0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 09:17 am
Here's the proof that backs up all my previous posts about what those who have actually been in Iraq are telling me. Those of you naysayers who think it more important to trash the president and the war aren't backing up your opinions, and I would lay even odds you have no loved ones or friends over there. I do.

http://www.able2know.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10156/Mil%20Vote.jpg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 09:28 am
Actually, a "proof" would at least need a source :wink:
(I know, the site isn't online any more.)

The Military Times 2004 Election Survey was the latest in a series of efforts to gauge the attitudes and opinions of a crucial but hard-to-measure group- members of the U.S. military. To gather military opinion on this year's election, Military Times began with a list of more than 31,000 subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps,and Air Force Times who gave the papers their e-mail addresses. From Sept. 21 until Sept 28, 2,754 active-duty members and 1,411 members of the National Guard or reserve responded. THE REPONSE: Active Duty: If the presidential election were held today, for whom would you -vote?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 09:58 am
The results shown impressed me because they so closely correlate with the reports we are getting from people we know who are in or who have been in Iraq. At one point, we had just under 30 people who were relatives, friends, or members of my church alone over there. They have all been very consistent in what they tell us, write to us, e-mail to us. The same is true of my family members and other friends etc.

This past weekend I was flying home to Albuquerque from Houston and my seatmate was a young airman first class was had been reassigned to Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque and was just back from Iraq. She told me she has lost three close friends, including her fiance, in the suicide bombings. I asked her why she thought the violence was escalating and what did she think about the whole situation there?

She told me about the work they were doing, the Iraqi friends she had made, and showed me a small silver medallion that a grateful Iraqi mother had given to her. She was visibly angry, however, talking about her murdered friends and fiance. She says the troops know full well the violence is in part instigated by Saddam's former troops, aided by many outsiders, who do not want a free and independent Iraq. And she said these are being egged on by a negative American media and the bashing of the President. They figure if they keep it up, they'll make us close up shop and go away and they can have their way. She has already voted for Bush.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 10:45 am
Quote:
And she said these are being egged on by a negative American media and the bashing of the President. They figure if they keep it up, they'll make us close up shop and go away and they can have their way. She has already voted for Bush.


Foxfyre, how would you have acted if you thought your president had taken the country into a needless war that had been justified by misinformation and hoked-up rhetoric, costing hundreds of US lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives? If you had seen the tragedy of this pre-emptive war as clearly as some of us did, would you have supported this president who was directly responsible for it? Would you have kept quiet when it became clear that Bush was going to commit terrible acts in the name of all of us in this country. We cry as bitter tears as you do over the deaths in Iraq but ours are more bitter because that war never should have happened.

The shame of the media is that it did NOT speak out before the war. There were very few voices of dissent, perhaps out of a misguided feeling that such words were unpatriotic. After the war began, there was virtually no dissent or Bush-bashing, as you call it, in the press. In recent months, there has been some small surge of media reporting about the real world, most of it attendant upon continuing revelations about the weakness of our administration's evidence as it marched determinedly to war.

So our negative media is now purportedly the cause behind the insurgency? And do you really think that those of us who opposed the war are not clear-minded and pragmatic enough to insist that the troops stay in Iraq until we clean up the mess we created? (I cannot resist adding that there would be no mess and no insurgency if we had twice the number of troops on the ground.)

Of course the majority of soldiers support Bush! They must convince themselves, somehow, some way, that the cause they might die for is a just one.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 10:50 am
Foxfyre - that's been my experience as well with the soldiers who email and snail-mail me with their thanks for the care packages, etc. They're very concerned with what's being said here, even though they do have news outlets there. They always ask about the "mood" here and seem eager to hear it from "regular" people.

I recently got a funny note from a Marine who'd heard Kerry's comment about terror being a "mere nuisance." I can't tell you here just how he referred to Mr. Kerry (due to TOS lol), but he did make it clear that he and a couple of his buddies were rather hoping the candidate would "meet a nuisance up close and personal" and not a "nuanced" nuisance, either LOL!!!

It continues to amaze me the level of morale and humor they can maintain in the face of that man's obnoxious remarks. Grand diversion, indeed.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 10:57 am
Kara asks
Quote:
Foxfyre, how would you have acted if you thought your president had taken the country into a needless war that had been justified by misinformation and hoked-up rhetoric, costing hundreds of US lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives?


I would quietly inform my elected officials that I disapproved of the initiative and would encourage them to rectify it as much as possible. I would NOT be trashing the president and/or the troops, however, as I believe emphatically that such eggs on and encourages the enemy and costs American lives.

In the case of the Iraq war, I do not believe it was unjustified or needless and I believe many lives are cost by bleeding heart liberals who almost force us to pull our punches and exert less than the overhwhelming force that could have shorted the war and mitigated much of the damage.

And I believe the huge majority of our troops believe as I do.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 11:01 am
Foxfyre,

I have just two questions.

1. Why did the military restrict the e-mails from Kim Bahti?

E-mails from Iraq: A Tucson Marine Writes Home

2. Have you seen the Frontline special Rumsfelds War?

Rumsfeld's War: Watch Online
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 11:03 am
McTag wrote:
Tico, most of your media is beholden to advertisers. Big business calls the shots. Your definition of "liberal bias" must be different to mine. From my perspective, american politics and comment is either rightist or centrist. There is no left discernable.


One of the biggest liberal media organizations on television in the US is PBS (Public Broadcasting Service). It is not "beholden to advertisers." Also, NPR (National Public Radio) is similarly not "beholden to advertisers." While I understand that advertising is obviously extremely important to both radio and television, I fail to see how that bolsters your assertion that there is a "torrent of biased material from the Right."

However, it is very possible that our definition of "liberal bias" is different. We definitely are comparing apples to oranges if you believe the New York Times (for instance) to be either "rightist" or "centrist." On this side of the pond it is clearly left of center, and an active proponent of Kerry in this campaign to boot.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 11:09 am
Mesquite, the military has ALWAYS monitored and censored mail going to and sent from the military in the field. This is critical to retain security.

And yes I've seen the frontline special and declared the slant they put on it to be mostly bunk.

We went to war on beliefs held by the huge majority of the Clinton administration, the huge majority of the Bush administration, the huge majority of our friends and allies, the huge majority of the Middle East, and the huge majority of Congress. Donald Rumsfield simply doesn't have the clout to do it all by himself. Nor did President Bush at the time it all came down. So whatever has happened since, the motives and reasons were sound at the time and we are in the situation now, and I think honorable Americans get behind it and give encouragement, aid, and moral support to see it through to the best possible conclusion.

I think true partisans however are more interested in demoralizing and defeating the American opposition, ie the President and his administration, than they care about the troops or anything or anybody else.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 11:18 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Mesquite, the military has ALWAYS monitored and censored mail going to and sent from the military in the field. This is critical to retain security.

And yes I've seen the frontline special and declared the slant they put on it to be mostly bunk.


Did you see some security infraction in what Kim Bahti wrote?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 11:22 am
I don't know what he wrote Mesquite. I just know that if mail was being censored out of any war effort, it would not be unusual nor would there be anything sinister about it. You're going to find disgruntled people and slackers and misfits and quitters and antagonists in ANY organization you become invovled with whether it is your own family, the workplace, the church, the neighborhood, the government, or the military. I refuse to base my opinion or make any kind of criticial analysis based on one case of anecdotal evidence in the face of overwhelming data suggesting the anecdotal evidence is either an anomaly or is insignificant.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 11:22 am
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 11:25 am
Revel, if you want proof how about calling up a military support group and ask for a dozen or so names of servicepersons in Iraq to write to. And write to them. See what they tell you. You will find the super biased anti-war types who write everything to make it all look as bad as possible will have to account for that at some point. They have no credibility with me. The people I hear from in Iraq or who have been there do have credibility with me.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 11:36 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't know what he wrote Mesquite. I just know that if mail was being censored out of any war effort, it would not be unusual nor would there be anything sinister about it. You're going to find disgruntled people and slackers and misfits and quitters and antagonists in ANY organization you become invovled with whether it is your own family, the workplace, the church, the neighborhood, the government, or the military. I refuse to base my opinion or make any kind of criticial analysis based on one case of anecdotal evidence in the face of overwhelming data suggesting the anecdotal evidence is either an anomaly or is insignificant.


You obviously have not read the thread I linked. Kim Bahti. She is not a disgruntled Marine.

Quote:
After leaving active service in January, Bahti joined the Marine reserves and volunteered in April for deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom II.

"I knew Marines were being extended and I thought that I could let some Marine come home and be with his family if I volunteered," she wrote. "So that's what I did, because this is what Marines do."


But she did give us a glimse of reality.

Quote:
Our first Iraqi police class is graduating tomorrow.

They are going to be issued Glock 9 mm pistols. It's sad to think that after tomorrow, half of them will have sold their weapons.

And Marines and soldiers who are in the thick of things might get shot with weapons we've provided. It's backwards to me. And that's all I have to say about that.


Do yourself a favor and read the thread I linked here. It is a compilation of about six weeks of e-mails as they appeared in our local paper
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 11:37 am
But those were people that are in the military who were in Iraq and know what happened first hand. Do their voices count for nothing if they do not toe the bush line?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 12:29 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
How come they only get to be neo_???


RECTIFICATION OF NAMES

My neo-definitions:

The neo-left: generally wants everyone to have less (except of course, the elite that controls what everyone else has).

The neo-right: generally wants everyone to have more;

The evolution of the neo-left: socialists > communists > shintoists > fascists > national socialists (i.e., nazis) > internationalists > neo-leftists.

The evolution of the neo-right: declarationists > federalists > democratic republicans > libertarians > neo-rightists.

Joe Nation wrote:
Bush has governed from the center taking his cue from the closeness of the election and the thinness of his mandate. He has reached out across the aisle to broker real connections between the parties and has achieved the respect due a peacemaker....... Is that how you see it?


Check Foxfyer's response to this. I see it the same way as Foxfyer does.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 12:58 pm
EXCERPT FROM SECRETARY OF STATE COLLIN POWELL TO UN ON FEBRUARY 2, 2003. www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300pf.htm
Quote:
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 12:59 pm
ican711nm wrote:
The evolution of the neo-left: socialists > communists > shintoists > fascists > national socialists (i.e., nazis) > internationalists > neo-leftists.


I'm always wondering, why some claim that national socialists (and especially Nazis) have to do with the left.

I can only presume that this definition comes from their supporters, who don't want to be forged in the dirty right wing corner.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 01:03 pm
9-11 Commission
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Quote:
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 01:03 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
The evolution of the neo-left: socialists > communists > shintoists > fascists > national socialists (i.e., nazis) > internationalists > neo-leftists.


I'm always wondering, why some claim that national socialists (and especially Nazis) have to do with the left.

I can only presume that this definition comes from their supporters, who don't want to be forged in the dirty right wing corner.


Nope, nazis correctly define themselves as right wing. The "nazis are lefties" spin is coming from the neocon right.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/07/2025 at 09:35:31