JT... If GDubbya had done his thing OUT of camera range, and welcomed those men and women home as he did, but without all the "Pinache", I would say "Bravo".
You are so full of shit! If he not properly honored them as he did, you would have been screaming about that as well. It is a no win situation with people who hate him.
I never said anything of the kind... Please show me where I defended those that ran off to Canada to avoid service...can you please?
I don't recall your exact words. I don't even know if you posted it here at PF or at the old PP. I just recall you absolving those that left for Canada. Something about Vietnam being a crappy war and you couldn't blame those that took off for Canada.
I may be mistaken, but I don't think so.
Are you that certain all this is going to work out?
Not certain at all. Dubya took a huge risk.
What sort of support would a campaign by Clinton similar to this one have gotten from his loyal opposition.
sorry, fold, I did answer your question. I am sorry that you must have everything spelled out for you directly. Don't feel ashamed. There are many people with that problem.
"In one classroom, "I [love] pork," with the word love represented by a heart, was written on the blackboard, along with a drawing of a camel and the words: "Iraqi Cab Company." In another room, "Eat [expletive] Iraq" was scrawled on a wall. And in Ahmed's office, sexual organs were drawn with white chalk on the back of the door." -- Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Scott Wilson, Washington Post Foreign Service, Friday, May 2, 2003; Page A21
Unfortunately, that's the kind bahavior that lingers and tends to be remembered. And as soon as it looks like it will be forgotten, someone will bring it up.
Conduct unbecoming a Liberator. If there's a line that can trace the behavior at the school to the violence in Fajullah, that story deserves more play than page A21.
Conduct unbecoming a Liberator. If there's a line that can trace the behavior at the school to the violence in Fajullah, that story deserves more play than page A21.
Sorry Rick, it doesn't, a few ugly works of graffiti are yes boorish and I'm sure offensive. You also need to remember the men are mainly young men. It doesn't excuse it but more importantly you wonder if it can trace the behavior to the violence in Fajullah. Dennis and others are quite sure the troops just overreacted and opened up on unarmed civilians. It fits neatly and requires only one train of thought and is easily believed if one follows any Oliver Stone war movie. Not to say or deny things like that happened but those troops most likeley would not have fired on anyone if they were not recieving fire. So we take soilders to task for it and perhaps to fit someones political bent. Yes I agree what they wrote was offensive. The protestors wouldn't have known what was written inside until after we left so I don't think it was what made them decide to protest. We left by the way to defuse the situation. We also didn't enter Mosques out of cultural sensitivity. We removed flags from our vehicles as to not offend. We buried any dead facing Mecca and marked their grave locations with as much info as possible. The troops are trained on the culture and how to interact positively. Ugly incideints can and will occur. But they do go to great lenghts more than ever to avoid such things.
I guess what really troubles me is how easy it is for some to decide so quickly what happened or to criticize. You're a 19 year old kid, somone's been shooting at you for days trying to kill you. Some are friendly, some wave, some don't, some try to drive a car into your posistion and blow it up. Some strap explosives, wait til they get close and take you out. Some offer you tea and thank you, Sometimes an infiltrator will blend in with a crowd and start shooting. Sometimes a lone shot rings out from a sniper and a kid you were taliking to minutes earlier is shot choking for air through the blood and pleading at you with his eyes as he dies. Things get confusing and quick when someone's trying to kill you. It wouldn't be the first time a fanatic used people as shields. You have to cope somehow and many times it's done in ways to vent frustration that you do things like writing on a wall or making derisive comments.
You say it's what people remember. Perhaps, I think they've seen and had worse things happen in their lifetimes than someone writing on a wall.
BTW, The same folks who were so upset at our failure to protect a museum during war time aren't talking to much now. Someone pointed out from news footage that most of the glass cases were intact. Meaning that they had to be opened by someone with keys. Also were vaults emptied and locked again, you'd need the combo's for that. Many pieces are finding their way to black markets that only people knowledgeable in fine arts could peddle. The currator's stories arte falling apart and it's quite possible it was the currators themselves that took the artifacts. You won't see 4 days of coverage on that though. We got plenty of criticism about it even though we were a tad busy.
I guess it's a positive though and a sure sign of someone who was dead wrong. If the biggest fault or complaint they can muster is a museum being pilfered or some offensive graffiti they're truly grasping.
You're right. It should be front page or at least in the first ten pages. They ought to be court marshalled for writing boorish and culturally insensitive remarks on a school house wall. Perhaps it had someting to do with rocks, grenades or shots fired at them while there. Nah, couldn't be. String em up on charges of being jerks. Give them all d.d's
The stongest charge you leveled was that it was out of line ?
If there's a line that can trace the behavior at the school to the violence in Fajullah, that story deserves more play than page A21.
I'm not offended at all. I'm not the one who wrote the messages which I don't defend. What I take issue with was your wondering or trying to link what they wrote on a wall with the violence that followed in that town. I also don't think it's wrong that it's on page A21. I don't see it as a huge story, you did, that's fine. It seems easy to criticize from a distance. If you think someone taking issue or disagreeing with you is being defensive so be it. It's criticism of a posistion. I agreed in part and disagreed in others. So there ya have it.
I THINK I said I WOULD give him a "BRAVO", had he NOT used it as THE photo-op of the new millenia, and stolen some of THIER thunder.
Actually, you said, "If GDubbya had done his thing OUT of camera range, and welcomed those men and women home as he did, but without all the "Pinache", I would say "Bravo"." What can be better than having the president of the U.S. making a big deal out of thanking you and doing it in front of the whole world? If he had done it in some naval yard with no cameras, I would have been pissed at him. They deserved to be honored in front of the whole world for the work that they have done.
With the elections around the corner, part of it may have been a photo-op, but didn't he deserve that much for putting his own political butt on the line in front of the world? Or are the Democrats the only ones allowed photo-ops?
Also, I gave him MANY "Bravos" during the initital stages of the WOT AND once the battles began in Iraq, so don't give me that "Hate Him" baloney, because in spite of the fact that I think his priorities are fucked-up, and his intelligence is lacking, I have always spoken of respecting his place as Commander In Chief.
From top to bottom, I would like to see a change in Washington. In other words, a Regime Change.
After all, Bush wouldn't want to be subject to the same Fact-Finding "scrutiny" that Clinton had to live with...?
There is plenty of room and reason for dissent within this country, seeing as how our President has been led away from what he SAID he believed, to what he now wants to vehemently promote, by tying his inexperienced-trunk to the tail of the Elephant in front of him, namely one Donald Rumsfeld. THE pompous ASS, of the current administration.
This is like, Guadalcanal, only BIGGER, for God's sake. NOT PRETTY TO WATCH.
I HATE this war, and I don't much care for Gen. Franks "strategy" either
You sure have a funny way of showing it.
Yes, the "Troops"(sailors,airmen) loved it, and they should have! It WAS an historic visit(as far as Pincache goes) and it WAS the right thing to do all in all, for their benefit, but it was ALSO for HIS benefit, and if you cannot see that, then YOU are full of shit.
Now I am confused, it was the wrong thing to do and now it is the right thing to do, all in the same post.
But the REAL welcome-home(s) for those who fought and defended those who fought, and ALL those who served in fact, are yet to be seen, and I for one will certainly be glad when these victorious young men and women march down 5th Ave. in New York City, perhaps on the 4th of July, and recieve the tumultuous-gratitudes they deserve, as brave young men and women who did an extremely tough job, and did it very well indeed.
I hope they get the biggest welcome home and thank you parade that our generation has yet to see. They deserve it.
GDubbya had his camera-op...Now, I hope to God, It Is THEIR Turn.
Come on, they were honored by the president of the U.S. in such a way that it drew world wide attention. Oh well, I guess there is not much of a way to break through the party hatred and jealousy.
I hope they get the biggest welcome home and thank you parade that our generation has yet to see. They deserve it.
Alright, this statement has been bugging me since I read it. Why do they deserve the biggest one of our generation? They went over there and did their job and did it pretty well. But they did have a vast technical superiority and a lot of strategic support, so it's not like they pulled off an "upset". So why would they deserve a bigger welcome home than those who went to Somalia, Kosovo, Granada, or even the soliders who fought in the first Gulf War? They all did their jobs just as well.
When you say that, there seems to be a certain mentality implicit in the statement that this war is part of the epic struggle between good and evil and that we were facing an enemy with the imminent power to destroy us. And indeed, that does seem to be the sort of mentality that Bush and his administration have been trying to foster. But it's a dangerous one because if that's what you believe, that your enemy is evil incarnate, then indeed there can never be any hope for peace. But the truth is they are humans too and in many ways not that different from us. Even Saddam who was about as bad as a person can get, still had his little "love shack".
Alright, this statement has been bugging me since I read it. Why do they deserve the biggest one of our generation? They went over there and did their job and did it pretty well. But they did have a vast technical superiority and a lot of strategic support, so it's not like they pulled off an "upset"
So because they had superior fire power and good support it lessens their accomplishment ? Would you feel better or feel they deserve it more had we used blackpowder rifles ? Superior firepower only counts for so much. Take a look at Vietnam. We had vastly superior firepower but because of the politicians running the war instead of letting the military take care of it we lost the war even though we won most of the battles handily. After 1943 our technology was superior to most countries too. Did that make their victory any less of a feat since it wasn't an upset ?
Is it the size of the celebration bugging you ? Ever been shot at ? Ever watched a friend die ? No matter what technology you have you are still in grave danger the bravery exhibited by many of these people is incomprehinsible to some. We learned from Vietnam that no matter the posistion of the person on the war the troops deserve better. The Vietnamn vets got screwed IMO and didn't get the respect they deserved until much too late.
We have parades when a baseball team wins a world series. These men and women were doing something 100 times more brave and heroic than that, they risked their lives and you're taking issue with the size of a celebration ? Nice.
When you say that, there seems to be a certain mentality implicit in the statement that this war is part of the epic struggle between good and evil and that we were facing an enemy with the imminent power to destroy us.
19 men that highjacked some planes did a pretty large impact job.
What would you call it ? Kinda good vs. Naughty ? Bad vs. Worse ? If you can't see that in many ways it was good against an evil regime then you're helpless. Perhaps you refuse to read stories of the survivors. Perhaps you missed the mass graves found on the news yesterday. Perhaps it's just too hard for you to comprehend that his regime killed 2 million people. Perhaps you're too naive to understand that the only way to remove him is by removing the soilders loyal to him, the ones who helped him do hi dirty work are evil. The average German foot soilder wasn't a Nazi but he helped to support that regime. Same here. In all things sides are chosen. Some people apparently don't want to or can't see that sometimes in the grand scheme there's simply right and wrong or good vs. evil.
Even Saddam who was about as bad as a person can get, still had his little "love shack".
You mean one of the places he had women raped ? Hitler had a little getaway or "loveshack" too, a lovely place in the mountains called Berchtesgarden, so what ? I mean he had a dog named blondie too and loved it more than anything, right before he killed it.
Did that make their victory any less of a feat since it wasn't an upset ?
Yes. A feat is something that you accomplish in the face of difficult odds. The U.S. defeating Iraq was not a feat. Only the Iraqi government would have ever claimed any other outcome was a possibility. Winning WWII was a feat.
Is it the size of the celebration bugging you ?
Yes. It's the statement that these soliders deserve the biggest celebration of our generation which implies their achievement was somehow greater than the achievement of other soldiers over the last 20 years. Even significantly so. I don't see that.
Superior firepower only counts for so much. Take a look at Vietnam.
Yes, personally I would have given them a bigger celebration because they faced a much more difficult challenge.
19 men that highjacked some planes did a pretty large impact job.
The overall effect that had on our daily lives was really pretty minor in comparison to the effect this war is still having on the daily lives of the average Iraqi. 9/11 certainly hurt, but it hardly brought our society to the edge of ruin. And for that matter, there's still no evidence that Saddam had any real involvement in that.
We have parades when a baseball team wins a world series. These men and women were doing something 100 times more brave and heroic than that, they risked their lives and you're taking issue with the size of a celebration ? Nice
Where was I comparing apples to oranges? I was comparing apples to apples. I'm asking why these soldiers deserve a bigger celebration than other soldiers who fought similar wars? Answer that question.
If you can't see that in many ways it was good against an evil regime then you're helpless.
Yes, that's what this was all about. Our evil detectors picked up a reading and we rushed over there to stamp it out. Isn't that a nice story?
Perhaps you missed the mass graves found on the news yesterday. Perhaps it's just too hard for you to comprehend that his regime killed 2 million people.
Stalin killed something like 20 million. We didn't do a whole lot about that. Hmmm, I wonder if I were to go to the Amnesty International site, how many other places there are in the world that are killing their own people and yet we're not rushing over there to stop it?
The bottom line is we fought this war because we wanted to, not because we had to. That's certainly how most of the rest of the world sees it and if we don't acknowledge that, then we're going to be stuck in perpetual war because there will be no way to make peace.
The bottom line is we fought this war because we wanted to, not because we had to. So? There were plenty of reasons to go to war. Saddam mistreated his people. He was thumbing his nose at the U.N. He was assisting terrorists both in Israel and elsewhere. Furthermore, the war sent a message that we will not sit on our hands that we are going to pro active under certain circumstances.That's certainly how most of the rest of the world sees it and if we don't acknowledge that, then we're going to be stuck in perpetual war because there will be no way to make peace. I don't believe that is "how most of the rest of the world sees it." There is large portion that are apathetic. I think that as time goes by the opinion that the war was not necessary will change.
Did that make their victory any less of a feat since it wasn't an upset ?
Yes. A feat is something that you accomplish in the face of difficult odds. The U.S. defeating Iraq was not a feat. Only the Iraqi government would have ever claimed any other outcome was a possibility. Winning WWII was a feat.
It was not a feat ? Easy for you to say. So I guess the longest and fastest movement of an armed force in the history of warfare was nothing. I guess it was no biggie that our troops put their own lives at risk to lessen civilain casualties. Nah, no big deal the many times our soilders went out into fire to help civilains being used as shields not to mention their own comrades. It was no big feat that we were able to engage in urban warfare without massive casualties on both sides and without 43 days of bobming and with half the troops we had in 91'. No big deal that we were able to do in 3 weeks what the U.N couldn't do in 12 years. It was no big deal. I mean we knew we were going to win so why didn't they just give up ? Hmmm ? Nah it was nothing I'm sure, easy to say the load was light if you don't have to lift.
Is it the size of the celebration bugging you ?
Yes. It's the statement that these soliders deserve the biggest celebration of our generation which implies their achievement was somehow greater than the achievement of other soldiers over the last 20 years. Even significantly so. I don't see that.
I can't speak for Dan, I don't think he was saying that or lessening the previous accomplishments at all. It's an expression I believe.
Superior firepower only counts for so much. Take a look at Vietnam.
Yes, personally I would have given them a bigger celebration because they faced a much more difficult challenge.
And you would know that how ? I thought that beacue we had superior firepower that it made it less of a feat, which is it ?
19 men that highjacked some planes did a pretty large impact job.
The overall effect that had on our daily lives was really pretty minor in comparison to the effect this war is still having on the daily lives of the average Iraqi.
Really ? Well how was the daily life of the average Iraqi 2 years ago when hundreds went missing because they held religious meetings ? As far as it effecting our daily lives it has, it's also easy to say it hasn't if your wife didn't die in one of the towers. Ask them how their daily lives are effected.
9/11 certainly hurt, but it hardly brought our society to the edge of ruin. And for that matter, there's still no evidence that Saddam had any real involvement in that.
My point was that you don't have to have a massive army to be a threat.
Where was I comparing apples to oranges? I was comparing apples to apples. I'm asking why these soldiers deserve a bigger celebration than other soldiers who fought similar wars? Answer that question.
Again I can't speak for Dan so you'll have to ask him. I think they all did. and do. Do you ?
If you can't see that in many ways it was good against an evil regime then you're helpless.
Yes, that's what this was all about. Our evil detectors picked up a reading and we rushed over there to stamp it out. Isn't that a nice story?
So why'd we go ? Oh I know, let me guess, it was all about oil right ?
Perhaps you missed the mass graves found on the news yesterday. Perhaps it's just too hard for you to comprehend that his regime killed 2 million people.
Stalin killed something like 20 million. We didn't do a whole lot about that.
Nah that whole little cold war thingy, other than that........ Know how many died during the cold war ? Would you have preferred we just took them head on ? I mean even Stalin had a love shack.
Hmmm, I wonder if I were to go to the Amnesty International site, how many other places there are in the world that are killing their own people and yet we're not rushing over there to stop it?
Really ? Afghanistan, Kuwait, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somolia, Haiti. I'm confused, you either don't want us going into places to we should be going in. Which is it ? There were people dying before WW2, should we have not gone in there ? Do you think that everyone needs to be handled the same ?
The bottom line is we fought this war because we wanted to, not because we had to. That's certainly how most of the rest of the world sees it and if we don't acknowledge that, then we're going to be stuck in perpetual war because there will be no way to make peace.
You're right. We should have given it another 12 years. Heck I say go for the silver 25th until you go, wait for the U.N, oh wait that's right their too busy with Syria and Lybia heading the human rights commission and looting a freakin cafeteria because they hadn't eaten in 4 hours.
"The bottom line is we fought this war because we wanted to, not because we had to. "
I certainly think Saddam was assisting terrorists (from what I've read, he sent money to suicide bombers familieis in Palestine -- terrorist activity, no doubt) and hatching terrorist plots against the United States and Israel. I wouldn't want to wait around for hm to do something awful against the US, or send someone else to do it. Would you?
This lraqi Liberator monikor is exaggerated often in my estimation. There's a substantial segment of our population who would normally not give the people of Iraq one moment's thought. And if they did they would just consider them another backward nation full of rag-heads.
I feel the same way you do when suddenly become the huddled masses yearning to breath free. I think a little honesty is needed as well.
I certainly think Saddam was assisting terrorists (from what I've read, he sent money to suicide bombers familieis in Palestine -- terrorist activity, no doubt) and hatching terrorist plots against the United States and Israel.
I wouldn't actually be surprised if that was true, but I actually wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't either. Saddam seemed like he was much more interested in furthering his own pleasure than is fighting the cause of Islam. In fact, on that front he was somewhat progressive it would seem as he had Christians and even women holding important posts in his government. So I'm actually a little curious what his motivations would be in supporting these other causes with money he could have spent on himself.
I wouldn't want to wait around for hm to do something awful against the US, or send someone else to do it. Would you?
I think he was probably satisfied coming off as merely being defiant. It gave him a sufficient hero status among his supporters. To actually attack the U.S. would have been suicide with little benefit to himself. He didn't exactly seem like a devout Muslim, much less a fanatic one. He just seemed greedy. I'm still kind of surprised he didn't just run when the U.S. came. But then again, maybe he did. All that money missing and no real proof that he was genuinely in Iraq once the war started. Intelligence says he was, but it's obviously not foolproof. But anyway, his best startegy was to walk a line where he defied the U.S. at every opportunity which gave him sufficient support to maintain his regime while at the same time backing off just enough to not actually give the U.S. a reason to attack. That strategy failed in the end when the U.S. changed the rules, but in the meantime, I just don't see what he had to gain by attacking us or aiding someone who was going to attack us like bin Laden. There was little to gain and everything to lose.
"To actually attack the U.S. would have been suicide with little benefit to himself."
But Israel is another matter. There, he would see direct benefit by building support throughout the Middle East.
I don't think Saddam was devoted to Islam either. He was a Pan-Arabist, working toward a single unified, powerful Arab state. What's there now is a group of squabbling little feifdoms -- family run oil companies with flags and seats in the United Nations. Seperately they're not powerful. And they're guaranteed to stab each other in the back at every turn.
These countries have a rich history of culture and creativity. That oil resource has been a curse for them.
I'm asking why these soldiers deserve a bigger celebration than other soldiers who fought similar wars? Answer that question.
We seem to have forgotten what these people do for us and others around the world. There is little done in the way of thanking them anymore. You are correct that we did not do much for those who were in Somalia, Kosovo, Granada. Some even spit on those that were in Vietnam.
It is past time that we change that.
It's not about president Bush or Republican verses Democrat. They did the job they were asked to do, bravely and with precision. They did it in the face of human shields, car/suicide bombers, fear of chemical attacks, snipers in schools, hospitals and museums, etc., and in a way that will be studied for years to come. They did it for you, me and the Iraqi people. They at least deserve the best thank you party we can give them.
It was nice of you to post all that stuff, especially without the dates...
Apr 9, 2003, From top to bottom, I would like to see a change in Washington. In other words, a Regime Change.
Apr 2, 2003, After all, Bush wouldn't want to be subject to the same Fact-Finding "scrutiny" that Clinton had to live with...?
Mar 30, 2003, There is plenty of room and reason for dissent within this country, seeing as how our President has been led away from what he SAID he believed, to what he now wants to vehemently promote, by tying his inexperienced-trunk to the tail of the Elephant in front of him, namely one Donald Rumsfeld. THE pompous ASS, of the current administration.
Mar 26, 2003, Hell, Schwartzkopf made it almost as far, fighting their whole freakin-Army,along the way! Our troops, at this very moment, have the enemy BEHIND their lines, in several places. They are fighting this War, with less than half the divisions that Iraq has, and even some of our commanders have asked for more equipment, men, and fast.
No, I think this campaign is in the end, going to prevail, but I would NOT call it one for the record books of America's Best Battles?
This is like, Guadalcanal, only BIGGER, for God's sake. NOT PRETTY TO WATCH.
Mar 26, 2003,I HATE this war, and I don't much care for Gen. Franks "strategy" either.
Here's one more...
Feb 26, 2003, It's about Bush-I, Oil, Power, Money, Prestige and then, after all those reasons, it's about "Terrorists" in Iraq.
but I don't see what it proved, if anything and outside of my hammer on mr. donald rumsfeld, who IS a pompous-ass, I did NOT hammer the President in his role as CIC... Now did I?
Not unless you include the "Regime Change" comment, the "Bush-I, Oil, Power, Money, Prestige" comment, the "led away from what he SAID he believed" comment, etc.
So Dan, the Welcome Home's, and Thank You's, are over with then?
Don't think that I said that. In fact, I believe that we were just discussing the hope of further Welcome Home's.
We seem to have forgotten what these people do for us and others around the world. There is little done in the way of thanking them anymore. You are correct that we did not do much for those who were in Somalia, Kosovo, Granada. Some even spit on those that were in Vietnam.
ALLISON...you missed my point completely. No offense though, really.
Probably since I wasn't even consciously replying to your points :-P
In fact, I'm not even sure where I said anything that disagrees with you. At one point I even implied that I thought the Vietnam soldiers might have been deserving of the biggest celebration, if the celebration was really for the efforts put forth by the troops, because they faced the most difficult circumstances in combat. I assume the casualties in Vietnam were higher than in any other conflict in my lifetime (born in 1968).
I was replying to Dan, but actually I guess I'd have to say you missed my point then. I was questioning what seemed to be the sentiment that this group of soldiers deserved a bigger celebration than any other group of soldiers in the recent past or I should say the sentiment that this group of soldiers was more noteworthy. I didn't mean to imply that they shouldn't be celebrated. I was asking why they were more deserving of it than previous groups. But apparently that's not what Dan meant anyway. He clarified his point and now it's not bugging me anymore.
JT... If GDubbya had done his thing OUT of camera range, and welcomed those men and women home as he did, but without all the "Pinache", I would say "Bravo".
You are so full of shit! If he not properly honored them as he did, you would have been screaming about that as well. It is a no win situation with people who hate him.
Think of all the money the RNC saved for 2004 election advertising.
That entrance would be expensive to stage.
You could think of the whole war that way. Quite a gamble, though. It could blow up in their faces...er, no pun intended.
It's pas la guerre
sez you
"Make love, not THE war"
I'll stick to the Babel fish translation. Thanks
Faites l'amour, et faites la guerre
The photo-op angle was mentioned in Canadian news broadcasts last week.
Sometimes the tone was a bit snide.
Dubya deserves as much credit as the soldiers.
It was he who had the balls to make the decision to go to war, and it was he who came through as Commander in Chief.
The carrier was only 30 miles off shore.
Coupla hours, he could have walked on.
But Cliinton, he was shamelessabout photo-ops.
But Cliinton, he was shameless about photo-ops.
Say what you will, Clinton never had the balls to to do anything about Saddam.
It was HE that made the decision to let OTHERS go to war, just as he did in the 1960's.
Well, I recall a certain someone in the past, defending those that ran off to Canada.
Be consistent Bill.
"Say what you will, Clinton never had the balls to to do anything about Saddam."
Should he have done what Bush did? Are you that certain all this is going to work out?
We're talking pre 9/11 now. What sort of support would a campaign by Clinton similar to this one have gotten from his loyal opposition.
You know, the group with the balls that was trying to seize power?
I never said anything of the kind... Please show me where I defended those that ran off to Canada to avoid service...can you please?
I don't recall your exact words. I don't even know if you posted it here at PF or at the old PP. I just recall you absolving those that left for Canada. Something about Vietnam being a crappy war and you couldn't blame those that took off for Canada.
I may be mistaken, but I don't think so.
Are you that certain all this is going to work out?
Not certain at all. Dubya took a huge risk.
What sort of support would a campaign by Clinton similar to this one have gotten from his loyal opposition.
We'll never know.
Has there been, in your estimation a careful weighing of all the implications, short term and long term?
Maybe just "doing something" is enough to satisfy you.
Doing nothing was accomplishing just that. Nothing.
I don't know if all the implications have been weighed. I'm not privy to such information.
"I don't know if all the implications have been weighed. I'm not privy to such information."
Well, God help us if they haven't .
The carrier was only 30 miles off shore.
Coupla hours, he could have walked on.
Now if he would have walked to the carrier that would have been a photo-op!!!!
Well. God help us if they haven't.
They may think they have, but it doesn't mean they did.
Who in 1990 would have thought of someone smashing planes into buildings?
"I don't know if all the implications have been weighed. I'm not privy to such information."
But we could have been sure had Clinton still been C-in-C he would have weighed all the implications as how it would have effected him personally!
You think GDubbya didn't consider how his decisions would effect him and his political future?
If Clinton was the president and faced all the flak Bush got on Iraq we would have never went in.
sorry, fold, I did answer your question. I am sorry that you must have everything spelled out for you directly. Don't feel ashamed. There are many people with that problem.
Dennis has another piece in Liberalslant
He hasn't been over here in a long time.
I agree with him this time. The juvenile epithets the US soldiers were said to have scrawled on the walls and boards of that school are out of line.
"In one classroom, "I [love] pork," with the word love represented by a heart, was written on the blackboard, along with a drawing of a camel and the words: "Iraqi Cab Company." In another room, "Eat [expletive] Iraq" was scrawled on a wall. And in Ahmed's office, sexual organs were drawn with white chalk on the back of the door." -- Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Scott Wilson, Washington Post Foreign Service, Friday, May 2, 2003; Page A21
I have to agree. That's disgusting behavior.
Unfortunately, that's the kind bahavior that lingers and tends to be remembered. And as soon as it looks like it will be forgotten, someone will bring it up.
Conduct unbecoming a Liberator. If there's a line that can trace the behavior at the school to the violence in Fajullah, that story deserves more play than page A21.
Sorry Rick, it doesn't, a few ugly works of graffiti are yes boorish and I'm sure offensive. You also need to remember the men are mainly young men. It doesn't excuse it but more importantly you wonder if it can trace the behavior to the violence in Fajullah. Dennis and others are quite sure the troops just overreacted and opened up on unarmed civilians. It fits neatly and requires only one train of thought and is easily believed if one follows any Oliver Stone war movie. Not to say or deny things like that happened but those troops most likeley would not have fired on anyone if they were not recieving fire. So we take soilders to task for it and perhaps to fit someones political bent. Yes I agree what they wrote was offensive. The protestors wouldn't have known what was written inside until after we left so I don't think it was what made them decide to protest. We left by the way to defuse the situation. We also didn't enter Mosques out of cultural sensitivity. We removed flags from our vehicles as to not offend. We buried any dead facing Mecca and marked their grave locations with as much info as possible. The troops are trained on the culture and how to interact positively. Ugly incideints can and will occur. But they do go to great lenghts more than ever to avoid such things.
I guess what really troubles me is how easy it is for some to decide so quickly what happened or to criticize. You're a 19 year old kid, somone's been shooting at you for days trying to kill you. Some are friendly, some wave, some don't, some try to drive a car into your posistion and blow it up. Some strap explosives, wait til they get close and take you out. Some offer you tea and thank you, Sometimes an infiltrator will blend in with a crowd and start shooting. Sometimes a lone shot rings out from a sniper and a kid you were taliking to minutes earlier is shot choking for air through the blood and pleading at you with his eyes as he dies. Things get confusing and quick when someone's trying to kill you. It wouldn't be the first time a fanatic used people as shields.
You have to cope somehow and many times it's done in ways to vent frustration that you do things like writing on a wall or making derisive comments.
You say it's what people remember. Perhaps, I think they've seen and had worse things happen in their lifetimes than someone writing on a wall.
BTW, The same folks who were so upset at our failure to protect a museum during war time aren't talking to much now. Someone pointed out from news footage that most of the glass cases were intact. Meaning that they had to be opened by someone with keys. Also were vaults emptied and locked again, you'd need the combo's for that. Many pieces are finding their way to black markets that only people knowledgeable in fine arts could peddle. The currator's stories arte falling apart and it's quite possible it was the currators themselves that took the artifacts. You won't see 4 days of coverage on that though. We got plenty of criticism about it even though we were a tad busy.
I guess it's a positive though and a sure sign of someone who was dead wrong. If the biggest fault or complaint they can muster is a museum being pilfered or some offensive graffiti they're truly grasping.
"Perhaps, I think they've seen and had worse things happen in their lifetimes than someone writing on a wall. "
Then the perpetrators and their superiors who marched on Fujallah are probably big enough endure the scrutiny of their actions as well.
The troops or the protestors ?
The troops.
You're right. It should be front page or at least in the first ten pages. They ought to be court marshalled for writing boorish and culturally insensitive remarks on a school house wall. Perhaps it had someting to do with rocks, grenades or shots fired at them while there. Nah, couldn't be. String em up on charges of being jerks. Give them all d.d's
C'mon Rob:
The strongest charge I leveled was that it was out of line.
Thank heaven all military guys aren't as defensive and easily offended as you are.
The stongest charge you leveled was that it was out of line ?
I'm not offended at all. I'm not the one who wrote the messages which I don't defend. What I take issue with was your wondering or trying to link what they wrote on a wall with the violence that followed in that town. I also don't think it's wrong that it's on page A21. I don't see it as a huge story, you did, that's fine. It seems easy to criticize from a distance. If you think someone taking issue or disagreeing with you is being defensive so be it. It's criticism of a posistion. I agreed in part and disagreed in others. So there ya have it.
I noticed the edit you did, good catch.
I THINK I said I WOULD give him a "BRAVO", had he NOT used it as THE photo-op of the new millenia, and stolen some of THIER thunder.
Actually, you said, "If GDubbya had done his thing OUT of camera range, and welcomed those men and women home as he did, but without all the "Pinache", I would say "Bravo"." What can be better than having the president of the U.S. making a big deal out of thanking you and doing it in front of the whole world? If he had done it in some naval yard with no cameras, I would have been pissed at him. They deserved to be honored in front of the whole world for the work that they have done.
With the elections around the corner, part of it may have been a photo-op, but didn't he deserve that much for putting his own political butt on the line in front of the world? Or are the Democrats the only ones allowed photo-ops?
Also, I gave him MANY "Bravos" during the initital stages of the WOT AND once the battles began in Iraq, so don't give me that "Hate Him" baloney, because in spite of the fact that I think his priorities are fucked-up, and his intelligence is lacking, I have always spoken of respecting his place as Commander In Chief.
You sure have a funny way of showing it.
Yes, the "Troops"(sailors,airmen) loved it, and they should have! It WAS an historic visit(as far as Pincache goes) and it WAS the right thing to do all in all, for their benefit, but it was ALSO for HIS benefit, and if you cannot see that, then YOU are full of shit.
Now I am confused, it was the wrong thing to do and now it is the right thing to do, all in the same post.
But the REAL welcome-home(s) for those who fought and defended those who fought, and ALL those who served in fact, are yet to be seen, and I for one will certainly be glad when these victorious young men and women march down 5th Ave. in New York City, perhaps on the 4th of July, and recieve the tumultuous-gratitudes they deserve, as brave young men and women who did an extremely tough job, and did it very well indeed.
I hope they get the biggest welcome home and thank you parade that our generation has yet to see. They deserve it.
GDubbya had his camera-op...Now, I hope to God, It Is THEIR Turn.
Come on, they were honored by the president of the U.S. in such a way that it drew world wide attention. Oh well, I guess there is not much of a way to break through the party hatred and jealousy.
I hope they get the biggest welcome home and thank you parade that our generation has yet to see. They deserve it.
Alright, this statement has been bugging me since I read it. Why do they deserve the biggest one of our generation? They went over there and did their job and did it pretty well. But they did have a vast technical superiority and a lot of strategic support, so it's not like they pulled off an "upset". So why would they deserve a bigger welcome home than those who went to Somalia, Kosovo, Granada, or even the soliders who fought in the first Gulf War? They all did their jobs just as well.
When you say that, there seems to be a certain mentality implicit in the statement that this war is part of the epic struggle between good and evil and that we were facing an enemy with the imminent power to destroy us. And indeed, that does seem to be the sort of mentality that Bush and his administration have been trying to foster. But it's a dangerous one because if that's what you believe, that your enemy is evil incarnate, then indeed there can never be any hope for peace. But the truth is they are humans too and in many ways not that different from us. Even Saddam who was about as bad as a person can get, still had his little "love shack".
Allison Wonderland.
So because they had superior fire power and good support it lessens their accomplishment ? Would you feel better or feel they deserve it more had we used blackpowder rifles ? Superior firepower only counts for so much. Take a look at Vietnam. We had vastly superior firepower but because of the politicians running the war instead of letting the military take care of it we lost the war even though we won most of the battles handily. After 1943 our technology was superior to most countries too. Did that make their victory any less of a feat since it wasn't an upset ?
Is it the size of the celebration bugging you ? Ever been shot at ? Ever watched a friend die ? No matter what technology you have you are still in grave danger the bravery exhibited by many of these people is incomprehinsible to some. We learned from Vietnam that no matter the posistion of the person on the war the troops deserve better. The Vietnamn vets got screwed IMO and didn't get the respect they deserved until much too late.
We have parades when a baseball team wins a world series. These men and women were doing something 100 times more brave and heroic than that, they risked their lives and you're taking issue with the size of a celebration ? Nice.
19 men that highjacked some planes did a pretty large impact job.
What would you call it ? Kinda good vs. Naughty ? Bad vs. Worse ?
If you can't see that in many ways it was good against an evil regime then you're helpless. Perhaps you refuse to read stories of the survivors. Perhaps you missed the mass graves found on the news yesterday. Perhaps it's just too hard for you to comprehend that his regime killed 2 million people. Perhaps you're too naive to understand that the only way to remove him is by removing the soilders loyal to him, the ones who helped him do hi dirty work are evil. The average German foot soilder wasn't a Nazi but he helped to support that regime. Same here. In all things sides are chosen. Some people apparently don't want to or can't see that sometimes in the grand scheme there's simply right and wrong or good vs. evil.
You mean one of the places he had women raped ? Hitler had a little getaway or "loveshack" too, a lovely place in the mountains called Berchtesgarden, so what ? I mean he had a dog named blondie too and loved it more than anything, right before he killed it.
Did that make their victory any less of a feat since it wasn't an upset ?
Yes. A feat is something that you accomplish in the face of difficult odds. The U.S. defeating Iraq was not a feat. Only the Iraqi government would have ever claimed any other outcome was a possibility. Winning WWII was a feat.
Is it the size of the celebration bugging you ?
Yes. It's the statement that these soliders deserve the biggest celebration of our generation which implies their achievement was somehow greater than the achievement of other soldiers over the last 20 years. Even significantly so. I don't see that.
Superior firepower only counts for so much. Take a look at Vietnam.
Yes, personally I would have given them a bigger celebration because they faced a much more difficult challenge.
19 men that highjacked some planes did a pretty large impact job.
The overall effect that had on our daily lives was really pretty minor in comparison to the effect this war is still having on the daily lives of the average Iraqi. 9/11 certainly hurt, but it hardly brought our society to the edge of ruin. And for that matter, there's still no evidence that Saddam had any real involvement in that.
We have parades when a baseball team wins a world series. These men and women were doing something 100 times more brave and heroic than that, they risked their lives and you're taking issue with the size of a celebration ? Nice
Where was I comparing apples to oranges? I was comparing apples to apples. I'm asking why these soldiers deserve a bigger celebration than other soldiers who fought similar wars? Answer that question.
If you can't see that in many ways it was good against an evil regime then you're helpless.
Yes, that's what this was all about. Our evil detectors picked up a reading and we rushed over there to stamp it out. Isn't that a nice story?
Perhaps you missed the mass graves found on the news yesterday. Perhaps it's just too hard for you to comprehend that his regime killed 2 million people.
Stalin killed something like 20 million. We didn't do a whole lot about that. Hmmm, I wonder if I were to go to the Amnesty International site, how many other places there are in the world that are killing their own people and yet we're not rushing over there to stop it?
The bottom line is we fought this war because we wanted to, not because we had to. That's certainly how most of the rest of the world sees it and if we don't acknowledge that, then we're going to be stuck in perpetual war because there will be no way to make peace.
The U.S. defeating Iraq was not a feat.
That the war was undertaken at all was a feat.
That the war was undertaken at all was a feat.
I'll actually give you that.
The bottom line is we fought this war because we wanted to, not because we had to. So? There were plenty of reasons to go to war. Saddam mistreated his people. He was thumbing his nose at the U.N. He was assisting terrorists both in Israel and elsewhere. Furthermore, the war sent a message that we will not sit on our hands that we are going to pro active under certain circumstances.That's certainly how most of the rest of the world sees it and if we don't acknowledge that, then we're going to be stuck in perpetual war because there will be no way to make peace. I don't believe that is "how most of the rest of the world sees it." There is large portion that are apathetic. I think that as time goes by the opinion that the war was not necessary will change.
Did that make their victory any less of a feat since it wasn't an upset ?
It was not a feat ?
Easy for you to say. So I guess the longest and fastest movement of an armed force in the history of warfare was nothing. I guess it was no biggie that our troops put their own lives at risk to lessen civilain casualties. Nah, no big deal the many times our soilders went out into fire to help civilains being used as shields not to mention their own comrades. It was no big feat that we were able to engage in urban warfare without massive casualties on both sides and without 43 days of bobming and with half the troops we had in 91'. No big deal that we were able to do in 3 weeks what the U.N couldn't do in 12 years. It was no big deal. I mean we knew we were going to win so why didn't they just give up ? Hmmm ? Nah it was nothing I'm sure, easy to say the load was light if you don't have to lift.
Is it the size of the celebration bugging you ?
I can't speak for Dan, I don't think he was saying that or lessening the previous accomplishments at all. It's an expression I believe.
Superior firepower only counts for so much. Take a look at Vietnam.
And you would know that how ? I thought that beacue we had superior firepower that it made it less of a feat, which is it ?
19 men that highjacked some planes did a pretty large impact job.
Really ? Well how was the daily life of the average Iraqi 2 years ago when hundreds went missing because they held religious meetings ? As far as it effecting our daily lives it has, it's also easy to say it hasn't if your wife didn't die in one of the towers. Ask them how their daily lives are effected.
My point was that you don't have to have a massive army to be a threat.
Again I can't speak for Dan so you'll have to ask him. I think they all did. and do. Do you ?
If you can't see that in many ways it was good against an evil regime then you're helpless.
So why'd we go ? Oh I know, let me guess, it was all about oil right ?
Perhaps you missed the mass graves found on the news yesterday. Perhaps it's just too hard for you to comprehend that his regime killed 2 million people.
Nah that whole little cold war thingy, other than that........
Know how many died during the cold war ? Would you have preferred we just took them head on ? I mean even Stalin had a love shack.
Really ? Afghanistan, Kuwait, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somolia, Haiti. I'm confused, you either don't want us going into places to we should be going in. Which is it ? There were people dying before WW2, should we have not gone in there ? Do you think that everyone needs to be handled the same ?
You're right. We should have given it another 12 years. Heck I say go for the silver 25th until you go, wait for the U.N, oh wait that's right their too busy with Syria and Lybia heading the human rights commission and looting a freakin cafeteria because they hadn't eaten in 4 hours.
"The bottom line is we fought this war because we wanted to, not because we had to. "
I certainly think Saddam was assisting terrorists (from what I've read, he sent money to suicide bombers familieis in Palestine -- terrorist activity, no doubt) and hatching terrorist plots against the United States and Israel. I wouldn't want to wait around for hm to do something awful against the US, or send someone else to do it. Would you?
This lraqi Liberator monikor is exaggerated often in my estimation. There's a substantial segment of our population who would normally not give the people of Iraq one moment's thought. And if they did they would just consider them another backward nation full of rag-heads.
I feel the same way you do when suddenly become the huddled masses yearning to breath free. I think a little honesty is needed as well.
Rick 5/6/03 11:59am
I'd agree with that. Good post.
I certainly think Saddam was assisting terrorists (from what I've read, he sent money to suicide bombers familieis in Palestine -- terrorist activity, no doubt) and hatching terrorist plots against the United States and Israel.
I wouldn't actually be surprised if that was true, but I actually wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't either. Saddam seemed like he was much more interested in furthering his own pleasure than is fighting the cause of Islam. In fact, on that front he was somewhat progressive it would seem as he had Christians and even women holding important posts in his government. So I'm actually a little curious what his motivations would be in supporting these other causes with money he could have spent on himself.
I wouldn't want to wait around for hm to do something awful against the US, or send someone else to do it. Would you?
I think he was probably satisfied coming off as merely being defiant. It gave him a sufficient hero status among his supporters. To actually attack the U.S. would have been suicide with little benefit to himself. He didn't exactly seem like a devout Muslim, much less a fanatic one. He just seemed greedy. I'm still kind of surprised he didn't just run when the U.S. came. But then again, maybe he did. All that money missing and no real proof that he was genuinely in Iraq once the war started. Intelligence says he was, but it's obviously not foolproof. But anyway, his best startegy was to walk a line where he defied the U.S. at every opportunity which gave him sufficient support to maintain his regime while at the same time backing off just enough to not actually give the U.S. a reason to attack. That strategy failed in the end when the U.S. changed the rules, but in the meantime, I just don't see what he had to gain by attacking us or aiding someone who was going to attack us like bin Laden. There was little to gain and everything to lose.
"To actually attack the U.S. would have been suicide with little benefit to himself."
But Israel is another matter. There, he would see direct benefit by building support throughout the Middle East.
I don't think Saddam was devoted to Islam either. He was a Pan-Arabist, working toward a single unified, powerful Arab state. What's there now is a group of squabbling little feifdoms -- family run oil companies with flags and seats in the United Nations. Seperately they're not powerful. And they're guaranteed to stab each other in the back at every turn.
These countries have a rich history of culture and creativity. That oil resource has been a curse for them.
"So I'm actually a little curious what his motivations would be in supporting these other causes with money he could have spent on himself."
The death of the State of Israel.
I'm asking why these soldiers deserve a bigger celebration than other soldiers who fought similar wars? Answer that question.
We seem to have forgotten what these people do for us and others around the world. There is little done in the way of thanking them anymore. You are correct that we did not do much for those who were in Somalia, Kosovo, Granada. Some even spit on those that were in Vietnam.
It is past time that we change that.
It's not about president Bush or Republican verses Democrat. They did the job they were asked to do, bravely and with precision. They did it in the face of human shields, car/suicide bombers, fear of chemical attacks, snipers in schools, hospitals and museums, etc., and in a way that will be studied for years to come. They did it for you, me and the Iraqi people. They at least deserve the best thank you party we can give them.
It was nice of you to post all that stuff, especially without the dates...
Here's one more...
but I don't see what it proved, if anything and outside of my hammer on mr. donald rumsfeld, who IS a pompous-ass, I did NOT hammer the President in his role as CIC... Now did I?
Not unless you include the "Regime Change" comment, the "Bush-I, Oil, Power, Money, Prestige" comment, the "led away from what he SAID he believed" comment, etc.
So Dan, the Welcome Home's, and Thank You's, are over with then?
Don't think that I said that. In fact, I believe that we were just discussing the hope of further Welcome Home's.
We seem to have forgotten what these people do for us and others around the world. There is little done in the way of thanking them anymore. You are correct that we did not do much for those who were in Somalia, Kosovo, Granada. Some even spit on those that were in Vietnam.
It is past time that we change that.
That I can agree with.
ALLISON...you missed my point completely. No offense though, really.
Probably since I wasn't even consciously replying to your points :-P
In fact, I'm not even sure where I said anything that disagrees with you. At one point I even implied that I thought the Vietnam soldiers might have been deserving of the biggest celebration, if the celebration was really for the efforts put forth by the troops, because they faced the most difficult circumstances in combat. I assume the casualties in Vietnam were higher than in any other conflict in my lifetime (born in 1968).
I was replying to Dan, but actually I guess I'd have to say you missed my point then. I was questioning what seemed to be the sentiment that this group of soldiers deserved a bigger celebration than any other group of soldiers in the recent past or I should say the sentiment that this group of soldiers was more noteworthy. I didn't mean to imply that they shouldn't be celebrated. I was asking why they were more deserving of it than previous groups. But apparently that's not what Dan meant anyway. He clarified his point and now it's not bugging me anymore.
May everyone get the welcome home they deserve joe!
America will do it up big, because that's how we do most everything.
Nice Joe Rick!