DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on December 29, 2006, 02:26:09 PM
-
Why We Need More Troops in Iraq
By Joseph Lieberman
Friday, December 29, 2006; Page A27
I've just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.
Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. We and our Iraqi allies must do what is necessary to win it.
The American people are justifiably frustrated by the lack of progress, and the price paid by our heroic troops and their families has been heavy. But what is needed now, especially in Washington and Baghdad, is not despair but decisive action -- and soon.
The most pressing problem we face in Iraq is not an absence of Iraqi political will or American diplomatic initiative, both of which are increasing and improving; it is a lack of basic security. As long as insurgents and death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq's nascent democratic institutions cannot be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people. The fear created by gang murders and mass abductions ensures that power will continue to flow to the very thugs and extremists who have the least interest in peace and reconciliation.
This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal violence that threatens to consume the country.
On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.
To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province -- an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.
In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops. In both places these soldiers showed a strong commitment to the cause of stopping the extremists. One colonel followed me out of the meeting with our military leaders in Ramadi and said with great emotion, "Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it."
In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission. The troop surge should be militarily meaningful in size, with a clearly defined mission.
More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite. Just as the continuing carnage in Baghdad empowers extremists on all sides, establishing security there will open possibilities for compromise and cooperation on the Iraqi political front -- possibilities that simply do not exist today because of the fear gripping all sides.
I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic, moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi Army, which is sponsored and armed by Iran and has inflamed the sectarian violence. We cannot abandon these brave Iraqi patriots who have stood up and fought the extremists and terrorists.
The addition of more troops must be linked to a comprehensive new military, political and economic strategy that provides security for the population so that training of Iraqi troops and the development of a democratic government can move forward.
In particular we must provide the vital breathing space for moderate Shiites and Sunnis to turn back the radicals in their communities. There are Iraqi political leaders who understand their responsibility to do this. In Anbar province we have made encouraging progress in winning over local Sunni tribal leaders in the fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorists. With more troops to support them, our forces in Anbar and their Sunni allies can achieve a major victory over al-Qaeda.
As the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria appreciate -- at times, it seems, more keenly than we do -- failure in Iraq would be a strategic and moral catastrophe for the United States and its allies. Radical Islamist terrorist groups, both Sunni and Shiite, would reap victories simultaneously symbolic and tangible, as Iraq became a safe haven in which to train and strengthen their foot soldiers and Iran's terrorist agents. Hezbollah and Hamas would be greatly strengthened against their moderate opponents. One moderate Palestinian leader told me that a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic future would face the killing fields.
In Iraq today we have a responsibility to do what is strategically and morally right for our nation over the long term -- not what appears easier in the short term. The daily scenes of death and destruction are heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. That will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the Middle East and protect our security at home.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122801055.html
-
"Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic future would face the killing fields."[/quote]
I expect the same thing , but it will be Bushes fault.
-
<<Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic future would face the killing fields."[/quote]>>
<<I expect the same thing , but it will be Bushes fault.>>
It's nobody's fault but the traitor's when he pays the price for his treason. There's only one word for a citizen of a country who joins the invaders who have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people: traitor.
And when the Resistance finally triumphs - - as it probably will in this case - - there is only one fate he can expect: death.
-
Lieberman's analysis is compelling given his assumptions, but those assumptions are the real story: is Iraq now winnable as he envisions, and is the cost in reaching his goals worth the outcome?
-
"Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic future would face the killing fields."
I expect the same thing , but it will be Bushes fault.
[/quote]
And it would be because he broke it and couldnt fix it because of his stupid incompetence.
-
So, Lieberman (no surprise) is in favor of escalation.
So, McCain/Lieberman/Bush/Cheney all favor escalation of the "war".
Is there any reason whatsoever we should follow the advice of the people who created the problem in the first place? And steadfastly refuse the advice of the people they assign to study the situation?
If Bush is indeed the CEO "president", then shouldn't the stockholders have fired his sorry ass years ago? In what world would the equivalent of Ken Lay be allowed to continue as the head of a corporation that he has driven into the ground?
-
Leaving reliable facts aside since we are dealing with predictions rather than history, I will note nonetheless that those who oppose Lieberman's view, the withdrawal proponents, have not sketched a vision comparable to Lieberman's as to how their goals (please define them) can be achieved by the alternate course they suggest. Withdrawal or redeployment alone is only the initial stage of a coherent strategy, which should address the fate of the Iraqis left to their own devices at this point, and how we can position ourselves to prevail in the overall conflict with violent, radical Islam using withdrawal as the stepping-stone. Key to this analysis is the assumption, supported at least superficially by facts on the ground in Iraq, that the situation is now out of control, that it will descend into open civil war and that we have very little control over the course of events. In a very real sense, I suggest, this is the "grave and deteriorating situation" of which the Iraq Study Group has spoken, and it should be central to any "valid" analysis. (And, notably, Lieberman's does not really address that viewpoint but assumes it away.)
-
I shall remain on record as backing what the folks on the ground in Iraq say they need, not what politicians in DC think we need
-
That's just an excuse for not thinking. You don't even attempt to take an analysis as far as it can go within its structural limitations: you simply punt.
-
My friend Rose has 2 sons in the Marines, one active, one not. But the one who has served his time (he's my son's best friend) is expecting to be called back. This will make his 3rd tour of duty in Iraq.
Rose thinks they should bring everyone home. She gets told (by people who have no kids in Iraq) "Oh no, Rose, you don't know what you're talking about. YOU don't understand the situation."
-
That keys us into one (or a few) factors that go into making this next policy choice. As you well know, they are neither conclusive nor compelling standing alone. Indeed, the issue is at least titularly addressed by the "increase the Army and Marines" movement, which would seem to speak more directly to the problem you identify.
-
Lieberman is not so much the senator from Connecticut as he is the senator from Israel. He is as close to a NeoCon as any Democrat can get.
The more troops the US sends, the longer it will take to remove them, he reasons. Observe his stree on Syria (which hasn't even the hope of the potential to attack the US) and Iran, which currently hasn't the potential.
Ahmedinejad was counting on his strategy of scaring the Iranians into voting for him and his pals. It did not work, and he is not nearly the minor threat that he once was.
His having a conference on the Holocaust was a bagful of air: just propaganda to annoy the Jews with and simultaneously giving him a macho status with his fellow Iranians. In the Middle East, to beat up on Israel is to beat up on a bully.
Israel, the regional bully by far and away, passes itself off in the US as a tiny David against a roomful of Goliaths. But that's a load of bull.
The surge will result in a lot of dead people. I really, really doubt that it will make this war winnable. But it's apparently necessary so Juniorbush can say that he tried.
-
Lieberschmuck. That's all we need is advice from him.
I wish he'd taken my advice: Go play in traffic.
-
My friend Rose has 2 sons in the Marines, one active, one not. But the one who has served his time (he's my son's best friend) is expecting to be called back. This will make his 3rd tour of duty in Iraq.
Rose thinks they should bring everyone home. She gets told (by people who have no kids in Iraq) "Oh no, Rose, you don't know what you're talking about. YOU don't understand the situation."
I don't see where Rose's feeling are anymore credible than her son's feelings. What are his thoughts? Does he think himself a dumbass for putting on the uniform?
-
<<Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic future would face the killing fields."
>>
<<I expect the same thing , but it will be Bushes fault.>>
It's nobody's fault but the traitor's when he pays the price for his treason. There's only one word for a citizen of a country who joins the invaders who have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people: traitor.
And when the Resistance finally triumphs - - as it probably will in this case - - there is only one fate he can expect: death.
[/quote]
How can a majority of a country's population be traitors?
-
How can a majority of a country's population be traitors?
=====================================
Quite simple.
After they lose, those who won, who might have been in the minority, will accuse them of being traitors, and will also have the power to convict them and punish them for treason.
In the American Revolution, there never was a majority in favor of independence. About a third were Revolutionaries, a third were Tories, and followed King George, and a third were either neutral or just too busy trying not to be eaten by bears or scalped by Indians to have a position.
After the French blockaded Yorktown and threw the victory to the Rebels, a large number of Tories split for Canada.
Wars are not about majorities. Majorities are nice, but wars are about winners
-
<<I shall remain on record as backing what the folks on the ground in Iraq say they need, not what politicians in DC (and arrogant cybersaloon pundits) think we need>>
That's just an excuse for not thinking. You don't even attempt to take an analysis as far as it can go within its structural limitations: you simply punt.
Actually it's an excuse for letting those who know better make the decisions. You should try it sometime big guy
-
Responding to BT:
<<I don't see where Rose's feeling are anymore credible than her son's feelings. What are his thoughts? Does he think himself a dumbass for putting on the uniform?>>
He did his time. He did not make a career of it because he didn't like it enough to do it for the next 20 some years (or for another re-up). He's back here, he has a job, a wife, and is starting a family. I am not him so I won't speak for him, but his mother says he doesn't want to go back. I don't see where I claimed her feelings were any more credible than her son's feelings. Why erect straw horses, BT? We got enough to do.
-
Of the plethora of different views vying for recognition, Sirs, which is the one by your "designated thinker," and why? Indeed, who is YOUR "designated thinker," and why? You can't cede all thought.
-
Of the plethora of different views vying for recognition, Sirs, which is the one by your "designated thinker," and why? Indeed, who is YOUR "designated thinker," and why? You can't cede all thought.
A) General George Casey, and his immediate commanders underneath him.
B) Because they're the folks actually on scene with the greatest grasp of current reality & needs, minus the interferrence from political scrutiny, media saturation, and polls
C) I haven't conceded any thought to anyone. Simply allowing someone(s) who know better make the final decisions. Kinda similar to me avoiding telling a surgeon how best to perform a specific surgery.
-
<<How can a majority of a country's population be traitors?>>
I'm not following you. Surely you are not suggesting that a majority of the Iraqi population are actively working in collaboration with the U.S. occupation?
-
You kill me, Sirs. Do you ever have original thought? Bush has been deferring to Casey on troop levels for, what, two years, except perhaps now when he might promote a surge, which Casey initially didn't support, but, great independent thinker that he is, will probably support under pressure before Bush announces his decision. And why pick Casey? Wouldn't officers or even enlisted men have a better sense of the situation than the green-zone-bound Casey? Indeed, is information available to Casey that isn't available to the Joint Chiefs, the NSC, Bush and his secretaries, Cheney? The only thing that distinguishes Casey in this lineup -- and I can extend it to myriad non-governmental watchdogs in think tanks and elsewhere -- is that he has the constant exposure to SOME of the issues and the responsibility for SOME of the practices. But this begs the fundamental question: eschewing dittoheaddom, don't we as citizens of a democracy have the right (and duty) to try to understand these matters as best we can and then to speak our mind in whatever small contribution we can make to the national debate. The answer is obvious. Indeed, if I were to approach the whole venture from the start and were to latch on to (adopt) anyone's thinking, it may be Ted Kennedy's. He predicted this "disaster that didn't have to be" and decried its costs. Yes, that's it. Look up Ted Kennedy's remarks every time you wonder what I might be thinking.
-
<<Leaving reliable facts aside since we are dealing with predictions rather than history, I will note nonetheless that those who oppose Lieberman's view, the withdrawal proponents, have not sketched a vision comparable to Lieberman's as to how their goals (please define them) can be achieved by the alternate course they suggest.>>
Here is a vision for you, the vision of one withdrawal proponent: (numbered in order of importance)
1. I envision for the first time in decades a USA in compliance with international law, specifically with the Charter of the United Nations, which the U.S. signed, which prohibits armed intervention in the affairs of another sovereign state;
2. I envision no more flag-draped coffins coming back every week from a war whose only beneficiaries are Iran, Israel and the Shi'ite majority of Iraq. And possibly the shareholders of certain favoured oil companies and general contractors.
3. I envision no more maimed, crippled, deformed and generally fucked up and fucked over Americans piling up in VA hospitals all over the fucking country to the great benefit of the beneficiaries just named.
4. I envision a lessening of the appeal of radical Islamic preachers to join in the jihad against the Great Satan when the Great Satan is not engaging in a jihad against them.
That is not a vision "comparable to Lieberman's," that egregious ass-hole, it is a vision incomparably better. Lieberman's vision is basically to keep fighting until everyone in Iraq learns to love one another and sing Kumbayah.
-
<<How can a majority of a country's population be traitors?>>
I'm not following you. Surely you are not suggesting that a majority of the Iraqi population are actively working in collaboration with the U.S. occupation?
They certainly are .
Although a tiny minority wants the US presence to be long term , a strong majority wants our democracy building program to succeed.
-
Lanya says: He did his time. He did not make a career of it because he didn't like it enough to do it for the next 20 some years (or for another re-up). He's back here, he has a job, a wife, and is starting a family. I am not him so I won't speak for him, but his mother says he doesn't want to go back. I don't see where I claimed her feelings were any more credible than her son's feelings. Why erect straw horses, BT? We got enough to do.
Lanya, Why cloud the issue with emotion laden arguments when you readily admit you don't speak for the son.
-
from Lieberman's "persuasive essay" - -
<<Because of . . . the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. >>
Does anybody know WTF Lieberman is talking about? (just asking)
<<This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal violence that threatens to consume the country.>>
That at least is true.
<<On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. >>
That's moronic. It'll be a victory for whoever wins the civil war. Al Qaeda doesn't have much of a chance. Iran's a winner no matter what outcome results. Iran was a winner from the day of the invasion. It'll still be a winner (by a lower margin) even if the Sunnis win the civil war.
<<To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. >>
Sure. You strengthen the moderates by showing everyone else your determination to conquer Iraq and bend Iraqis to your views. This is the most idiotic part of a generally idiotic speech. How do you strengthen moderates by invading their country and killing anyone who isn't "moderate" enough for you, the foreigners? The only ones who are "strengthened" by this are the extremists and the resistance.
<<After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there . . . >>
Translation - - after speaking to every fucking moron I could find
<<I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province -- an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.>>
During which time all the insurgents will conveniently commit suicide or emigrate to Sweden so your collaborators won't have to worry about what happens after you leave.
<<In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops. In both places these soldiers showed a strong commitment to the cause of stopping the extremists. One colonel followed me out of the meeting with our military leaders in Ramadi and said with great emotion, "Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it.">>
So this guy who doesn't have the balls to speak up in a meeting wants the chance to fight mujahideen who have absolutely no fear of death.
<<In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission. The troop surge should be militarily meaningful in size, with a clearly defined mission.>>
Oh, yeah - - that's right. Don't forget to "clearly define their mission" before sending them over to die there; it'll look so much better. BTW, how come none of these Einsteins has clearly defined any mission for the cannon fodder they're planning to send over? Is it because there is no conceiveable mission that will alter the course of this disaster and a "clear definition" would just make the ridiculousness of it all the more apparent? NAH. Gotta be some other reason.
<<Just as the continuing carnage in Baghdad empowers extremists on all sides, establishing security there will open possibilities for compromise and cooperation on the Iraqi political front -- possibilities that simply do not exist today because of the fear gripping all sides.>>
Fear that will magically vanish with the "surge," which the stupid Iraqis will never realize cannot last for more than a few months.
<<I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic, moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi Army . . . >>
Yeah? Did you also by any chance notice any evidence of any monoethnic, extremist organizations opposed to the American invasion and/or its collaborators? (just askin)
<<We cannot abandon these brave Iraqi patriots who have stood up and fought the extremists and terrorists.>>
Can abandon and will abandon. "Brave patriots" is probably what the Nazis called the Vichy French, but in the end, a defeat is a defeat and a collaborator is a collaborator is a collaborator.
-
You kill me, Sirs. Do you ever have original thought?
Yea...I'm simply not as verbose in expressing them, as you are.
Bush has been deferring to Casey on troop levels for, what, two years, except perhaps now when he might promote a surge, which Casey initially didn't support, but, great independent thinker that he is, will probably support under pressure before Bush announces his decision.
Funny, I've seen Casey & Bush frequently reference different #'s of need, and Bush, as you've referenced almost always deferring to Casey's conclusions
And why pick Casey? Wouldn't officers or even enlisted men have a better sense of the situation than the green-zone-bound Casey?
Because he's the fella in the best position of knowing what's actually happening here, minus all the extracurricular dren I referenced earlier. You think I should pick Domer? Ted Kennedy? Bush? And I've already referenced Casey's officers as also being integral in assisting Casey in the decision making process
don't we as citizens of a democracy have the right (and duty) to try to understand these matters as best we can and then to speak our mind in whatever small contribution we can make to the national debate.
No one has said otherwise. Did you actually think I was advocating that no one think, that no one question, that no one do their own analysis of events? And you're supposed to be man of impeccable professional grasping of others thought process?
-
<<Although a tiny minority wants the US presence to be long term , a strong majority wants our democracy building program to succeed.>>
We're talking apples and oranges here, plane. I have no idea what the majority of Iraqis want regarding your "democracy building program" and I don't think you do either. Nobody is free to speak under the guns of an occupying army. They'll say whatever they think the man with the gun wants to hear.
HOWEVER, even if a strong majority DID want your "democracy building program" to succeed, the topic was the deaths of collaborators after the U.S. forces leave. You yourself in your initial post put the number at "tens of thousands." Those are your words. How can "tens of thousands" be a majority of the country?
You were confused. You confused the collaborators with ordinary citizens who, whatever they may or may not have wanted, did not aid or assist the occupation.
-
Lanya says: He did his time. He did not make a career of it because he didn't like it enough to do it for the next 20 some years (or for another re-up). He's back here, he has a job, a wife, and is starting a family. I am not him so I won't speak for him, but his mother says he doesn't want to go back. I don't see where I claimed her feelings were any more credible than her son's feelings. Why erect straw horses, BT? We got enough to do.
Lanya, Why cloud the issue with emotion laden arguments when you readily admit you don't speak for the son.
I didn't cloud the issue, and I made no emotion laden arguments.
I've stated how many tours he already did in Iraq. No shit he doesn't want to go back! There, that's emotion laden for you.
-
I didn't cloud the issue, and I made no emotion laden arguments.
Bullshit. Rose is no different than Cindy Sheehan. The whole basis of their appeal is emotion based. Poor mama, her son actually has to fulfill the terms of his contract. Life is so unfair.
-
As opposed to your reason-based arguments, BT?
-
So, for you, any contract trumps any emotions?
In BT's world, Little Nell would be banned from crying as Snydley Whiplash tied her to the tracks, because she could not pay the rent, and it says right there, "Should the tenant fail to pay the rent, the landlord shall tie her to the railroad tracks."
I think Cindy Sheehan has a perfect right to be emotional. It's not like her son deserved to die. It's not like one is barred from loving their children when they die at a young and tender age.
-
By the same token, such a consideration is a small part of the policy calculus.
-
As opposed to your reason-based arguments, BT?
Yeah ....... pretty much.
Boo hoo mama's lil marine boy has to honor his contract.
-
<<Bullshit. Rose is no different than Cindy Sheehan. The whole basis of their appeal is emotion based. Poor mama, her son actually has to fulfill the terms of his contract. Life is so unfair. >>
This is hilarious. Talk about conservatives living with their head stuck up their ass! BT is not only ignoring the most powerful emotion on earth - - one that even a fucking animal knows, a mother-instinct to protect the lives of her children - - but he's actually sneering at it.
Why honour such an emotion when there are BIGGER causes to pursue - - stubbornness, face-saving, the prestige of the U.S.A., and last but not least, "democracy for Iraq," better known in elite circles as securing the oil supply.
The longer shit like the Iraq war goes on, the more chance guys like BT - - all conservatives really, I don't mean to make this personal to BT - - get to reveal their true nature, and believe me folks - - it ain't pretty. The longer it goes on, the more inevitable it becomes that Americans get to see the true nature of conservatism.
-
It's not like her son deserved to die. It's not like one is barred from loving their children when they die at a young and tender age.
No one said he deserved to die, and no one said Cindy couldn't grieve. I do take issue with the exploiting of her sons death and allowing other to do the same for some nebulous political agenda they espouse.
And may i remind you Casey reenlisted?
And may i remind you Casey volunteered for his fatal mission.
I have a whole lot of respect for Casey. I don't see where Cindy inherits it.
-
If Casey reenlisted and volunteered for his last mission, it was because he was a follower and not a leader. He followed his elected leadership because he was dumb enough to believe in them and to trust them. It's not Casey's fault that he died, it's Bush's. You should expect more of your leaders. Just because they can always find morons who will follow them anywhere is no excuse for them taking advantage of the situation and squandering those young lives in dubious ventures of lies, bullshit, face-saving and stubbornness.
-
He followed his elected leadership because he was dumb enough to believe in them and to trust them. It's not Casey's fault that he died, it's Bush's. .... Just because they can always find morons who will follow them anywhere is no excuse for them taking advantage of the situation and squandering those young lives in dubious ventures of lies, bullshit, face-saving and stubbornness.
Yea, no emotion based arguement anywhere in the Anti-war side ;)
-
And a hearty Happy New Year to you do, bearer of sweetness and light.
She knows he has 4 more years where they can call him back. She said, "I think they ought to bring'em all home, but then I'm told, Oh no, you don't understand the situation, that would make it worse." And she just shook her head.
So don't you go putting words in her mouth. OK? Thanks a lot.
-
If Casey reenlisted and volunteered for his last mission, it was because he was a follower and not a leader. He followed his elected leadership because he was dumb enough to believe in them and to trust them.
Bullshit. He went on that fateful mission to help save his buddies. Same reason he reenlisted. Both documented facts by the same buddies he served with.
If he was such a follower why did he go against his mama's wishes and enlist in the first place and reenlist in the second.
Oh i know, the recruiters lied to him. Oh i know, he enlisted just for the educational benefits, he had no idea he would have to serve in a combat zone.
Perhaps i am missing something, but i don't think i would brag about raising a simpleton so easily misled.
-
She knows he has 4 more years where they can call him back.
Hopefully he has the character to honor his contract.
-
Yes, he does.
-
<<Although a tiny minority wants the US presence to be long term , a strong majority wants our democracy building program to succeed.>>
We're talking apples and oranges here, plane. I have no idea what the majority of Iraqis want regarding your "democracy building program" and I don't think you do either. Nobody is free to speak under the guns of an occupying army. They'll say whatever they think the man with the gun wants to hear.
HOWEVER, even if a strong majority DID want your "democracy building program" to succeed, the topic was the deaths of collaborators after the U.S. forces leave. You yourself in your initial post put the number at "tens of thousands." Those are your words. How can "tens of thousands" be a majority of the country?
You were confused. You confused the collaborators with ordinary citizens who, whatever they may or may not have wanted, did not aid or assist the occupation.
I did not say tens of thousands , I consider this to be very optomistic.
-
<<Bullshit. He went on that fateful mission to help save his buddies. Same reason he reenlisted. Both documented facts by the same buddies he served with. >>
Even more bullshit. If his buddies were dumb enough to fall for that ass-hole's lies and promises, he should have left them to their fate. They're old enough to look after themselves. As it was, he couldn't even save his own life, let alone theirs. If he really wanted to help his buddies, he should have told them not to go.
<<If he was such a follower why did he go against his mama's wishes and enlist in the first place and reenlist in the second. >>
Because of the lies and false promises, naturally. But you knew that.
<<Oh i know, the recruiters lied to him. Oh i know, he enlisted just for the educational benefits, he had no idea he would have to serve in a combat zone. >>
He was young enough and stupid enough to believe it couldn't happen to him. They all do. That's how lying scumbags like your "President" and his enablers are able to keep themselves in cannon fodder.
<<Perhaps i am missing something, but i don't think i would brag about raising a simpleton so easily misled. >>
She's far from the only mother who did. Rather than save face and pretend it didn't happen, to her enormous credit she is warning other mothers about the consequences of not going the last mile to save their sons from the death-grip of the U.S. military.
-
So because you have problems with a decision made by another country the whole world should have a problem with that same decision?
So much for tolerance of ideas, and you have the balls to call conservatives my way or the highway types.
-
<<Perhaps i am missing something, but i don't think i would brag about raising a simpleton so easily misled. >>
Mikey replies: She's far from the only mother who did. Rather than save face and pretend it didn't happen, to her enormous credit she is warning other mothers about the consequences of not going the last mile to save their sons from the death-grip of the U.S. military.
I never realized Cindy was just on a Sheehan "failure as a mother" tour. And here i thought she was just reveling in her 15 minutes of fame.
-
<<And here i thought she was just reveling in her 15 minutes of fame. >>
Why was it so hard for you to believe that she took the loss of her son very deeply? Many mothers love their sons. Love them more than they love "Iraqi democracy" or whatever bullshit slogan the Republicans are using this week to justify the ongoing slaughter. Love them more than they love the U.S. military. Love them more than they love the "War on Terror." Do you really think it's so bizarre that a mother could love her son that much?
And if she DID lose her son to the lies and BS of Bush and his accomplices, is it really so strange that she would want to warn other mothers not to fall for the same crap, not to be as complacent as she was, but to fight the war machine with all their strength, unremittingly, to fight to prevent their own sons from lending a hand to it? Why wouldn't she? Is'nt it the least she can do now for Casey, to prevent if possible other mothers from mourning for other Caseys who are still alive?
Only a person who is totally divorced from reality, who has no real conception of the depth of a mother's (or father's) love for a son, could ever find Cindly's conduct so bizarre that they would have to search for ulterior motives to explain it. To real mothers and fathers, parents who really love their children, Cindy's conduct is what it appears to be and it's perfectly normal, once the fear of being separate from the herd is overcome. Cindy is a courageous mother who overcame her fear and is warning other parents of the dangers of militarism to their own families, trying to instil in others the courage to say "NO!" to their murderous "President."
-
Mikey blathers on:
Cindy has made this whole crusade about her. She went over the deep end and allowed others to use her grief to advance an agenda that had very little to do with Casey and more to do with GWB. She's a pawn. A willing one.
She came on the horizon demanding to meet with Bush then chages her tune when it comes out that she had already met with him. She cthen claimed that GWB was cold and callous when she met him then the videotapes of the meeting showed quite the opposite. Her credibility is zilch.
-
If Juniorbush had not been "selected" president, her son would be alive today.
If you don't let your sons enlist, they will almost certainly live longer, and they will not die in a futile war in Iraq.
-
If Juniorbush had not been "selected" president, her son would be alive today.
You have proof of that statement?
-
<<Cindy has made this whole crusade about her. >>
Cindy made the crusade against war and militarism. It is her right-wing fascist enemies who have made the whole crusade about her.
<,She went over the deep end . . . >>
NEWS FLASH, BT. When a mother loses a son, there IS no deep end. The deep end was already passed when the son died. Fact is, BUSH went over the deep end - - way over - - when he sold the country on a pack of lies and bullshit and misused the trust he had to squander Casey's life and the lives of thousands of others just as dumb and naive.
<< . . . and allowed others to use her grief to advance an agenda . . . >.
TRANSLATION: she finds allies and realizes that she's much more effective acting together with them than as one lone voice amongst 300 million others; geeze, the nerve of that bitch.
<<that had very little to do with Casey . . . >>
Well THAT'S bad. A REAL mother would devote herself to Casey and try to DO something for the poor bugger. Maybe pray real hard for God to bring him back to life.
<< . . . and more to do with GWB. >>
Stupid bitch. Why do anything about GWB when all HE ever did was cause the war that took her son's life? Leave him alone, he's doing a good job sending more soldiers to join Casey in the afterlife, so he won't be so lonely there. Who she should really be going after is those bastards in the antiwar movement. They're absolutely un-American. Satanic, really. THEY killed Casey by their curses on the saintly Bush's war efforts.
<<She's a pawn. A willing one. >>
Well, that's obvious. But the question is, WHOSE? Bin Laden's or Ahmedinejad's? I'm looking through her garbage every night. If I find ONE NOTE in Farsi, I'll know it's that bastard Ahmedinejad.
<<She came on the horizon demanding to meet with Bush then chages her tune when it comes out that she had already met with him.>>
Yeah, she met with him in an official setting and at a time when she was too intimidated by the occasion to speak about her real feelings. I guess her real crime is not staying in the exact same state she was in at the time of her first meeting Bush for the rest of her life. Who the fuck is SHE to change, reflect, develop, learn or change opinions? Republicans don't.
<<She cthen claimed that GWB was cold and callous . . . >>
BUSH? the guy who mocked Karla Faye Tucker and openly laughed at her pleading for her life? Cold and callous? You gotta be shittin' me.
<<then the videotapes of the meeting showed quite the opposite.>>
Yeah, those videotapes really reveal true emotions, don't they? A smile, a hug, a handshake can be programmed and choreographed, but there's no way they can fool the videotape, at least not for astute watchers like us. Hey, didja pick up on the sexual arousal the closer Cindy got to Bush? Scorchin'.
<<Her credibility is zilch.>>
'Scuseme, WHOSE credibility is zilch?
-
If Juniorbush had not been "selected" president, her son would be alive today.
If you don't let your sons enlist, they will almost certainly live longer, and they will not die in a futile war in Iraq.
Casey enlisted in May 2000. Clinton was president at the time.
-
If Juniorbush had not been "selected" president, her son would be alive today.
If you don't let your sons enlist, they will almost certainly live longer, and they will not die in a futile war in Iraq.
Casey enlisted in May 2000. Clinton was president at the time.
Precisely. Al Gore (the man who was actually elected president) would not have started this useless war. He would not have cherry picked the intelligence as Juniorbush did.
There would have been no invasion of Iraq, and her son would still be alive.
-
There is no proof Gore would have not gone after Iraq. And Casey could have just as easily been killed in Afghanistan. He enlisted in 2000 and re-upped in 2004.
-
Al Gore (the man who was actually elected president)
Do you also feel that Andrew Jackson was elected instead of John Quincy Adams? That Samuel J. Tilden was elected instead of Rutherford B. Hayes? That Grover Cleveland won instead of Benjamin Harrison?
It's a shame that apparently Gore was too stupid to understand the rules.
-
If Juniorbush had not been "selected" president, her son would be alive today.
If you don't let your sons enlist, they will almost certainly live longer, and they will not die in a futile war in Iraq.
Casey enlisted in May 2000. Clinton was president at the time.
Precisely. Al Gore (the man who was actually elected president) would not have started this useless war. He would not have cherry picked the intelligence as Juniorbush did.
There would have been no invasion of Iraq, and her son would still be alive.
What do you consider to be the better alternative that Gore would have likely chosen?
-
If not for 9-11 and if Gore had won the electoral college vote, odds are we would be knee deep in Columbia.
Gore's daddy was the Senator from Occidental and Occidental has a huge presence in Columbia.