[mike777]

I do not know how you can say this. Vietnam was much more so......

All I here about Iraq is people either want victory or they avoid the question.....

btw do you guys really believe Americans are mass murderers?

[pbleighton]

"I do not know how you can say this. Vietnam was much more so......"

Yes, and your point is?

"All I here about Iraq is people either want victory or they avoid the question....."

I haven't heard you answer your own question. Do you think victory is possible, and if so how? In another thread, you didn't answer another question of mone, which is how do you define victory?

"btw do you guys really believe Americans are mass murderers?"

Sometimes yes, along with most other countries at some point in their histories. Vietnam and Iraq are recent examples of war crimes, more recent than those of many countries.

Peter

[mike777]

IF you want the USA to win then you can define victory, if you need other people to define it for you ...they are avoiding the question.

[pbleighton]

"IF you want the USA to win then you can define victory, if you need other people to define it for you ...they are avoiding the question."

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck

The reason I ask is that Bush's definition of victory changed over time, there is obviously more than one definition.

There is now a civil war going on. Which side are we rooting for? Apparently, the side which likes Iran.

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

btw do you guys really believe Americans are mass murderers?

No. I am totally convinced that My Lai was only a fantasy created by those conspiratorial Liberal Dumbercrats - or were those guys Repukeicans? The entire world knows that Americans are the ones in the white hats so mass murder of this sort must have been a lie.

I also believe that Lancet, instead of being a world-renowned scientific magazine, is the British edition of The National Inquirer and 600,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians have not lost their lives since the U.S. led invasion - the real number was published in the respectable Stars and Stripes Magazine and is actually 27, one of whom died of natural causes while the other 26 commited suicide by self-injected shrapnel.

Donald Rumsfeld being charged in Germany with War Crimes is only sour grapes by a bunch of soft-on-terror pansies.

The Military Commission Act providing for restroactive absolvement for War Crimes has nothing to do with the concept that anyone might actually be guilty of such - after all, everybody's Military Commission Act has that clause.

I have looked at this question from all sides and as far as I can tell America has never done anything remotely wrong - ever - and never will.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Nov 13 2006, 03:04 AM, said:

IF you want the USA to win then you can define victory, if you need other people to define it for you ...they are avoiding the question.

Mike, there is a fundamental point here that you don't seem capable of understanding:

The United States already lost this war.

1. The US wasted enormous amounts of resources. The dollar cost of the war has been staggering. The US Army is broken. Our troop losses, while regretable at a personal level, are inconsequential. However, its going to take a decade to replace/repair equipment and build up inventories.

The opportunity cost of these expenditures is mind boggling.

2. The US pissed away our position in the International community. Its hard to believe, but we once had some moral standing in the world. After 9/11, the world was unified behind the United States. We had the opportunity to do something great. Instead, we invaded the wrong country and created a civil war that killed hundred's of thousands of innocent people.

We betrayed everyone out there who actually believed in the US as a beacon of light and hope.

3. The US abandoned our most cherished traditions and freedoms. When I grew up, the US condemned countries for torture. We didn't need press conferences trying to ascertain whether we were engaging in waterboarding or "just" dunking people in freezing water.

What did we get in exchange? The right to referee a civil war, with our Army held hostage to the Iranians. We should certainly be looking for the best way out of this mess, however, hold no illusions that we've won anything.

Before you go and reguritate Bush's stupid little talking points about "Victory", I suggest that you go back and ready some history. Pyrrhus of Epirus would be an appropriate starting point. You might also want to look at the Athenian war versus Syracuse.

[mike777]

I know the athenian war well and no I did not miss any points.

To say we have lost the war is a logical answer to my question.


I see us as having 2 choices....victory or cut and run while trying to do the least amount of damage, which may not be possible.

If the war is lost that should simplify our options.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Nov 13 2006, 02:23 AM, said:

btw do you guys really believe Americans are mass murderers?

Simply put: Yes

American's aren't raging psychopaths out of a Quentin Tarantino film. All too often, we're a lovely example of what Hannah Arendt described as “The Banality of Evil”. Each day, we carry on with our lives, ignoring the fact that we're inflicting enormous amounts of pain and suffering around the world.

There are any number of examples of this, however, three of the most obvious are

1. Resource consumption / pollution

2. Tobacco exports (we've finally taken action to force the tobacco company's to fund
consumer education programs here in the US, but we're happy to poison the rest of the world as long as we can make an honest buck)

3. The war in Iraq

By the way, when I was looking over a summary of Eichmann in Jerusalem, I was highly amused to recall Arendt's focus on the use of “stock phrases and self-invented clichés” as a defense mechanism to avoid any requirement for critical thought.

[pbleighton]

"I see we as having 2 choices....victory or cut and run while trying to do the least amount of damage, which may not be possible."

What is your strategy for victory?

Come on, Mike, you ask a lot of questions, state your own position.

Peter

[mike777]

I believe we are in a 40-60 year long war on terrorism. A real full blown war with death and bombs.

A war that our children and grandchildren will fight and die in. I believe there will be many ups and downs over the years.

I think our post Bagdad plans were nonexistant and almost not one of our leaders has been called out for this disgrace.

I do not think America is a mass murderer. I would hate America if I thought that is what our country does and stands for. To say such a thing and truly believe it and to do nothing about it leaves me cold.

I believe many prefer to blame America as being at fault for 9/11 among most other things and would not mind to see America lose, however you want to define it.

I do believe we are at war with "radical Islamics" who love Death not "fundamental Islamics".

[pbleighton]

"I believe we are in a 40-60 year long war on terrorism. A real full blown war with death and bombs.

A war that our children and grandchildren will fight and die in. I believe there will be many ups and downs over the years.

I think our post Bagdad plans were nonexistant and almost not one of our leaders has been called out for this disgrace."

I mostly agree with this. The war, however, won't (shouldn't) be with countries. Al Quaeda and its allies aren't governments, and in fact they hate Arab governments. We need to do two things: pursue and kill these people, and change our policies so that on the long run they attract fewer converts. Both are important, but in the long run the second is more important.

"I do not think America is a mass murderer. I would hate America if I thought that is what our country does and stands for. To say such a thing and truly believe it and to do nothing about it leaves me cold."

I don't see how you can ignore or mischaracterize some of our actions like this, but then there are lots of things I don't understand. BTW, I am NOT saying that on an individual basis we are more or less murderous than citizens of other countries, nor am I saying that we are the only (or the worst) country in that regard. It is futile to deny reality, however.

"I believe many prefer to blame America as being at fault for 9/11 among most other things and would not mind to see America lose, however you want to define it."

I don't know anyone who believes the U.S. is primarily responsible for or deserving of 9/11. It is, however, obvious to me (and others) that the reckless, violent, racist Mideast foreign policy we have pursued over the last 50-60 years has left us open to radical Islamic attacks, and that the same policy is partially responsible for the strength of the radical Islamic movement. Our main priority should be to change this misguided (and bipartisan) policy. This wouldn't make things better overnight, but it would make the coming decades less bad than they otherwise will be.

To deny that the flaws in our Mideast policy has played a significant role in the development of radical Islam isn't patriotism - it is IMO a very self-destructive form of insanity.

"I do believe we are at war with "radical Islamics" who love Death not "fundamental Islamics". "

I don't think it's quite that simple (history, geography, and economics play big roles, and there are many Arabs who are somewhat Anti-American, but who are susceptible to having their minds changed), but I agree that the people we have to woory about mostly fit your description.

Peter

[mike777]

I should add that our intelligence was poor and always seem to be so...see Cold War Russia, etc.....

I was with Bob Novak, per my other posts, on this one.

You would think after 40 years of Bond, James Bond, that the Brits have we could do a halfass better job here in the USA with human intuit.

[pbleighton]

"You would think after 40 years of Bond, James Bond, that the Brits have we could do a halfass better job here in the USA with human intuit."

Nah, the countries which have imperial (or post-imperial) ambitions are so arrogant with respect to other countries that the lens is always twisted. There may be some countries which could do unbiased, accurate intelligence analysis, but if there are, their culture would prevent them from making effective use of it.

Peter

[keylime]

War is meant to be fought with absoluteness. Unfortunately since Vietnam (and some say back to WWII), this has not happened.

If we do a "phased redeployment" while we have "oversight" and "inquiries" about the conduct of elected officials, it sends two very loud and clear messages:

1. To our brave troops: Your great work in spreading freedom is no longer wanted or needed. The deaths of your comrades, meaningless, an exercise of excess, a number. Come home, and let us abandon you AGAIN like we did in 'Nam with PTSD and in Desert Storm with the potential chemical weapons fallout with the syndrome.

2. To our enemies: America doesn't have the guts to stand toe-to-toe with us. Let's attack them; they're SOFT. Our view of the world is right. We have LEGITIMACY.

[Winstonm]

[quote]War is meant to be fought with absoluteness. Unfortunately since Vietnam (and some say back to WWII), this has not happened[/quote]

I agree that war has to be fought with absoluteness - but to do that there must be some goal - as in unconditional surrender.

In Vietnam, how could the U.S. have expected unconditional surrender by simply defending South Vietnam and not invading North Vietnam? The problem was not a military problem but a political one. Since WWII, there has been no war fought that has had a justifiable reason for all-out warfare.

What was the goal of invading Iraq? Seems the issue was to depose Saddam Hussein and his regime - mission accomplished. That was the victory as that was the goal. If the goal has been reached, what is the point in staying unless that really wasn't the object in the first place? If that wasn't the object what was?

Oh, yes, now I remember why....

[quote]January 10, 2003. Vice President Discusses Growth and Jobs Package
As the President has said, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group, or individual terrorists" -- which is why the war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction" [/quote]

[quote]February 8, 2003, President's Radio Address
One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad.
[url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030208.html"]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...2/20030208.html[/url][/quote]

[quote]US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - November 2002:
"Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qaeda."[/quote]

[quote]February 8, 2003, President's Radio Address
One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad.[/quote]

[quote]And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: "We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses--three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. Inspectors--have said--and now there are aerial photographs to show it--a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives."

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/9-11_saddam_quotes.html[/quote]

[quote]Aug. 26, 2002Dick Cheney, Vice President
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." [/quote]

[quote]Jan. 28, 2003George W. Bush
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents... "[/quote]

[quote]Sep. 18, 2002Donald Rumsfeld
His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox.

His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons—including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.

His regime has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons[/quote]

OK. Now I get it. Iraq had WMD and directly supported Al-qaeda - that's why we went to war....or is it......


[quote]Rumsfeld backtracks on al-Qaida, Iraq links
Oct. 5, 2004,  by AP, MSN, NBC
Rumsfeld said that he knew of no clear link between the al-Qaida terror network and Saddam Hussein. He said, “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.”[/quote]

[quote]Blix: Iraq Probably Free of WMD Before War
"As far as I know the Iraqi authorities who are in custody have so far not revealed that the country still had arms," said Dr. Blix, adding that much of the intelligence which Washington and London used to justify the war on Iraq was shaky, including information which was provided to the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq to help them in their search for weapons..."We were told of locations where we may find banned weapons. We went there and only in three of them did we find anything of interest, and even then they were not weapons of mass destruction," he said..."We concluded that the information provided by the intelligence services of the United States and other nations was not solid." June 5, 2003. [/quote]

[quote]1. To our brave troops: Your great work in spreading freedom is no longer wanted or needed.[/quote]


Spreading freedom? This kind.....

[quote]Brig. General Looney: We Own Their Country
Jun. 24, 1996US Brig. General William Looney, Washington Post
"We dictate the way they live and talk... It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need."[/quote]

[quote]May 3, 2003Helen Thomas, Miami Herald
"I asked Pentagon officials: 'How many Iraqis have been killed in this war?'

The reply to my first Pentagon call was: 'We don't track them (Iraqi dead).'

Weeks later I pursued the question and was told by a Defense Department official: 'They don't count. They are not important,' meaning the casualty figures."[/quote]

[quote]2. To our enemies: America doesn't have the guts to stand toe-to-toe with us.[/quote]

Sure we do, if there is enough money involved....

[quote]Dick Cheney to Senate Armed Services Committe, 1990:
"We obviously also have a significant interest because of the energy that is at stake in the gulf. [/quote]

[Winstonm]

Quote

Keylime: If we do a "phased redeployment" while we have "oversight" and "inquiries" about the conduct of elected officials, it sends two very loud and clear messages:

1. To our brave troops: Your great work in spreading freedom is no longer wanted or needed. The deaths of your comrades, meaningless, an exercise of excess, a number.

I cannot begin to express how despicable I feel this correlation between demanding truth from our elected officials and unfeeling, uncaring non-concern for those whom have died - it is the most base form of false causation. To say one implies the other belittles the very basis of the republic and all those who died to free us from Brittish imperialism.

President Theodore Roosevelt

Quote

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)

I am only going to ask you do 3 things - read the two following quotes then watch the posted video. The video only takes a minute and is of a George Bush speech.

Quote

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly 9/12/2002

Quote

Oct. 5, 2002George W. Bush
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Watch this video: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Dc40lUpql10

Now tell me which is more disparaging of our troops and their deaths - me, who calls for inquiries into the reasons for the war, or Bush, who turns the WMD search into a dinner party joke.

This was about the most disparaging post I have ever read and I believe all patriotic Americans who want to know why our troops are dying deserve an apology.

[luke warm]

dwayne wasn't saying he agreed with his #1 you quoted, he was saying that's what the terrorists believe, or would believe, or at least would say

Quote

"I do not think America is a mass murderer. I would hate America if I thought that is what our country does and stands for. To say such a thing and truly believe it and to do nothing about it leaves me cold."

I don't see how you can ignore or mischaracterize some of our actions like this, but then there are lots of things I don't understand. BTW, I am NOT saying that on an individual basis we are more or less murderous than citizens of other countries, nor am I saying that we are the only (or the worst) country in that regard. It is futile to deny reality, however.

i totally disagree with this... this really saddens me, that anyone other than an avowed enemy of the u.s. could say that this country has a policy of mass murder

[keylime]

Winston,

I served in the Air Force during the time of the drawdown from Cold War levels that President Clinton enacted, in a rapid deployment, highly specialized, air transportation unit. I saw firsthand the morale drops that were an effect of this. I also saw what it did to our equipment. Our unit lost 4 fine members to the Khobar Towers bombing. I've gone to places I never want to go again because of the abyss they were (and in 2 cases, still are). I've seen death firsthand, and also have seen the miracle of life.

To say that my comment is despicable, is to say that that the soldiers, airmen, marines, and seamen is of a lesser breed than us civilians. These men and women are not only smarter than any other fighting force we've assembled, they also are highly educated, and are acutely aware of what happens here. There was absolutely nothing disparaging about my comments, zero, zip, nada - I know what will happen in the 2 years that the Democrats will have power: there will be hearings, there will be a lot of score settling, and most importantly, they will do whatever than can to appease their antiwar base. Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan will plant exactly the image that I stated: we will be weak, fragile, uncommitted, and vulnerable.

There is no way I will ever apologize or alter or restate my comments, because I know from the e-mails I get from my former members who are still serving, never once I have heard them gripe that the war is tough or that the war is meaningless. They are honored to be there, they feel they are doing a tremendous amount of good, and the vast majority of them do not want to leave until the job is done. I am extremely proud of them all - there is absolutely nothing at all false about my views. I don't live in the bubble unlike many activists out there, nor do I subscribe myself to the notion that YouTube is unbiased.

Now I'm going to display the flag over the porch again and calm down from this - I'm quite angry right now.

[Winstonm]

Dwayne,

Perhaps I misunderstood the nature of your post - regardless, you are entitled to your opinions.

I respect not only what you have done but the sacrifice of our troops now; however, I disagree strongly with any assertion that implies that questioning the motives of the present administration somehow can be extended to non-support for our troops, that anything but unilateral and unqualified support of the President is non-patriotic. Perhaps that was not your assertion and I interpreted it incorrectly - if so, I apologize for my rant.

[keylime]

Winston,

Realize that President Bush isn't getting a free pass from me either. The drug benefit he espoused, the approval of very high amounts of earmarks, and the inability of my president to can the numerous leaks that occur from the intelligence services (what little we have these days - it's one of the shames that is not being reported about with regularity) has made me quite upset at the GOP. Quite bluntly, the GOP forgot how to be "conservative" - I'm not the only one that feels this way. It's a form of betrayal, and they deserved to be trounced.

Conservatism did not fail in this election; it was the party that symbolically portrayed itself as the conservative voice that failed because it was a sham of said concept. My patriotism is not tied inclusively to having complete allegiance to the President - the President is not immune to any set "criticism limiter"; if anything, it is open season.

War is meant to be fought as if you want to win it 100-0, not 24-21. I simply want our politicos to understand the vast ramifications of an early withdrawal versus finishing the job. It will be a long struggle, but one we must win. We were right to go into Iraq and Afghanistan. We will be wrong to leave either of them prematurely.

Apology accepted.