Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-26-2005, 05:54 AM   #41 (permalink)
Junkie
 
All quotations are from posts by moosenose

Quote:
Hey, if the Jackboot fits, wear it. What have the Democrats come up with since 911? Well, they've come up with "We need to understand why they hate us, and change so they will not hate us", we've seen "If we just sell out our friends and let the terrorists massacre our allies, they'll kill us last, and that's kind-of a victory, isn't it?", and biggest and best, we've seen them run a Presidential candidate who claimed "I have experience in betraying my country in time of war, so I'll make the best appeasement President yet!".

Do liberals support "Palestinian Rights"? If so, they support terrorism. Hell, look at PETA and ALF/ELF. They're the left's favorite terror group.

If Liberals don't want to be seen as condoning terrorism, they ought to do something revolutionary for them, like, say, STOP SUPPORTING TERRORISTS. It's kind of funny how that works...
Quote:
As for Hitler, if he were in Germany today, he'd be considered a progressive, and the Liberals would claim him to be their best buddy, just like the far left loves Castro and Mugabe.
Quote:
As for Saddam not being responsible for 911, well, maybe he shouldn't have been so quick to try to "cash in"... http://www.webmutants.com/strategyp..._the_towers.jpg
Quote:
Yes, and there will always be child molesters, rapists, et cetera, too. That does not mean we should support them any more than we should support moveon.org in their sedition.
Quote:
I'm sorry, I'm talking about AMERICAN "progressives", not German "progressives". Hitler did indeed push forward a wide variety of "progressive" ideals, such as social security, universal health care, gun control, et cetera. That's where the "Socialist" in "National Socialist German Worker's Party" comes from, after all. Of course, he only pushed it for people of "acceptable racial purity"...
Quote:
War and murder are two different things. I do not, and have never, supported dealing with people who have sworn to kill all Americans by trying to change myself and other Americans so that we are no longer offensive to them. I will NOT allow my wife to be forced to wear the Burqua. If people wish to harm me and mine (and by this, I include all decent Americans) then I will respond appropriately, even if that means putting a 62 grain slug through their skulls.
Quote:
I am not a Christian, but have read some of the things said about "that Hippy Bastard from Nazareth". He got what he deserved, and received Due Process of Law. People who support him are supporting a convicted felon. Of course, given the Roman Catholic's outlook on practicing symbolic cannibalism every Sunday, that's no big surprise. Anyway, back to your statements. If somebody is trying to kill you, the appropriate response is to kill them first, NOT to ask them questions about what YOU can do to change so that they will not want to kill you any more. As for peacemaking...."We will create a desert, and call it peace". You can feel free to try your strategy the next time you are about to get ass-raped by some pervert, if you like. I'll continue to carry a gun instead. Which of us will be safer? I'd bet on me.
Emphasis added

Why hasn't this person been called out for trolling?

Were this kind of racist, bigoted nonesense posted by one of the so-called "leftist" or "liberal" board members then I'm pretty sure a public slap-down or temporary ban would ensue.

We have here a tirade that includes insulting comments on Arabs, those who do not agree with the war, Catholics, Muslims, Germans. We have provocative statements based upon untruths. We have baiting.

We even have that Internet legendary joke of using Nazism to further one's point of view.

I don't normally say this, but not only am I annoyed at this stream of invective, but more disgusted that not a single mod has made a comment about it.

What's this place coming to?


Mr Mephisto

Last edited by Mephisto2; 06-26-2005 at 06:08 AM..
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 06:52 AM   #42 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I find Rove pathetic and extremely divisive and I find anyone that suppoerts these comments beyond contempt and feel sorry for them because they are full of petty hatred, and an overflated ego that someday will come crashing to Earth.

He said nothing that Limbaugh doesn't say every day.... the difference Limbaugh is entertainment and says what he says to get ratings and to make money. Rove said what he said just to show hate and to provoke hatred and anger because he knows the GOP is in serious trouble and believes that like the past spewing hatred and accusing Dems of everything will win votes.

I also find some of what the righties in this thread say nothing more than trolling and trying to start flame wars.
I seriously don't understand how what Rove, Limbaugh, et. al. do can be found so offensive by the left, but when their talking heads spit the same venom it's something to be glorified. You don't think Dean speaks to promote hatred of the right? Or when the minority senate leader calls the president stupid that's from his love and desire to bring people together, right .

Both sides do the same thing. If you cannot understand that, you are not facing reality. And if you don't condemn it in your own side, you are a hypocrite.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 07:12 AM   #43 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boatin
I'll grant you that not everyone lining up behind a particular effort (whether it's war, or a particular social security plan) makes things harder to accomplish. It's also the very backbone of the way our country works. I think that the challenges it brings are far outweighed by the benefits.
I don't see things the same way, obviously. I feel that any opposition to a military action should take place at the polls. But to undercut it with propaganda only gives whoever we are fighting another weapon, and makes an added front. Otherwise, what ends up happening is you end up with a situation where protests only help extend, and not end a war.


Quote:
And, lord knows, I don't want to start a Vietnam thread jack, but...


The Vietnamese people fought an insurrection against the Chinese for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. I struggle to put my mind around that. 100 years... 1000 years....

The great US military leaders of the time, thought we could win that war?? I'm guessing discord at home had an impact on US. But approximately zero impact on the actual events on the ground. They would have worn us down with perfect unanimity at home. The American attention span just can't compete. Couldn't then, couldn't now.

We knew (know) nothing about that culture and what makes it tick. I find parallels with the war du jour.
This is where I disagree. We would have worn them down because they would have lost all capability of fighting a war. Had we been allowed to go into N. Vietnam, it would have been a much different fight. And as was pointed out above, the military leaders of N. Vietnam were counting on the resistance at home sapping the American will. It was figured into their battleplan.

And I do agree about our ignorance of their culture also hurt the war. We saw nothing but communists, and failed to see how China wasn't a big threat due to historic conflicts between Vietnam and China (and you can see this even today, as Vietnam is becoming willing to possibly link defense efforts with the US because of fear of Chinese buildup). But I don't think thats as big a problem in Iraq, simply because we have more experience in that area.

I definately understand your view, and in some ways think it's noble, but I don't think its conductive at all to warfare. War should be fought as efficiently as possible, so that it can be finished as soon as possible. Afterwards is the time for examining how it was conducted, and determining what (if any) punishments should be given to those running the war, or taking part in the war. I just don't see how proper persbective can be gained otherwise.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 07:36 AM   #44 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
Why hasn't this person been called out for trolling?

Were this kind of racist, bigoted nonesense posted by one of the so-called "leftist" or "liberal" board members then I'm pretty sure a public slap-down or temporary ban would ensue.

We have here a tirade that includes insulting comments on Arabs, those who do not agree with the war, Catholics, Muslims, Germans. We have provocative statements based upon untruths. We have baiting.

We even have that Internet legendary joke of using Nazism to further one's point of view.

I don't normally say this, but not only am I annoyed at this stream of invective, but more disgusted that not a single mod has made a comment about it.

What's this place coming to?


Mr Mephisto
The reason he's not "been called out" is probably because there is nothing wrong with what he posted. Out of the groups you named, the only one he could be considered openly offensive to is Catholics and those who don't agree with the war. And his claims about Catholics could be defended as true (and many a lefty would probably agree with them). As for those who do not agree with the war, they say things just as inflammatory about anyone who doesn't share their viewpoint. Honestly, it just seemed you highlighted anything that cast the lefties in a less then perfect light, and assumed that is enough for action to be taken.

Much like how Rove is condemned for speeking what he feels is true where liberals are given a pass for slander, libel, and treasonous speech.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 09:10 AM   #45 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
rove may be a thug but he is not a fool--he knows that the writing is on the wall for the type of politics he has been an important part of shaping...so he is doing the only thing he seems capable of doing, which is to retreat back into the variant of racist discourse that has been the stock in trade of conservative politics for years now.

so it is not surprising to find folk who actually believe this nonsense tracking its basic logic. moosenose is in a sense only a particularly inept performer--he is not responsible for the ridiculous, limited way of seeing the world he talks through--the problem is that contemporary conservative discourse make positions like his appear almost legitimate.

i tend to see in moosenose and others who argue more or less the same line near-perfect expressions of everything degenerate about conservative politics in general. for what its worth, i rarely get offended by the posts he offers, no matter how foul--i simply marvel that the framework within which he operates enables positions like his to appear coherent.

the problem is right ideology, not moosenose or any number of others like him.

vis-a-vis rove, the parallel to julius streicher was exact: same type of logic, different object. the central appeal of contemporary conservative politics is its usage of the logic of racism. you can see it in most of the moves that define the terrain: that the extreme right represents the "real america" that is persecuted by "outside" forces...the way those who oppose the extreme right are characterized is always ridiculous--as groups whose only function is to not be what the right likes to pretend it is: manly, erect, not bothered terribly by complexity, very military in a kind of village people sorta way, with an almost unseemly affection for Following Orders, waving the flag, cheesy graphics, the militarization of values, the notion of national destiny etc.....

this "logic" was key to the development of limbaugh's appeal... his talk show operated as an ideological laboratory for the right through the whole of the clinton period.

for a position like this, 911 must have seemed like a gift from heaven, the sort of thing the right had been praying for without having the manly virtue to do it directly.

so you have this "war on terror"-----a direct reflection of the internal logic of conservative ideology of the past 15 years or so: the fantasy Other which is never coherently analyzed in itself, but which operates as a signifier mostly because it is repeated endlessly, everywhere or nearly, across the whole of the conservative media apparatus--the only coherent function of the figure Terrorist--and its protoype in the tiny intellectual world of the right--"liberals"----is to show the loyalists of the right what they can pretend to be by showing them what they are not.

what makes this like racism is both the construction of the Adversary and the way in which the logic of the discourse itself is non-falsifiable---politics according to the right media apparatus is a matter of quasi-religious faith, something outlined in transcendent terms--of the type that reagan's speechwriters exploited endlessly, these rhetorical flights into high patriotic cheese.

all the while the same message--"we"--the "real americans"--are being stabbed in the back by x (the Enemy of the Day here)...."they" want to destory "us"

from an outside viewpoint, that the primary motive that would encourage belief in this kind of horseshit is increasing cultural and economic insecurity driven by the mutation of capitalist organization away from a nation-state framework--with all the problems of social reproduction/control that this entails--is so obvious as to almost not require a positive statement. but since in right world, it is axiomatic that capitalism is an unqualified good, then rationalizing this sense of collapse has to be done on other terms---wholesale avoidance is one way to do it--so "we" who are the "real americans" are being assaulted by a whole series of otherwise unrelated forces, the condensed expression of which is the enemy of the moment.

from which it follows: if the right's political power is falling apart, best to reinforce the group-hate of the Enemy---the forces of Satan if you are appealing to the evanglicals, Terror if you are appealing to the 1/3 of the country that still supports the iraq debacle--"liberals" if you are trying to go back to what worked before, the prototype.

fortunately for all of us, most folk in the empirical world who lean right here seem to have a variable relation to this ideological framework, moving in and out of its logic depending upon the issue.

but there are many folk who are simply faithful to the "logic" of the rove-style right

so the kind of racist nonsense you see in moosenose's posts--and from other ideologically driven conservatives--simply reflects the centrality of the logic of racism in conservative politics.

this is no surprise. it explains much about such appeal as this frame of reference has had.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 10:00 AM   #46 (permalink)
Insane
 
Bodyhammer86's Avatar
 
Location: Mattoon, Il
Yeah roachboy, I'm so sure that the lefties don't have any racists on their side, despite the rantings of the oh-so-fucking tolerant:
Robert “Grand Kleagle” Byrd
Hillary “Ghandi would have been pumpin’ gas” Clinton
Cruz “Por La Raza, Todo” BustaMEChA
Je$$e “Hymietown” Jack$on
Al “Tawana Brawley” $harpton
Cynthia “Blame it all on the JOOOOOS” McKinney
Michael "I'm everything I could possibly hate" Moore

Need I go on?
__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/
Bodyhammer86 is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 10:02 AM   #47 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
I seriously don't understand how what Rove, Limbaugh, et. al. do can be found so offensive by the left, but when their talking heads spit the same venom it's something to be glorified. You don't think Dean speaks to promote hatred of the right? Or when the minority senate leader calls the president stupid that's from his love and desire to bring people together, right .

Both sides do the same thing. If you cannot understand that, you are not facing reality. And if you don't condemn it in your own side, you are a hypocrite.
The topic is about Rove.... I have on numerous threads talked of how I have a dislike for Dean's statements and find them the same as Limbaugh's. But again the topic was about Rove.

Both sides can be very divisive. If you can't debate philosophy and stick to issues but instead make personal attacks, attack the party and resort to name calling and pettiness, then you truly have no belief in your side of the issue.

When you have a congressional hearing and you flatly refuse to let the minority have a debate or express their voice.... no matter the excuse it's a sign you are weak in your position. If you are strong and truly believe in what you say you let the other side talk and make fools of themselves. What road is the GOP congress taking?

Sadly, this is evident on both sides, moreso on the GOP solely because they have talk radio and more exposure.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 11:18 AM   #48 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
bodyhammer:

if you can't even manage to get the terms straight from the post above, what is the point of responding?

the ***structure*** of the central conservative arguments--the arguments on top of which all others are assembled---the ones that define who the "we" is--these arguments are transposed racism.

the claim is that this transposition is a fundamental to the appeal of this ideology.

i explained how i understood the logic to work.

short of drawing pictures, i dont know how to make this clearer.

it would be nice--just once--to see someone from the right actually address a critique of how the arguments that underpin their position actually work rather than what usually happens--which is what you do--attempt to dodge the entire problem by a kind of facile term substitution, which amounts to little more than an elementary school playground trick---which you obviously know---i know you are but what am i?

given this, i must say that it is really really difficult sometimes to not look at conservative forms of argument, look at how folk who are committed to them "bear witness" in the evangelical christian sense (you bear witness in your actions to what christ means to you---what the beliefs are is what others see in you, what you perform--you are yourself, in your actions, in your arguments, what christianity is) but if i looked at conservatism that way, i would have to conclude that it is a form of socially sanctioned idiocy--most of the arguments from the right on this thread--not all, but most--are simply idiotic. as are those examples of rovethought that prompted the thread in the first place.



a fine form of politics you represent.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 02:25 PM   #49 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
roachboy,

All this talk here of conservative racism is confusing.

Who are you referring to as being the victims of this racism you mention?
powerclown is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 03:23 PM   #50 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
jesus christ....
i am going to put aside for the moment my suspicion that you are simply being obtuse and explain this once more.

if you read the post from earlier, the argument is that the central organizing feature of conservative politics DOUBLES that of racism.

it is about creating this category of the Other--that which is outside--it does not matter which one, really: "secular humanist"--"liberal"--"terrorist"--because the point of the move is not an accurate characterization of what is outside but a generation and reinforcement of a sense of who "we" are: conservative folk, the real americans--through the defining of an outside.

from there follows the definition of a mode of conflict---They want to ruin what matters to Us, the Real America, stabbed in the back by the fifth column blah blah blah you know the routine from here, powerclown--and so because the desire to destory is imputed to the Outside, anything and everything is justified in response.

ideologically speaking, it seems that conservatives---like evangelicals----see something that confirms their beleifs in the suspicion that they are being persecuted.
they imagine that they are nice folk who react in defense--and in 3-d life this is often the case.
that the threat they react against does not exist outside their heads, or outside the claims articulated for them by their pundits of choice, is irrelevant.

the point:
the type of argument itself, this whole mode of defining who we are by who we are not and everything that follows from it:
that this is the classical form of racist argument.

it is really quite simple.

so when rove was trooped out this past week and issued his obviously fatuous pronouncements about Macho Conservative vs. Touchy Feely Liberals, what mattered about is was not the accuracy of the characterization--which was in fact so stupid as to not be worth commentary--but rather the move itself, which was--as always--to reinforce this sense of Us vs. a Them who wants to Destroy us (how of course is beside the point) and who in turn We are justified in seeking to Destroy.

i do not see what the complexity of this argument resides in: the terms of it are pretty clear.

just to spare myself the tedium of having to address the reverse of what i just wrote:
I AM NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT ABOUT "CONSERVATIVE RACISM."
SO FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THERE IS NO SUCH ARGUMENT TO BE MADE.


if you don't like the argument, then take it on in a debate: i'd be fine with countering almost anything you could say about it. just don't pretend you dont understand the central claim.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 04:18 PM   #51 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
We have commited to cleaning up this board. We would very much like the help of all who frequent politics in doing so. We have no intention of playing favorites in any way and will use a very simple formula to accomplish corrective actions in here from this point on, these steps are as follows:

If you make a statement that seems to staff as inflamatory, we will Remind you of what civility is.....in Yellow

We ask that others indulge in self control and refrain from rising to the bait, as it can take time to notice these things

If you outright insult, or degrade the person of another member, we will stop you from doing so again for a period of time, and tell EVERYONE exactly why and for how long.....in orange

If anyone goes beyond this....in any way, they will never have the opportunity to do so again.....Period

You see red....things have become very bad

We only hope these extreme measures can be temporary, and allow some of the immaturity to leech out of this board. If not.....our ranks are going to thin quite a bit. If these rules seem harsh or "Fascist" to you.....

Deal With It
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Last edited by tecoyah; 06-26-2005 at 04:26 PM..
tecoyah is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 04:33 PM   #52 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Dick Durbin, number 2 Senatorial Democrat recently made the following comments in regards to Guantanamo Bay: What Rove said doesn't even register on the meter compared to what Durbin said, to my way of thinking. Comparing Guantanamo to the Treblinka Death Camps of the Holocaust is light-years more offensive than what Rove said about the Liberals. This lunatic makes Rove look like a boy scout.
Lunitics abound in the political sphere, it would seem:

"[The Democrats'] position on the filibuster is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It's Mine.'" Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"[The estate tax is] the morality of the holocaust...The Nazis were for gun control. The Nazis were for high marginal tax rates. Do you want to talk about who's closer politically to national socialism...the Right or the Left?"
Grover Norquist, GOP Activist

"[The Kyoto Treaty] would deal a powerful blow on the whole humanity similar to the one humanity experienced when Nazism and Communism flourished." Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so Liberal America is now doing to Evangelical Christians. It's no different. It's the same thing. It's happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the Liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." Pat Robertson of the 700 Club

"Now forgive me but [the Democrats' tax plan] is right out of Nazi Germany. I don't understand why all of a sudden we are passing laws that sound as if they are right out of Nazi Germany." Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX)

"I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: Feminazi's." Rush Limbaugh


Am I the only one that sees the repetition of the "Nazi" theme a political strategy?
Elphaba is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 06:54 PM   #53 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
I don't see things the same way, obviously. I feel that any opposition to a military action should take place at the polls. But to undercut it with propaganda only gives whoever we are fighting another weapon, and makes an added front. Otherwise, what ends up happening is you end up with a situation where protests only help extend, and not end a war.
And I see this side as well. But my practical side bumps up against it. This isn't the way it works. Certainly we had uniformity behind WWII, and perhaps WWI. But I suspect that the civil war had pretty significant dissenters, in the North. Not sure what vague memories of school generate that thought, but something sure does.

More relevantly though: nothing is going to change the dissent now. Whether it's because we are too polarized, or because of basic political or philosophical differences, I don't see it ending.

Because it's the way it is (until something dramatic happens to end the polarization)(hell freezing over??), I don't find arguments that we need to get together and support <whatever> particularly useful. I just don't think it will happen. Telling others to "get with the program" actually seems to make things worse, IMO. (not that you are saying that, exactly)

Quote:
This is where I disagree. We would have worn them down because they would have lost all capability of fighting a war. Had we been allowed to go into N. Vietnam, it would have been a much different fight. And as was pointed out above, the military leaders of N. Vietnam were counting on the resistance at home sapping the American will. It was figured into their battleplan.
I've certainly seen this opinion. And it's sure impossible to definitively argue against. It has a tremendous amount of logic on it's side.

But boy, the Vietnamese can sure hold a grudge. You mention their current reactions to the Chinese. That's just the tip of iceberg. Vietnam was ruled with an iron fist for hundreds of years by the Chinese (as previously mentioned). And they never stopped fighting. Well, until they kicked the Chinese out, that is.

One example: we bombed the BEJEEZUS out of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and we closed it for 2 whole days during the war. We had planes, bombs, crazy munitions, money, etc. They had crappy shovels, bodies and will power. And it was no contest.

I hear what you say, about a gloves off, no-holds-barred type of war. It could sure have been 'over' pretty quickly. Sort of like Gulf War II...

We could have declared Mission Accomplished and everything. I just don't believe it would have been over. Sort of like...

Last edited by boatin; 06-26-2005 at 07:03 PM..
boatin is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 06:59 PM   #54 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
if you read the post from earlier, the argument is that the central organizing feature of conservative politics DOUBLES that of racism.
rac·ism, n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.


Pardon my ignorance, but do you really think it is accurate to call this type of political rhetoric racism? You can make the assertion that the conservatives are being 'divisive' here, but do you really think it is accurate to say it is 'racism'? Exactly which race of people is being called out by Rove here? Are Liberals a 'race'?

Its all quite abstract.
powerclown is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 07:28 PM   #55 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Dick Durbin, number 2 Senatorial Democrat recently made the following comments in regards to Guantanamo Bay: What Rove said doesn't even register on the meter compared to what Durbin said, to my way of thinking. Comparing Guantanamo to the Treblinka Death Camps of the Holocaust is light-years more offensive than what Rove said about the Liberals. This lunatic makes Rove look like a boy scout.
Hehe Durbin is saddly from my farked up state, and I laughed out loud when he gave his tearful appology once he finally got the clue just how stupid his statement was.

Dumbass.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 08:04 PM   #56 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
At least he apologized. I truly hoped the Dem's wouldn't be caught up in the Nazi jingoism/political strategy of the Rep's. I believe all Nazi bs slinging needs an apology and must stop now from both parties.

How pathetical we must look to outside observers.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 08:26 PM   #57 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boatin
And I see this side as well. But my practical side bumps up against it. This isn't the way it works. Certainly we had uniformity behind WWII, and perhaps WWI. But I suspect that the civil war had pretty significant dissenters, in the North. Not sure what vague memories of school generate that thought, but something sure does.

More relevantly though: nothing is going to change the dissent now. Whether it's because we are too polarized, or because of basic political or philosophical differences, I don't see it ending.

Because it's the way it is (until something dramatic happens to end the polarization)(hell freezing over??), I don't find arguments that we need to get together and support <whatever> particularly useful. I just don't think it will happen. Telling others to "get with the program" actually seems to make things worse, IMO. (not that you are saying that, exactly)
But the problem is that we are left at a stalemate-protesters won't quit protesting, and supporters won't quit supporting. I see one as being more in the wrong not necessarily from an ideological standpoint, but from a practical standpoint. People's lives are being put in danger by some of the anti-war rhetoric. And its also having no disernable impact on stopping the war.

I think the comparisons to the pre-Vietnam wars are apt. Even though there were people against many of these wars, once the war started the protests stopped (except in fringe cases). The contry presented a unified front. And the election seemed to make clear to many supporters that more people were at least passively in favor of the Iraqi actions. So to many of them, the anti-war camp seems to be whiny and anti-american because they haven't shown the unity found in other wars (or at least quiet disapproval).



Quote:
I've certainly seen this opinion. And it's sure impossible to definitively argue against. It has a tremendous amount of logic on it's side.

But boy, the Vietnamese can sure hold a grudge. You mention their current reactions to the Chinese. That's just the tip of iceberg. Vietnam was ruled with an iron fist for hundreds of years by the Chinese (as previously mentioned). And they never stopped fighting. Well, until they kicked the Chinese out, that is.

One example: we bombed the BEJEEZUS out of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and we closed it for 2 whole days during the war. We had planes, bombs, crazy munitions, money, etc. They had crappy shovels, bodies and will power. And it was no contest.

I hear what you say, about a gloves off, no-holds-barred type of war. It could sure have been 'over' pretty quickly. Sort of like Gulf War II...

We could have declared Mission Accomplished and everything. I just don't believe it would have been over. Sort of like...
There's a big difference in that Vietnam had a recently deposed government that had some native support before the communists came into power. It would have been seen more like restoring things to the previous status quo after a military revolution. But in Iraq we are attempting to establish a new government, so there is more of a vacuum effect. But it's hard to look back and know for sure what would have happened if things had been done differently.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 09:58 PM   #58 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Rove, the architect behind President Bush's election victories, on Wednesday night told a gathering of the New York Conservative Party that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
Its funny because for some members of the left it was true.

I don't see what the issue is either.

Its pretty weak compared to Dean's diatribes lately.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 10:34 PM   #59 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
The reason he's not "been called out" is probably because there is nothing wrong with what he posted.
I disagree.
Quote:
Out of the groups you named, the only one he could be considered openly offensive to is Catholics and those who don't agree with the war.
The facts prove you wrong. At least one other person posted that they found some of his rantings insulting.

Quote:
And his claims about Catholics could be defended as true (and many a lefty would probably agree with them). As for those who do not agree with the war, they say things just as inflammatory about anyone who doesn't share their viewpoint. Honestly, it just seemed you highlighted anything that cast the lefties in a less then perfect light, and assumed that is enough for action to be taken.
I have nothing against someone posting their opinions. But claiming that all liberals support terrorism, that all of those who oppose the war are offering succor to "the enemy", that the construction of anti-American murals justify invasion, that members of moveon.org are traitors and other such outlandish claims are just wrong.

Mollify your rhetoric, and you increase the chances that any valid point you may be making will be noticed or accepted.


Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 10:58 PM   #60 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
[QUOTE=Ustwo]Its funny because for some members of the left it was true.
[QUOTE]

Name me 1 NATIONALLY prominent Dem. Just 1.

If you can with proof and source link and not 1 senetence from a speech that you choose to warp, while the rest of the speech condemns, I'll never post on politics again..... But if you can't I expect the same from you or at least an appology.

Just 1 UsTwo...... Just 1 that blatantly showed more compassion for the terrorists. IF you can't that statement is inflammatory, a troll and showing a true public hatred.

Hey Zeus Freaking Crisp, if our politicians keep dividing us anymore we may as well just throw the towel in and go to civil war or have states just cede from the union. It's bullshit that our politicians are so warped and wrapped up in destroying each other and that people on here pass that down..... Grow up name calling and this hatred is grade school bully material.

As we name call and blame the other side; both sides are taking rights away, both sides are self serving and selling us out to lobbyists and people just listen to these name calling games and bullying and play along with that.... missing and allowing entirely what is going on, how pathetic are we?

How educated about naziism and how are we bettering ourselves; that we allow Naziism to be thrown about by anyone in government?
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 06-26-2005 at 11:02 PM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 06-26-2005, 11:04 PM   #61 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
.......Saddam was not a nice man. Your defense and support of his rule is duly noted. "Aid and comfort", "aid and comfort", my "friend"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
But the problem is that we are left at a stalemate-protesters won't quit protesting, and supporters won't quit supporting. I see one as being more in the wrong not necessarily from an ideological standpoint, but from a practical standpoint. People's lives are being put in danger by some of the anti-war rhetoric..........
Quote:
<a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3668484/">Newsweek Archive</a> or http://www.wanttoknow.info/020204newsweek
February 4, 2002, Newsweek, U.S. Edition
By Howard Fineman

With Debra Rosenberg and Martha Brant

The Battle Back Home

Dick Cheney was on the line, and it wasn't to chitchat. The vice president rarely calls the Senate leader--a Democrat he dismisses as an "obstructionist"--so Tom Daschle knew the topic was important when he hurried into his Capitol office. What he heard was a plea, and a warning. The Senate will soon launch hearings on why we weren't prepared for, and warned about, September 11. The intelligence committee will study the matter, but mostly behind closed doors. Cheney was calling to pre-emptively protest public hearings by other committees. If the Democrats insisted, Bush administration officials might say they're too busy running the war on terrorism to show up. Press the issue, Cheney implied, and you risk being accused of interfering with the mission...............
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Hehe Durbin is saddly from my farked up state, and I laughed out loud when he gave his tearful appology once he finally got the clue just how stupid his statement was.

Dumbass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Quote:
Rove, the architect behind President Bush's election victories, on Wednesday night told a gathering of the New York Conservative Party that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
Its funny because for some members of the left it was true.

I don't see what the issue is either.

Its pretty weak compared to Dean's diatribes lately.
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/po...nd-policy.html
Rumsfeld Speaks Cautiously on Strength of Insurgency

By BRIAN KNOWLTON
International Herald Tribune
Published: June 26, 2005

..............Mr. Rumsfeld was asked to square a comment last week by Vice President Dick Cheney, who said that the insurgency was in its "last throes," with General Abizaid's testimony on Thursday to Congress that the insurgency's "overall strength is about the same" as six months earlier and that the flow of anti-American fighters into the country had grown.

Mr. Rumsfeld, noting that the word "throes" can encompass violent spasms, said that there was "no contradiction at all" between Mr. Cheney's and General Abizaid's comments.

Mr. Rumsfeld was also asked about the accusations of abuse of detainees at the United States base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. He categorically denied that there was "any policy of abuse or policy of torture."

"There have been, I believe, 50 convictions of people for not obeying the rules that have been established," he said on Fox News. "The prisoners in Guantánamo Bay are being treated humanely.

"The idea that there's any policy of abuse or policy of torture is false, flat false."

Mr. Rumsfeld also confirmed, but played down, a British press report that American officials had negotiated recently with Iraqi insurgents in two meetings in a villa north of Baghdad.................
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0031009-9.html
George W. Bush Oct. 9, 2003

These Senators are strong supporters of your mission. They appreciate what you do. They vote for strong defense budgets, because they know what I know -- that any time we put our troops into harm's way, you must have the best training, the best equipment, the best possible pay. (Applause.)
So....let me get this straight.....the people who advocate keeping large numbers of our inadequately equipped troops in a country that the U.S. military invaded pre-emptively, without legal or logisitical justification, on the orders of a civilian U.S. government that has evinced the opposite of integrity, honesty, or competence, in this campaign, and in most of it's other endeavors....are.....the patriots? And.....the people who protest pre-emptive war, illegal invasion, sending our troops to fight and die when our national security is not at stake, all while putting them in harm's way when it was clearly not a "last resort", these people are undermining our troops by urging their swift return home, while working to expose the deceipt and corruption of the current U.S. administration.......these folks are the traitors ???
Quote:
http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm?acti...es&htmlId=1528
12/8/2004: Iraq Vet and Operation Truth Founder Comments on Troops Questioning Rumsfeld

Administration "deserves it" for ignoring troops' issues since beginning of war, says Rieckhoff

NEW YORK - Operation Truth Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff today expressed disappointment in the continuing reluctanceby Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to take the concerns of the troops into account, even when confronted by them publicly today in Kuwait.......

............Today in Kuwait, a number of troops publicly raised objections to the way the war in Iraq is being waged, when Secretary Rumsfeld spoke to them. The soldiers raised issues ofthelack of protection for the troops, treatment of Reservists and Guardsmen, andthe military's "stop loss" policy. According to press reports, at one point, "A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense."........
Quote:
http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm?acti...es&htmlId=1537
........The shortage of armor for Humvees in Iraq has left many of our troops vulnerable. Two years after military brass first recognized the shortage, the problems still aren't resolved, and troops are still improvising their protection with sandbags and "Hillbilly Armor" -- glass and scrap metal welded to an unprotected Humvee............

News - April 6, 2005 http://www.theunionleader.com/articl...?article=52972

ARMORED HUMVEES:
Iraq commanders ask for more
By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - For the fifth time in the past year, U.S. commanders running the war in Iraq have told the Army to send more armored Humvee utility vehicles to protect U.S. troops.

Just as the Army was reaching its target of 8,279 factory-built armored Humvees for delivery to Iraq, U.S. Central Command last month raised the bar again, to 10,079, Army officials disclosed Tuesday.
Quote:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/0...orld/48801.htm
Armor-kit oversight admitted

By Drew Brown
Knight Ridder Newspapers June 22,2005

WASHINGTON - Two top Marine Corps officers acknowledged Tuesday that they waited two months to issue a contract for armor kits to protect the undersides of Humvees after promising to do so earlier this year.

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, Gen. William L. Nyland, the assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, and Brig. Gen. William D. Catto, the chief of Marine Corps Systems Command, attributed the delay to a "lack of leadership." They assured the committee that all Humvees and military trucks that used in Iraq would be adequately protected by December.

Lawmakers expressed frustration Tuesday that troops don’t have enough protective armor and other equipment to protect them from the explosives, which typically are jury-rigged from cast-off artillery shells and other munitions.

"This is a sad day for us," Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the committee’s chairman and the father of a Marine. "It’s a sad day because you’ve got Marines out there in the theater who are fighting with a great sense of urgency for our country ... but the bureaucracy you gentlemen have back here ... is resistant to moving this thing with a sense of urgency."

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., noted that "for nearly two years we’ve watched the services struggle to provide enough protective armor" without success. He suggested that more congressional oversight was in order.

"Needless to say, I’m sorely disappointed," he said.

Catto, who has oversight of all Marine Corps equipment issues, took the blame for the delay. "This is a lack of leadership on my part for not paying more attention to that specific contract," he said.

Nyland also accepted fault, but said increased production of armor kits in the United States had made up for the shortfall.

"I acknowledge that we took our eye off the ball on that contract," he said. "But we had a parallel course at the same time ... and we have in fact now almost 400 underbodies on the ground for the purposes of installation at the unit level."
Quote:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...ack_equipment/
Excerpt from "an investigation by the Marine Corps' inspector general provided to Congress yesterday.(June 20, 2005)"

..........But the report says that about a quarter of the Second Marine Expeditionary Force's Humvees lack sufficient armor to protect troops against roadside bombings, including 1,000 vehicles that have yet to be fitted with armor plates to protect the undercarriage.

The report also says that if the current demands in Iraq continue, the Corps will need another 650 Humvees, which have been logging an average of 480 miles a month, mostly over rough terrain. And despite an agreement with the Army to repair broken vehicles at a maintenance facility in Kuwait, the Marine Corps had not scheduled any repairs as of last month.

<h3>Meanwhile, those Humvees that have received full armor -- which the report says have significantly improved the safety of troops -- are suffering excessive wear and tear because they were never designed to carry the additional weight</h3>

The report also found that Abrams tanks and other combat vehicles are being so overused that replacements are needed quickly. It found that all of the Marines' battle tanks in Iraq have passed the normal criteria for replacing them.
Quote:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...ack_equipment/
Marine units found to lack equipment
Corps estimates of needs in Iraq are called faulty

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | June 21, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Marine Corps units fighting in some of the most dangerous terrain in Iraq don't have enough weapons, communications gear, or properly outfitted vehicles, according to an investigation by the Marine Corps' inspector general provided to Congress yesterday.

The report, obtained by the Globe, says the estimated 30,000 Marines in Iraq need twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully protected armored vehicles, and more communications equipment to operate in a region the size of Utah.

The Marine Corps leadership has ''understated" the amount and types of ground equipment it needs, according to the investigation, concluding that all of its fighting units in Iraq ''require ground equipment that exceeds" their current supplies, ''particularly in mobility, engineering, communications, and heavy weapons."

Complaints of equipment shortages in Iraq, including lack of adequate vehicle armor, have plagued the Pentagon for months, but most of the reported shortages have been found in the Army, which makes up the bulk of the American occupation force.

The analysis of the Marines' battle readiness, however, shows that the Corps is lacking key equipment needed to stabilize Al Anbar province in western Iraq. The province is where some of the bloodiest fighting has occurred in recent months between American-led coalition forces and Iraqi insurgents aided by foreign fighters who have slipped across the border.

Marine Corps forces and newly trained Iraqi soldiers battled insurgents in Al Anbar province for the fourth straight day yesterday as part of Operation Spear, launched last week along the Syrian border.

The Marine Corps' mission, among the most difficult of the 140,000 American troops in Iraq, is to help stabilize a huge swath of Iraq where popular support for the insurgency is highest and where more sophisticated enemy tactics have been introduced, including larger and more effective improvised explosive devices, the roadside bombs that are the single biggest killer of American troops in Iraq.......
(Missing paragraphs are excerpted in the previous quote box.)

.......Meanwhile, units need at least twice as many of the .50-caliber machine guns that are mounted atop vehicles and designed to protect an entire unit from enemy fire, the report said.

The units also need more M240G machine guns, a heavy gun used in battle, and more of the lighter MK19 machine guns, used at checkpoints to thwart insurgent attacks.

''Most infantry, logistics, and security battalions require approximately twice the number of .50-caliber machine guns and more M240G and MK19 machine guns than they would normally possess," according to the 40-page report, entitled ''Marine Corps Ground Equipment in Iraq."

Communications gear, too, is lacking. The Marine Expeditionary Force headquarters, known as Multinational Forces-West, ''has command responsibilities that far exceed any level contemplated by organizational and equipment planners," the report said. Radio and satellite tracking systems are ''in critical demand and constant use."

After interviewing commanders, staff members, and unit leaders, the inspector general's office concluded that the Marine Corps' current strategy to meet its communications needs in Iraq ''is not sufficient to meet the current and future needs of the force."

The inspector general also determined that even with recommended changes, including replacing damaged armaments, the war will continue to take a toll on the Marine Corps' equipment, from having nearly all of its fighting gear ready for combat this year to having less than two-thirds of it in battle shape by the middle of 2008.

The Marine Corps' equipment shortages are expected to be the focus of a House Armed Services Committee hearing today, where lawmakers will hear testimony from General William Nyland, the assistant commandant of the Marine Corps and Major General William Catto, commander of the Marine Corps Systems Command.

Officials at Marine Corps headquarters and the Systems Command declined to comment on the inspector general's report, saying they were not yet familiar enough with its findings to respond to questions.

Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.
Quote:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...ason18Z10.html
Dad picks up $600 tab to get Marine battle ready

Jun. 18, 2005 12:00 AM

John Tod of Mesa had been prepared to face Father's Day worrying about his son's pending date with the war in Iraq.

Then Uncle Sam stepped in with more disappointing developments.

Marine Pfc. Jeremy Tod called home with news that his superiors were urging him and fellow Marines to buy special military equipment, including flak jackets with armor plating, to enhance the prospects of their survival.

The message was that such purchases were to be made by Marines with their own money.

"He said they strongly suggested he get this equipment because when they get to Iraq they will wish they had," Tod said.

Total estimated cost: $600.

Tod said his son's call about two weeks ago from the Marine Corps Air Station-Yuma was a sobering reminder that the military is not prepared to equip Pfc. Tod and fellow Marines with the best equipment.

Besides the essential flak jacket with steel "trauma" plates, the shopping list for the young Marine included a Camelbak (water pouch) special ballistic goggles, knee and elbow pads, a "drop pouch" to hold ammunition magazines and a load-bearing vest.

Tod, 45, is picking up the tab for a son who blew most of his savings on a new pickup truck. And dad says he is tempted to forward the bill to the Pentagon. "Or maybe I can write it off in taxes," he said with a grin.

It's not the cost that concerns him, even though the self-employed home repairman will have to dig deep for the cash.

"We're supposed to have a professional army," he said, "the best in the world. And we're not providing them with the type of gear they need to protect themselves as they do their jobs."

Marine Maj. Nat Frahy, a spokesman in Washington, said the military issues equipment, but it's possible that young Tod's commanders told him that it was perfectly OK to buy equipment that would help him on the battlefield.

Told about the Marine request, U.S. Rep. J. D. Hayworth, the Republican whose 5th District includes Mesa, said he has never heard of a service person being told to buy his own equipment.

Hayworth said he will contact the military to "find out what on earth is going on and why isn't that stuff there for them already. If it involves bottlenecks and glitches to get equipment to them then there should be a voucher system where military personnel can be reimbursed."........................
Quote:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...ason25Z11.html
Pfc.'s dad didn't tell me what I heard, Marines say

Jun. 25, 2005 12:00 AM

The Marines have landed again.

This time they shut down a young Mesa Marine and his father.

In a June 18 column, I told the story of John Tod's troubling conversation with his son, Marine Pfc. Jeremy Tod.

John Tod said his son had told him during a phone call that he was urged by a superior to buy, with his own money, special military gear that could help him in combat. He said he expects to be in Iraq this year. The list included a flak jacket with steel plates, a Camelbak water pouch, special ballistic goggles, knee and elbow pads, a drop pouch to hold ammunition magazines and a load-bearing vest.

The very concerned 45-year-old dad said during a June 9 interview over breakfast that Uncle Sam, not his son, should pick up the tab for such equipment.

Now, the Marine Corps says John Tod denied making statements attributed to him in my column and that 19-year-old Pfc. Tod insists that he never had such a conversation with his father.

The denials came as young Tod's commanders questioned father and son together, dad by telephone, said Maj. Curtis Hill, a spokesman for both the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing in San Diego and the Marine Corps' inquiry into the matter.

The major acknowledged that Pfc. Tod, stationed at Camp Pendleton near Oceanside, Calif., was "under a lot of pressure" when questioned by his commanders.

John Tod, a father very willing to talk about his son's equipment quandary this month, did not return my calls after being quizzed by his son's commander.........

........The Washington Post reported in March that the demands of sustained ground combat were heavier than expected, "depleting military manpower and gear faster than they can be fully replenished." The article noted that "shortfalls in recruiting and backlogs in needed equipment are taking a toll, and growing numbers of units have been taxed by repeated deployments."

U.S. Rep. J. D. Hayworth, a Republican whose 5th District covers parts of Mesa, said last week that military personnel should not be required to buy equipment that's essential to their jobs. Hayworth couldn't be reached Thursday but his spokesman, Larry VanHoose, said the congressman was still seeking answers from the military.

"He's not going to let this thing go," VanHoose said.........
host is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 12:16 AM   #62 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Hmmmm, thanks Host looks like Haliburton is doing what we pay them for.

Of course this administration and party in charge keep voting to cut veterans benefits, keep closing VA hospitals and keep reneging on their promises..... but call the opposition the war haters.

And yes, Vets rights and our government honoring their commitments and promises, and making sure our military is adequately supplied is a huge issue with me. The fact the Rove makes inflammatory statements that say Dems. are non patriotic and want to help the terrorists while his party keeps cutting the benefits, the promises they make, under supplying our troops and allowing Haliburton to keep making Billions and more contracts is wrong.

But what is more pathetic are the people who defend these attrocities:

Quote:
Don't believe me about benefits go to VFW's go to American Legions;

go to the VA hospitals that are closing like Brecksville that have ambulatory patients that cannot live on their own being thrown into the street;

go to accredited colleges and universities where Vets are not allowed to recieve their GI Bills or the money they were guaranteed is not all there;

Ask cities like Mansfield, Ohio who are losing one of their biggest employers as the base that during the election Bush called "necessary and an integral part of our war on terror."

and unlike those who make fraudulent claims here's links (I'm even doing all the research you have no excuses to still call me a liar or that I am misinterpreting without clicking the links):
Quote:
http://www.pjstar.com/stories/062605...20C0.012.shtml

http://www.selmatimesjournal.com/art.../letter946.txt

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._veterans_wa_1
(see if this passes)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...870975,00.html

(here's your answer and the GOP claim that it' a "holy war against Christians" because the Dems chose to add the words "coercive and abusive" in this sentence "abusive religious proselytizing" as criminal actions against non-christian soldiers) It failed by a party line vote..... help to vets and it fails because the Dems ask that those who do criminal acts against another religion be punished. By the way, this was a speech before the AF Academy where the action was deftly applauded. (Can anyone say the military is teaching religious intolerence? I can draw a well founded conclusion using that source and further research.)

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1118412002/3

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050603/dcf037.html?.v=22

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news...s=bos&psp=news

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet...=1031783404960

http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=115332

http://english.people.com.cn/200505/...28_187191.html

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/a...10320/1001/RSS
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 06-27-2005 at 12:27 AM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 05:45 AM   #63 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
What's with all the sudden compassion for the Military? The concern for alleged equipment shortages/malfunctions is notable, but what is the meaning of it in the face of fighting a supposed illegal war??? On one hand you want the troops properly equipped to do their job, on the other you say the war is illegal and they shouldn't be there in the first place. What am I missing?
powerclown is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 06:03 AM   #64 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
You are missing nothing. I have read the posts here and the message is clear. Some are capable of both supporting the troops as needed, and questioning the War in general.

Rather than pretend to not understand, in an attempt to inflame others. perhaps hit the back button or type something of value.

unless you wish your fellow members to believe you actually have failed to understand what is written here....extensively
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 06:36 AM   #65 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah
You are missing nothing. I have read the posts here and the message is clear. Some are capable of both supporting the troops as needed, and questioning the War in general.
You must admit tecoyah-san, it sure is an...unorthodox...way to express support for the troops.

Quote:
...the people who advocate keeping large numbers of our inadequately equipped troops in a country that the U.S. military invaded pre-emptively, without legal or logisitical justification
Quote:
...the people who protest pre-emptive war, illegal invasion, sending our troops to fight and die when our national security is not at stake.
I wonder if a soldier in Iraq reading this would consider it 'support'. Morale-wise.

/back OT
powerclown is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 06:39 AM   #66 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Much better....thank you

Perhaps worded in this way, we can get honest and considered response to a question
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 07:10 AM   #67 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
You must admit tecoyah-san, it sure is an...unorthodox...way to express support for the troops.

I wonder if a soldier in Iraq reading this would consider it 'support'. Morale-wise.

/back OT
If i were a soldier, i'd wonder about the unorthodoxy of an administration that starts wars with an undersized, undersupplied military force, cuts veteran benefits, and then still expects people to believe that said administration 'supports" the military for any cause other than the accumulation of political capital. How would your morale be if the administration who sent you somewhere couldn't be bothered to ever acknowledge that you're undersized and undersupplied?

To be clear though, i think troop support pissing contests are silly. If all those who were pro-war actually supported the military, they'd all have joined up by now and if all those who cared that our troops were undersupplied actually cared, they would send support in the form of money or supplies. I myself am unsure how to support troops who are halfway accross the world when i don't have money, and don't believe in joining the military for philosphical reasons. I think it will be more important what we do when the troops come home. War is traumatic and most of our soldiers will be in need of some form of counseling. I'm not sure where cutting veteran's benefits comes into that equation, though.
filtherton is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 07:50 AM   #68 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
You must admit tecoyah-san, it sure is an...unorthodox...way to express support for the troops.

I wonder if a soldier in Iraq reading this would consider it 'support'. Morale-wise.

/back OT
I absolutely, and without equivocation think this war was a bad idea. I think we were sold a bill of goods, and been mislead to get us there. I have zero respect for the administration, their intent and their execution of this war.

I absolutely support the troops. I support spending money to get them equipment to do their jobs. I support spending money on Veteran benefits when they get home. I support raising taxes to pay for those two ideas. Or making cuts in other (military, if possible[how many new weapon systems would need to be scraped to pay for all that? a quarter of one?) areas to pay for them. I believe supporting the troops starts by listening to the Pentagon and sending the troops THEY recommend, not what politicians think we should do.

We are there, and need to do a credible job there. And we need to have a plan to get out of there. With timetables.


If I were a soldier in Iraq (like my cousin, my friend, and my (work) acquantance) I would find my morale to be BETTER with the above sentiment then with the blind "i support the administration" stance. I can point to 3 soldiers who find no "morale busting" with the support the troops/dislike the war stance.

Others are entitled to whatever opinion they hold, of course.

Now it's my turn for the "not understanding": I've always been confused (since the time 2 years ago argueing with Sixate on these boards) at the problem people see in holding those two positions [love the soldiers/hate the war]. I've been called unpatriotic many times, both on boards and in person, when I've expressed my opinion.

I honestly don't understand. They are two different things. How can I NOT have 2 separate opinions of them?

Last edited by boatin; 06-27-2005 at 07:56 AM..
boatin is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 07:51 AM   #69 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by TM875
Yes, exactly. THAT IS what needs to be done. Blowing them to hell won't work. Sanctioning them will not succeed. Only once you know your enemy, understand what they want, why they want it, and how they will attain it, will you be able to effectively fight and win a battle.
Sorry, but you are 100% wrong. We aren't trying to win the battle, we're fighting to win a war.

I admit I haven't been to the middle east, so this isn't first hand knowledge. But I've talked to several freedom loving arab-americans and they all say the same thing.

The anti-US propaganda fed to the middle-eastern populace comes from the dictators of these countries. From the streets of Cairo to Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, name the place, They have centrally controlled media who has been the mouthpiece of the dictators for years. The people in these countries have been indoctrinated from the youngest age that america is evil and the US is the devil . They have been taught this from an early age because the dictators know what threatens their hold on power, and that is American ideals of justice and liberty for all. If the people in these countries were fed the honest truth since their birth we would have seen democratic revolutions take place decades ago. These people hate us because of who we are, not because of anything we do.

The terrorists and dictators alike will, of course, use every bit of information they can to further their agenda. Anything bad that comes from the press or out of the war they will spin to their advantage. But they hated us long before this war and being nice to them isn't going to change a thing.

The only thing this culture responds to is strength and force. America needs to be seen as strong in its commitment and will. It needs to be seen as a country that doesn't bend to the will of others. If we are seen as doing whatever it takes to get people to like us, pulling out of the middle east or even just closing guantanamo because of all the negative press, we will be seen as a country of ass-kissers. The middle east will gain no respect for us out of such actions, but will interpret those actions as a sign of weakness.

We need to be forceful. We need to stay the course in iraq. By turning iraq into a succesful and powerful democracy in the middle east with a free market and a free press iraq will be a beacon to the rest of the middle east. An actual example to counter the decades of anti-US propaganda and illustrate what the united states stands for. We need to give the people in the middle east a reason not to turn to terrorism and extremism and that is by spreading the freedoms we enjoy (and take for granted) to all, especially those who hate us.

And at some point, with some people, the only way to do that is with unbridled, blunt force.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 07:59 AM   #70 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

The facts prove you wrong. At least one other person posted that they found some of his rantings insulting.
And he explained that German people weren't who he was talking about.


Quote:
I have nothing against someone posting their opinions. But claiming that all liberals support terrorism, that all of those who oppose the war are offering succor to "the enemy", that the construction of anti-American murals justify invasion, that members of moveon.org are traitors and other such outlandish claims are just wrong.
How are these claims either outlandish or wrong? There's more truth in these claims than in the tons of posts/threads supposedly stating that the Bush admin. are war criminals. It seems you only disagree because it reflects negatively on views you hold, and not because there's any inherent invalidity in what moosenose said.

Quote:
Mollify your rhetoric, and you increase the chances that any valid point you may be making will be noticed or accepted.


Mr Mephisto
If only the left could follow that advice.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 08:33 AM   #71 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by boatin
Now it's my turn for the "not understanding": I've always been confused (since the time 2 years ago argueing with Sixate on these boards) at the problem people see in holding those two positions [love the soldiers/hate the war]. I've been called unpatriotic many times, both on boards and in person, when I've expressed my opinion.
I'm not calling you or fitherton or anyone here unpatriotic or "on the side of the terrorists". What needs to be considered though, in my opinion, is the general anti-war sentiment as expressed in the mainstream media for example. I see no benefit whatsoever for Ted Kennedy and the like to constantly be referring to this thing as a quagmire, where the intent seems to be that of proving Bush wrong by any means necessary, nevermind the fallout. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for dissent, for counterbalance, but where should the line be drawn? Would it be right for dissent to cause failure in Iraq? Rumsfeld said something the other day in his Senate hearing which I agree with: He mentioned that the media was complicit in "pushing" an anti-war agenda, as opposed to "honest and objective" reporting because the only hope - the only hope - the insurgency has at this point is for America and the World to grow apathetic.
powerclown is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 09:32 AM   #72 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Amish-land, PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
From the streets of Cairo to Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, name the place, They have centrally controlled media who has been the mouthpiece of the dictators for years. The people in these countries have been indoctrinated from the youngest age that america is evil and the US is the devil . They have been taught this from an early age because the dictators know what threatens their hold on power, and that is American ideals of justice and liberty for all. If the people in these countries were fed the honest truth since their birth we would have seen democratic revolutions take place decades ago. These people hate us because of who we are, not because of anything we do.
I agree with you totally, and I understand that, since birth, many of the citizens of the middle east have been taught nothing but hatred for the United States.

What I'm proposing is a change in the actions that we take that make them hate us and who we are. That is, stop meddling in their business, stop forcing our ideals on them, and allow those nations to be sovereign to themselves. By going to war in Iraq, we are directly imposing said ideals of justice and liberty for all onto a people who do not want/agree with these ideals. Thus, we are hated for our "oppression".

As an economist, I realize that, in most cases, free markets and democracy are the best course of action for an underdeveloped nation. However, this is not always the case. Some dictatorships are not necessarily bad and can work to the nation's advantage (China, for example, is now growing because their leaders have finally understood how to use this to their advantage).

What bothers me more than anything is the ridiculous missionary-esque belief that many in Washington have that we need to spread "freedom" and "democracy" to all parts of the world. By doing this, we are, in a way, really just oppressing those same people (though in a different manner). They don't want our intervention. If a country wants to retain its dictatorial ruler - and not stand up and fight their own democratic revolution, started by themselves (the Colonial Americans did not recieve help until the war was fairly established and their side had a possibility for success, remember?) - then we should allow them to remain slaves and worry about strengthening and resolving problems at home.
__________________
"I've made only one mistake in my life. But I made it over and over and over. That was saying 'yes' when I meant 'no'. Forgive me."
TM875 is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 09:51 AM   #73 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
Out of the groups you named, the only one he could be considered openly offensive to is Catholics and those who don't agree with the war. And his claims about Catholics could be defended as true (and many a lefty would probably agree with them).
Oddly enough, I was raised Roman Catholic, and am German.
moosenose is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 09:55 AM   #74 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TM875
I agree with you totally, and I understand that, since birth, many of the citizens of the middle east have been taught nothing but hatred for the United States.

What I'm proposing is a change in the actions that we take that make them hate us and who we are. That is, stop meddling in their business, stop forcing our ideals on them, and allow those nations to be sovereign to themselves. By going to war in Iraq, we are directly imposing said ideals of justice and liberty for all onto a people who do not want/agree with these ideals. Thus, we are hated for our "oppression".

As an economist, I realize that, in most cases, free markets and democracy are the best course of action for an underdeveloped nation. However, this is not always the case. Some dictatorships are not necessarily bad and can work to the nation's advantage (China, for example, is now growing because their leaders have finally understood how to use this to their advantage).

What bothers me more than anything is the ridiculous missionary-esque belief that many in Washington have that we need to spread "freedom" and "democracy" to all parts of the world. By doing this, we are, in a way, really just oppressing those same people (though in a different manner). They don't want our intervention. If a country wants to retain its dictatorial ruler - and not stand up and fight their own democratic revolution, started by themselves (the Colonial Americans did not recieve help until the war was fairly established and their side had a possibility for success, remember?) - then we should allow them to remain slaves and worry about strengthening and resolving problems at home.

I don't see how you can oppress someone by giving them freedom. Especially where there are large numbers of dissidents who lack the power to overthrow the regime in charge. For instance, there were slaves in the south that did not want freedom, and went back to their masters even after the war. They didn't understand the basic concept. Now were these people being oppressed?

Also, you give China as an example of a dictatorship working toward the advantage of the country. That is true, China's power is growing, but the effects aren't really felt by the general populace. All they are doing is making peasants who previously were ag-oriented into manufacturing slaves.

And also, there is no correlation between the American revolution and any possible revolution that may have developed in Iraq. America was separated from it's "overlord" by an ocean, and was also a vast area that was largely unexplored. Iraq's dictator was in-house, so his control would be more absolute. A more apt comparison would be Scotland's repeated attempts at freedom from England.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 10:09 AM   #75 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by TM875
I agree with you totally, and I understand that, since birth, many of the citizens of the middle east have been taught nothing but hatred for the United States.

What I'm proposing is a change in the actions that we take that make them hate us and who we are. That is, stop meddling in their business, stop forcing our ideals on them, and allow those nations to be sovereign to themselves. By going to war in Iraq, we are directly imposing said ideals of justice and liberty for all onto a people who do not want/agree with these ideals. Thus, we are hated for our "oppression".
But they don't hate us because of anything we do. They hate us because of what they've been told by their leaders for generations. The way to "get them to like us" isn't by bowing down to the demands of extremists. Its by fighting them and *gulp* implementing democracy in that region.

"Justice and liberty for all" as well as economic and social freedom are not Western Ideals, but Human ideals. Do you not believe that every person wants to be free? You don't opress people by liberating them from a totalitarian regime. We are not oppressing anyone in the middle east, except for saddam. By giving iraqis the tools they need to free themselves from oppression they will have a better understanding of who we really are and what we stand for, and that will spread throughout the middle east.

Now if we cut and run, leave their region and country in ruins with a shakey government, well, then they will have another idea of who we really are and what we stand for.

Being an economist myself, I think in terms of costs and benefits, and I see the benefits of our actions in Iraq far outweighing the costs - in the long run.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 11:32 AM   #76 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Having been military and knowing many still in (some in the war zone), my friends and area vets know that I bend over backwards to help them. They know I do not believe in this war. They also know I am very outspoken about the troops being underfunded, underequipped and lied to about benefits. And they know I can be both and that they can be both.

This administration keeps underfunding and underequipping, the soldier and lying to vets. To say you support the war, the administration and turn a blind eye to those problems while you question others patriotism makes no sense to the soldier and the vet. How can you say you support the troops when you allow them to not have the equipment and the materials they need to fully succeed. Many will tell you that this is Vietnam all over again and that they see a draft coming.

People speak of "morale" so I ask what is more morale busting:

Someone like myself saying the troops are fighting in a war that we were lied to about and are doing so underequipped, undersupplied, staying longer than they should, (while Halliburton continues to make billions) and coming home to find they were lied to about their benefits from this administration.

Or someone who blindly follows this administration denies, ignores and stays quiet over the facts and simply says, you're unpatriotic and not supporting the troops if you don't believe in the war.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 12:11 PM   #77 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
People speak of "morale" so I ask what is more morale busting:

Someone like myself saying the troops are fighting in a war that we were lied to about and are doing so underequipped, undersupplied, staying longer than they should, (while Halliburton continues to make billions) and coming home to find they were lied to about their benefits from this administration.

Or someone who blindly follows this administration denies, ignores and stays quiet over the facts and simply says, you're unpatriotic and not supporting the troops if you don't believe in the war.
Out of the rather limited options you provided, I'd say the first, definitely. Where do you get the idea that the soldiers are "underequipped, undersupplied, staying longer than they should"??? You make it sound like the Russians getting run out of Afghanistan in moldy tennis shoes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Does every single soldier among the 150,000 or so over there now have every nut & bolt they WANT? No. Do they have what they NEED to do the job. Yes, they do. They're doing it right now. The Iraqis are busy preparing a constitution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Latest war in sharp contrast to past efforts

By Terry Boyd and Ward Sanderson, Stars and Stripes


Soldiers in their battle rattle in Iraq probably don’t want to hear this, but generations of American soldiers have lived harder and fought longer with less training, equipment and support.

World War II troops headed to Europe and the Pacific not knowing when they would return home. Some servicemembers in Vietnam didn’t communicate with home for months. Even Desert Storm warriors somehow survived without the Internet or much else in the way of leisure.

One soldier in Iraq brought a combat veteran’s perspective to how today’s troops compare with their predecessors.

First Sgt. William Oxendine, 53, a National Guardsman with the Arizona-based 855th Military Police Co., served in Vietnam, Haiti and in both wars with Iraq.

In a survey of living conditions in Iraq, Oxendine noted that today’s soldier has it made compared with yesterday’s veterans. In his opinion, most complaints about morale aren’t justified. “We have more things and opportunities than anyone else in the world. Soldiers of today are just as well-trained as in the past, but they’re definitely softer when it comes to living conditions.”

They expect improvements to happen quickly, “and now we’re in a situation where these things [Internet, phones and television] are not available,” Oxendine wrote. “A lot of young people can’t comprehend why they’re not here.”

Oxendine made one phone call in 18 months while serving in Vietnam in 1970 and 1971, he wrote.

Others in Iraq think that in today’s high-tech military, historical comparisons don’t hold up.

One master sergeant with 21 years in the Army wrote that in the new millennium, troops do and should expect better camps.

“This campaign is certainly my worst ever,” the military policeman wrote from Iraq. “We deserve better living conditions, with air conditioning, showers and laundry facilities. This is the year 2003, not the 1950s or 1960s. Technology is with us. Yet our living conditions still are below standard.”

A first lieutenant in Iraq wrote, “Soldiers or people comparing this conflict to WWII, Korea or Vietnam are not making valid comparisons of size, scale, scope, mission, enemy, mood, weapons and so on.”

Others believe that America’s military missions have changed since the wars of past, while troops’ expectations have risen. This and the advent of a demanding, all-volunteer force can test morale.

Sixty years ago “it was a different world, and mostly because of the clarity of the war,” said historian Thomas Allen, National Geographic writer and author of “World War II: America at War, 1941-1945.”

“And I think if you look at World War II, then Korea, then Vietnam, then Iraq I and then Iraq II, I think after World War II you lose the war aim, and the clarity of war,” Allen said. “There’s a fog around it somehow.”

A National Guardsman surveyed by Stars and Stripes in Fallujah agreed. “In past wars, from what I’ve read or seen, it seemed as though everyone had a ‘known’ mission,” wrote Spc. Shawn Smoot of the 890th Engineer Battalion. “We’re in the dark.”

In the Stars and Stripes survey and in interviews, many soldiers in Iraq referenced yesterday’s wars; some defensively, some with awe.

One soldier at Baghdad International Airport pined for the days of traditional combat. “I think soldiers in the past wars were in real wars, not this peacekeeping deal,” said Sgt. Jose Gutierrez, 26. “They are the heroes and I give it to them for being real soldiers — unlike us, complaining about no Internet or phones or air conditioning.”

Though soldiers in Iraq endure temperatures as high as 140 degrees, fighting conditions were just as terrible during the campaigns of World War II.

“They had a helluva time,” said Herman Chanowitz, 88, a WWII veteran now living in Naples, Italy. “Living conditions here in Italy during the wintertime, going from one particular hill they captured to another hill. Fighting and fighting and fighting under horrible conditions. I don’t know how they could take it all. Nothing to look forward to but getting to the next hill and capture it.”
powerclown is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 12:40 PM   #78 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Out of the rather limited options you provided, I'd say the first, definitely. Where do you get the idea that the soldiers are "underequipped, undersupplied, staying longer than they should"??? You make it sound like the Russians getting run out of Afghanistan in moldy tennis shoes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Does every single soldier among the 150,000 or so over there now have every nut & bolt they WANT? No. Do they have what they NEED to do the job. Yes, they do. They're doing it right now. The Iraqis are busy preparing a constitution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Latest war in sharp contrast to past efforts

By Terry Boyd and Ward Sanderson, Stars and Stripes


Soldiers in their battle rattle in Iraq probably don’t want to hear this, but generations of American soldiers have lived harder and fought longer with less training, equipment and support.

World War II troops headed to Europe and the Pacific not knowing when they would return home. Some servicemembers in Vietnam didn’t communicate with home for months. Even Desert Storm warriors somehow survived without the Internet or much else in the way of leisure.

One soldier in Iraq brought a combat veteran’s perspective to how today’s troops compare with their predecessors.

First Sgt. William Oxendine, 53, a National Guardsman with the Arizona-based 855th Military Police Co., served in Vietnam, Haiti and in both wars with Iraq.

In a survey of living conditions in Iraq, Oxendine noted that today’s soldier has it made compared with yesterday’s veterans. In his opinion, most complaints about morale aren’t justified. “We have more things and opportunities than anyone else in the world. Soldiers of today are just as well-trained as in the past, but they’re definitely softer when it comes to living conditions.”

They expect improvements to happen quickly, “and now we’re in a situation where these things [Internet, phones and television] are not available,” Oxendine wrote. “A lot of young people can’t comprehend why they’re not here.”

Oxendine made one phone call in 18 months while serving in Vietnam in 1970 and 1971, he wrote.

Others in Iraq think that in today’s high-tech military, historical comparisons don’t hold up.

One master sergeant with 21 years in the Army wrote that in the new millennium, troops do and should expect better camps.

“This campaign is certainly my worst ever,” the military policeman wrote from Iraq. “We deserve better living conditions, with air conditioning, showers and laundry facilities. This is the year 2003, not the 1950s or 1960s. Technology is with us. Yet our living conditions still are below standard.”

A first lieutenant in Iraq wrote, “Soldiers or people comparing this conflict to WWII, Korea or Vietnam are not making valid comparisons of size, scale, scope, mission, enemy, mood, weapons and so on.”

Others believe that America’s military missions have changed since the wars of past, while troops’ expectations have risen. This and the advent of a demanding, all-volunteer force can test morale.

Sixty years ago “it was a different world, and mostly because of the clarity of the war,” said historian Thomas Allen, National Geographic writer and author of “World War II: America at War, 1941-1945.”

“And I think if you look at World War II, then Korea, then Vietnam, then Iraq I and then Iraq II, I think after World War II you lose the war aim, and the clarity of war,” Allen said. “There’s a fog around it somehow.”

A National Guardsman surveyed by Stars and Stripes in Fallujah agreed. “In past wars, from what I’ve read or seen, it seemed as though everyone had a ‘known’ mission,” wrote Spc. Shawn Smoot of the 890th Engineer Battalion. “We’re in the dark.”

In the Stars and Stripes survey and in interviews, many soldiers in Iraq referenced yesterday’s wars; some defensively, some with awe.

One soldier at Baghdad International Airport pined for the days of traditional combat. “I think soldiers in the past wars were in real wars, not this peacekeeping deal,” said Sgt. Jose Gutierrez, 26. “They are the heroes and I give it to them for being real soldiers — unlike us, complaining about no Internet or phones or air conditioning.”

Though soldiers in Iraq endure temperatures as high as 140 degrees, fighting conditions were just as terrible during the campaigns of World War II.

“They had a helluva time,” said Herman Chanowitz, 88, a WWII veteran now living in Naples, Italy. “Living conditions here in Italy during the wintertime, going from one particular hill they captured to another hill. Fighting and fighting and fighting under horrible conditions. I don’t know how they could take it all. Nothing to look forward to but getting to the next hill and capture it.”

You obviously missed all my links above and instead chose to use a government run source. Stars and Stripes also was used to glorify Vietnam, which of course the GOP has found a new love for.

Like I said before before you question look at the research I've already provided above with links and from multiple sources from multiple positions.

As for Stars and Stripes comparing this war and WW2 they fail to mention in the article that the Russians, the British, the French resistance, and half of Europe helped us, while here we are basically on our own.

There was also a huge difference in that if we lost WW2 there may not be a home to go back to.

Comparing this to WW2 and using it as an excuse for underfunding, undersupplying and keeping troops there longer than they should be is BS. WW2 our troops were given the best possible weaponry and support, we do not give our troops that today.

WW2 vets came home and the government gave them the benefits they were promised ...........we do not honor that for today's troops or veterans.

So keep reading biased one sided propaganda that instead of talking about the truth it just flag waves. And I will continue to do research and speak out and in the end after all this is said and done we'll both have clear consciences because we did what we each chose to believe in, right?

I know my conscience is clear and that almost every vet and soldier I know appreciates what I have to say and doesn't see it as "morale busting" but rather fighting to get what they were promised and what they need.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 02:44 PM   #79 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Comparing this to WW2 and using it as an excuse for underfunding, undersupplying and keeping troops there longer than they should be is BS. WW2 our troops were given the best possible weaponry and support, we do not give our troops that today.
Why BS? Just saying BS is a pretty subjective basis for an argument. If by your own admission the troops were given the best possible weaponry and support during WW2, what has changed since? Who in the world is more prepared militarily than the US? France?

Those myriad of links you referred me to reference Veteran's benefits, not the status and readiness of the US forces in Iraq. Veteran's benefits are a different matter for a different thread.

If one is to believe what the mainstream media (and the like) says about the supposed readiness of the troops, one could easily come to the conclusion that the troops aren't ready for a game of checkers let alone a war. But the facts prove otherwise, and progress continues.



POSTURE STATEMENT OF GENERAL RICHARD B. MYERS, USAF CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

Joint Chief of Staff General Richard Myers Report to Congress

(Excerpts)

"I am privileged to report to Congress on the state of the United States Armed Forces.

As they were a year ago, our Nation’s Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen are currently operating within our borders and around the globe with dedication, courage and professionalism, alongside our Coalition partners, to accomplish a variety of very demanding missions. Global terrorism remains a serious threat, and the stakes in the GLOBAL War on Terrorism remain high.

Over the past year, I have told you that with the patience, will, and commitment of our Nation we would win the War on Terrorism. The support we have received from the Congress has been superb. From Congressional visits to deployed personnel, to support for transformational warfighting programs, to funding for security and stability operations, to improved pay and benefits for our troops, your support for our servicemen and women has enabled us to make significant progress in the War on Terrorism."

---

"Despite the operational demands on our forces, we remain ready to support the President’s National Security Strategy to assure our allies, while we dissuade, deter and defeat any adversary. The draft National Military Strategy (NMS), developed in consultation with the Service Chiefs and Combatant Commanders describes the ways we will conduct military operations to protect the United States against external attack and aggression, and how we will prevent conflict and surprise attack and prevail against adversaries. The strategy requires that we possess the forces to defend the US homeland and deter forward in four critical regions. If required, we will swiftly defeat the efforts of two adversaries in an overlapping timeframe, while having the ability to “win decisively” in one theater. In addition, because we live in a world marked by uncertainty, our forces must also be prepared to conduct a limited number of lesser contingencies while maintaining sufficient force generation capabilities as a hedge against future challenges."



Troop Rotations Won't Affect Readiness, Defense Leaders Say

Troop rotations in Iraq during the next several months will create a temporary transition time in Iraq—but will in no way affect U.S. readiness in Iraq or anywhere else in the world, Defense leaders told Pentagon reporters today.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld acknowledged that moving a large percentage of the 123,000 combat-experienced troops from Iraq will create a temporary sense of turbulence, which he said "is always undesirable."

"You lose situational awareness, you lose relationships, you lose the experience," he said. "The people going over are ready, but the people there are experienced and really know their stuff."

On the plus side, Rumsfeld said, units deploying to Iraq will be better configured to meet current tasks than the departing troops.

In an effort to minimize disruptions during the transition, Rumsfeld said defense leaders must "manage the transition very carefully.

"There is going to have to be overlap," he said. ""We are going to have to be sensitive to the fact that the knowledge that is built up there and the relationships have to be transferred … in a way that is appropriate."

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the rotations will introduce huge logistical challenges as well. "In the next four months, we are going to pull off a logistics feat that will rival any in history, I think, as we move a major part of the Army," he said. "Well over the majority of the Army combat units and a lot of the reserve component will move."

Rumsfeld acknowledged that redeploying troops will "clearly have to be reconstituted" when they return to their home bases. "Any element that was over there in combat is going to have to come back and … get their equipment fixed … (and) engage in the kind of training that their unit is designed to deal with," he said.

"When you're using the force as hard as we're using the force right now," Myers agreed, "you have to have time to regenerate the force when it comes home."

Myers said defense plans account for the time required for these forces to reconstitute themselves and that the U.S. military will remain fully ready — even in the event that it is called to respond to an additional war or contingency before all troops return home from Iraq.

Both Rumsfeld and Myers were quick to dismiss a reporter's questions about the ability of the units returning from Iraq to fit into those plans as they reconstitute.

"The forces that are coming back have just experienced something that you cannot experience in peacetime," Rumsfeld said.

"They have just fought a war. And they have developed skills and knowledge about deployments and about combat and about logistics and about redeployment. It's the kind of thing you'd spend billions of dollars conducting an exercise to give them that kind of experience."
powerclown is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 03:03 PM   #80 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i continue to find it baffling that anyone could possibly use karl rove's statements as the basis for a coherent assessment of the situation in iraq.

but to balance out the trend in the above discussion, this column from today's manchester guardian.

note in particular the orwell quote at the end, which i think more than a bit a propos for those who continue to imagine it reasonable to support this farce ....


Quote:
The tipping point

US public opinion on the Iraq war dips with every dead soldier, and plummets at the first sniff of defeat

Gary Younge
Monday June 27, 2005
The Guardian

At just around the time when Hush Puppies were believed to have been relegated to the footwear of choice for old geezers and ageing hippies, they suddenly enjoyed a comeback. Hip people started scouting around in unfashionable shops to buy them and then hip stores in Greenwich Village started to sell them. A Hush Puppy executive, Geoffrey Lewis, was taken completely by surprise. "We were told that Isaac Mizrahi was wearing the shoes himself," he said. "I think it's fair to say that at the time we had no idea who Isaac Mizrahi was."

In Malcolm Gladwell's book, The Tipping Point, he describes the conditions that are necessary to transform Hush Puppies from the old school to new cool. "The world of the tipping point is a place where the unexpected becomes expected, where radical change is more than a possibility," he argues. "It is - contrary to all our expectations - a certainty."

American public opinion appears to be approaching just such a point in relation to the war in Iraq. The last fortnight has revealed a growing impatience with the military misadventure in the Gulf and an irritation with the White House's persistent denials that anything is wrong. This has translated into more urgent and widespread calls to bring the troops home that has finally percolated up to the political class. This new phase has put George Bush on the back foot, forcing him to deliver a major address tomorrow night to rally public support, which is evidently draining away. He will tell them that America needs "resolve". For the White House Iraq has become the latest faith-based initiative.

A recent Gallup poll revealed that 56% said the war "wasn't worth it". Meanwhile, for the first time, a majority say they would be "upset" if Bush sent more troops, and a new low of 36% say troop levels should be maintained or increased. An earlier Washington Post poll showed that two-thirds of the public believe the US military is bogged down in Iraq while almost three- quarters think the level of casualties is unacceptable. The figures match or exceed the previous high-water mark of public disenchantment. More than half believe the war has not made them safer and 40% believe it has striking similarities to the experience in Vietnam.

Anti-war sentiment had always been part of mainstream national conversation here. But with the Democratic party and its presidential candidate having supported the war, such views remained marginal in the body politic. Now, as these statistics make themselves felt in the postbags and phone logs of congressmen, the notion that not only is the war not going to plan but that the plan might itself be flawed is finding expression in the most unlikely places. On June 16, the Republican congressman Walter Jones, the man largely responsible for introducing freedom fries to the congressional menu, co-sponsored a bipartisan resolution persuading the president to set a timetable for troop withdrawal.

When the secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, testified before a Senate armed services committee last week, the Republican senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, said: "I'm here to tell you sir, in the most patriotic state that I can imagine, people are beginning to question. And I don't think it's a blip on the radar screen. I think we have a chronic problem on our hands. We will lose this war if we leave too soon. And what is likely to make us do that? The public going south. And that is happening."

The critical factor driving this slump, explains Christopher Gelpi, associate professor of political science at Duke University who specialises in public attitudes to foreign policy, is not how many soldiers they lose but whether the mission for which they have fallen is likely to be successful. "The most important single fact is that the public perceive the mission as being destined for success. The American public is partly casualty-phobic but it is primarily defeat phobic. You can muster support for just about any military operation in the US so long as you can get enough of the defeat-phobic people on board."

Those who are casualty-phobic have been troubled by the 1,739 slain soldiers. So far this month, the US has, on average, had almost three soldiers killed and 10 wounded, every day. The 700 Iraqis who have died in the last month do not figure on the sympathy radar. But the chaos of which their deaths are just the most bloody indicator suggests little likelihood of success.

Comparisons with Vietnam are premature, but the trend towards it in public perception is undeniable. "It won't be easy, but they could carry on at this level of support for quite some time. But if it drops another 10%, that would be really bad," says Gelpi. The decisive moment that produced the tipping point in Vietnam was the Tet offensive; given the ideological incoherence and fractured organisation of the Iraqi insurgency the turning point is likely to be less dramatic and more prolonged. It may even have happened already.

Until earlier this year, the White House had an easy-to-follow narrative for success on its own terms. When weapons of mass destruction were not found, it simply changed the story to fit the absence of facts. The final chapter then became the democratisation of the Arab world. First there would be a "handover" of power, then elections, all leading up to Iraqis regaining control of their own country. The carnage, in terms of human life, regional stability and international law, was dismissed as a price worth paying for the bigger picture. For a while, a majority of the American public bought it. But in recent months they have proved reluctant to wear it.

You can keep spinning just so long before you fall flat on your face. The administration's insistence that things are on track and all it must do is stay the course is beginning to grate. US efforts to reshape the world through a policy of pre-emption have been buttressed by an attempt to remould reality through the power of assertion. Since Vice-President Dick Cheney claimed that the insurgency was "in its last throes" 77 American soldiers and about 600 Iraqi civilians have died. His tortured explanation, late last week, that "if you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period", adds insult to injury.

"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue," wrote George Orwell in his essay In Front of Your Nose. "And then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...515375,00.html
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
 

Tags
condemning, karl, liberals, rove, speech


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:09 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360