Some of the people posting on this site said things that I just could not let pass, so I include my comments on them. I try to be as unemotional as possible (hopefully I made no ad hominem attacks) and to just stick to substance and arguments. Any reactions are welcome.
doctorfurby
“And our troops don't want to come home till the job is done so we should abide by their wishes.”
I agree with what another writer said that you are assuming (I believe incorrectly) all the soldiers there wish to stay there. Nonetheless, the last I heard we live in a democracy, which means that basic policy choices are made by the electorate, not by the military and not by the soldiers. Since when does what the soldiers think determine our policy choices. I realized that they have sacrificed a lot in this effort, but they accepted that risk when they chose this career and that does not translate into the right to choose for the country. Bear in mind, our entire nation is accountable for actions taken by our military, so they are acting on our behalf and we bear the responsibility for their actions (financially, politically and morally). Therefore, whatever be their personal wishes as to whether we should “finish the job” is simply irrelevant. PERIOD! This sort of argument ranks up there with the incredibly lame one often trotted out by Bush that those who have made the ultimate sacrifice shall not have died in vain. Leaving aside who is responsible for them having made that sacrifice and the determination as to whether or not it will have been in vain (only time will tell, but it in no way depends upon whether we have the stomach to fight on, and it does not look good at this point). Following this logic, we are duty bound to stay in a senseless, lost, immoral war and sacrifice more and more, just so the first dead will “not have died in vain”. Poor logic, worse morals, and just rhetoric to make us feeling guilty that we are betraying the troops, whereas the actual point behind it is to get people to stop thinking and continue supporting the war regardless of anything else.
“But I guess you didn't here that the ‘insurgents’ are starting to have trouble finding recruits. So now when the tide is about to run you want to cut and run.”
“Ahhhh but the reenlistment is pretty high proove me wrong libs.”
Yes, we have been hearing that since the very beginning (“we’re turning a corner”, “in its last throes”, etc.). Unfortunately, it has not as yet proved true. Your “tide is about to run” [I guess you meant to write “turn”] is kind of original, but it doesn’t change the reality, which is that they are all empty phrases and meaningless rhetoric – just like “cut and run”. The little puppet master who runs the Republican propaganda machine says some simplistic phrase (“cut and run”, “flip flop”, “tax and spend”) and mindless parrots repeat it ad nauseam, regardless of whether it means anything. Where on earth did you get this information about them not being able to find recruits? Events on the ground (you know, in the realm of REALITY - what a concept) clearly indicate otherwise. Are you perhaps confused and mixing it up with the U.S. Military’s difficulty getting new recruits?
As for your comment about re-enlistment being very high, I think you are simply delusional. What you are probably thinking of is the fact that the Bush administration is not allowing people in the military to leave once their mandatory period in the military is up. It’s re-enlistment in a certain sense, but not voluntary. The percentage of soldiers who can get out and choose to leave is alarmingly high.
“I'm still waiting for the apologies the liberals owe the South Vietnamies who were forced into re-education camps after the Vietnam war and the death camps in Cambodia.”
Well, you can keep waiting. Why are you waiting for it? I would expect the Vietnamese to be waiting, if anyone. You don’t mention anything about the apologies for all the people killed in the war (I believe over 1 million Vietnamese). In any case, why do we owe them apologies for something we did not do? What makes the U.S. automatically responsible for all the atrocities in the world that we did not intervene to prevent? Should Bush be apologizing for Darfur; Clinton for Rwanda? Etc. Are we responsible for all the persons who died under Communist regimes anywhere in the world during the 20th Century because we did not topple the Soviet Union in the 1940’s. We could go on and on. But I think you ought to defend your assertion that we are responsible for such things.
“you are a real threat to this country . . . you'll see how dangerous the demoncrats are”
How so? This is nothing more than bare assertion without anything to back it up. What makes us a threat to the country and dangerous? The fact that we feel entitled to have our own opinion? That we refuse to accept whatever policy decisions made by a president simply because he is a president. Excuse me, but we do not live in a dictatorship and we will continue to express our views and demand that the will of the people be heard and heeded. This country does not belong to, nor is it obliged to follow the vision of, a narrow, rabid, war-mongering bunch of fanatics whose view of the world and sole moral imperative seems to be that we must continue killing come what may. Who is the threat to the country/world?
“Were going to have to root out this cancer once and for all where ever we find it.”
Please elaborate. How exactly do you expect we’ll do that? Four years in and we cannot even manage to pacify one relatively small country, how are we supposed to take care of the rest of the Islamofascists? There are several other countries we would have to “take out”. Do you realize that there are about one billion muslims in the world. As another writer asked earlier, are you planning to take part in this fight and risk your life, or does your participation just consist in vilifying people that don’t agree with warmongering? Are you satisfied with the fact that we will be spending hundreds of billion more dollars on this? Do you wish to pay for this, or are you going to demand more tax cuts? Hasn’t it yet occurred to you that the more Islamofascists we kill the more we make. Especially due to the fact that the real loathsome ones hide among the civilian population for the obvious purpose of causing innocent civilian deaths and stirring up more hatred among the local people. Is this what you mean by rooting them out? Unfortunately, the local populations do not bow down before our soldiers, throw flowers at us and turn over the “bad guys”, so rooting them out is going to be a bloody enterprise. In fact, we are doing exactly what the Islamofascists wanted us to do, and that is the real tragedy of the post-9/11 policies of the Band of Idiots in the White House.
herl
“You left-wingers are the same bunch that went to Canada during Vietnam.”
Well, and the people running your beloved war did not do that because, either through use of influence or other tricks (AWOL from the National Guard, “other priorities”), they managed to stay in the US AND still avoid going to Vietnam. If we are going to make willingness to go fight in Vietnam some sort of litmus test for loyalty and patriotism, or even the right to have a say in policy decisions, then we should be consistent about this. Why are you satisfied with such "draft dodgers" running the country and having their own wars where they send off other people's children to die?
lacroixx1
“there is a dirty dirty job out there and however you got there is irrelevant. What counts is someone is there to do that dirty job. . . We cannot undo country conflicts on a message board anymore than we can argue who is right in their War or Peace opinions All I am hoping is that you done't stop at this message board in your efforts and go write more ...but to your congressman and ask How long does it take for PTSD treatment and diagnosis”
I very much appreciate your perspective on the matter, which seems to be that, rather than chatter like magpies on a blog, we should concern ourselves with ensuring the veterans get the care that is due them. But, I am unclear how it is that you are pro-Bush because in this respect his has a horrible record. That is what I suppose the film concerns (though I have not seen it).
As regards the “dirty job” that someone has to do and we can’t undo conflicts, I have to disagree. Whether or not there is a dirty job that someone has to do depends on the particular circumstances. Unfortunately, in the case of Iraq I don’t think we “had to do it”. In any case, you seem to fall into the attitude of quiescence, that there is an endless task of war and somebody has to do it. Wars are also the result of purposeful actions be leaders; they don’t all just start as if by unexplained causes. Unfortunately, I think this is just the attitude many extremist politicians wish to foster because it gives them immense power. If we take this attitude generally, it gives them the ability/power to treat the US military (and the wealth of the nation behind) as their own little tool/toy to effect whatever purposes they may have. I am sorry if I sound highly skeptical and distrustful of many politicians, but read your history if you think I am wrong.
reply
share
canadamelody
17 years ago
Hi there,
For the record the United States slaughtered 5 million Indochinese including 3.8 million Vietnamese between 1961 and 1975.
That lunatic with his standard insane line about the Vietnamese is part of a cult that even likes to blame the Vietnamese for the Pol Pot genocide in Cambodia. When in fact it was the Vietnamese army who went into Cambodia and put an end to the Khmer Rouge killing. At which point the US government condemned Vietnam for its actions, and flipped sides providing Pol Pot with protection.
As for no fly-zones over Iraq during the 90's this is the great imperial audacity the US and UK considered Iraqi planes flying over their own country as an act of aggression against us. During the Clinton years the US bombed Iraq at least once every three days for the entire 8 years of the Clinton presidency that is on top of the genocidal economic sanctions that killed 1 million Iraqis including 480,000 infants. The sadism of Clinton toward Iraq was endless. Iraq has been interferred with by the US and UK for over 80 years. The Baathist regime which was an American client until the 1991 Gulf War was put into power via a CIA coup under the Kennedy administration. The nation was renamed Iraq back in 1920 by the British empire. Winston Churchill was made the colonial governer of Iraq. Churchill wanted to kill all the Kurds with poison gas but RAF engineers told him their technology was not yet up to the job.
reply
share