|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boatin
Seems like a great, well intentioned question from Host. It's a damn shame that no one can step up and answer the question. Fitting and not surprising...
|
I"ve posted about my OP subject matter on these thread, before....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...41&postcount=8
06-25-2006, 01:17 PM
matthew330, I want to reserve this spot, below your post, because then I can avoid taking up space by quoting you.....stay tuned.....okay...I'm back....
My wife's son is a member of an elite U.S. military unit. he is looking forward to his first foreign deployment, after more than 30 months of training. He is positive that the liberal media and the opinions of folks like me have hurt recruiting efforts, and that Iraq is largely pacified, except in Anbar, Baghdad, Tikrit, and in Basra. He has no explanation for poor electrical and oil production in iraq.
He knows that the U.S. found WMD, and that, despite admitting that the U.S. has excellent "eye in the sky" surveillance, Saddam was able to smuggle all of his
WMD stockpiles and their R&D and manufacturing infrastructure to Iran and Syria before the 2003 U.S. invasion. He is frustrated and mystified by the failure of the Bush admin. to "defend itself" by publicizing the "proof" of all of this!
He has one of the highest IQs of anyone I've ever met....but he believes what he believes.
I look at what all three principle U.S. Iraqi weapons inspectors have said, and at the miserable job that the Bush admin. did to justify the reasons for invading and occupying Iraq....and what it has cost....in blood, and treasure:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=84506">Are the Feb. 18 Harris Iraq Poll Results "The triumph of Opinion Over News"?</a>
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2022762&postcount=20
03-09-2006, 06:14 AM
Sorry to bring news that your "smokinggun" was discredited last year in the UK "ricin terrorists" trial. I wrote about it in a <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1751493&highlight=ricin#post1751493">TFP thread</a> that you posted to, but you apparently didn't read the news articles that I linked to... in April, 2005, when it happened...it was well reported in the UK and in the US. The "manual" that you cite, was exposed as a US DOJ misinformation "OP". It was apparently actually compiled in the '80's, possibly by one of our own intelligence agencies....
Mojo_PeiPei, you may come back with a response that "there are two manuals"...it is confusing. When the BS that you want to embrace comes from the UK or US intelligence and/or law enforcement communities as the "sole source", Who TF knows...? One thing to consider is that the "manual" that was discredited in a $50 million British prosecution, was reportedly found in "Manchester in 2000", was "named" by Ashcroft's DOJ in 2001, and was presented as evidence in a criminal trial in a US Federal Court in 2001.
The Ricin reciped in the "manual" has been convincingly discredited, and the "manual" is organized in a very similar way to the <a href="http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=98">SOA manuals</a> at the FT. Benning School. They've since changed the acronym to <a href="http://www.soaw.org/new/">"WHINSEC"</a> and it's still a terrorist training school, and "we" run it for the benefit of training security forces of repressive Latin American regimes.
...and Mojo_PeiPei....it's my country, too...and sometimes....I'm ashamed to be an American....I envy you your "uncluttered" POV, but I've always been one to ask too many questions. My eyes are bloodshot from keepin' 'em "wide open".
Finally, your Quran "take" is inaccurate, according to numerous June 2005 reports, including this one, from Foxnews...(where do you "get" your news, anyway?)
The former commander at Gitmo, does not seem like an officer who prizes the truth or supports, in an honest and forthright manner, the troops who followed his orders:
Mojo_PeiPei, as an aside, <b>my wife and I have a son who serves on active duty in an elite US Military unit. His mother and I are intensly proud of him. We have even more reason to "stay informed", because of the service of this fine young man.</b> Our soldier told me last summer, that "liberals like me (host)", are interfering with the military recruiting effort, because of our beliefs and our rhetoric. <b>Facing several more years of active duty, I don't know if his POV is a curse or a blessing.</b> He is a devoutly religious, intensely patriotic, and idealistic early twentysomething. <b>He is, however, misinformed. I draw the line by not disclosing even half of what I post on these threads, to our soldier.</b> The lies, false motives, and corruption of our failed, anti-constitutional leadership and congressional representatives is itself, almost too much to bear. <b>The added pain that is a consequence of this, is the division in my own family</b> that I suspect is mostly due to "catapulting the propaganda". I regret that I am not able to keep my entire family out of the way of "it" when it lands! |
<b>I've taken time to consider the "feedback" that I've been receiving here... and my reaction is to ask if there is inconsistency in what I've posted here, and in the two preceding, older posts.....versus what I've continued to communicate, as far as words (and feelings) of support to my stepson ?</b>
I've posted in the past that president Bush had my support, when he spoke from the rubble pile at ground zero, in Sept., 2001. My close scrutiny of current events began when my son enlisted in the military in 2002....he wrote to me from bootcamp that his DI and trainers stressed that he would be going to Iraq very soon. I was taken by surprise and assured him that there was little to indicate that this was a possibility.
My opinion evolved from the point when president Bush had my attention and support in Sept., 2001. I can track and share the information that has changed my opinion. When I supported the president, after 9/11, and when my son enlisted, in 2002, the leadership of the CIC and his administration, and the justification for military action that they articulated, supported their case for using the US military to neutralize the capacity of enemies to directly threaten the US....reinforced by the actual example of the 9/11 attacks.
Time passed....invasion and occupation of Iraq was stressed as justified because of a direct threat to the US....then that changed....no WMD were found.....flaws in the credibility of Bush and his admin. were revealed...<b> and my opinion moved away from the post 9/11 justification for US military action, as more information poured in..... the same process that influenced me to agree with Mr. Bush and support what he said that he would do....that day in Sept., 2001....in his ground zero speech.</b>
The justification for military action, defense of the US from a direct threat, the stakes, the mission, the moral imperative that Mr. Bush described during his ground zero speech, <h3>were impervious to "liberal criticism". BULLETPROOF.....How can my stepson's belief system now....and some of your own....be so fragile that "liberal opinion" could impair US military recruiting efforts, measurably undermine the GWOT effort, or compromise his safety or "mission", if there was any remaining substance to justify continued US military action?</h3>
How does my concern that my highly intelligent stepson's support for and participation in continued US military action.....knowing what he should know by now.....my concern that supporting him with no reservations, when I know that not only his life may be at stake....but also his soul, is the wrong thing to do? I have become convinced that the US is engaged in illegal warfare on several fronts. I can't see that killing people in other countries who resist the occupation of US troops in their countries....can any longer be considered moral. Doing so, anyway, when you have the responsibility of keeping the integrity of your own soul....your moral fiber....simply by turning a blind eye....ignoring or explaining away the available information.... brings you down to the level of the US administration....maybe even lower....because they certainly can't believe their own propaganda.....
Those of you who disagree with me, know what I'm talking about. Not even one justification has been posted to defend the worthiness, truthfulness, of the US administration or of it's latest arguments for continued military action.
What have you got to justify continued killing of people who inhabit Iraq and the "stans" by US troops, or to defend US policy pronouncements, or the truthfulness of our leaders?
I didn't transform Mr. Bush's objectives, articulated in his ground zero speech into something so fragile that it can be threatened by "criticism of liberals"...like me. He and his colleagues accomplished that, themselves. We are sending our troops into harms way....and they are killing and dying for nothing. If there is a god who sits in judgment....participation in the killing may be costing our soldiers their souls. If it is justified, if it is "worth it", you should have somethings to post in defense of it....you should "know how you know." Instead, we witness your silence and your condemnation of me. We witness, in the news report below, the politicization of the US military leadership by the political objectives of the civilian command, and the repeat of the traitorous, anti-American, Cheney bullshit of the 2004 campaign....<b>Vote for US or we'll "get hit again".....
What have you got, besides the following? It's no wonder that some of you and my stepson are so concerned that the "war effort" is so fragile that it can be damaged signifigantly by critical opinions.....you can't even defend it, anymore....or consider that there is a reason that a "dose" of skepticism can be described as "healthy":</b>
Quote:
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism...0-125437-2462r
Analysis: Insurgents target U.S. will
By PAMELA HESS
UPI Pentagon Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 (UPI) -- Senior U.S. government officials and military officers have suggested that Iraqi insurgents are trying to influence the U.S. midterm elections
A U.S. military spokesman in Iraq last week attributed the increase in violence at least partly to terrorists who want to influence the American vote.
His comments Thursday echoed those made by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney two days earlier on conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh's radio show, which is carried on the Armed Force Radio network in Iraq.
Brig. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad and head of the U.S. forces information operations branch as well as its public affairs unit, Thursday described several reasons why violence in Iraq is up despite a four-month offensive called Operation Together Forward meant to bring Baghdad under control. One of those, he said, was the American political calendar.
"We also realize that there is a midterm election that's taking place in the United States and that the extremist elements understand the power of the media; that if they can in fact produce additional casualties, that in fact is recognized and discussed in the press because everybody would like not to see anybody get killed in these operations, but that does occur," Caldwell said.
On Oct. 17, Cheney told Limbaugh: "I was reading something today that a writer -- I don't remember who -- was speculating on increased terrorist attacks in Iraq attempting to demoralize the American people as we get up to the election. And when I read that, it made sense to me. And I interpreted this as that the terrorists are actually involved and want to involve themselves in our electoral process, which must mean they want a change."
In tight races across the country, the Republican Party faces the possible loss of a majority in both houses of Congress.
A spokesman for Caldwell, Maj. Douglas Powell, told United Press International Thursday the comment was not based on intelligence, but rather what Caldwell knows in general about the enemy in Iraq.
"We have a thinking enemy who is aware of how American politics works and how the American public reacts to events," Powell said Thursday.
By Friday, the story had changed. According to Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Vician, Multi-National Forces Iraq reported that Caldwell based his comments on insurgent Web sites which say they need to attack "during this period."
That period may be interpreted as the run up to U.S. elections, but now is also Ramadan, Islam's holy month -- a time when violence has increased in Iraq in each of the last three years.
Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., told UPI he doubts there is a correlation between the U.S. election and the increase in violence in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad.
"I hope they are right, but I see no basis for it in the previous three-and-a-half years of experience in Iraq," O'Hanlon said. "We did not see a spike before the November 2004 (presidential) election. We have not seen big spikes before other major political milestones. Sure, you can see slight increases in violence due to such things, but the big increases are generally due to changed American and Iraqi army tactics. Increased engagements with the enemy lead to greater casualties on all sides.
"Political events do not in my experience appear to be big drivers. I'd love to be proven wrong this time, because that would imply a reduced level of violence after Nov. 7, but I'd be very surprised if that happened on a major scale," O'Hanlon said.
In a new report published by the Johns Hopkins University and Brookings, researcher Victor Tanner and his Iraqi colleague -- who uses a pen name to protect his identity -- analyze the complex nature of the sectarian violence that now grips Baghdad. More than 5,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the city since May, most of them execution style.
The report describes factions motivated as much or more by their own quest for power, the evening of scores on a neighborhood level, and sheer thuggery, than it does a central strategy driven by geopolitics or the American election cycle.
That said, Tanner told UPI not to "underestimate the political acumen of the radical armed groups on both sides."
That Caldwell commented on the American election raised eyebrows as well. Military personnel are prohibited by both law and policy from using their "official authority or influence to affect the course of outcome of an election."
Caldwell stopped short of advocating for Republican retention of power, but the implication of his comment -- that terrorists in Iraq want to affect the outcome of the U.S. election -- makes that suggestion.
<b>"In my opinion, Gen. Caldwell's statement crosses over the line into political partisanship," said Diane H. Mazur, a former Air Force officer and University of Florida law professor.</b>
Caldwell's office did not respond to UPI's inquiry about the potential political implications of his statement.
Limbaugh's show was not the first time Cheney has suggested terrorists have picked favorites in the upcoming election.
<b>In August, Cheney told wire service reporters that "al-Qaida types" were looking to break the will of the American people to stay and fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. He linked that al-Qaida effort to the Connecticut Democratic primary rejection of Iraq war supporter Sen. Joe Lieberman.</b>
Senate Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., dismissed Cheney's logic.
"This situation isn't going well (in Iraq), and anyone that suggests that the people of Connecticut are somehow supporting terrorists, I don't think that's credible and that's what Cheney suggested," Reid said at the time.
|
|