that particular question.
“geoff: All right – in general we don’t think that it’s OK.
SK: Aha! What about Iraq?
geoff: WTF?”
“in general we don’t think it’s OK” but why Iraq? No lie involved, I used your general answer to have you explain a specific example.
“I didn’t say Saddam supported terrorism against the US, though he did: Saddam Hussein’s Support for International Terrorism”
But so did Libya. Why didn’t we invade Libya? Qaddafi is still in power. The Saudis have been accused of supporting Hamas a terrorist group. Invade Saudi Arabia?
But we know he had no WMDs so where was the progress.
This refers to the surprising progress he had made with his nuclear weapons program in 1991 – far beyond what the intelligence agencies had predicted. Given that history, deciding to err on the side of caution in intelligence estimations seems like an appropriate strategy.
his “desire” may have been in violation of the agreement at the end of the 1st gulf war but a “desire” is not a reason to invade. His past history with WMDs was not against the US so how were we at risk?
These points were directed toward establishing motive and criminal history. And of course, now that the alternate delivery system had been demonstrated, it was trivial to extrapolate a risk.
Look, we know Saddam was not Mr. Rogers but there are a lot of bad guys in the world. Should we make a list and start house cleaning the world?
“alternate delivery system had been demonstrated”…? What?
Lack of cooperation – a reason for an invasion?
Uh, yeah. Again, this was part of the surrender terms and the subject of something like 13? 17? UN resolutions.
But we did not invade with UN authority.
North Korea doesn’t seem be cooperating with US but there aren’t any plans to invade.
Can’t a low budget group still be able to do that?
Not without WMD – like the ones Saddam refused to prove that he destroyed.
So they used WMDs on 9-11? How did invading Iraq make us safer from a major terrorist attack?
North Korea, China, The Soviet Union had hostile intent towards us, did we stop them from developing nukes?
Are you serious? Are you that oblivious to history?
Maybe, explain it to me. Could it be that we COULD NOT stop those countries from developing nukes because it would have risked a major war? In other words, we did Iraq because no one was going to stop us. That we could and that’s all the justification we needed. Iraq had nothing that was a direct threat to us.
What if Iran withdraws from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and makes nice sounds?
Then we bomb them once we get some sort of nod from the Russians.
WOW! We bomb the Iranian people even though they haven’t attacked us just because we don’t want them to have the bomb! That just may piss of a few Islamic jihadists, you think? And BTW, what gives us the right?
My question is does the US and this administration have the right to tell other nations what security arrangements they should have?
Well that’s the point of the UN inspections in Iran, isn’t it? The US is simply implementing the UN policy which the UN can’t implement itself.
So how did India and Pakistan get the bomb? Why didn’t we stop them? What if an Islamic party gets power in Pakistan?
This whole invasion was premised on a “what ifs” and “we think so” . We started a pre-emptive war because:
1. Everybody knew Saddam had WMDs
2. Saddam had “ties” to Al Qaeda
3. Saddam was a threat to us
Saddam had NO WMDs There were no Al Qaeda ties He was not a threat to us
He was in a box. The USAF was patrolling the north and south of Iraq.
His military was degraded. If he had sponsored any attack on us we would have justifibly destroyed him. He knew that. What good would it do him to attack us?
He was not a threat. However much you may want to believe the lie it is still a lie.
So.
What’s *your* plan for defeating Islamist extremism?
I used your general answer to have you explain a specific example.
Yeah, whatever. You telegraphed your punch, I preemptively answered your ultimate question, you assured me that wasn’t your question, and then turned around and made it your question. That’s pretty tendentious. Bottom line: we don’t believe that invading countries we don’t like is an adequate justification, but that’s not the justification used for invading Iraq. Stupid line of inquiry aggravated by your persistence.
So they used WMDs on 9-11?
What a petty quibbler. The point being, 9/11 illustrated how easy it was to cause massive losses without a significant investment. Given that the conventional means of repeating such an event were immediately defended against (to varying levels of rigor), it is the unconventional means that must next be addressed.
Are you claiming that we can only defend ourselves against types of attacks that we’ve previously experienced? Is 9/11 the only type of attack and group that we can try to forestall? Because if not, then the fact that WMD were not used in 9/11 is meaningless to our security posture.
Maybe, explain it to me.
You know, I’d love to, but it’s not my job. If you don’t know the history, you’ve got a lot of learning to do.
Should we make a list and start house cleaning the world?
Yeah, that’s the plan. Weren’t you there when Bush said that?
This whole invasion was premised on a “what ifs” and “we think so” .
Welcome to the real world.
1. Everybody knew Saddam had WMDs
2. Saddam had “ties” to Al Qaeda
3. Saddam was a threat to us
That’s not right. The list should be:
1. Everybody knew Saddam had WMDs and Saddam passed up many opportunities to disabuse us of this impression. In fact he exacerbated it.
2. Saddam had ties to terrorism (we’re not just after the 9/11 culprits, we’re after all terrorists)
3. Saddam was abusing his people (from the President’s 2003 SotU speech when he laid out the rationale for the invasion).
4. Saddam was instructed to disarm or be disarmed.
However much you may want to believe the lie it is still a lie.
And that’s the last vestige of credibility you’ve just shed. Calling it a “lie” is a clear sign that you haven’t done your reading and haven’t thought the situation through.
I think we’re done here – you can have the last word.
You’re assuming you can defeat an -ism.
Aren’t there still nazis in the world?
Communists, Stalinists? You can’t kill them all, whatever they are. We have to find out what feeds this extremism and deal with that. We have to find some way to convince them that we don’t want to destroy them so they can’t keep recruiting. We won’t “pacify” them all so in the end we may have to live a certain level of insecurity. But invading and occupying an Islamic country will not convince them of our good intentions.
I believe in the USA and its ideals. I believe it is the best hope for mankind in many ways. But we should not go adventuring around the world. We only get perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a brutal superpower imposing its will on small weak countries. We cannot fight an unending war and think it will not change the kind of nation we are now and hope to remain. We are received best when we are a brother to other nations and not a bully. I have no doubt that both sides of our political spectrum have, in general, the best wishes for our nation but when we put American blood, flesh, and treasure on the line we must be clear that not only is the policy right but that it is achievable.
“What a petty quibbler. The point being, 9/11 illustrated how easy it was to cause massive losses without a significant investment. Given that the conventional means of repeating such an event were immediately defended against (to varying levels of rigor), it is the unconventional means that must next be addressed.”
So now we’re safe from a “conventional” attack? A “low budget” group can’t cause significant damage? And now you’re a terrorism expert.
“Are you claiming that we can only defend ourselves against types of attacks that we’ve previously experienced? Is 9/11 the only type of attack and group that we can try to forestall? Because if not, then the fact that WMD were not used in 9/11 is meaningless to our security posture.”
I’m not claiming anything. I’m asking how invading Iraq has made us safer from a terrorist attack -which was our primary justification. And a terrorist attack without WMDs.
“You know, I’d love to, but it’s not my job. If you don’t know the history, you’ve got a lot of learning to do.”
But I do know the history, you think you do. And you think you know many things too, but believing is not knowing.
‘Should we make a list and start house cleaning the world?’
“Yeah, that’s the plan. Weren’t you there when Bush said that?”
So now we’re Batman? How long will this take and how many lives and how much money? Or should we just nuke the world?
Can’t be too safe you know.
This whole invasion was premised on a “what ifs” and “we think so” .
Welcome to the real world.
1. Everybody knew Saddam had WMDs
2. Saddam had “ties” to Al Qaeda
3. Saddam was a threat to us
That’s not right. The list should be:
1. Everybody knew Saddam had WMDs and Saddam passed up many opportunities to disabuse us of this impression. In fact he exacerbated it.
2. Saddam had ties to terrorism (we’re not just after the 9/11 culprits, we’re after all terrorists)
3. Saddam was abusing his people (from the President’s 2003 SotU speech when he laid out the rationale for the invasion).
4. Saddam was instructed to disarm or be disarmed.
However much you may want to believe the lie it is still a lie.
“And that’s the last vestige of credibility you’ve just shed. Calling it a “lie” is a clear sign that you haven’t done your reading and haven’t thought the situation through.”
What is a lie is that Saddam or any nation or group is a threat to us. And that by invasion and conquest we make the world safer. Saddam may passed up many opportunities to convince us he had no weapons but did we need to invade? And right now? And he was abusing his people but he’d been doing that for years with any condemnation from us, let alone an invasion. And if we’re after ALL the terrorists how will we know we got ‘em all? Does that include the IRA, The Basques, Chechens, Tamil Tigers, etc, etc?
I think we’re done here – you can have the last word.
Hey thanks
So, is there nothing that the left cares about at all? No one really supports the war in Afghanistan, condemns the violence in Dafur or cares about inner-city education?
Obviously by your own standards none of that really matters, or you would be supporting those efforts with your presence and not just from behind the keyboard.
Must be very liberating to have no convictions.
..and gttim, thanks for the laugh, you really have no clue about the military.
Posted by: monkeyboy at February 28, 2006 01:18 PM
Rich Green, is that you?
>>
Second of all, if I had been in charge of the shock and awe campaign, they would have felt it in Paris. Our boys wouldn’t be slogging it out with insurgents on the ground, they would be digging people out of the rubble.
>>
My, Ardsgaine. What a big tough guy you are. How many crushed and burned toddlers and women would be dug out of the rubble for your military adventure to no longer be worthwhile?
Glad we brought ‘em ‘murrican freedom!
I find it amazing, even in the fact-immune right-wing blogo-asylum, that anyone still would defend Bush’s debacle in Iraq. And you wanted even more indescriminate death for civilians.
Your nationalistic tough-guy bullshit sounds a lot like the ravings of Herman Goering, another belligerent dim-bulb bastard.
Your kind make me embarrassed to be an American.