An interesting experience with a soldier - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 06-28-2006, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Aside from that. It doesn't really matter to me what news reports on the war say. There is one side who wants nothing more than a complete withdrawl from iraq asap. Those people I will not listen to, for those people will not listen reason, do not realize (or care) what would happen if we were just to pack up and leave tomorrow. Harping on reasons for the war is pointless now, and will not help us to win. We have 2 options. We can bring our troops home before iraq is ready or we can stay until the job is done. 1 option will lead to a complete mess, the other to much less of a mess.

So you can't think of any reason to discuss (or harp) about why we are there? Maybe because this is one of the most relevant political discussions in the world right now, and has been since 2002. Stevo, if you knew in 2002 what you know now, would you be against or for the invasion of Iraq? The reason I ask this is the same reason I would ask Robert McNamara if he knew then (curring the Vietnam War) what he knows now would he have made the same decisions. The reason I harp is so that people can learn from their mistakes. The reason I harp is so that this never happens again.

roachboy · 06-28-2006, 02:46 PM

stevo:

it's interesting to wander back in after moving and other such....thanks.

i am not sure if arguments for immediate withdrawal are anything more than ethical arguments, really. if the war was launched under false pretenses--which it was--then....as a practical matter, i do not know enough about what is actually happening in iraq (none of us do...such is the nature of "information" about the war in the mainstream press in this degenerate post-thatcher world) to feel like i can make a coherent judgment about when to withdraw. i think ethically the americans are obliged to get out. but this administration is a bit--um---ethics challenged, and so.

it is obvious that the americans have made quite a mess of things:
it is amazing to me, however--really amazing--that the administration can and has used such evidence of its own incompetence as has surfaced to legitimate the war itself, brushnig aside the legion of problems that the false pretenses which they floated to justify it have and continue and will continue to generate.

matthew330 · 06-28-2006, 03:54 PM

"My conclusion: I don't want to be wrong. I don't want to hold onto thoughts/opinions because that's what I've always believed. I want to use my time to listen, learn and form new conclusions. One way to do that is to challenge my own assumptions, to actively chase down the things I prefer to believe and subject them to a greater scrutiny BECAUSE I prefer to believe them."

Wasting your time reading Hosts posts will not guide you on your noble path....neither will suggesting to those that think differently than you regarding this "War on Terror" they have a thought process tantamount to that which gave way to slavery, and better yet the earth being flat.

Willravel · 06-28-2006, 09:22 PM

Tell you what then, Matthew, I'll stop reading your posts, and you can stop reading my posts. I'll stop reading Ustwo's posts, and you can stop reading roachboy's posts. We can go on ignoraing anything that we disagree with until the only words you read are those that you already agree with. Then we will live in a world of pure, innocent bliss. No need to worry about being right or wrong, no need to question one's self, just the everpresent echo of our own voice.

rofgilead · 06-30-2006, 07:10 PM

I just saw a movie last night, called "Why We Fight". One interesting part of the movie was interviews with the pilots who flew the stealth planes into Iraq, for the purpose of dropping bombs on a palace to kill key figures (possibly Saddam). These were the opening shots of the war, however - the bombs missed and hit nearby houses. The next morning, the casualties coming into the Iraqi hospitals were 100% civilian. In the interview with the pilots, it is clear they didn't have a clue as to what had actually happened to their payloads, and the most that they were struggling with morally was one pilot debating whether or not to tell his daughter that he thought the mission was to kill Saddam (which he seemed proud of).

It was pretty sad. Another pretty sad fact is that around 40000 civilians have died as estimated by media reports and the group that was published in the Lancet. The majority of the deaths of this war have been civilians. Children in school, moms, dads, friends of others. All dead.

Many soldiers believe they are doing the correct thing, and believe the war is just. I disagree.

guy44 · 06-30-2006, 10:20 PM

To get back to the initial post, I disagree with the statement that politics is so partisan because the right and left just refuse to listen to each other's valid points. In fact, I believe the hightened partisanship is the result of a long litany of things, including high incumbency rates, an incompetent media (or outright liars like Fox News), and the most despicable, rule-breaking Republican leadership in the House and Senate. Oh, and that Bush fella's doing a heck of a job, too.

But the point of my post is this: the left has had to listen to the right's talking points for years. Fox News. The House. The Senate. The White House. It simply isn't that both sides talk past each other; rather, the right spins and spins and spins and the left has had to shout as loud as it can at a Washington that has utterly ignored any opinions that diverge even minutely from the right's positions. The fact of the matter is that much of the right has taken to creating its own facts and long ago departed from the quaint realm I like to call reality.

I mean, let's take Iraq as an example as long as it is being debated here.

Despite all evidence - and facts, and reality - to the contrary, several of the folks from the "right" here on this board have stated their beliefs that WMDs did/do exist in Saddam's post-1991 Iraq.

Other folks on the "right" state - despite any and all evidence to the contrary - that those who wish for withdrawal "will not listen [to] reason, do not realize (or care) what would happen if we were just to pack up and leave tomorrow." What proof is there of this claim? I believe that those on the left have given the issue great thought. We obsess about this issue. We "bleeding hearts" care a great deal about what is best for this country and without a shred of supporting evidence are accused of not caring what happens to Iraq if we were to pull out. I can stand - in fact, encourage - debate over what our next step in Iraq should be. It's a complicated issue with a dizzying array of interests and difficulties to take into account. But to cut off debate by insisting that merely opposing the Bush administration's stance is to neither realize nor care what the consequences would be is simply unacceptable.

And of course, we could mention other things: like how the media, despite Republican control of Washington, Fox News, etc., is at fault for delaying progress in Iraq and Afghanistan; how things really are improving in those two countries; how al Qaeda and Saddam were linked; how Saddam helped in 9/11; etc.

I mean, the right wing lies outside this topic could span centuries to list (pick a topic, any topic). The point is, the left has a reputation for being boring policy wonks who study every detail of every proposal and equivocate when it comes time to choose a course of action. That stereotype is partially true.

But liberals DO NOT miss the "good points" made by the right the same way the right misses the "good points" made by the left. That is simply not true.

debaser · 07-02-2006, 05:18 AM

Well, I might as well roll up my sleeves and wade on in.

1. Why we fight:

Under the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, Iraq was obligated to give free and unfettered access to weapons inspectors, and to account for the dispossition and/or destruction of his WMD stockpiles which we knew he had (we kept the reciepts). He did not do this. The onus of action was on Iraq to preserve the ceasefire from the 1991 conflict. They did not do this, therefore it was legal for us to invade Iraq. Unfortunatly it was, as we have seen, not neccessary to invade Iraq. There was never a threat to us, regardless of what the initial posters military friend said (how would he know how close a weapon was to being nuclear capable, anyway).

2. Are the troops doing a good job:

For the most part, yes. I'll even give it an emphatic HELL YES. What sucks is that that for all the good the military is doing on a small scale, the big picture keeps getting worse. We build schools, dig wells, pave roads, and stock hospitals, but every day more and more Iraqis are killed in sectarian violence. Iraq is less secure now than is has been since Hulagu, and it is the fault of a failed policy, not the military.

3. Immediate withdrawl vs. reinforcing failure:

This is the 90th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme, and we are at it again. It is not feasable (politicaly) to cut and run, and it is getting less and less feasable to keep pouring our young men and women into the meat grinder with no foward progress being made. The cynic in me believes that we will declare victory a few months prior to the 2008 elections.

Blah, this has all been rehashed a million times. The point is this:

It does not matter what the military thinks.It is not our job to like or dislike the mission, or to play cheerleader or protester. It is our job to carry out the orders of the President of the United States.

It is your job, as citizens, to decide if the mission is justifiable, and if it is not, make the neccessary changes.

host · 08-02-2006, 04:06 AM

Recently, I traveled with my wife to a large U.S. military base to attend a ceremony that included the awarding of a medal for outstanding achievment, and promotion in non-comm rank, to her son, who serves in an elite unit in one of the branches of the armed services.

I have great respect for my step-son's effort and service, but....as usual, in talking to him and to other soldiers who he serves with, the following polls results seem to be "the norm":

Quote:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=684
The Harris Poll® #57, July 21, 2006
Belief that Iraq Had Weapons of Mass Destruction Has Increased Substantially

Most people do not think that U.S. troops will be out of Iraq in the next two years

Despite being widely reported in the media that the U.S. and other countries have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, surprisingly; more U.S. adults (50%) think that Iraq had such weapons when the U.S. invaded Iraq. This is an increase from 36 percent in February 2005. Overall, attitudes toward the war in Iraq are negative, and less than half of the U.S. population believes that the threat of terrorism has been reduced. U.S. adults are not confident that Iraq’s government will eventually become stable, and many think the war in Iraq is continuing to hurt respect for the U.S. around the world. Most people do not think that U.S. troops will be out of Iraq in the next two years.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 1,020 U.S. adults (ages 18 and over) surveyed by telephone by Harris Interactive® between July 5 and 11, 2006.

Specifically, the survey finds:

* By 56 to 37 percent, a majority is not confident that Iraq will be successful in developing a stable and reasonably democratic government. This has improved slightly from November 2005, when a larger 61 to 32 majority felt this way.
* Furthermore, a large 68 to 28 majority thinks the United States is less respected around the world as a result of the invasion in Iraq. This is worse from a year ago in June 2005 when, by 62 to 33, a majority felt the U.S. was less respected.

Attitudes toward the Iraq war

The public’s views on Iraq have not changed substantially in the past year:

* A majority (56%) thinks that spending huge sums of money to invade and occupy Iraq has meant that a lot less money has been available to protect the United States against another terrorist attack. This has decreased from April 2005 when 62 percent agreed with this sentiment.
* Still, six in 10 (61%) adults agree (59% in April 2005) that invading and occupying Iraq has motivated more Islamic terrorists to attack the United States.
* By 58 to 41 percent, a clear majority does not think that invading Iraq has helped to reduce the threat of another terrorist attack against the United States. This is similar to the 61 to 39 percent majority that felt this way in April 2005.

What the public believes to be true

U.S. adults believe that the following are true about the war in Iraq:

* Seventy-two percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein (slightly down from February 2005 when 76 percent said this was true).
* Just over half (55%) think history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq (down substantially from 64% in February 2005).
* Sixty-four percent say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (the same as 64% in February 2005).

I can reluctantly accept the fact that many of my countrymen who are not serving in the military, hold to inaccurate beliefs about WMD existing in Iraq at the time of the 2003 U.S. invasion that were capable of being deployed in a timely manner, at Saddam's perogative, in an offensive, or even in a defensive projection of military force, or that Saddam had "strong links to Al Qaeda".

It is much more difficult, to experience, "in person", dedicated U.S. troops, including our close relative, voicing these same "beliefs". One of my step-son's friends and fellow soldier, informed me that superiors briefed him with the satisfying info that the U.S. administration has not disclosed information about the success of ongoing military operations that would be of political benefit to it, so as.....he was told.....not to jeopardize futher progress. This "briefing" had the intended result, because it influences that soldier to regard the administration with trust and admiration, but it also seems to pull him into an "inner circle", where he enjoys being privy to "special knowledge" that you and I have no access to.....but that he cannot verify as authentic.

We left our step-son and headed home....disturbed that the "spin" these troops receive, causes them to form inaccurate opinions and misplace their trust in a flawed and untrustworthy civilian command. The Harris poll results are just "icing on the cake"!

stevo · 08-02-2006, 05:56 AM

as opposed to surfing the web for "truth"

you tell those mindless drones what is up.

host · 08-02-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

as opposed to surfing the web for "truth"

you tell those mindless drones what is up.

stevo, the alternative, is this....
(Note how Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich "swiftboats" Pat Tillman and his family....because "christians" wouldn't ask so many questions. The military awards/promotion ceremony that I attended recently, began with a prayer that refered to "our father", and closed with a prayer that described my stepson and his comrades as "god's soldiers".)

I live in a country where we are not told the true reasons for going to war, how the president and his administration handled, influenced, or reacted to pre-invasion Iraq intelligence, despite 3 investigations, in a country with one party rule and a "stacked" SCOTUS, a country where the military lies about the circumstances of a "celebrity soldier's" death, for purposes of political PR, complete with a "staged" and false....eulogy at the soldiers memorial service, and then posthumously awards him the nation's second highest medal for "valor", on the "reco" of a Colonel who knew that the valor "story" was false;
a Colonel who subsequently smears the dead soldier's family because they aren't religious enough to swallow the lying bullshit that he and the rest of the military and civilian command spewed to keep them from asking questions about the circumstances of their son's death.

Is that how you want me to be, stevo? Should I strap on "my god", and dumb the fuck down? Should I "glad hand" my step-son, wave the flag, and follow the POTUS, over a cliff? I practice the alternative.....the polar opposite to that "strategy", stevo. If they lied about their "poster boy", Tillman, what else are they lying about? Should I simply chalk it up to a "one time" aberration, stevo.....and blindly trust everything that they tell us, going forward? Is that your "game plan", stevo?

The inspector general's "report" on the death of Pat Tillman, should be released next month....only 29 months after he was killed in April, 2004.

Quote:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssen...printstory.jsp
Posted on Wed, Dec. 08, 2004
Truth be told, lies are part of Pentagon strategy

By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers

Quote:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/etick...e=tillmanpart1
Part One: Pat Tillman's Uncertain Death

.....According to the Army officer who directed the first official inquiry, the Army might have more of a clue about the shooter's identity than it has let on. Asked whether ballistics work was done to identify who fired the fatal shots, Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich told ESPN.com, "I think, yeah, they did. And I think they know [who fired]. But I never found out."

Mansfield and other Rangers who attended the post-incident meeting said — both in interviews with ESPN.com and in documents from the Army investigations — they were advised by debriefers that night that the unit as a whole bore the responsibility for Tillman's death and they should avoid placing blame on any one person.

In his interview with ESPN.com, Kauzlarich also said he was not driven to identify Tillman's killer. 

"You know what? I don't think it really matters," Kauzlarich said. "And the reason I say that — you got to look at the overall situation here that these guys were fighting in. And somebody hit him. So would you hold that guy [who] hit him responsible for hitting him, when everybody was shooting in that direction, given the situation? We'll see how the [Defense Department Inspector General's] investigation comes out. But I had no issue on not finding a specific person responsible for doing it."

Kauzlarich said he is confident the current probe will not result in criminal charges against the shooter or shooters. He said investigators would not still be examining the incident at all if it were not for Tillman's NFL celebrity — he walked away from a multimillion-dollar contract with the Arizona Cardinals when he enlisted — and the pressure brought to bear by Tillman's family on a number of Washington politicos.

"His parents continue to ask for it to be looked at," Kauzlarich said. "And that is really their prerogative. And if they have the right backing, the right powerful people in our government to continue to let it happen, then that is the case.

"But there [have] been numerous unfortunate cases of fratricide, and the parents have basically said, 'OK, it was an unfortunate accident.' And they let it go. So this is — I don't know, these people have a hard time letting it go. It may be because of their religious beliefs."

In a transcript of his interview with Brig. Gen. Gary Jones during a November 2004 investigation, Kauzlarich said he'd learned Kevin Tillman, Pat's brother and fellow Army Ranger who was a part of the battle the night Pat Tillman died, objected to the presence of a chaplain and the saying of prayers during a repatriation ceremony in Germany before his brother's body was returned to the United States.

Kauzlarich, now a battalion commanding officer at Fort Riley in Kansas, further suggested the Tillman family's unhappiness with the findings of past investigations might be because of the absence of a Christian faith in their lives.

In an interview with ESPN.com, Kauzlarich said: "When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you don't believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing. You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing, and now he is no more — that is pretty hard to get your head around that. So I don't know how an atheist thinks. I can only imagine that that would be pretty tough."

Asked by ESPN.com whether the Tillmans' religious beliefs are a factor in the ongoing investigation, Kauzlarich said, "I think so. There is not a whole lot of trust in the system or faith in the system [by the Tillmans]. So that is my personal opinion, knowing what I know."

Asked what might finally placate the family, Kauzlarich said, "You know what? I don't think anything will make them happy, quite honestly. I don't know. Maybe they want to see somebody's head on a platter. But will that really make them happy? No, because they can't bring their son back."

Kauzlarich, now 40, was the Ranger regiment executive officer in Afghanistan, who played a role in writing the recommendation for Tillman's posthumous Silver Star. And finally, with his fingerprints already all over many of the hot-button issues, including the question of who ordered the platoon to be split as it dragged a disabled Humvee through the mountains, Kauzlarich conducted the first official Army investigation into Tillman's death.

That investigation is among the inquiries that didn't satisfy the Tillman family.

"Well, this guy makes disparaging remarks about the fact that we're not Christians, and the reason that we can't put Pat to rest is because we're not Christians," Mary Tillman, Pat's mother, said in an interview with ESPN.com. Mary Tillman casts the family as spiritual, though she said it does not believe in many of the fundamental aspects of organized religion.

"Oh, it has nothing to do with the fact that this whole thing is shady," she said sarcastically, "But it is because we are not Christians."

After a pause, her voice full with emotion, she added, "Pat may not have been what you call a Christian. He was about the best person I ever knew. I mean, he was just a good guy. He didn't lie. He was very honest. He was very generous. He was very humble. I mean, he had an ego, but it was a healthy ego. It is like, everything those [people] are, he wasn't.",,,,,,,,,

........Tillman's Silver Star suggests the possibility of a similar spin. According to military records, 45 Silver Stars for gallantry have been awarded to soldiers for their heroism during the war in Afghanistan. An Army official told ESPN.com that Tillman's is the only one of those 45 that involved friendly fire. Although involved in the writing of Tillman's Silver Star application, Kauzlarich said the medals are "typically not" awarded in such cases.

"I mean, had the story come out that he had been killed by his own guys, then it probably would have been looked at differently," Kauzlarich said.

Army documents and statements given by witnesses during the Army's investigations indicate top officials already suspected fratricide when Tillman's Silver Star application was crafted. According to the transcript of his statement, Tillman's company commander, Capt. William Saunders acknowledged providing the information needed for Tillman's Silver Star recommendation, stating that before submission, "We became aware that his death was a possible fratricide." During a separate interview with investigators, Saunders said he arriving at the scene of the battle early the following morning — April 23, 2004 — and being informed fratricide was suspected.

Though two other Rangers were wounded in the incident, no one else on the battlefield that day was awarded a Silver Star.
Congressional Hearings?
Four congressmen sent a bipartisan letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld expressing concerns that the Army place a priority in getting to the truth regarding Pat Tillman's death. Letter

Partly for that reason, the Army could be in for an embarrassing PR hit when the Defense Department Inspector General's Office releases its findings after an almost yearlong review of the events surrounding Tillman's death. That could come perhaps as early as September — the start of another NFL season. The IG's Office initiated its current inquiry after determining the three earlier military investigations, including the one by Kauzlarich, failed to fully address concerns and allegations raised by the Tillman family as well as by Washington politicians.

In a March 23, 2006, letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a copy of which was obtained by ESPN.com, Reps. Michael Honda (D-Calif.), Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) wrote: "The Army…should have a shared interest in determining whether Army officials covered up the true facts regarding Corporal Tillman's death." To that end, the lawmakers suggest congressional hearings ultimately might be convened to delve into the matter.

Both the White House and Rumsfeld's office declined comment for this story. Through spokesman Hollen J. Wheeler, the secretary of defense turned down the opportunity to address ESPN.com's questions about the Tillman situation e-mailed to his office..........

Quote:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/etick...e=tillmanpart2

"He made the call. He dismounted his troops, taking the fight to the enemy, uphill, to seize the tactical high ground from the enemy. This gave his brothers and the downed vehicle time to move off that target. He directly saved their lives with that move. Pat sacrificed himself so his brothers could live."
Those are the words Steve White used to describe how Pat Tillman died.
Watch the pertinent excerpt of Navy SEAL Steve White's eulogy and hear his reaction to the truth.

White, a Navy SEAL, thought he was telling it like it was to the 2,000 or so people gathered in the California sun and to a television audience watching ESPN's live coverage of the memorial service for Tillman on May 3, 2004. White told them all how his war-hero buddy had been killed two weeks earlier in the mountains of Afghanistan during an epic fight against the Taliban.

White, it turns out, was telling it like it wasn't.

The truth, according to Army documents provided to ESPN.com by the Tillman family, was that not a single Ranger, including Tillman, had been hit by enemy fire in the battle that cost Tillman his life. There is no mention in the documents of even a single bullet hole discovered in any of the Ranger vehicles on the scene.
Nor did Tillman have the authority to "make the call" or bark any orders to dismount.

But don't blame White for the misinformation. He was just the messenger.

In an interview with ESPN.com, White said he was spoon-fed that story by an Army representative just an hour or so before he took the stage, draped with American flags that gently swayed in the afternoon breeze, for the memorial service. By then, the Army's top brass and most of the Rangers who had been in the battle already knew Tillman had been killed by his own men, but no one had told Tillman's family or an American public watching along with the crowd in the San Jose Municipal Rose Garden.

In the version given to White, fratricide was never mentioned.

The Navy SEAL said he is embarrassed by his words now. He frets about the additional pain his speech might have caused Tillman's family just two weeks after Pat's death. And he wonders whether he was set up to tell the phony story.
....White spoke to ESPN.com this spring about the friendship he forged with Kevin and Pat Tillman during their deployment in Iraq before the brothers were sent to Afghanistan. Kevin Tillman had requested that White, a 16-year Navy veteran, speak at the memorial service. And so White told the Rose Garden crowd and the television audience that Pat Tillman had been awarded a Purple Heart for being wounded in combat and that Tillman had been promoted posthumously from specialist to corporal.

Finally, his voice cracking with emotion, White painted the battlefield picture with brushstrokes that made Tillman's action so valorous as to be worthy of a Silver Star, one of the Army's most distinguished awards.

Among the Army officials gathered that afternoon to mourn and celebrate Pat Tillman, listening to the heroic story and offering condolences to the family, was Lt. Gen. Philip Kensinger Jr. of the U.S. Army. Documents given to the Tillman family and obtained by ESPN.com show that by the time the memorial service began, Kensinger already had been told friendly fire was suspected in Tillman's death.

According to a transcript of Kensinger's interview in November 2004, during an Army investigation, he was asked whether he'd made a conscious decision to withhold that information from the Tillman family. He answered, "That was a memorial service. I didn't think it was my responsibility to go up to them and say, 'Hey, you know, this is a possible friendly fire.' "

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/etick...e=tillmanpart3

stevo · 08-02-2006, 12:12 PM

I expected a longer post from you host. at least 3 more references. I'm disappointed.

Paq · 08-27-2006, 04:20 PM

it's official...
they are getting married on new year's eve.

06-28-2006, 02:46 PM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	stevo: it's interesting to wander back in after moving and other such....thanks. i am not sure if arguments for immediate withdrawal are anything more than ethical arguments, really. if the war was launched under false pretenses--which it was--then....as a practical matter, i do not know enough about what is actually happening in iraq (none of us do...such is the nature of "information" about the war in the mainstream press in this degenerate post-thatcher world) to feel like i can make a coherent judgment about when to withdraw. i think ethically the americans are obliged to get out. but this administration is a bit--um---ethics challenged, and so. it is obvious that the americans have made quite a mess of things: it is amazing to me, however--really amazing--that the administration can and has used such evidence of its own incompetence as has surfaced to legitimate the war itself, brushnig aside the legion of problems that the false pretenses which they floated to justify it have and continue and will continue to generate. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-30-2006, 10:20 PM	#46 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	To get back to the initial post, I disagree with the statement that politics is so partisan because the right and left just refuse to listen to each other's valid points. In fact, I believe the hightened partisanship is the result of a long litany of things, including high incumbency rates, an incompetent media (or outright liars like Fox News), and the most despicable, rule-breaking Republican leadership in the House and Senate. Oh, and that Bush fella's doing a heck of a job, too. But the point of my post is this: the left has had to listen to the right's talking points for years. Fox News. The House. The Senate. The White House. It simply isn't that both sides talk past each other; rather, the right spins and spins and spins and the left has had to shout as loud as it can at a Washington that has utterly ignored any opinions that diverge even minutely from the right's positions. The fact of the matter is that much of the right has taken to creating its own facts and long ago departed from the quaint realm I like to call reality. I mean, let's take Iraq as an example as long as it is being debated here. Despite all evidence - and facts, and reality - to the contrary, several of the folks from the "right" here on this board have stated their beliefs that WMDs did/do exist in Saddam's post-1991 Iraq. Other folks on the "right" state - despite any and all evidence to the contrary - that those who wish for withdrawal "will not listen [to] reason, do not realize (or care) what would happen if we were just to pack up and leave tomorrow." What proof is there of this claim? I believe that those on the left have given the issue great thought. We obsess about this issue. We "bleeding hearts" care a great deal about what is best for this country and without a shred of supporting evidence are accused of not caring what happens to Iraq if we were to pull out. I can stand - in fact, encourage - debate over what our next step in Iraq should be. It's a complicated issue with a dizzying array of interests and difficulties to take into account. But to cut off debate by insisting that merely opposing the Bush administration's stance is to neither realize nor care what the consequences would be is simply unacceptable. And of course, we could mention other things: like how the media, despite Republican control of Washington, Fox News, etc., is at fault for delaying progress in Iraq and Afghanistan; how things really are improving in those two countries; how al Qaeda and Saddam were linked; how Saddam helped in 9/11; etc. I mean, the right wing lies outside this topic could span centuries to list (pick a topic, any topic). The point is, the left has a reputation for being boring policy wonks who study every detail of every proposal and equivocate when it comes time to choose a course of action. That stereotype is partially true. But liberals DO NOT miss the "good points" made by the right the same way the right misses the "good points" made by the left. That is simply not true. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

07-02-2006, 05:18 AM	#47 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Well, I might as well roll up my sleeves and wade on in. 1. Why we fight: Under the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, Iraq was obligated to give free and unfettered access to weapons inspectors, and to account for the dispossition and/or destruction of his WMD stockpiles which we knew he had (we kept the reciepts). He did not do this. The onus of action was on Iraq to preserve the ceasefire from the 1991 conflict. They did not do this, therefore it was legal for us to invade Iraq. Unfortunatly it was, as we have seen, not neccessary to invade Iraq. There was never a threat to us, regardless of what the initial posters military friend said (how would he know how close a weapon was to being nuclear capable, anyway). 2. Are the troops doing a good job: For the most part, yes. I'll even give it an emphatic HELL YES. What sucks is that that for all the good the military is doing on a small scale, the big picture keeps getting worse. We build schools, dig wells, pave roads, and stock hospitals, but every day more and more Iraqis are killed in sectarian violence. Iraq is less secure now than is has been since Hulagu, and it is the fault of a failed policy, not the military. 3. Immediate withdrawl vs. reinforcing failure: This is the 90th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme, and we are at it again. It is not feasable (politicaly) to cut and run, and it is getting less and less feasable to keep pouring our young men and women into the meat grinder with no foward progress being made. The cynic in me believes that we will declare victory a few months prior to the 2008 elections. Blah, this has all been rehashed a million times. The point is this: It does not matter what the military thinks.<p>It is not our job to like or dislike the mission, or to play cheerleader or protester. It is our job to carry out the orders of the President of the United States. <p> It is your job, as citizens, to decide if the mission is justifiable, and if it is not, make the neccessary changes. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

08-02-2006, 05:56 AM	#49 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	as opposed to surfing the web for "truth" you tell those mindless drones what is up. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

08-02-2006, 12:12 PM	#51 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I expected a longer post from you host. at least 3 more references. I'm disappointed. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

06-28-2006, 03:54 PM	#43 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	"My conclusion: I don't want to be wrong. I don't want to hold onto thoughts/opinions because that's what I've always believed. I want to use my time to listen, learn and form new conclusions. One way to do that is to challenge my own assumptions, to actively chase down the things I prefer to believe and subject them to a greater scrutiny BECAUSE I prefer to believe them." Wasting your time reading Hosts posts will not guide you on your noble path....neither will suggesting to those that think differently than you regarding this "War on Terror" they have a thought process tantamount to that which gave way to slavery, and better yet the earth being flat.

06-28-2006, 09:22 PM	#44 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Tell you what then, Matthew, I'll stop reading your posts, and you can stop reading my posts. I'll stop reading Ustwo's posts, and you can stop reading roachboy's posts. We can go on ignoraing anything that we disagree with until the only words you read are those that you already agree with. Then we will live in a world of pure, innocent bliss. No need to worry about being right or wrong, no need to question one's self, just the everpresent echo of our own voice.

06-30-2006, 07:10 PM	#45 (permalink)
rofgilead Crazy Location: Nowhere	I just saw a movie last night, called "Why We Fight". One interesting part of the movie was interviews with the pilots who flew the stealth planes into Iraq, for the purpose of dropping bombs on a palace to kill key figures (possibly Saddam). These were the opening shots of the war, however - the bombs missed and hit nearby houses. The next morning, the casualties coming into the Iraqi hospitals were 100% civilian. In the interview with the pilots, it is clear they didn't have a clue as to what had actually happened to their payloads, and the most that they were struggling with morally was one pilot debating whether or not to tell his daughter that he thought the mission was to kill Saddam (which he seemed proud of). It was pretty sad. Another pretty sad fact is that around 40000 civilians have died as estimated by media reports and the group that was published in the Lancet. The majority of the deaths of this war have been civilians. Children in school, moms, dads, friends of others. All dead. Many soldiers believe they are doing the correct thing, and believe the war is just. I disagree.

08-27-2006, 04:20 PM	#52 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	it's official... they are getting married on new year's eve. __________________ Live. Chris