The US, UN & Iraq III

Timber -- you've made a series of grand posts until Perception wandered in. When you go along with stuff, it sounds pretty foolish, not the admirable Timber of bygone pages!

Perhaps the fact that one can actually see healthy blood flowing once again in the corpus of the Left makes you guys nervous? But if you go on the way you have been, you're gonna make the Right look really silly... I thought we'd left all those straw men, all that immature either/or stuff, far behind. Oops, Freddy's back, I guess.

My goodness...it's a goddamn scorcher of a summer mid-day afternoon and so you leave the door open for just a bit to try and get the air stirred up by more than the thousand fruitfly wings can manage...and in come two old friends!

Kara, whether or not the statements may apply to any other State is not at issue; one cannot deny they apply to Iraq. Redirecting the argument in no way invalidates it.

Tartarin, I "Go Along" with damned little. I take serious exception to much of the policy and performance of The Current Administration. However, I consider myself a realist. I need not approve of something to acknowledge it. Denial and derrogation are inneffective strategies for coping with change. What counter proposals have you to The Current Administration's policies, in what way would these counter proposals be effected, what might be the anticipated benefits to come from these counter proposals, and over what time frame?

1st counter proposal: take hat in hand, go to the UN, accept a new resolution on Iraq and get some help.

Here's a lovely piece on the hearings which begin Monday in Britain...whose careers are at risk, why, and what evidence is now known on the various points...two months of (hopefully) very gruelling questions for all concerned...and wouldn't you just love to see the same in the US?
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1016172,00.html

from The Village Voice

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0332/lee.php

Where ya been, Dyslexia? While not "Hat in hand", Bush the Younger is not averse to a responsible, expanded UN role, something which is "Old News":
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/21/bush.berlusconi.ap/index.html



Tartarin, the only blood of The Left I see flowing is pouring out onto the floor of public opinion, and I'm not alone in that view:



http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/10/dems.candidates/

I propose, on behalf of the Democratic nominee, that (s)he makes sure this kind of bullshit ceases immediately.

Timberlandko: i do read even old news but this is todays news:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
The White House and the Pentagon have so far balked at the idea of seeking a new Security Council resolution from countries that opposed the US invasion of Iraq. - AFP

Tsk, tsk, Big Bird...

You left this out (though you left IN the reference to it in the subheadline):



Now, see this is what should be happening in the 12 months prior to the nomination: a healthy exchange of viewpoints.

The Republicans don't allow that sort of thing, though, do they?

And ol' Joe, with those comments, doesn't sound much like the front-runner he allegedly is, now does he?

Of course, he DID get an invite to come on FOX this morning, though...

Maybe he thinks that's a win.

I wonder how many FOX viewers might actually have been swayed to vote for him as a result.

One or two, ya think? :wink:

I read Lugar's more recent comments, Dyslexia. As I said, though, the point is its old news. I would expect the concept to percolate up into prominence over the relative near term. The chief impediment at the moment is that The UN and The US are at odds over the nature, scope, and intent of any such Resolution. Compromise and accommodation are being pursued, and before too long, I imagine, a Least Mutually Objectionable proposal, acceptable if not wholly what was originally hoped for by either, will be put forward.

No spin, no trash..... just soldiers awakening to the realization that there is no justification for their occupation of Iraq ....other than the financial adventures of a berserk administration.
The number of these letters are growing daily ...


Why are we there?



Sunday | August 10, 2003

Bush's rosy Iraq analysis shared by no one else

In Bush's weekend radio address, he claimed the US was "keeping our word to the Iraqi people by helping them to make their country an example of democracy and prosperity throughout the region."

While a second day of mass protests in Basra underscored Bush's lack of grasp with reality, not even other Republicans could stick with the script.

"I think a thorough misunderstanding of how complex the politics of Iraq are and continue to be; an inability to understand the decapitation theory ?- that is, getting rid of the top types while the workers continue ?- wasn't going to work," [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Dick Lugar (R)] said.

"In other words, the basic assumptions, whoever was making them, at State, at NSC, at Defense, simply were inadequate to begin with." NSC is the National Security Council.

He said the facts in Iraq show "that if we are theorists before the fact, we better all talk about it a great deal more."

The problem is that the administration's theory was based on ideology, not facts. Be it Iraq or anything else, the administration's ability to ignore facts in the service of ideology is breathtaking.

The pawns in this game -- our men and women in uniform in Iraq -- grow increasingly tired of being shot at in the service of Haliburton and Bechtel.

One of the main outlets for the soldiers' complaints has been a website run by outspoken former soldier David Hackworth, who was the army's youngest colonel in the Vietnam war and one of its most decorated warriors. He receives almost 500 emails a day, many of them from soldiers serving in Iraq. They have sounded off about everything from bad treatment at the hands of their officers to fears that their equipment is faulty [...]

Some veterans have begun to form organisations to campaign to bring the soldiers home and highlight their difficult conditions. Erik Gustafson, a veteran of the 1991 Gulf war, has founded Veterans For Common Sense. 'There is an anger boiling under the surface now, and I, as a veteran, have a duty to speak because I am no longer subject to military discipline,' he said [...]

Another source of anger is government plans to reverse recent increases in 'imminent danger' pay and a family separation allowance. These moves have provoked several furious editorials in the Army Times, the normally conservative military newspaper. The paper said the planned cuts made 'the Bush administration seem mean-spirited and hypocritical'.

Tobias Naegele, its editor-in-chief, said his senior staff agonised over the decision to attack the government, but the response to the editorials from ordinary soldiers was overwhelmingly positive.

A further critical editorial is planned for this week. 'We don't think lightly of criticising our Commander-in-Chief,' Naegele said 'The army has had a rough couple of years with this administration.'

Posted August 10, 2003 02:22 PM | Trackback (0) | Temp Comments (60)







'Bring us home': GIs flood US with war-weary emails

An unprecedented internet campaign waged on the frontline and in the US is exposing the real risks for troops in Iraq. Paul Harris and Jonathan Franklin report on rising fears that the conflict is now a desert Vietnam

Sunday August 10, 2003
The Observer

Susan Schuman is angry. Her GI son is serving in the Iraqi town of Samarra, at the heart of the 'Sunni triangle', where American troops are killed with grim regularity.

Breaking the traditional silence of military families during time of war, Schuman knows what she wants - and who she blames for the danger to her son, Justin. 'I want them to bring our troops home. I am appalled at Bush's policies. He has got us into a terrible mess,' she said.

Schuman may just be the tip of an iceberg. She lives in Shelburne Falls, a small town in Massachusetts, and says all her neighbours support her view. 'I don't know anyone around here who disagrees with me,' she said.

Schuman's views are part of a growing unease back home at the rising casualty rate in Iraq, a concern coupled with deep anger at President George W. Bush's plans to cut army benefits for many soldiers. Criticism is also coming directly from soldiers risking their lives under the guns of Saddam Hussein's fighters, and they are using a weapon not available to troops in previous wars: the internet.

Through emails and chatrooms a picture is emerging of day-to-day gripes, coupled with ferocious criticism of the way the war has been handled. They paint a vivid picture of US army life that is a world away from the sanitised official version.

In a message posted on a website last week, one soldier was brutally frank. 'Somewhere down the line, we became an occupation force in [Iraqi] eyes. We don't feel like heroes any more,' said Private Isaac Kindblade of the 671st Engineer Company.

Kindblade said morale was poor, and he attacked the leadership back home. 'The rules of engagement are crippling. We are outnumbered. We are exhausted. We are in over our heads. The President says, "Bring 'em on." The generals say we don't need more troops. Well, they're not over here,' he wrote.

One of the main outlets for the soldiers' complaints has been a website run by outspoken former soldier David Hackworth, who was the army's youngest colonel in the Vietnam war and one of its most decorated warriors. He receives almost 500 emails a day, many of them from soldiers serving in Iraq. They have sounded off about everything from bad treatment at the hands of their officers to fears that their equipment is faulty.

The army-issue gas mask 'leaks under the chin. This same mask was used during Desert Storm, which accounts for part of the health problems of the vets who fought there. My unit has again deployed to the Gulf with this loser,' ranted one army doctor.

Some veterans have begun to form organisations to campaign to bring the soldiers home and highlight their difficult conditions. Erik Gustafson, a veteran of the 1991 Gulf war, has founded Veterans For Common Sense. 'There is an anger boiling under the surface now, and I, as a veteran, have a duty to speak because I am no longer subject to military discipline,' he said.

A recent email from Iraq passed to Gustafson, signed by 'the Soldiers of the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division', said simply: 'Our men and women deserve to see their loved ones again and deserve to come home. Thank you for your attention.'

Another source of anger is government plans to reverse recent increases in 'imminent danger' pay and a family separation allowance. These moves have provoked several furious editorials in the Army Times, the normally conservative military newspaper. The paper said the planned cuts made 'the Bush administration seem mean-spirited and hypocritical'.

Tobias Naegele, its editor-in-chief, said his senior staff agonised over the decision to attack the government, but the response to the editorials from ordinary soldiers was overwhelmingly positive.

A further critical editorial is planned for this week. 'We don't think lightly of criticising our Commander-in-Chief,' Naegele said 'The army has had a rough couple of years with this administration.'

Mainstream veterans' groups too are angry about cuts being proposed at a time when politicians have heaped praise on the army's performance in Afghanistan and Iraq and want to launch a recruitment drive.

Veterans plan protests to highlight the issue. 'We are going to show them that veterans are people who know how to vote,' said Steven Robinson, a veteran and executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Centre, one of the websites where veterans' issues are raised.

Susan Schuman too is planning a protest. This week she plans to join members of a new group, Military Families Speak Out, who will travel to Washington to make their case for their sons, daughters, husbands and wives, to be brought home from Iraq.

With soldiers dying there almost daily, comparisons have already been drawn with the Vietnam war and the birth of the protest movements there that divided America in the Sixties and Seventies.

Political scientists, however, think the war will have to get much worse before anything similar happens over Iraq. 'To put it crudely, I think the country can accept this current level of casualties,' said Professor Richard Stoll, of Rice University in Houston, Texas.

That is little comfort to Schuman, who says she just wants to see her son, Justin, return alive from a war she believes is unjust. 'It is a quagmire and it is not going to be easy to get out,' she said. 'That's where the parallel with Vietnam is.'

Tartarin wrote:
Perhaps the fact that one can actually see healthy blood flowing once again in the corpus of the Left makes you guys nervous? But if you go on the way you have been, you're gonna make the Right look really silly... I thought we'd left all those straw men, all that immature either/or stuff, far behind. Oops, Freddy's back, I guess.

For shame ---- now look whose immaturity is showing.

Seems to me people would be pleased to view some debate instead of the constant back slapping among the "hate Bush" support group.

Tartarin: Due to your lack of introspective ability it has probably escaped you that when you perceive any chance of balance between the left and right on this thread you immediately resort to your childhood with flimsy putdowns of some imaginary assailant. Tell me --- do you hear voices ????

perception your not really going to offer the opinion that you present balance are you? you are certainly as far right as I am far left. i dont pretend balance, neither should you.

Debate? What debate? Statements, yes.

PDiddie - if you go to the Governors Association website, you see that taxes are already being raised all over the country. Sometimes the nomenclature gets fancy, but most states are in a real bind now, and the only resource is what comes from taxes. The governors are also predicting a worsening situation with the coming of winter, because of the growing jobless rate, and the expected increased homeless problem. The GA site is an interesting one, because it takes you from the federal into where things actually have to be put into play. There is, for instance, a beginning problem with a number of families of the troops overseas, concerning housing, feeding, etc. With so many wage earners now gone indefinitely, and pay increases being cut, this places a burden upon the states.

Dys

Quite right but before I showed up it was all Left. Now I admit that I refuse to debate each little point, mainly because we conservatives are far outnumbered and I have observed George Ob1, Asherman, and Timber present strong arguments refuting most of the leftist gibberish on this thread only to be shouted down by the majority.

That said I will allow you all to go back to being a one sided support group for lefties but I reserve the right to come back and stir things up.

Ahem.


Focus, folks.


FOCUS


.thanks

One entry found for modulate.
Main Entry: mod·u·late
Pronunciation: 'mä-j&-"lAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin modulatus, past participle of modulari to play, sing, from modulus small measure, rhythm, diminutive of modus measure -- more at METE
Date: 1615
transitive senses
1 : to tune to a key or pitch
2 : to adjust to or keep in proper measure or proportion : TEMPER
3 : to vary the amplitude, frequency, or phase of (a carrier wave or a light wave) for the transmission of intelligence (as by radio); also : to vary the velocity of electrons in an electron beam.


--------------------------------



One entry found for moderator.
Main Entry: mod·er·a·tor
Pronunciation: 'mä-d&-"rA-t&r
Function: noun
Date: circa 1560
1 : one who arbitrates : MEDIATOR
2 : one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or discussion: as a : the presiding officer of a Presbyterian governing body b : the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting c : the chairman of a discussion group
3 : a substance (as graphite) used for slowing down neutrons in a nuclear reactor
- mod·er·a·tor·ship /-"ship/ noun


---------------------------------------------


A fine line exist between the two ...... for what its worth.

PDiddie, I was interested in your comments about the general population mving to the left. I have not seen that, and I have not seen any polls showing such. My feeling is that the Dems are in big trouble, especially in the south.

There is a piece on the subject of radical v. centrist party positions in today's NYTimes op-ed page. Top right. Can't recall who wrote it. He tried to fit a square peg in a round hole a few times, but the piece is worth reading.

Timber, I think it was you who wrote, in part:



I have not found this to be true. Every day, I see articles -- most of them are anecdotal -- that show positive progress on one front or another. The "negative" pieces are anecdotal, as well, of course. For many reasons, we are unable to see or be shown the whole picture. That is true of any country, of course, but truer in Iraq where much is chaos. I occasionally see the We Told you So stories, but most of all, I detect a tone of concern and frustration that we have been unable to bring order to the country.