Mephisto2

All quotations are from posts by moosenose

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

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.

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.


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

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.

roachboy

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

Bodyhammer86

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/

pan6467

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?"

roachboy

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

powerclown

roachboy,

All this talk here of conservative racism is confusing.

Who are you referring to as being the victims of this racism you mention?

roachboy

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

tecoyah

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

Elphaba

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?

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)

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...

powerclown

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.

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.

__________________
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.

Elphaba

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.

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. 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).



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.

Ustwo

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.

Mephisto2

I disagree.
The facts prove you wrong. At least one other person posted that they found some of his rantings insulting.

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

pan6467

[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?"

host

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 ???

pan6467

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:

__________________
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?"

powerclown

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?

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.

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

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

tecoyah

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

filtherton

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.

boatin

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?

stevo

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

alansmithee

And he explained that German people weren't who he was talking about.


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.

If only the left could follow that advice.

powerclown

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.

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'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."

moosenose

Oddly enough, I was raised Roman Catholic, and am German.

alansmithee

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.

stevo

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

pan6467

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?"

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.”

pan6467

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?"

powerclown

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."

roachboy

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 ....


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