False Equivalation
Will all the liberals out there equivalating how Americans treat captured terrorists with how terrorists treat those unlucky souls they capture, please take the time to remind me when that last time was American soldiers did anything like this:
The terrorists captured two of our men, and what steps did they take? The did not take them to a tropical island where captives are so well fed that almost all gain weight. Nor were they forced to put womens underwear on their heads, and they did not have fake blood thrown at them, or pull other fraternity/reality TV-grade tricks. But I don't here liberals complaining about the actions of the terrorists, and how uncomfortable it must be for those captured by terrorists to be mauled with a power drill, or scorched with acetylene torches, or castrated, or beheaded, or hung, dangling from meat hooks while still alive, or raped with found objects. No, the left can bear to shed no real, heart-felt words of sympathy, and they drop crocodile tears as they quickly use this occasion to bash both the Adminstration and the troops. If we treat terrorists like anything other than privileged dinner guests it is torture by their sophomoric definition, and it's the President's fault. If terrorists, in turn, perform unspeakable acts of barbarity on our soldiers, it's still the President's fault. Nothing is ever the fault of the terrorists, and the United States is never, ever in the right. Do I question their patriotism? No. Where they stand is abundantly clear.
The bodies of two U.S. soldiers found in Iraq Monday night were mutilated and booby-trapped, military sources said Tuesday. Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker went missing after a Friday attack on a traffic control checkpoint in Yusufiya, 12 miles (20 km) south of Baghdad. The sources said the two men had suffered severe trauma. The bodies also had been desecrated, and a visual identification was impossible -- part of the reason DNA testing was being conducted to verify their identities, the sources said. A tip from Iraqi civilians led officials to the bodies, military sources told CNN. The discovery was made about 7:30 p.m. Monday. Not only were the bodies booby-trapped, but homemade bombs also lined the road leading to the victims, an apparent effort to complicate recovery efforts and target recovery teams, the sources said.
It took troops 12 hours to clear the area of roadside bombs. One of the bombs exploded, but there were no injuries.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:11 PM
Comments
1
You consider being held in Guantanamo as being on a tropical island? Technically you're right, Cuba is a tropical island. The prisoner's can't enjoy it though, as they are locked up. Nice try though.
You are also right that the terrorists who killed the soldiers are ultimately the ones at fault.
But you are wrong in accusing all liberals of not being sympathetic to the soldiers. Why? Because you are using what is called a "strawman". A mythical liberal figure that you invented, and has no bearing on what real liberal people believe.
Depending on where you live, maybe you should actually try to meet some real people who have left of center beliefs, even if they aren't radical leftists. You may be surprised in their mainstream beliefs.
Jaxebast
Jaxebast
You are also right that the terrorists who killed the soldiers are ultimately the ones at fault.
But you are wrong in accusing all liberals of not being sympathetic to the soldiers. Why? Because you are using what is called a "strawman". A mythical liberal figure that you invented, and has no bearing on what real liberal people believe.
Depending on where you live, maybe you should actually try to meet some real people who have left of center beliefs, even if they aren't radical leftists. You may be surprised in their mainstream beliefs.
Jaxebast
Jaxebast
Posted by: Jaxebad at June 20, 2006 03:24 PM (qudJu)
2
Of course people, I use that word loosely, are locked up at GITMO. Where were our soldiers locked up and tortured at, probably some rat whole of a place. I am sure they did not enjoy any kind of a special meal, I am sure they were not given a Holy Bible and allowed to pray if they wanted before they were tortured and killed. I have been very upset about this today and I do not care what we have to do to get the job done just do it. I guess Al Quaida will prosecute and shackle these guys that did this because of the Geneva convention. And our liberal left Kennedy gets upset about underwear and a dog. How long will it take him to get these pictures of our Heroes and stand before the American people and wave his hand and shout that this should not be done. I reckon when hell freezes over. I am sick of the media and I am sick of liberals. Just turn our troops loose, they can handle the job.
Posted by: Kay at June 20, 2006 05:46 PM (y6n8O)
3
Jaxebast - Tell it to Murtha, Reid, Kennedy, Durbin and Kerry. These are the leaders of your left of center party.
They call American soldiers terrorists, say that, ". . .the torture chambers of Abu Ghrab is under new, American management", that American Marines are "cold-blodded murderers" and that American interrogation was akin to Nazis. They lie and their acolytes on the left eat it like cake.
The left rationalizes real torture and beheadings by repeating the lies of YOUR leaders.
They call American soldiers terrorists, say that, ". . .the torture chambers of Abu Ghrab is under new, American management", that American Marines are "cold-blodded murderers" and that American interrogation was akin to Nazis. They lie and their acolytes on the left eat it like cake.
The left rationalizes real torture and beheadings by repeating the lies of YOUR leaders.
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at June 20, 2006 05:49 PM (3nKvy)
4
And the "left" PC crowd wants a moral, ethical US military to engage the enemy with no colateral damage, and they want the Geneva Accords Articles of War extended to these sub-humans. I say it is time the military takes the stick out of their eye (the one placed there by the PC "left"), sticks that stick up the PC "left's" a$$ and moves out smartly treating the enemy with the same regard they have shown our men.
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 20, 2006 07:43 PM (owAN1)
5
Old Soldier: Are you aware that in advocating a "gloves off" approach to dealing with terrorists you are endorsing a military strategy last seen in the abject failure that was the French experience in Algiers? The French employed an extensive torture policy against members of Algeria's National Liberation Front, and it totally backfired, turning the entire civiliain population against them. That's why the Pentagon screened the film The Battle of Algiers in 2003, with a flyer that said:
"How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film." (See the Wikipedia entry for Battle of Algiers)
Google the name Paul Aussaresses, the French general in charge of intelligence during the Algerian war, and you will see that in a 60 Minutes interview in 2000 he still defends torture as a tactic is warfare, and recommends torturing Al-Queda. Do you really want the American military to follow not just a French military strategy, but a French military strategy that failed?
"How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film." (See the Wikipedia entry for Battle of Algiers)
Google the name Paul Aussaresses, the French general in charge of intelligence during the Algerian war, and you will see that in a 60 Minutes interview in 2000 he still defends torture as a tactic is warfare, and recommends torturing Al-Queda. Do you really want the American military to follow not just a French military strategy, but a French military strategy that failed?
Posted by: Nate at June 20, 2006 08:07 PM (UlkGh)
6
MCPO,
Care to attribute those accusations? Or do you just have personal vendettas against all of these senators?
For that matter, what do you think of Joe Lieberman, who also (despite popular misconceptions) has a very liberal voting record?
Care to attribute those accusations? Or do you just have personal vendettas against all of these senators?
For that matter, what do you think of Joe Lieberman, who also (despite popular misconceptions) has a very liberal voting record?
Posted by: Jaxebad at June 20, 2006 08:52 PM (qudJu)
7
OS:
I assume you consider George Washington part of the "PC Left", from his quotation "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren." Interestingly enough, his advice paid off, as many of the said soldiers (from Germany) ended up becoming American citizens after the War.
If that's PC Leftism, I'm proud to be part of that tradition.
I assume you consider George Washington part of the "PC Left", from his quotation "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren." Interestingly enough, his advice paid off, as many of the said soldiers (from Germany) ended up becoming American citizens after the War.
If that's PC Leftism, I'm proud to be part of that tradition.
Posted by: Jaxebad at June 20, 2006 09:05 PM (qudJu)
8
Why on God's green earth does the torture of two American boys remind you of "the left"? Can you not make your own decisions, as opposed to reacting to everything you consider "the left"?
I've never in my life known anyone who hated America or who approves of the death of American armed servicemen. I don't deny that such people exist, but they are freaks.
You all are enchanted by a bogeyman that O'Reilly, Coulter and Limbaugh describe to you. You are tilting at windmills.
You say you want to let our servicemen "finish the job". What do you mean? Get more aggressive? How can you be so naive as to think that when our servicemen kill cousins and brothers and husbands that their survivors will not be inclined to turn against us?
Wolfowitz said "There is no history of ethnic strife in Iraq". Bush said "Mission accomplished" in 2003. The war was predicated on WMD which didn't exist, and now you all are happy to pretend that spreading democracy was the goal all along.
It's clear that a lot of you just want revenge. Personally, I'd like the Iraqis to have a democracy, but to be honest it's not that high a priority. I'd like the innumerable dictatorships in Africa to be democracies too, but as a conservative I don't believe in nation building. Do you?
Another thing, if you disbelieve the MSM, then how about the Iraqi Prime Minister? Here's what he has to say, and it's awful: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/iraqdocs_061606.pdf.
Please, tell me what is the good news that the MSM is hiding from us.
I mourn for those boys. Did they die trying to root out terrorists? Then we will have failed them, because as I said the more Iraqis we kill, the more angry survivors we create. Did they die trying to set up a democracy in Iraq? In that case we failed them too. Civil strife has been heating up in that country for years, and it's coming to a boil. The Shia and Sunnis are killing eachother in Mosques, with drills, in assassinations every day. What chance is there for these people to trust eachother and form a government?
I mourn for America too, because we failed those boys. We sent them to die far away from home, for a lie, in a conflict that has no goal.
I've never in my life known anyone who hated America or who approves of the death of American armed servicemen. I don't deny that such people exist, but they are freaks.
You all are enchanted by a bogeyman that O'Reilly, Coulter and Limbaugh describe to you. You are tilting at windmills.
You say you want to let our servicemen "finish the job". What do you mean? Get more aggressive? How can you be so naive as to think that when our servicemen kill cousins and brothers and husbands that their survivors will not be inclined to turn against us?
Wolfowitz said "There is no history of ethnic strife in Iraq". Bush said "Mission accomplished" in 2003. The war was predicated on WMD which didn't exist, and now you all are happy to pretend that spreading democracy was the goal all along.
It's clear that a lot of you just want revenge. Personally, I'd like the Iraqis to have a democracy, but to be honest it's not that high a priority. I'd like the innumerable dictatorships in Africa to be democracies too, but as a conservative I don't believe in nation building. Do you?
Another thing, if you disbelieve the MSM, then how about the Iraqi Prime Minister? Here's what he has to say, and it's awful: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/iraqdocs_061606.pdf.
Please, tell me what is the good news that the MSM is hiding from us.
I mourn for those boys. Did they die trying to root out terrorists? Then we will have failed them, because as I said the more Iraqis we kill, the more angry survivors we create. Did they die trying to set up a democracy in Iraq? In that case we failed them too. Civil strife has been heating up in that country for years, and it's coming to a boil. The Shia and Sunnis are killing eachother in Mosques, with drills, in assassinations every day. What chance is there for these people to trust eachother and form a government?
I mourn for America too, because we failed those boys. We sent them to die far away from home, for a lie, in a conflict that has no goal.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 21, 2006 12:47 AM (DixoE)
9
Who kicked over the rock and let all the hippies out?
Posted by: bob at June 21, 2006 02:52 AM (YTjdv)
10
Cyrus,
I can't speak for everyone but here is how I see it. The most vocal opponents of the war are on the "Left" and they get almost all of the air time in the news. The center sees mostly what the 'Left' media wants them to see. Fox is quoted as a right news station, that's the only one so the majority of news is anti-war, anti-Bush, and almost anti-American in nature. I am tired of the negative portrayal of America. These news channels are watched world wide and it has affected greatly how the world views us.
By their own documents, we are WINNING the ground war, but losing the PR war. Why?
We win every major engagement and almost every minor engagement, but people think we are losing. Why?
We have one of the lowest loss record of any war but people think it's comparable to Viet-Nam. Why?
We have politicians screaming to cut and run, pull out now, but when put to a vote it is trounced. Why?
Answer, all for the Press. Press has a lot of control over public opinion.
War is a terrible thing, young men and women dying is horrible. Setting up a stable democracy in that region will be invaluable as far as history is concerned. Is the price worth it?
Is freedom? When the little girls are allowed to get their diplomas, graduate and get a job without the requirement of a man, they may believe so.
Is Democracy? When the people can go to the poles and vote, actually voting in a candidate without thugs and guns pointed at them, they may believe so.
A more stable world? Democracy will spread in that region once rooted. Dictatorships are one voice telling the country what is good for them, Democracy is the voice of the people. Which is better?
We had help in our Revolutionary war, we helped others in WW1, WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam.
Don't the Iraqi deserve a chance at freedom? Shouldn't they have our help?
I can't speak for everyone but here is how I see it. The most vocal opponents of the war are on the "Left" and they get almost all of the air time in the news. The center sees mostly what the 'Left' media wants them to see. Fox is quoted as a right news station, that's the only one so the majority of news is anti-war, anti-Bush, and almost anti-American in nature. I am tired of the negative portrayal of America. These news channels are watched world wide and it has affected greatly how the world views us.
By their own documents, we are WINNING the ground war, but losing the PR war. Why?
We win every major engagement and almost every minor engagement, but people think we are losing. Why?
We have one of the lowest loss record of any war but people think it's comparable to Viet-Nam. Why?
We have politicians screaming to cut and run, pull out now, but when put to a vote it is trounced. Why?
Answer, all for the Press. Press has a lot of control over public opinion.
War is a terrible thing, young men and women dying is horrible. Setting up a stable democracy in that region will be invaluable as far as history is concerned. Is the price worth it?
Is freedom? When the little girls are allowed to get their diplomas, graduate and get a job without the requirement of a man, they may believe so.
Is Democracy? When the people can go to the poles and vote, actually voting in a candidate without thugs and guns pointed at them, they may believe so.
A more stable world? Democracy will spread in that region once rooted. Dictatorships are one voice telling the country what is good for them, Democracy is the voice of the people. Which is better?
We had help in our Revolutionary war, we helped others in WW1, WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam.
Don't the Iraqi deserve a chance at freedom? Shouldn't they have our help?
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 21, 2006 05:37 AM (elhVA)
11
Nate, do not be so presumptuous as to interpolate what I advocate. Your comment is predicated upon a false supposition.
Jaxebad, assume all you want, but do not put words into my mouth or presume anything on my behalf.
Cyrus, ”Why on God's green earth does the torture of two American boys remind you of "the left"?” Perhaps it is because Kennedy stated that Saddam’s torture chambers have new owners – the US military; Durbin likened the Guantanamo guards to Nazis; Kerry accuses the military of midnight terrorism of women and children; Murtha levels accusations of cold blooded murder. Who defines Iraq as “we’re losing”? Who defines Iraq as a “quagmire”? Who advocates for immediate withdrawal? Who labels radical Islamic terrorists as “freedom fighters”? Answer those questions and you answer your own question.
So there is no misunderstanding, interpolation, supposition or assumptions, I shall be as clear as I know how. I do not advocate torture – for the most part it is counterproductive. I do not advocate revenge – it is predicated upon anger, and anger will get you killed on the battlefield.
What I do advocate is letting the military be the orchestrators of operations; let them exploit the weaknesses of our self-declared enemy. We should not cater to our enemy in any shape fashion of form – like providing Qur’ans, prayer mats and religiously correct meals to prisoners of war. For crying out loud, we will avoid attacking and damaging a mosque when we know terrorists are using them. If they wish to disregard their own holy places, why should we extend that courtesy to them? It becomes an advantage for the terrorists.
When I state, “Move out smartly treating the enemy with the same regard they have shown our men,” I mean to remove the PC handcuffs from our commanders. Let them prosecute this war as a war, not a game of chess. We have the finest, best trained and equipped force to ever be fielded by America. Our military has never doctrinally been anything less than moral and ethical on and off the battlefield. For anyone to even imply such is absurd. Those who have not served yet sit in the comfort of their living room and Monday morning quarterback our military are dispicable.
Jaxebad, assume all you want, but do not put words into my mouth or presume anything on my behalf.
Cyrus, ”Why on God's green earth does the torture of two American boys remind you of "the left"?” Perhaps it is because Kennedy stated that Saddam’s torture chambers have new owners – the US military; Durbin likened the Guantanamo guards to Nazis; Kerry accuses the military of midnight terrorism of women and children; Murtha levels accusations of cold blooded murder. Who defines Iraq as “we’re losing”? Who defines Iraq as a “quagmire”? Who advocates for immediate withdrawal? Who labels radical Islamic terrorists as “freedom fighters”? Answer those questions and you answer your own question.
So there is no misunderstanding, interpolation, supposition or assumptions, I shall be as clear as I know how. I do not advocate torture – for the most part it is counterproductive. I do not advocate revenge – it is predicated upon anger, and anger will get you killed on the battlefield.
What I do advocate is letting the military be the orchestrators of operations; let them exploit the weaknesses of our self-declared enemy. We should not cater to our enemy in any shape fashion of form – like providing Qur’ans, prayer mats and religiously correct meals to prisoners of war. For crying out loud, we will avoid attacking and damaging a mosque when we know terrorists are using them. If they wish to disregard their own holy places, why should we extend that courtesy to them? It becomes an advantage for the terrorists.
When I state, “Move out smartly treating the enemy with the same regard they have shown our men,” I mean to remove the PC handcuffs from our commanders. Let them prosecute this war as a war, not a game of chess. We have the finest, best trained and equipped force to ever be fielded by America. Our military has never doctrinally been anything less than moral and ethical on and off the battlefield. For anyone to even imply such is absurd. Those who have not served yet sit in the comfort of their living room and Monday morning quarterback our military are dispicable.
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 21, 2006 06:56 AM (X2tAw)
12
"Why on God's green earth does the torture of two American boys remind you of "the left"?"
One more reason...
Left Thoughts
One more reason...
Left Thoughts
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 21, 2006 07:15 AM (X2tAw)
13
Cyrus and Jaxebad,
While I believe that there are centrist democrats, the party has been taken over by leftists, and rabid ones at that. They portray every move of our country as evil; every move of Bush as a lie; and blame Bush for everything.
My suggestion to you if you do not like being grouped in with such ilk, GET CONTROL OF YOUR OWN PARTY. Quite rolling around in your own rhetoric and do something other than complain that you are all being tarred and feathered with a broad brush. Move your party back to the center and maybe, just maybe, people will see what many of you stand for. Right now all we hear is the SOROS and VIPS pushed agendas of the far left, and that is not doing you any good whatsoever.
BTW - as to Lieberman. Check this out.
While I believe that there are centrist democrats, the party has been taken over by leftists, and rabid ones at that. They portray every move of our country as evil; every move of Bush as a lie; and blame Bush for everything.
My suggestion to you if you do not like being grouped in with such ilk, GET CONTROL OF YOUR OWN PARTY. Quite rolling around in your own rhetoric and do something other than complain that you are all being tarred and feathered with a broad brush. Move your party back to the center and maybe, just maybe, people will see what many of you stand for. Right now all we hear is the SOROS and VIPS pushed agendas of the far left, and that is not doing you any good whatsoever.
BTW - as to Lieberman. Check this out.
Posted by: Specter at June 21, 2006 07:50 AM (ybfXM)
14
When are the people on the LEFT going to realize that you cannot be PC with a group of people that don't even know the meaning of humane. Also why does the left think there were no weapons of mass destruction? I know of and have seen photos of chemical labs and weapons caches that have the ability to produce poision gas. They had plenty of time to move and hide there weapons and weapons programs. Syria has Saddam's weapons, they were the only country that Saddam trusted. Why do you think that even today there are bathist undercover death squads operating out of Syria abducting and killing Iraqi's in Jordan. They are trying to silence anyone that can tie the regime to the weapons. Cyrus, this is a just war, Saddam had ties to AQ, he was funding suicide bombers in Palistine, was helping fund Hamas. Use your common sense, think about it for a second. Helping Hamas blow up innocent Israeli's that would take the attention away from him. He was using the Palistinians as guinea pigs to further his own agenda. Those folks that are committing all these atrocities in Iraq most are not Iraqi's. Instead of condemming this war, try helping. I am at a loss for words. How can the Far Left (that controls the Dem. party.) fathom that if we leave Iraq and retreat into our borders that all the killings and beheadings will stop. We need to fight to WIN. I am in total agreement with O.S. & R.N. We have the finest Military in the world and its people on the Left and the Drive-By Media that is getting our boys killed. If you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all. They help fuel the insurgency with there Anti-American and Anti-war rhetoric. The Demorcratic party has No vision, No plan and No spine. They just want to be in control.... At any cost.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at June 21, 2006 09:32 AM (elhVA)
15
Old Soldier: Considering the original CY post was about the barbaric torture of two American soldiers, and your reponse was that it's time the military "moves out smartly treating the enemy with the same regard they have shown our men", it isn't "interpolation" or "false supposition" to assume you are advocating torture. It's the logical inference that flows from your comment and its context, and if that wasn't what you intended to say you should have been more precise in your language.
You say: "Let them prosecute this war as a war, not a game of chess."
This is a legitimate view, but not one that is especially compelling at this point in time. The other day I saw two former Marine generals interviewed about Iraq, and when both were asked point-blank: "What should we be doing militarily different right now?" they both answered the same: "Nothing- moving forward requires a political solution at this point in time." When in a discussion of military tactics you address only the military component of this war, and neglect the political elements (and potential political fall-out of things like bombings Mosques), you come off as uninformed that the battlefield has changed.
"We have the finest, best trained and equipped force to ever be fielded by America."
Agreed.
"Our military has never doctrinally been anything less than moral and ethical on and off the battlefield. For anyone to even imply such is absurd."
Wrong. I'll get you evidence if you want. The new doctrine established by Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. clearly takes the gloves off and allows for things like waterboarding and other clear torture. This isn't the fault of our troops, it is the fault of an executive branch subverting the traditional military doctrine that has worked since George Washington.
"For anyone to even imply such is absurd. Those who have not served yet sit in the comfort of their living room and Monday morning quarterback our military are dispicable."
Why do you vets here come out with your service as a trump card in any debate? What does that have to do with anything? And are we to infer that those who don't serve in the military have no right to voice their opinion on military matters? What next: those who haven't played baseball can't criticize the local manager? Those who haven't been a news reporter in Iraq can't criticize the coverage about Iraq? I don't think you want to go there.
You say: "Let them prosecute this war as a war, not a game of chess."
This is a legitimate view, but not one that is especially compelling at this point in time. The other day I saw two former Marine generals interviewed about Iraq, and when both were asked point-blank: "What should we be doing militarily different right now?" they both answered the same: "Nothing- moving forward requires a political solution at this point in time." When in a discussion of military tactics you address only the military component of this war, and neglect the political elements (and potential political fall-out of things like bombings Mosques), you come off as uninformed that the battlefield has changed.
"We have the finest, best trained and equipped force to ever be fielded by America."
Agreed.
"Our military has never doctrinally been anything less than moral and ethical on and off the battlefield. For anyone to even imply such is absurd."
Wrong. I'll get you evidence if you want. The new doctrine established by Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. clearly takes the gloves off and allows for things like waterboarding and other clear torture. This isn't the fault of our troops, it is the fault of an executive branch subverting the traditional military doctrine that has worked since George Washington.
"For anyone to even imply such is absurd. Those who have not served yet sit in the comfort of their living room and Monday morning quarterback our military are dispicable."
Why do you vets here come out with your service as a trump card in any debate? What does that have to do with anything? And are we to infer that those who don't serve in the military have no right to voice their opinion on military matters? What next: those who haven't played baseball can't criticize the local manager? Those who haven't been a news reporter in Iraq can't criticize the coverage about Iraq? I don't think you want to go there.
Posted by: Nate at June 21, 2006 10:24 AM (UlkGh)
16
We should treat people better.....we are americans!!!!
Posted by: centrist at June 21, 2006 10:24 AM (vrOoK)
17
Nate, it's because Monday Morning Quarterbacks like yourself that have never worn the uniform nor would put it on if your life depended on it who make statements such as the one you posted "Why do you vets here come out with your service as a trump card in any debate?" Because we have "been there done that". Vets are the subject matter experts unless you served you can only bloviate and potificate. You made a comparison to sports, this is not a game. I served my counrty and still serve her today. I and like the rest of my fellow Veterans are proud of our service and we respect our brethren. You know the ones that came before us who died and continue to die for the likes of you who question our Honor, Beliefs and our Patriotism. Murtha and Kerry put their own political ambitions ahead of what was right and just. The left always wants to invoke Vietnam. You forget or choose not to recognize the fact that the left were the ones who would not recognize the Vets when they came home, spit on them and called them "Baby Killers." One of those was Kerry, he was a traitor. He had no right to speak for the Vets nor the right to testify to the so called atrocities that he supposedly witnessed. He wrote himself up for the Three Purple Hearts, used the system to get back to the states to start his political career. Why does he not sign the form 180 releasing his record? Because it will show his B.S. record. Murtha was in the rear with the gear. Freedom Isn't Free. I can only wish liberals would realize that.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at June 21, 2006 11:10 AM (elhVA)
18
Nate,
I don't use my service as a trump card. I only speak of my experience, that I use as a trump card. I don't talk ground war tactics because I didn't live that. I do know that bad press is a let down for the folks in uniform, I lived that. I know for a fact that when I was in a different country and some politician or other spouted crap out of the corner of his mouth about that country, or our country's dealings with them, that it made things really tense for us there, I lived that.
My service was just that, my service. My knowledge, take or leave it, is from what I lived.
I don't use my service as a trump card. I only speak of my experience, that I use as a trump card. I don't talk ground war tactics because I didn't live that. I do know that bad press is a let down for the folks in uniform, I lived that. I know for a fact that when I was in a different country and some politician or other spouted crap out of the corner of his mouth about that country, or our country's dealings with them, that it made things really tense for us there, I lived that.
My service was just that, my service. My knowledge, take or leave it, is from what I lived.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 21, 2006 11:19 AM (elhVA)
19
FYI,
GrantMan/Murtha/Centrist has just had his IP banned for "sock-puppeting."
For those of you not familiar with the term, sock-puppeting is the practice of duplicitously posting under multiple screen names. LA Times columnist/blogger Michael Hiltzik recently lost his blog (though not his column) for the same practice, which is roughly defined as "using pseudonyms to bolster his own opinions and belittle those of his detractors."
I do not mind people using anonymous identities or pseudonyms as most posters here do, but I do not condone and will strongly lash out against those who abuse the capability to build strawmen posters who support their views.
GrantMan/Murtha/Centrist has just had his IP banned for "sock-puppeting."
For those of you not familiar with the term, sock-puppeting is the practice of duplicitously posting under multiple screen names. LA Times columnist/blogger Michael Hiltzik recently lost his blog (though not his column) for the same practice, which is roughly defined as "using pseudonyms to bolster his own opinions and belittle those of his detractors."
I do not mind people using anonymous identities or pseudonyms as most posters here do, but I do not condone and will strongly lash out against those who abuse the capability to build strawmen posters who support their views.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 21, 2006 11:33 AM (g5Nba)
20
Specter,
Here's the thing.
I don't think the Democratic Party has been taken over by "rabid leftists". Harry Reid sure isn't one. Seeing as how the party is actively recruiting centrists like Bob Casey for the Senate, and is supporting Lieberman in his primary bid, I think it's quite clear that the party is not moving leftwards at this time.
So when conservative blogggers think that Reid, Kerry, Rahm Emanuel, et al. are part of the "rabid left", and keep confusing the DNC and the DLC, it's due to the fact that they are oblivious to the nature of the Democratic Party. If they had someone like Dennis Kucinich in mind, that may be more accurate (though I wouldn't call him "rabid", as that's just a crass insult, he is definitely classified as "hard left"). Of course, he isn't a party leader.
As this relates to the war in Iraq, the result is that there is still quite a bit of disagreement in the party. I'm still hesistant towards the idea of immediate redeployment, but it is at least an alternative idea, as opposed to the vague "stay the course" maxim. And it sure as heck is more supportive of the troops than the idea of pardoning their killers, which some GOP Senators are in favor of.
Here's the thing.
I don't think the Democratic Party has been taken over by "rabid leftists". Harry Reid sure isn't one. Seeing as how the party is actively recruiting centrists like Bob Casey for the Senate, and is supporting Lieberman in his primary bid, I think it's quite clear that the party is not moving leftwards at this time.
So when conservative blogggers think that Reid, Kerry, Rahm Emanuel, et al. are part of the "rabid left", and keep confusing the DNC and the DLC, it's due to the fact that they are oblivious to the nature of the Democratic Party. If they had someone like Dennis Kucinich in mind, that may be more accurate (though I wouldn't call him "rabid", as that's just a crass insult, he is definitely classified as "hard left"). Of course, he isn't a party leader.
As this relates to the war in Iraq, the result is that there is still quite a bit of disagreement in the party. I'm still hesistant towards the idea of immediate redeployment, but it is at least an alternative idea, as opposed to the vague "stay the course" maxim. And it sure as heck is more supportive of the troops than the idea of pardoning their killers, which some GOP Senators are in favor of.
Posted by: Jaxebad at June 21, 2006 11:53 AM (qudJu)
21
Jaxebad,
Let's see...Kerry has posted at KOS. I guess he doesn't embrace the left. Howard Dean is the leader of the DNC. He doesn't embrace the far left either I suppose - as calm and rational as he always is. Murtha calls for withdrawal...and gets banged for it. Murtha hangs with Code Pink - the group who sent money to the Iraqi "freedom fighters" and protest the war in sight of Bethesda. Left. Reid demonizes republicans for abramoff even though he took $68K. Jefferson gets caught with $90K "cold cash" in his possession, but doesn't take the high road of stepping down. Kerry calls for withdrawal by the end of the year and gets shot down. All far left postitions. Sorry...take back your own party.
Let's see...Kerry has posted at KOS. I guess he doesn't embrace the left. Howard Dean is the leader of the DNC. He doesn't embrace the far left either I suppose - as calm and rational as he always is. Murtha calls for withdrawal...and gets banged for it. Murtha hangs with Code Pink - the group who sent money to the Iraqi "freedom fighters" and protest the war in sight of Bethesda. Left. Reid demonizes republicans for abramoff even though he took $68K. Jefferson gets caught with $90K "cold cash" in his possession, but doesn't take the high road of stepping down. Kerry calls for withdrawal by the end of the year and gets shot down. All far left postitions. Sorry...take back your own party.
Posted by: Specter at June 21, 2006 12:45 PM (ybfXM)
22
I don't think voicing dissent about the war or our military's conduct of the war undermines the morale of the troops. It was perfectly appropriate for Bush to criticize our deployment of troops in the Balkans, and it is appropriate for those who see fit to criticize the deployment of troops in Iraq. The places where it isn't cool to express discontent the concerning the military or a war are places I don't want to live. (China, North Korea, Iran)
Military service can bring much-needed context to a discussion, but it in no way substitutes for sound reasoning. My dad, step-dad, several uncles, and both grandfathers served in the military, and not once in the many discussions over the years about wars past and present did any one of them present their service as something that gave their view more weight than those family members who didn't serve.
Specifically regarding my dad, there were two things that really bothered him when he was out in the field in Vietnam:
1) That back home most people seemed to go about their ordinary lives as though a war wasn't even going on.
2) That the particular military strategy he was involved in of walking out in the jungle waiting to draw enemy fire so they could radio the planes where to bomb- SUCKED!
Both of these things bothered him more than people criticizing the war, and you could even say that the protesters understood these issues better than anyone else.
Military service can bring much-needed context to a discussion, but it in no way substitutes for sound reasoning. My dad, step-dad, several uncles, and both grandfathers served in the military, and not once in the many discussions over the years about wars past and present did any one of them present their service as something that gave their view more weight than those family members who didn't serve.
Specifically regarding my dad, there were two things that really bothered him when he was out in the field in Vietnam:
1) That back home most people seemed to go about their ordinary lives as though a war wasn't even going on.
2) That the particular military strategy he was involved in of walking out in the jungle waiting to draw enemy fire so they could radio the planes where to bomb- SUCKED!
Both of these things bothered him more than people criticizing the war, and you could even say that the protesters understood these issues better than anyone else.
Posted by: Nate at June 21, 2006 01:42 PM (UlkGh)
23
Nate, why don’t you stop while you are behind? Even after I submit a clarifying comment you still argue supposition based upon assumption no less. Not a healthy position from which to debate.
As for the running of the war, I defer to the commanders on the ground. They have the current pulse and plan ops accordingly. My comment about taking the gloves off is stimulated by returning officers who continue to complain about unrealistic constrains precipitated by the PC crowd back home, not by the indigenous political environment in Iraq.
”Wrong. I'll get you evidence if you want. The new doctrine established by Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. clearly takes the gloves off and allows for things like waterboarding and other clear torture.”
Get off your damned moral soap box before you fall and hurt yourself. Privates Tucker and Menchaca suffered torture. Was that okay, because the terrorists never fought under the command of Washington? Do you place “waterboarding” in the same category as the torture administered by the radical Islamic terrorists?
”Why do you vets here come out with your service as a trump card in any debate? What does that have to do with anything?” Obviously, it means nothing to you. Spend 31 years walking in my shoes and then come back and ask that question.
As for the running of the war, I defer to the commanders on the ground. They have the current pulse and plan ops accordingly. My comment about taking the gloves off is stimulated by returning officers who continue to complain about unrealistic constrains precipitated by the PC crowd back home, not by the indigenous political environment in Iraq.
”Wrong. I'll get you evidence if you want. The new doctrine established by Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. clearly takes the gloves off and allows for things like waterboarding and other clear torture.”
Get off your damned moral soap box before you fall and hurt yourself. Privates Tucker and Menchaca suffered torture. Was that okay, because the terrorists never fought under the command of Washington? Do you place “waterboarding” in the same category as the torture administered by the radical Islamic terrorists?
”Why do you vets here come out with your service as a trump card in any debate? What does that have to do with anything?” Obviously, it means nothing to you. Spend 31 years walking in my shoes and then come back and ask that question.
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 21, 2006 02:07 PM (X2tAw)
24
Well Nate,
My nephew and my brother in law just returned from Iraq, they both told me that the negative press and the constant brow-beating that is happening to the military is a big morale let-down to the troops over there. They also said that it does in fact make the terrorists more bold. They are now playing to the press, not to win.
That's this war, not those in the past I am talking about.
Here is an interesting column you may like (or not)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800900.html
No matter what we do as a nation, we will not be liked by all.
Shouldn't we stick to gether as a nation though? There are bad guys out there and they don't like us.
My nephew and my brother in law just returned from Iraq, they both told me that the negative press and the constant brow-beating that is happening to the military is a big morale let-down to the troops over there. They also said that it does in fact make the terrorists more bold. They are now playing to the press, not to win.
That's this war, not those in the past I am talking about.
Here is an interesting column you may like (or not)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800900.html
No matter what we do as a nation, we will not be liked by all.
Shouldn't we stick to gether as a nation though? There are bad guys out there and they don't like us.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 21, 2006 02:09 PM (y67bA)
25
”I don't think voicing dissent about the war or our military's conduct of the war undermines the morale of the troops.”
Wrong. Ask Faithful Patriot.
”Military service can bring much-needed context to a discussion, but it in no way substitutes for sound reasoning.”
When the subject is the military it is the voice of reason.
”My dad, step-dad, several uncles, and both grandfathers served in the military…”
Thank them for their service and remember it is their service, not yours. You’ve gained no ground.
Great, you’ve got your father’s thoughts on Vietnam; would you like mine? I’ll offer this much, one of my takes on the Vietnam War is that the protesters didn’t understand jack. They carelessly and needlessly threw away the meaning of 55,000 soldiers’ deaths. I also didn’t appreciate my uniform being spat upon and being called a baby killed. You’ve got a lot to learn, but with a closed mind you’ll miss out.
Wrong. Ask Faithful Patriot.
”Military service can bring much-needed context to a discussion, but it in no way substitutes for sound reasoning.”
When the subject is the military it is the voice of reason.
”My dad, step-dad, several uncles, and both grandfathers served in the military…”
Thank them for their service and remember it is their service, not yours. You’ve gained no ground.
Great, you’ve got your father’s thoughts on Vietnam; would you like mine? I’ll offer this much, one of my takes on the Vietnam War is that the protesters didn’t understand jack. They carelessly and needlessly threw away the meaning of 55,000 soldiers’ deaths. I also didn’t appreciate my uniform being spat upon and being called a baby killed. You’ve got a lot to learn, but with a closed mind you’ll miss out.
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 21, 2006 02:19 PM (X2tAw)
26
Old Soldier, I don't think he will ever get it. Unfortunately, there are too many like him in this day and age.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 21, 2006 05:58 PM (uPytR)
27
Okay, let's pull back for a moment.
Retired Navy: I don't doubt that it's tough to be a soldier over there right now, and that it would be preferable to have a united country at one's back. But life doesn't work out perfectly, and I think that it is better to have a divided country debating it's way towards a strategy that will work rather than have a country united behind a failed strategy.
Old Soldier:
I wasn't citing my family members' military service to bolster my own association with the military. I was showing that it's possible to have these kinds of discussions without using the "I served, so don't question me!" line of argument. I'm sorry you those particular protesters treated you that way, and I'm sure if I expereinced what you went through I might be as angry as you.
I wish I could speak about the war withoug doing so in such personal terms, but that's often a major factor how I shape my views about war, and it certainly seems so for those here who have served.
Yes, I didn't serve, and it increasingly looks like I never will. So I'll give you three people in my family who did serve, and how they influence my views.
a) My dad. Drafted for Vietnam. Hit by grenade in last month of his tour. The man in front of him died that day. Still has shrapnel all over his body. Very liberal. Voted for Nader in 2000. Supported Afghanistan war, not Iraq war.
b) My 2nd Cousin. Underwater explosives specialist in Navy in Vietnam. Saw comrades die. Very strong Republican and Bush supporter, but in general low-key about it. Willing to debate the current Iraq war, which he very much supports, with all the younger people in our family, who are generally more liberal, and do so in a friendly manner.
c) My Uncle. Used connections to get into CA national guard during Vietnam. Huge Republican and Bush supporter, very vocal about it. Tells his small children that Kerry hates America and is a coward, and they go around spouting this others. Always going on about supporting the troops.
It seems to me everyone is this comment section should be united in respecting (a) and (b) while seeing (c) as something of a joke. Yet you guys often come off as supporting (b) and (c), and seeing (a) as something anti-American. The genuine Americans are (a) and (b) as far as I'm concerned, and (c) is the ugly American.
Am I wrong? I don't understand why, as much as you may disagree with Kerry or Murtha, you denigrate them when they are attacked by people like Cheney and Bush who did not put in the time to earn respect on military affairs.
Retired Navy: I don't doubt that it's tough to be a soldier over there right now, and that it would be preferable to have a united country at one's back. But life doesn't work out perfectly, and I think that it is better to have a divided country debating it's way towards a strategy that will work rather than have a country united behind a failed strategy.
Old Soldier:
I wasn't citing my family members' military service to bolster my own association with the military. I was showing that it's possible to have these kinds of discussions without using the "I served, so don't question me!" line of argument. I'm sorry you those particular protesters treated you that way, and I'm sure if I expereinced what you went through I might be as angry as you.
I wish I could speak about the war withoug doing so in such personal terms, but that's often a major factor how I shape my views about war, and it certainly seems so for those here who have served.
Yes, I didn't serve, and it increasingly looks like I never will. So I'll give you three people in my family who did serve, and how they influence my views.
a) My dad. Drafted for Vietnam. Hit by grenade in last month of his tour. The man in front of him died that day. Still has shrapnel all over his body. Very liberal. Voted for Nader in 2000. Supported Afghanistan war, not Iraq war.
b) My 2nd Cousin. Underwater explosives specialist in Navy in Vietnam. Saw comrades die. Very strong Republican and Bush supporter, but in general low-key about it. Willing to debate the current Iraq war, which he very much supports, with all the younger people in our family, who are generally more liberal, and do so in a friendly manner.
c) My Uncle. Used connections to get into CA national guard during Vietnam. Huge Republican and Bush supporter, very vocal about it. Tells his small children that Kerry hates America and is a coward, and they go around spouting this others. Always going on about supporting the troops.
It seems to me everyone is this comment section should be united in respecting (a) and (b) while seeing (c) as something of a joke. Yet you guys often come off as supporting (b) and (c), and seeing (a) as something anti-American. The genuine Americans are (a) and (b) as far as I'm concerned, and (c) is the ugly American.
Am I wrong? I don't understand why, as much as you may disagree with Kerry or Murtha, you denigrate them when they are attacked by people like Cheney and Bush who did not put in the time to earn respect on military affairs.
Posted by: Nate at June 21, 2006 06:00 PM (UlkGh)
28
Nate, I do not want to pursue this conversation on CY's site. Click here and post a comment using your real email address and I will contact you; that is if you desire to continue to converse.
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 21, 2006 09:08 PM (owAN1)
29
Jax, no matter how the left spins it by calling for a re-deployment. It is Cut and Run. Where are they going to re-deploy anyway? Like I stated above. When the Left has a Vision, a Plan, and a Spine then you can talk all you want. Until that time its all re-hash. Regurgitated tripe from the left, if you remember how tough they were with the North Koreans appease the little pot bellied pig and what did it get us? Or negotiate our way out of the Iran hostage situation. Negotiation is great while your not languishing in a Islamic extremist gulag. Good media coverage though. Clintons admin. got all those Army Rangers killed in Mogadishu, couldn't use AC130 gunship’s "To much Media". I don't blame a democrat, I blame your leadership. The left does not have any leaders, they have hand wringer and manipulators. Look at Hillary how far she has moved to the right. All to get elected. Its not what she believes, its about your vote. Have you noticed that they have abandoned the "Culture of corruption" mantra. They are just as bad as the right. Wipe the sleep from your eyes and smell the coffee. It’s all about regaining power and telling you what to do and how to do it. CONTROL, YIKES!!!! It makes no difference if we leave the Middle East to their own demise they are going to hate us anyway because we are the Great Satan. Oh, BTW Harry Reid is idiot along with Pelosi. If they get much farther to the left they will need a boat to get back. As Specter stated you guys need to take control of your party. Stop letting these so called concerned citizens lead you around by the collective noses.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at June 26, 2006 06:35 AM (nFSnk)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0197 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0135 seconds, 37 records returned.
Page size 41 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.