In trying to convince Congress and the nation to surge U.S. troop levels in Iraq, President Bush may have psychology on his side. Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman argues in an article in Foreign Policy magazine that “a bias in favor of hawkish beliefs and preferences is built into the fabric of the human mind.” He wrote that the biases uncovered in 40 years of psychological research all tend to favor hawks. These psychological impulses “incline national leaders to exaggerate the evil intentions of adversaries, to misjudge how adversaries perceive them, to be overly sanguine when hostilities start, and overly reluctant to make necessary concessions in negotiations,” he wrote. “In short, these biases have the effect of making wars more likely to begin and more difficult to end.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
171 Comments
In our case we have a Chicken Hawk in charge.
Speaking of chicken hawks…I see that The Colbert Report is having BillO (papabear) on the show.This is going to be good.
Add all that to Bush’s diseased mind and you have the debacle he created.
Notice how they attach a horrendous outcome to our troops coming home. It will be the demise of the Zionist/Neocon Cabal, that’s why they’re so desperate to hang on.
I think its time to consider impeachment or maybe a straight jacket. This person is a lunatic. If he goads Iran into action we are all screwed
I get a little impatient with people who say, “Bush is going to invade Iran! Panic!”
He’s already got us mired down in IRAQ. We don’t need to worry about what he might do in the future.
We need to concern ourselves with what Worst. President. Ever. has already done.
Brownlee,
How about some topics that don’t contain politically charged headlines.
Unless you want all on the conservative side to just leave and you can have your liberal love fest.
Pentagon planners this week warned President George W. Bush that his “troop surge” plan could double U.S. casualties in Iraq in the coming year and result in 10,000 or more American deaths by the end of 2008. (with more than 100,000 wounded and/or maimed for life.) In a classified assessment memo, military experts predicted violence against U.S. troops will increase “at a sustained pace” and concluded that increasing the use of soldiers for house to house searches in Baghdad will “dramatically alter” the “ratio of casualties to actions” in that civil-war torn city, says a military source familiar with the memo.
In an appearance before the Senate Armed Services committee Thursday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused to provide an estimate of U.S. casualties, saying such estimates are not possible but the Pentagon assessment had been delivered to the White House on Tuesday, two days before her testimony.
Military planners, as a matter of course, prepare casualty estimates as part of any action.
Senators from both sides of the aisle told Rice they did not believe her testimony, saying too many Bush administration officials have lied to Congress too many times.
JM, it’s not a liberal lovefest.I believe the folks you’re loathing would be better described as “reality-based” commentators.If you don’t like non-fiction, there’s whole sections of fiction widely available.
Here is the deal. We shared alot of common enemies with Saddam. With Saddam gone, these forces are rising up in the region without restraint. Saddam would have stomped Iran into the dirt by now.
That is the reason Bush I did not go all the way into Iraq back in 1991. While he might be a tyrant who murdered his own people by the hundreds of thousands, he served a purpose that assisted US interests. Of course, invading Kuwait had to be dealt with, but once we had him in a box, he was the best thing we had going for us in the middle east.
War with Iran is imminent. If we turn our back on this problem, MUSHROOM CLOUDS WILL RISE OVER AMERICAN CITIES!
I was a hawk on Iraq, because I believed the bullshit I was spoon fed by the Bush administration. But this time, no matter what the Bush boys say, I KNOW full out war with Iran is necessary to the survival of the United States as we know it.
Leave,
Indeed. We’re there. It is time to seriously push for impeachment before Cheney gets his way and provokes a shooting war with Iran. The dead-enders in the White House have got to be stopped before the damage they’ve caused goes from catastrophic to apocalyptic.
Republicans: I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on Bush’s appearance on 60 Minutes last night, as well as Cheney’s comments.
Cap’n,
While I grant that Bush has already fucked things up in the Middle East for at least the next thirty years, an attack on Iran has implications (China and Russia) that are global and potentially nuclear. It would give an entirely new meaning to the phrase ‘domino effect.’
freedom freak,
Huh. Whatever. I can imagine no quicker way to guarantee the appearance of mushroom clouds over American cities than to attack Iran.
More immediately, when we attack Iran (a country which identifies as majority Shia), how do you imagine the Shia majority in Iraq is going to take that? And if Sistani declares jihad when his co-religionists are attacked by the U.S., where does that leave the 140,000 troops we have on the ground in Iraq? Why, in the midst of millions of enraged Shia who will take it upon themselves to exterminate every American they encounter.
Nothing will hasten the end of this country more quickly than war with Iran. Nothing. Because if we do that, well…it’s hard to even know what to say.
If you want to see 5+ billion people turn on the United States, in ways that are currently unimaginable to either one of us, attacking Iran would be the quickest way to get there.
Thank God your view is a minority one. I think the rest of America isn’t as inclined to let itself be played by this lying and dishonest administration yet again.
After a “terrorist” attack on one of our cities or an “incident” involving one of our ships in the GUlf, the sheeple will gladly sign on to an attack against Iran. Beware the false flag!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Tracy,
The reason I don’t like this is because I’ve heard all of this before. The press gets concentrated on their Liberal Bias of Anti-War, anti-administration and etc.
Pretty soon it becomes an all-out attack on anything military or associated with the military.
Been there, done that, been spit on and called names while in uniform.
This is the same old crap I remember, exactly as it was.
As we “Surge” our “New Way Forward”, Bush says “I have a thick hide”; when in reality he has a thick skull!
It’s a Splurge!
JM – I’m curious, why would you conservatives leave this blog discussion when it was your side that started the Iraq War in the first place?
And everyone that questions Bush and the war are not liberals. The majority of people are now questioning everything Bush says because we have been lied to so many times – much like the Peter and the Wolf story.
cs,
I see a pattern developing, it’s like deja vu 1969 when I came home from overseas.
It’s the same rhetoric, the same justification. The war opposers became so fanatical they even started blaming people in uniform who had be drafted for God’s sake.
No thanks, I don’t want play anymore,not with people who spit on the very liberties that the military helped in a great sustained and varied ways to get them those liberties.
No thanks.
The only people attacking the American military are in Iraq. Don’t think you have a valid point, unless you’re comparing the public opinion of Bush and Nixon (I think Nixon would win).
JM,
So, the alternative is to continue to support the expansion of the Iraq conflict, and a likely preemptive strike on Iran?
JM
There may be a very real basis for your fears.
bush has insisted on making his the face of the military.
He USES the military. Just see how he does it. He makes a universally unpopular policy/deployment speech…..then runs right off to a military base audience which is OBLIGATED to support his plan and cheer his appearance.
And the military is not entirely without blame here either. They continue to support bush in numbers that do not closely jibe with the civilian population.
Because it is an all volunteer force, it is not likely the level of anger will approach what it did in the early 70’s. But if bush and the military continue to be indistinguishable? There may be spillover of the hatred of bush ON the military.
I am not saying this is a good thing. But it is possible. And it will not be the fault of anyone but bush himself.
I understand how you feel JM, I have many friends that served in Vietnam and many that never made it back home. I guess this is why I question Bush (or any president) that seems to be so hellbent on war and destruction.
If this war would have been handled correctly in the first place, I believe we would not be in the mess we are in today. Because in the beginning, the majority of Americans were supportive of Bush and the Iraq War. The only change since then has been the constant mismanagement of the war and continuous stream of half-truths or out and out lies coming from the Bush Administration.
The people that I know that are opposed to this war do not blame the troops for the war, they put the blame squarely on GWB, Cheney and Rumsfield.
I just pray that somehow, someway there is a way out of this Iraq mess without too much more bloodshed. Those of us who lived through the Vietnam Era may see things differently than the younger generations, but I do not want to relive that era any more than you do. So, I would rather cut our losses now and tell the Iraqis to get on board and fight for themselves or we are out of there. In the end, it will be up to the Iraqis to keep the new government going. We cannot be their babysitters forever.
“Bush has hawk bias on his side”
Too bad he doesn’t have America.
“But if bush and the military continue to be indistinguishable? There may be spillover of the hatred of bush ON the military.”
JR: Astute of you to point out that the left may get back to hating the military in greater and greater numbers. Should that happen though, the Democrat party will either disown the haters or begin a new losing streak.
The Bush administration is claiming 1) they have the authority to authorize the surge, irrespective of what congress does, and 2) they already have the money to do the surge.
Given that the Democrats are disinclined to step into the politically troubling option of defunding our troops, I can’t see what else will happen, but Bush getting his way with the surge.
I had thought at one time he might be playing politics, hoping that the Democrats would stop his insanity, so he could blame them for doing what needs to be done. I am thinking now, that he considers his actions to be the right course.
Though I think Bush is the worst president ever, a lot of the failure of this administration rests with the ineptitude of Condi Rice. She has no ability to stand up to her “husband” and do what is needed with respect to foreign policy – which is why she has her job, no doubt.
It is going to get worse, it is going to cost more American lives and dollars. Besides impeachment, I don’t see what can stop Bush. I would bet this is his calculus, too. Bush is wagering that Dems don’t have the political will to impeach him. I am afraid he is correct, if he is thinking that.
cs,
There is a way out: impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney. Nothing short of that is going to end our involvement in the Iraqi civil war, or the suicidal attack being planned on Iran.
Civilian leadership runs this country. It’s time that some workable, bipartisan plan was developed for removing George Bush from office, and putting in place some sort of temporary government of national unity.
I am absolutely not kidding. Bush and Cheney are out of their minds, and are hell-bent on following through with a plan over which much of the senior military leadership has resigned or been relieved of duty, and which 70% of the American public–TAXPAYERS, mind you–don’t want.
I mean, seriously. What is it going to take? The Bush die-hards here and elsewhere should take note: the rest of us aren’t listening to you. You’ve proven incapable of seeing reality.
outlander,
At the moment, it’s George Bush who most demonstrably hates the military. And they aren’t terribly fond of him, either.
Blaming the left for your mistakes isn’t going to work now that 70% of the population has turned on George Bush. It’s his fault for getting us into this conflict, and it’s your fault, outlander, if you continue to support him.
Is Condi Rice not right for the job because of her gender? Not due to lack of competence, but due to the attitudes of the Middle Easterners that she must deal with?
Vietnahm was no threat to us. Iran is. Bush screwed up Iraq, no doubt about it, and we would not be having these problems with Iran if it wasn’t for the removal of Saddam. I’M NO BUSH FAN! But the threat with Iran is real!
I love how all the pinko liberals warn of doom and gloom if we take military action of any kind, in any situation. That’s bull, we have enemies that are conspiring against us who wish us harm, and being willing to use force against our enemies is not the cause of the problem. It is the solution!!
If we would have listened to all you Ted Kennedy hugging whack jobs, the Soviet Union would still be standing strong to this day!
CF,
I am sorry that public opinion polls seem to be your only bully club.
So if the public opinion polls were in favor of teaching Intelligent design you would be all for it?
Polls are polls… They are an opinion. I am sorry that I don’t place much faith in the public at large having a very well informed opinion.
It is simply the truth of the matter. If a majority of the population can’t even answer some of the most basic questions about civics and government how can I sit here and say that simply because a majority is against the war then by goodness the war must be wrong?
The only argument Democrats seem to have to bash us with is polls.
Lets talk about the merits of the actual plan.
Assuming that Bush’s latest (and last?) ploy fails, what will be his new course of action?
More of the same, or withdrawal?
Of course, assuming he is capable of figuring out that it has failed.
Maybe he will ignore the sky is falling.
The problem is Bush. I’ll agree! We may need to go after Iran with a vengence, but with the current leadership in place, and their history of screwing up, I just don’t trust them to get the job done right. I guess the Iran thing would really be different than Iraq, kind of hard to screw up. The situation does call for complete and utter destruction with no restraint, no taking prisioners. We need to exterminate Iran! I think Bush could manage that. Maybe.
Iraq will be solved by the complete erradication of Iran, think about it. We might have to mow down Syria too, but that shouldn’t be a problem. If we could through battle, subtract about 4-4.5 million Muslims from the population of the planet, then tens of thousands less radical muslim extremist will exist in the future.
Ohhhh sure, some are going to say this creates radical muslim extremist, but I don’t agree. Think of it as you would dogs. You can beat a dog and make it mean. Or, sometimes a dog just is mean. but once it is mean, no matter how bad it is, you can ALWAYS beat that dog down. Muslims are just like dogs. We cab beam them down!
Forgive me, I just fail to see how we are failing here.
I mean, I have friends going on patrols every week, building things, training Iraqi’s…
Yes, the violence is not that great and has gotten worse.
That is why this troop surge is being called for.
When resistence is increased you match it you don’t run from it.
So far, the only strategy the left seems willing to look at is withdrawl. That is not a strategy. That is simply quiting.
People forget the lessons of history. On how Vietnam was nutured into Communist Ideology by their neighbors China and how the Soviet Union trained their troops and supplied them with military arms and intelligence.
They forget the good people of South Vietnam who spilled their blood in far greater numbers than Americans and we abandoned them because of political concerns and loss of the “more valuable” American life.
The Politcal Pundits wouldn’t let us fight the war the way we wanted, instead they forced us to fight into the strength of the NV guerillas.
The same is happening in Iraq. The Political Pundits want to run the war from the outside on both sides. They have this opinion that American lives are somehow more valuable than innocent Iraqis.
They are forcing the troops to fight on the terms of the terrorists and other groups instead of using our Military superiority.
They ignore the influence of Iran and Syria in the war and how they are supplying arms, intelligence and money.
They are using the same rhetoric, the same excuses and the same political path that will abandoned the Iraqi people.
Deja Vu? You bet!
Been there, done that, seen it.
ff,
You’re all freak and no freedom.
Iran has a population of 65 million. Are you proposing that we kill them all? And that resolves…what, precisely? You may want to ask China and Russia how they feel about it.
Thank God your power is limited to blog ranting. My fear is that Bush is as delusional as you, if not more.
Nathan,
American presence in Iraq there leaves unaddressed the underlying question, which is political among Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis. In effect, we’ve taken sides in a civil war. It’s one thing to ‘resist’ an enemy; it’s quite another not to know who that enemy is, or to confront multiple ‘enemies’ whose interests work at cross-purposes to one another.
I sincerely hope you can get out of Iraq if Bush chooses to attack Iran.
JM,
Ah, ’stabbed in the back’ by the pundits and the left. Of course. The comfort-food narrative for the Right over the last thirty-five years.
You are entitled to believe whatever mythology you like. But what you forget is that war is a political tool, not merely an end in itself.
Assume we use our “Military superiority,” as you call it. What does THAT mean? Carpet bombing Baghdad? Bad idea; doesn’t work against an insurgency. Tactical nuclear weapons? No such thing; nukes are inherently strategic.
But again, assume we blow ‘em all to kingdom come. They will still have to pick up the pieces and arrive at a political solution. Killing great numbers of Iraqis doesn’t change that. You can’t solve political questions with military means. Same deal in Vietnam, by the way.
But as we know, none of this is about Iraq, or even Vietnam. It’s about America’s masculinity, and the perceived loss of it at the hands of an ‘inferior’ enemy.
The Right can never, ever, take responsibilty for its misdeeds. It needs a scapegoat. That’s what’s fuelled the ’stabbed in the back’ narrative, and the portrayal of folks on the left as traitors.
Looking at the Right, I see a gang whose default reaction is to scream ‘its not my fault!’
CF,
Most of the people here simply want to live in peace.
The true context of the situation is that you have Iran and Syria taking sides and purposefully and intentionally trying to fuel the secretarian violence.
Then you have the terrorists who are doing the same thing while trying to kill Americans.
Then you still have the residual resentment from people who were hurt under the Baath party regime and are using this to exact revenge.
Unfortunately all this cycle of violence has done is cause more people to be sucked into this.
You can call it a civil war, but it is not as simple as that.
The solution from the left is to simply leave or withdrawl or pull out to the borders.
What will that solve? Nothing. It will only give into our enemies and allow them to create little footholds of radical islamic terrorist strongholds.
The best solution is to continue to help the Iraqi government take control and provide them with the support they need to do this.
Nathan:
Re: ” mean, I have friends going on patrols every week, building things, training Iraqi’s…”
Are these friends doing these things in Baghdad?The outcome there will dictate how the Iraq problem resolves.
CF,
It shows how little you know of military strategy.
You don’t need to carpet bomb to achieve military success.
The mistake was Bush’s when he allowed an Iraqi government to take control of the the country much too early. There was much to be done in controlling the country by sector, establishing zones of security and re-building efforts with the comfort of US troops watching their backs.
With that said, the same happened in South Vietnam with corrupt politicians and outside influences, spies, counterspies and counter-counterspies. It was all very confusing and because Politicians didn’t allow the military to stabilize first.
If the American People think an Iraqi life is not worth saving, then by your means do it.
I want nothing to do with a plan that abandons people to die just so they can have their political view from the comfort of their couch.
“Is Condi Rice not right for the job because of her gender? Not due to lack of competence, but due to the attitudes of the Middle Easterners that she must deal with?”
Can you point to any place where she has been competent and effective? Surely, she didn’t do so great as “National Security Advisor” during the time prior to the 9-11 attacks – the fact that she was never been held accountable for this failure by Bush and the media is just folly. Her foreign policy management has been an utter failure since she’s taken over from Colin Powell. As Richard Armitage is quoted as saying, Condi and the inner-world of Bush view diplomacy as saying, “Look, fuckers, do it our way.” Sorry, Condi’s only qualification is that she is George and Laura’s friend.
I don’t think the only way to deal with Iran is to attack them. There is plenty of internal dissent against their crazy president. That can be fostered — this type of job is why we have the CIA and state department.
Nathan,
What you have there is, as you yourself describe, a multivariable civil war. Fighting over the language is beside the point.
Iran and Syria are indeed playing a role. But they also have a legitimate stake in the conflict, since they are neighbors of Iraq. As I have often said, they have a vested interest in preventing a failed state on their borders. If the Bush Administration weren’t run by zealots, they’d be finding diplomatic ways to work toward common interests.
At the very least, our presence there has multiplied, many times over, the number of folks dedicated to opposing U.S. interests. While leaving would give some of them a perceived victory, it would also remove a large catalyst for their presence in Iraq in the first place, and would also remove one of the major sources of conflict.
Our presence in Iraq is complicating the political reckoning that needs to happen. Look at the executions today and tell me that we’re supporting a legitimate government rather than a tribal faction bent on payback
Our presence in Iraq has done more than anything else to increase Iranian influence in Iraq. I mean, for God’s sake, we’re supporting the Malicki government, which is itself a product of Al Sadr’s influence! There are no honest brokers there for us to support, Nathan. A democratic Iraqi government is a fiction. And we gain nothing by staying and propping up that fiction and the sectarian slaughter it manufactures.
Gster,
So you are in support of the surge to help regain more control of Bagdhad and stop the violence?
CF,
Wow… So your solution is instead of America playing a role in shaping a fledling democracy in the Middle East… to allow Iran and Syria to shape Iraq how they want?
LOL
“Sorry, Condi’s only qualification is that she is George and Laura’s friend.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html
It appears to me that she is extraordinarily qualified, Steven. I don’t know any reasonable person who argues that.
The question I posed is whether her gender is an impediment to effectively working in that area of the world, due to the attitudes of Middle Eastern leaders toward women?
No- this “surge” was done not long ago with greater numbers than now proposed, and resulted in greater violence, continuing today.
As long as Iraquis view themselves as a member of a clan/tribe/sect, rather than an Iraqui, there will be no resolvement. The Shia and Sunnis have been killing each other for ove 500 years.
Do you thing 21,500 additional troops will resove this problem?
It certanly hasn’t in the past. They have to resolve their political problem themselves!
It wont’t be settled militarily!And who are we to tell them what form of government they should have?We decided for ourselves, shouldn’t they also?
Nathan- I still am curious about the question I posed to you regarding your friends in Iraq.
Nathan-Stay strong! There is more support for you guys over there than the MSM will tell you about. There are many right thinking Americans who do support you and yours. I support you and your mission.
JM,
Then please do specify what form of American “Military superiority” you’re now calling for.
Your retroactive read on the reasons for South Vietnam’s internal instability obscures the obvious points: we backed Ngo Dihn Diem for President in 1954, and later backed those who overthrew and killed him.
The moral? It’s a red herring to claim that Vietnam could have been ‘politically’ won if it had been ‘militarily’ stabilized. And given our attempted machinations in Iraq, it’s every bit as phony to think that a military ‘pacification’ will have any effect on the underlying political crisis.
Nobody wants to see Iraqis die, JM. For you to accuse those support withdrawal of this is, frankly, insulting.
My question to you: do you support the large-scale resettlement of Iraqi citizens whose lives are now threatened because they helped American forces?
Nathan,
‘Shaping a fledgling democracy’ is nice fancy talk, but the fact is that Iraq isn’t one. The situation, rather, is that of a majority faction using the state apparatus to oppress and kill its political enemies.
I never said we shouldn’t be involved, either. Withdrawal doesn’t imply that. I said, as does the ISG report, that ALL the regional stakeholders need to be involved.
At the moment, they aren’t. And this lack of consultation and involvement isn’t playing well. Did you notice, Nathan, that the other day, Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey asserting the right to enter Iraq to crush Kurdish rebels?
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L12896544&WTmodLoc=World-R5-Alertnet-5
This situation is very, very dangerous. And our presence there is hurting rather than helping. Obviously.
fellatewood,
Talk is cheap. What do you do to ’support’ Nathan and the military personnel in Iraq?
Ooops! Anyone not see a problem here?
‘Bush’s plan to add troops fueling Iraq insurgency, Sunni scholar says’http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sunnis15jan15,0,6674692.story?coll=la-home-world
And the definition of incompetence and failure…
‘Bush plan’s $1B won’t go far in Iraq’http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_bush_aid_plan“Some say it may have to start ordering civilian U.S. government employees into the war zone, as was done for Vietnam.”
[new reconstruction aid] is symbolic, at best, and is unlikely to have substantial impact in Iraq,”…”
“Why did the United States purchase natural gas turbines to generate electricity when the necessary supply of natural gas was not assured in Iraq?” the auditors asked.”
Talk is cheap, but it can be damaging to the morale of the troops when the talk comes from you people.
Wow. William F. Buckley votes ‘no’ on the Splurge.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucwb/20070115/cm_ucwb/yesornotobush
fellatewood,
Talk can be deadly to the troops when it comes from obedient shills like you who want to keep them in harm’s way for the sake of your ability to feel manly and strong by association.
You’re not just a nothing. You’re a less than nothing, Fellatewood.
Why is my questioning George W. Bush’s plan for a surge of 21,500 more troops not supporting the troops? The best support Bush can give the troops currently in Iraq is the best equipped troops possible. All I hear from Bush is that the Iraqis will stand up and fight and then we will leave. Bush has been saying this very same thing for 3+ years. How long does it take to teach Iraqis to fight? If the Iraqis really want their own freedom and democracy, then they will fight for it. If not, then are we not just wasting our time, energy and money to hold up some government that won’t even fight for themselves?
I don’t trust Malaki to be on the up and up with us in the first place. I think this guy would be the first to knife the US in the back and it seems as if Bush has bet all his poker chips on Malaki. In my opinion, this is not a smart bet.
Rather than blaming liberals for the mess in Iraq, why not start asking hard questions of Bush, Cheney and Condi Rice? A true patriot asks alot of questions – not just go lockstepping in unison behind their so-called leader.
CF,
Turkey was in hostility with the Kurds before we invaded Iraq.
Our presence is not causing that.
It is preposterous to bring Iran and Syria to the table when we are already dealing with Irans nuclear defiance.
When you have two factions supporting your failure you don’t inturn invite them to the table in helping.
It is absurdity. Irans interests in the region are not ours. That is why they are opposing us, not because we simply have not invited them to help.
Gster,
If you actually looked at the plan, it involves Iraqi divisions actually assuming control over more of Baghdad with our help.
That is the difference from the past.
In the past we went in, cleared them out and left…
Our operating area takes us into certain parts of Bagdhad. Mainly we deal with FOB’s in our particular AO.
Baghdad should have been secured when we first invaded Iraq – but weren’t the oil fields the only thing to be secured? That tells the whole story.
There are many things about this Iraq war that have gone badly and I just think adding more troops to the chaos we have now is just adding fuel to the fire with no resolution in sight.
Too little, too late is the phrase that comes to mind.
Fleetwood:Re: ” you people”
You seem to like the broad brush stroke of “you people”, it seems to be in almost all your posts.
I guess it goes without saying that you choose who “these people” are and whether their opinion is “the right stuff”, huh?”
That technique is one of the classics I studied At WU in Philosopy 225- Logic.You seem to it most them on a regular basis!
“Talk is cheap, but it can be damaging to the morale of the troops when the talk comes from you people.”
You people, as in Republican Senators Hagel, Brownback, Smith, Warner and countless conservative pundits like Kristol, Scarborough, Krautheimer, etc.
The “You People.”
The last time Bush tried this approach……
“If you actually looked at the plan, it involves Iraqi divisions actually assuming control over more of Baghdad with our help.”
…..the Iraqi’s failed to show up in the numbers agreed upon. If I remember correctly, during Operation Forward Together (or whatever they called it) only two of ten Iraqi brigades showed to help secure Baghdad.
I fail to see how this Surge and Puke program is all that different from last summers failed attempt.
How is this any different? The Iraqi’s will not show up, Maliki will bow to al Sadr, more Americans will be killed and wounded and Bush will try to find someone to blame for this latest “setback.”
Just what the Hell has changed so that THIS plan is going to work when the last plan failed?
It’s “interesting” how the violence increased during, and after the operations.
There were 2 phases, II started in Aug ‘06. The ISG said: “The results of Operation Together Forward II are disheartening. Violence in Baghdad—already at high levels—jumped more than 43 percent between the summer and October 2006. U.S. forces continue to suffer high casualties.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Together_Forward“Result Tactically indecisive; Insurgent strategic victory(Coalition operations are unsuccessful in securing Baghdad)
ws-If you hope hard enough, maybe it will fail. Time will tell.
Instead of just making stupid, unfounded statements, Fleetwood, why not have a stab at answering this question in a mature, intelligent manner using actual facts to support your position:
“Just what the Hell has changed so that THIS plan is going to work when the last plan failed?”
oohh, DA’s hittin’ the weed early today.
Again.
What we have in Iraq is a fledgling theocracy, and Americans should not be instrumental in establishing it.
steve,
Hahahahahaha! Good one.
It’s on par with my personal favorite: we’re training the terrorists over there so we don’t have to train them here.
I don’t hate Bush and this admistration. This is plan they have come up with. At least I hope it works. It’s the ones who do hate Bush who wish him to fail.
I don’t hate Bush and this admistration. This is plan they have come up with. At least I hope it works. It’s the ones who do hate Bush who wish him to fail.
fleettwood,
“You don’t hate Bush and this Administration.” That rather understates your affinity for W, don’t you think?
There are myriad other plans out there, starting with the ISG’s 79 proposals. You know, the one the Dry Drunk in Chief called a “flaming turd.”
I want to see a plan that’s going to work. Nothing DDIC has done has turned out. This new ‘plan’ is just more of the same. And it’s headed in an even scarier direction, given Bush’s attempts to pick a fight with Iran.
“I don’t hate Bush”
First of all, Fleetwood, Bush has given us all good reason to hate him during his time in office, so stating that you don’t hate Bush is meaningless. It is completely logical and rational to hate GWB. Other than Nixon, there probably hasn’t been an American president more hated than Bush, the Sequel. From polling information, a sigificant portion of the American public hates George.
Second, I thought you might actually try to explain why YOU think this plan will work – you know, kind of like in your own words.
Give it a shot, Fleet, we’d all love to hear the plan.
If the American people hate this plan like you people like to say and if the plan is as bad as all that, then we can be sure that the Dems will put a stop to it. The question will be why the Dems won’t stop it. And they won’t will they?
WSClark
I think BDP fleet already explained why he thinks the plan will work, at 3:28 PM. He said “This is plan they have come up with. At least I hope it works.”
1) They came up with it, and 2) “Hope” = success
“And they won’t will they?”
Fleetwood, Bush has already said that he is going forward with his plan and there isn’t anything that anyone can do about it. Cheney has stated publically, yesterday, that Bush is the CIC and no one can overrule him. Within the context of the war fuding, no one can stop Bush UNTIL he asked for more money.
The bad thing is, Fleetwood, you already know that. You know that the Democrats cannot stop Bush at this point but you are attempting a Sean O’Limbaugh argument that the Democrats will be at fault for not stopping him.
Try again, Fleet, this time tell us why YOU think this plan will work – this time.
Remember, the last time Bush tried this approach, it failed miserably.
I could be a defeatist, cut and run type, I chose not to be.
I don’t know if it will work or not. The chrystal balls are cloudy. I hope it does. I don’t want Bush and America to fail just so I can say Bush and America failed.
So, Fleetwood, given your immense knowledge of world affairs, military strategy and politics, as well as your understanding of the Middle East and Arab culture, just why will the PLAN work now and it didn’t before?
And if this plan is so good, why didn’t your hero, George W Bush, propose this plan three or four years ago?
To repeat:
“I don’t know if it will work or not. The chrystal balls are cloudy. I hope it does. I don’t want Bush and America to fail just so I can say Bush and America failed.”
Try to answer the question, Fleet, instead of just tossing out unfounded inuendo and false statements.
It’s a stupid question which would require knowledge that I or anyone else has.
Here’s the basic strategy of BDP fleet’s “cut and run”,
“…a well-structured phased redeployment, in concert with a surge in diplomacy in the region, and a improvement in terms of how we deal with reconstruction, and how we convene regional powers, including by the way the Iranians and the Syrians…” Sen. Barack Obama, on ‘Face The Nation’.
And BDP fleet seems to believe that wanting to use the best, most effective solution(s) = “defeatist”.
A bunch of words meaning cut and run.”Phased redeployment Surge in diplomacy”?Time will tell. This country is at war.
BDP fleet,
No, THEY are in a civil war, because we invaded their country. Their neighbors are getting involved, and terrorists are moving in.And “stay the course” has FAILED miserably.
BPD fleet, your “stupid question” response says it all. You prefer to follow one person blindly, and ignore the ISG, other experts, and common sense.
No BDP fleet
Despite the shilly rhetoric of a diminishing number of mindless fanatics, this nation is NOT at war.
There is no immediate threat to the nation.
The nation is not under or in danger of direct assault. Organized or otherwise.
The nation IS under a threat of terrorism. THis is brought on largely by actions of our nation or on behalf of our nation that cause the whole world to have very good cause to hate us.
PRETENDING that an occupying force in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter mitigates the terror threat while our borders remain open and our cargo uninspected borders on the rediculous.
NO BDP we are not at war.
“The nation IS under a threat of terrorism. THis is brought on largely by actions of our nation or on behalf of our nation that cause the whole world to have very good cause to hate us.”
Ah, yes. America’s fault.
Do you think they hate us as much as you people do?
It looks like we are surrounded.
Why do Americans think their lives are more important than Iraqis? I pondered that question when we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and made it a stage to attract terrorist, and the Iraq civilians became expendable props in the process. Is it because it’s better for civilians to get murdered over there, than over here?
Yup BDP fleetie.
You and your dwindling number of kooks ARE surrounded.
By folks who know better.
Oh and the “enemy of America” thing?
I call you an enemy of America.
“The chrystal balls are cloudy.”
Well, the CRYSTAL balls are CRYSTAL clear – it will fail. Not because I want it to; I don’t. But because the plan is still hopelessly flawed as it has been from the beginning.
“The chrystal balls are cloudy.”
Well, the CRYSTAL balls are CRYSTAL clear – it will fail. Not because I want it to; I don’t. But because the plan is still hopelessly flawed as it has been from the beginning.
You know WSClark, you can make your point with the use of expletives. You are employing the “F” word a lot these days.
It’s getting annoying and I’m sure doesn’t represent you well.
Sorry if I have offended you, JM, but I reread my posts and my only use of the f-bomb, was in the context of referring to another poster.
Oh, course, this was in response to the same poster referring to me as a tratior that was guilty of treason and should be hung.
I guess someone calling for my execution makes me a wee bit testy.
But, my apologies, again.
Sincerely.
F-bombs? it’s just the drugs talking.
golfer – and you know this because you listen to dru addict Rush?
Fleetwood,You can sit on your high horse and “support” this awful mess. It’s not your butt being shot at. It’s not your family being butchered by people who have no respect for human life. There is nothing good or right about what we have done. And it is sad that there is nothing we can do because we have these scary people who think they have a mandate from God to do what they are doing. You had such a problem with Barbara’s Boxer’s comment to Condi. I keep waiting for your outrage at Condi’s lie about not knowing what the possible casualities of this war will be. That she can sit there with a straight face and say that tells me what kind of a person she is!!
Kinda Sleazy Rice has no credibility after her role in the run up to the War on Iraq. She coined the phrase that we could not wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over a US city.
She knew, absolutely, that her assertion was a lie. She knew that Saddam did not have nuculear capabilities. She knew that Saddam did not have WMD. She knew that Saddam did not present a viable threat to America.
Despite all of that, she continued her lies.
Senator Boxer should have gotten up from her chair and bitch slapped Sec. Rice.
Then she should have grabbed Rice by the scruff of her neck and thrown her lying ass out of the room.
BDP fleet,
“The chrystal balls are cloudy.”
Maybe that’s the sewage water flooding the streets? Boy, we sure have improved their lives. /sarcasm
‘IRAQ: Disease alert after sewage system collapses’http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=57064&SelectRegion=Middle_East&SelectCountry=IRAQ“As the sewage system has collapsed, all residents are threatened with gastroenteritis, typhoid fever, cholera, diarrhoea and hepatitis. In some of Baghdad’s poor neighbourhoods, people drink water which is mixed with sewage,” Ali said.”
“I could be a defeatist, cut and run type, I chose not to be.”
Posted by: fleettwood | January 15, 2007 at 03:58 PM
So, this means you’re enlisting right? In the Marine Corp where the action is, correct?
No??? Now that is a shocker!!!
A must read, a link to the column that Leave posted a section of upthread, 10:07 AM.
The memo was delivered to the WH two days before Rice told Boxer, “No, uh, Senator…I don’t think there’s any way to give you such an estimate.”
Also has info re mobilizing, lifting of time limits…’Pentagon memo predicts 10,000 or more American soldiers could die in Iraq by 2008′http://www.capitolhillblue.com/news2/2007/01/pentagon_memo_p.html
Looks like the patriotic left is in their “shouting down” mode again.
A question. Answer truthfully please.First assume the new strategy fails resulting in nothing but more of the same. The US thus “re-deploys” our butts out of Iraq?Now assume the strategy works and slow steady improvement is evident. It appears that Iraq will emerge from chaos to become a free country capable of defending itself. We commit to stay to help that happen.
American soldiers will die in either event.
If you had the power to make either scenario happen, which would you choose?—–
“…the strategy works and slow steady improvement is evident…”
I think your basic premise is wrong because the populace is not real excited about “slow, steady improvement”. I think given the sacrifice made by our fellow countrymen/women, we are in need of “quick and pronounced improvement.”
I don’t know about you, but if noticible progress, after years of not much, is in the offing, I would feel less bad about my cousin and brother-in-law potentially losing their lives over there. Not that I would ever feel good about that, but hopefully, you can see the point from someone who has some familial investment in this boondoggle.
I would choose the latter. Now my turn to pose a question:
a. Surge, more American dead, NE GOP Senator Hagel correct and the policy is a complete disaster, Civil War gets worse and American isolation increases.
b. We re-deploy now, extend diplomacy as suggested by the baker Report, we cut our losses, fewer casualties, negotiation including neighbors yields a compromise settlement.
Why do you prefer option a?
Well gee outlander
But for that kind of power!
So…..we are supposed to WISH and HOPE a deeply three way divided society magically heals itself against all odds?
Umm…..how long do we keep wishing and hoping.
And spending?
And killing?
And dying?
You see out? You have fallen for the latest bushbot spin. I think we are on about number 7 or 8 now but I’m not sure.
THIS take being “If only we were all united! If only we would all get behind this why SURELY we would prevail!”
And if wishes were segways? Well beggars would ride!
This is not neverland out. And it aint Oz either.
Outlander, this is the same thing that Bushco tried last summer – they called it Operation Together Forward. The Iraqi’s did not do their share and Americans died as a result of their failures. Nothing changed, noting improved.
Why should we think that it is going to work now?
And if it is probable that it will not work, then why should we risk American lives?
And since NOTHING Bush has done has worked yet, why should we allow HIM the option of making another blunder at the expense of OUR armed forces?
That bad thing is, Outlander, NO ONE except Bush thinks that this program has a snowball;s chance in Hell of working.
Remember, Bushco replaced the Generals that told him this plan would not work, after he said that he would “listen to the generals on the ground.”
I have niece over there Steven. She has been away from her family for three tours now, but still has her sense of humor and her willingness to serve. I am proud of her.
Doesn’t she deserve better, Outlander, than to be placed in a situation where to posibility for success is nearly zero?
outander – ANSWER MY QUESTION! I answered yours.
And you should be proud of her out.
You should also be outraged at the mission creep and utter open endedness of this enterprise.
And you should be positively livid that a handful of American companies are making a boat load of money. You think they have any desire to give that up?It can’t work. Not the way bush is trying to make it work anyway. Four reasons: The Sunni, the Shia, Iran, and Syria.
I wish this one were as easy as bush told us it would be. I wish even more that bush had listened to Colin Powel.
She doesn’t believe that WS.
Hey Ben, who ya shoutin’ at? You didn’t ask a question. You told me what I favored, my friend. Faulty premise.
Anyway, your options are moot. The troops are going. I am praying that we are successful.
OK – then tell me which you prefer. My premise was no more false than yours.
I too am hoping that we are successful. But my bets say otherwise. And, since I predicted this so far …
Now, which do you prefer, a or b? And don’t hide behind “the decider has decided”
And outlander, your question also is moot. As you point out, the escalation is on. So, the result will be “the ’same old same old’ new strategy fails resulting in nothing but more of the same. The US thus “re-deploys” our butts out of Iraq?” And, according to military sources, casualties on BOTH sides will be higher as a direct result.
“She doesn’t believe that WS.”
Outlander, I can only hope and pray that your niece comes home soon, safe and sound, as I pray for all of our men and women in uniform.
OK, fair enough Ben. I cannot choose your option B because I don’t think that we can abandon the innocents to the outbreak of sectarian violence sure to follow.
Control is doable and we need to give it this last chance.
Glad I’m not in the military anymore with all this confidence in the troops.
I feel so much better with the Democrats standing behind the military. (cough)
Thank you WS.
And I cannot choose your rosy scenario because it is a baseless hallucination. After the disaster we will abandon many more to the outbreak of sectarian that will CONTINUE. Sectarian violence that Bush deliberately unleashed with this ill-advised invasion.
I notice that you chose to ignore the fact that option A makes the civil war worse. That is why Baker recommendd B.
So, I will cross my fingers and hope you are right. But I WILL say “I told you so” when you are wrong. Just as I do with the mess Bush deliberately and with malice aforethought created.
And I’m glad I’m not with the wonderful civilian leadership we have.
I feel so good with BushCo in charge. (cough)
Outlander’s bogus question is typical of the BushBots. Assume that Bush’s policies will work and then question why we don’t support them. Then, call us traitors for not supporting that which has been called the biggest foreign policy blunder since Nam. However, when asked why he supports that blunder he hides behind “it’s moot, all we can do now is pray”
Maybe the lemmings will learn to swim this time …
No Ben, it is the same as Vietnam.
It’s where everybody and their pet political ideologies get ahead of their common sense.
People don’t seem to realize that the people directly facing the threat hear all of this crap talk and it affects them alot.
Then Politicians in power make it worse by bad mouthing their political opponents by any means or method.
They don’t care just as long as they can get their talking points in.
So I guess everyone wants to treat the Iraqis just like the South Vietnamese. Even though the South Vietnamese shed their blood much more than the Americans they held the faith that we would support them. We did not.
I suppose the people of Iraq have concluded that the blood they have shed is not as valuable as American blood and will just wait until the time when the US abandons them.
They know the pundits of the US will force the US troops out, they have only to look back at our history for proof.
Outlander
I could have been on board with this whole thing if it had really been about helping people. It never was.
And even if it had been? It was doomed to failure.
XXX is busy these days. But he had a line on this thing from the beginning:
“No occupying power has ever defeated an armed and determined insurgency.”
That is historically true AND it deals with nations where the insurgency was united.
In Iraq? It is not. There are three factions determined to destroy each other. Our troops are just in the way. And we are institutionalizing the factions into the government.
Al Sadr is killing our people. And yet, if he pulls out of the Iraqi goverment? It will fold and collapse.
I want something positive out of this too.
Maybe we can save the Kurds. They have the best shot at working things out on their own. And boy do we owe them for what we let….and HELPED Saddam do to them.
JM- we spent billions equipping the ARVN just as we are spending billions equipping the ARI. Iy is THEIR war to win ot lose; not ours. I remember Nam all too well.
Ironically, even though we lost that one we now have a reasonably functional VietNam participating on the world stage – a hell of a lot better than any of the musical chairs regimes in Saigon ever did.
Its time to pull our troops back, let them fight it out and go in and clean up the mess when its all done and over with.
Anyone who WANTS to be protected, we relocate to another area, say the green zone.
oh, of course protect all of that delicious oil… pump right onto barges destined for the great USA! Uninspected of course.
But you are correct on this: “It’s where everybody and their pet political ideologies get ahead of their common sense.”
JFK, then LBJ, then Nixon let their pet political ideologies get ahead of their common sense. It took Gerald Ford to bring back common sense.
Exactly Ben,
But unfortunately this time when Iraq goes down, we will payer a higher price and perhaps for a longer period of time.
That is, Iran/Syria will move in and make Iranian Province of Iraq. With the Chinese courting the Iranians, there will be more fatal alliances than you can sneeze at.
Even if the United States tries to intervene, the consequences with the Chinese and perhaps N. Korea as players will complicate matters to a global confrontation.
At that point, we can sit at home or go global war.
Oh, and pay huge prices for oil as well.
This war, for me, is a very personal thing. My brother-in-law, who is career military, has been to Afghanistan once, Iraq once, and is scheduled to return to Iraq in June. My brother-in-law has three daughters under the age of six; they all need a dad. He is ready, willing, and able to go. I admire, in some ways, his dedication. My cousin is young, married, and he has no children, yet.
I am sorry, but I have yet heard an argument that convinces me that my family should sacrifice a great deal for what is likely a boondoggle (second time tonight for using that word).
bush’s adventure in the mideast has not touched me personally.
YET.
Now there was a guy I knew in high school. Soccer player. He joined the Marines. He was a few months from retirement on his stint. (I’m 41 you do the math) Well he was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq. He left behind a wife a kid and a whole lot of friends. I’d not like to say more out of deference to his family.
That’s my personal involvement so far.
Well if some of the bushbots have their way? It will get a whole lot more personal.
My son is 12. It is not difficult to imagine that what bush has put into motion will not have dissipated or been resolved in 5 years.
JM? Iran? Syria?
Well for the very reasons you yourself cite? That’s world war 3.
Howsabout we wean ourselves off oil as opposed to fighting for it?Cause deal is? I can’t see encouraging my son to fight for this country.
J R,”Cause deal is? I can’t see encouraging my son to fight for this country.” Posted by: J R | January 15, 2007 at 11:44 PM
There are many that have said those exact words.
Then, when the British burned their homes, stole their wealth and imprisoned those they loved, they changed their minds.
I’m not comparing the Revolutionary War with the Iraq conflict, but there is always a chance that you may change your mind about when to fight and when not to fight.
That, of course is your right to say and your choice to make.
JR,
All of your posts since I have been here have indicated your disdain for the military.
I am pretty sure you can rest assured that your influence over your son will win out and he won’t go off and join the military anytime soon.
On top of that it is the Democrats calling for a draft, so no need to fear the Republicans on that one.
Nathan
On the contrary.
I have the highest respect for the military.
Remember me Nathan? Defender of the exploited. Crusader for honesty and justice and good?
And I have no bible or otherwise in my hand in doing it. And I HAVE taken hits for doing so.
I know that you Nathan are there because you chose to be there.
But you are also there because a President chose to put you there. Or allow you to go there.
Well Nathan? Your portion is duty. You chose it and good on you for doing so.
MY portion is my voice in a democratic society that OWES its existence AND its judgement to such as you.
And that judgement that you have given and give me tells me that America has serious issues which cannot be solved in war. Not in war or conflict off our shores anyway.
There is too much to get into here. The sanctity and future of the nation and the responsiblilty to all of its people. A responsible direction for its future.
So for now I will leave it at that.
Steven Davis,
The non-military strategy was/is also a boondoggle.For example, reconstruction money was spent too slowly, along with failure to provide adequate security. Projects were then destroyed, or not completed.
A few of the various problems and errors,’Bush plan’s $1B won’t go far in Iraq’http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_bush_aid_plan
It’s difficult, if not impossible, to rebuild a nation during civil war.
JR,
If you have the highest respect for the military then why make the remarks you did of the traditions of those ROTC units?
You say you have nothing against the militar on one hand, but then turn around and say we are mindless obedient robots on the other whenever our opinion is not in line with yours.
“Then, when the British burned their homes, stole their wealth and imprisoned those they loved, they changed their minds.”
Change the 4th word to Americans and you have the genesis of the insurgency in Iraq.
Perfect. The more we get to see how you people really think, the better.Why not change the fourth word to Nathan? hmmm, you are a pig.
“But unfortunately this time when Iraq goes down, we will payer a higher price and perhaps for a longer period of time.”
Gee, maybe somebody should have thought of that BEFORE the invasion? Bush knew or should have known this would happen. It was widely predicted. And the same people who made that correct prediction now predict that escalation will only worsen the mess. The people predicting that escalation will be successful are the same ones who predicted that we would be done in “months not years”
fleetwood – you are a blind moronic BushBot.
Better than slamming our fighting men and women while they are in the field.
Interesting twist of words hmmm.
But as I predicted, the slam on the troops is present just like it was during Vietnam and it will only get worse.
Anything goes to make a talking point eh hmmm?
I remember when the Nam troops came home, there were stories of them being spit on, yelled at etc. Comments by hmmm and the rest of the ilk is why.
Nathan:
Re: “Gster,
If you actually looked at the plan, it involves Iraqi divisions actually assuming control over more of Baghdad with our help.
That is the difference from the past. ”
Not to beat a dead horse, but would these Iraquis be the 4 of 6 Brigades that didn’t even show up the last time they tried this idea?
Or the police unit that was so corrupt, the leader was replaced and the entire unit removed?
I don’t understand the training program being run- if you follow tha “number”, it seems we have trained every man, woman and child about 4 times ( exagerated!).
I would think that moving these trained personnel to Baghdad wuld be the first order of business, given the extreme level of violence there.
It would then seem logical that the violence would therefore subside for that reason.
What’s happened?
Maybe fleetwood,
I think sociologically it has more to do with mob mentality. You know, someone starts chanting something and more get involved without thinking about the consequences of their actions.
From the chant of one to many, it can become grotesquely formed into surreal rationalization of any kind of deeds that the mob sees fit to do (i.e., insult, violent confrontation, threats and general unguided discord.)
No doubt, but the seed was (and is) put there by the rabid anti-war crowd. They hate the mission and the ones who work the mission.The “love the troops, hate the mission is bogus”.
Just playing with YOUR talking point a bit JM. As for mob mentality you should know – you have a full day of Boortz, Limbaugh, hannity, O’Reilly and on and on raising your chants.
Your “love the troops, send them into a quagmire” is bogus.
fleettwood – I was one of those who befriended returning VietNam vets. I also witnessed a vet in a wheelchair get beaten with clubs by a bunch of armed thugs because he had become anti-war. Comments by you and the rest of your ilk is why.
The “love the troops, hate the mission is bogus”.
Posted by: fleettwood | January 16, 2007 at 08:21 AM
This is true. If you don’t believe it ask a person in uniform. I have and that’s the answer I have got each time.
Fleetwood:I don’t think you understand; it is not necessary to try to earn the Prestigious DPB award on every post!
You’ve already bagged that honor.
I would think it would behove you to try to un-earn it.
Subscribing to the Joe Williams School of Fact Creation doesn’t work either.
It makes you look silly and you’ll end up with an ass the size of a Flugelhorn from all the digging there to serve up these “fact pearls”.
And then there is the odor problem!
.
I am not the one who posted at 8:00AM
gster-A lot of mean words but no refutation. Do you have one or just more ad hominum
Posted by: hmmm … | January 16, 2007 at 08:44 AM”Just playing with YOUR talking point a bit JM. As for mob mentality you should know – you have a full day of Boortz, Limbaugh, hannity, O’Reilly and on and on raising your chants.
Your “love the troops, send them into a quagmire” is bogus.==========================Ah yes… Are you invading my privacy by eavesdropping into my home knowing what I listen to? Didn’t think so. :)
If you did eavesdrop you would find me listening to Public Radio or watching the Discovery/History Channel.===========================fleettwood – I was one of those who befriended returning VietNam vets. I also witnessed a vet in a wheelchair get beaten with clubs by a bunch of armed thugs because he had become anti-war. Comments by you and the rest of your ilk is why.
hmmm,
Anti-war thugs beating a disabled Vet is connected how to what people of our ilk write or say how?(1) We made them angry so they went out and beat someone?(2) They like to express their opinions non-verbally?(3) The sought to get the disability check from the Vet?
Explain please.========================
Fleetwood:Was that you award-winning answer?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image/“A 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming.Far from spitting on veterans, the antiwar movement welcomed them into its ranks and thousands of veterans joined the opposition to the war.”
JM,
Doesn’t hmmm’s “people of your ilk” = pro-war? You really think “anti-war thugs” would beat a vet in a wheelchair because he had become “anti-war”?
I came home in ‘69, and had no problems at all.
Had I, whether man, women or child, they would have been lying on their ass looking at the ceiling- at that time I had a very short fuse!
I remenber hearing from many directions, that Vietnamese that had come here didn’t have to pay income taxes and were given free Tran Ams! Amazing!
“Anti-war thugs beating a disabled Vet is connected how to what people of our ilk write or say how?”
JM – Go read what I wrote. It was PRO-WAR THUGS beating an anti-war paraplegic vet. Maybe you need to take a reading comprehension class. Does that expalin it to you sufficiently?
Let me try again: A BUNCH OF PRO-WAR THUGS BEAT AN ANTI-WAR PARAPLEGIC VETERAN BECAUSE PRO-WAR THUGS HATE ANYONE WHO QUESTIONS THEIR WAR!!!!!
Clear enough now?
gster – unfortunately, you would have had a hard time fighting back. The LAPD are heavily armed. I might have been one of the guys trying to restrain you – but as a friend, not foe. I would then have taken you for a stiff drink – perhaps many …
hmm– Thanks for the thought!
“Fleetwood:Was that you award-winning answer?”
Posted by: gster | January 16, 2007 at 09:05 AM
What was the question?
“A 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming.
Over 90 percent? That is a good thing?
rofl Cosmos!
You reference an article written by one of the most liberal professors on the planet, Jerry Lembcke?
This guy was a member of the Vietnam Veteran Against The War! A Vietnam Veteran who came back like Kerry and took up opposition against the war (his choice, nothing wrong with it.)But in 1980, he started with his revisionist history by searching Newspapers for incidents of Vets getting spit on? Yeah sure, like this was going to make a newspaper article especially like those liberal newspapers such as the Boston Globe.
Did Lembcke bother to check police complaints about Vets being harrassed? Did he check the main gates of military installations where it was common to see protesters shouting insults and throwing objects at servicemen?
Why did miitary installations have to build Military Police Augmentee Units especially trained to handle protestors?
Why were we briefed not to travel in certain districts in uniform?
Yeah, okay…Cosmos, a Harris Poll from 1971 and this was polled where and to whom? :)
========================”JM – Go read what I wrote. It was PRO-WAR THUGS beating an anti-war paraplegic vet. Maybe you need to take a reading comprehension class. Does that expalin it to you sufficiently?”Posted by: hmmm … | January 16, 2007 at 09:42 AM
Okay, I will…
Let’s see…
“fleettwood – I was one of those who befriended returning VietNam vets. I also witnessed a vet in a wheelchair get beaten with clubs by a bunch of armed thugs because he had become anti-war. Comments by you and the rest of your ilk is why.” Posted by: hmmm … | January 16, 2007 at 08:44 AM
heh heh Ben, You sly dog, very tricky :)
“I also got to see a wheelchair-bound Vet beaten by a bunch of armed thugs with clubs. The thugs were the Los Angeles Police Department.” Posted by: Ben Huie | May 10, 2006 at 09:12 PM
So, you neglected to leave out that the Thugs were Police this time Ben, I mean hmmm, I mean Ben?heh heh
Maybe it had something to do with this…http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/08/19784_comment.php
Well Ben, sorry to say, but I have to add you to my discovered on the left wing troll list. :)
It was an excellent try though. heh
So JM – does it change the fact that an anti-war vet was beaten by armed thugs?
No connection though to the pittsburgh incident; this was back in the 70s.
hmmm,
Without seeing the reason he was beaten by the police I have no conclusions to draw.
I looked for this story on google, but found no reference. I would think a story of this magnitude would have a place in newspaper archive.
Could it happen? Yeah, it could happen.
But I would want to see the report filed by a newspaper or better yet the City where it occurred for beating a man in a wheelchair regardless of his political views.
My skeptical scale is about a “7″ on this report. Sorry :(
Since I did not personally witness the incidents in the pitt article I cannot really judge what happened. Since I DID witness the LA beating I can. And it was “your ilk” who beat the vet.
JM – and did you personally witness the spitting on vets you claim happened? My skeptical scale is rather high there too.
hmmm,
So my “ilk” whatever that is, is responsible for the beating of this anti-war vet in a wheelchair?
Let’s see, 1971 I was in the Uniform of the Armed Forces, low on the enlisted swine scale. :) Although I was rather irritible as I had a mild case of hepatitis, perhaps I could have wielded a club. heh heh
So hmmm, tell me how this event came about? Was the vet in the wheelchair minding his own business? Did he pee on the sidewalk?
Give me some more detail, since you were there to witness this.
Did you interview the police aftewards to determine their status and political affiliation?
What was your determination to conclude that these Police who did the beating were doing so for the purposes of ‘jacking up’ anyone who was anti-war including vets in wheelchairs?
I am not sure if JM witnessed any spitting, and I haven’t.I have read stories of such things happening to Nam vets. You can be sure it wasn’t “my people” who were doing the spitting.
hmmm,
Yes, I guess you could say I was a witness of Vets getting spit on, since I was one as I was walking from my apartment on the way to Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio TX. :)
On another occasion, I went to a bar for a wedding reception of one of the division’s secretaries. I didn’t have time to change, so went there in uniform. I was told by the groom to leave because I was wearing a uniform. I apologized and told him all I had with me to change into was some worn out blue jeans. He told me, that would be better than that piece of **** you’re wearing.
And there are other personal stories I could offer and those stories told to me by others, which have very high credibility.
The veteran had a sign protesting the war. He was on a public sidewalk in front of the federal Building in west LA. Ain’t no way I was going to approach the armed thugs doing the beating; however reports in the LA Times quoted tham as saying the Vet was “anti-war scum”. I DID interview the vet and he relayed to me that they cursed him in such a manner (anti-war scum).
During this period the LAPD targeted protesters and also people with cameras. That is why I used a strong telephoto lens back then.
JM – and I would condemn that groom and the others.
Bottom line: The escalation is going to happen; the decider has decided. I hope against hope that it works. I will HAPPILY eat crow if it does – I have plenty of ketchup and hot sauce. But, just as I didn’t think the original invasion would work as advertised, I do not think this will either.
It grieves me to see my country, a country that I love, stuck in this quagmire called Iraq. It grieves me to see leadership in which I and many others have no faith.
It took many years to even begin to heal the wounds after Nam – Gerald Ford sacrificed his re-election toward that end. I don’t see a gerald Ford on the horizon today.
Just heard a radio report that an active duty Marine seargent is calling for the troops to be withrawn NOW.
Probably someone will find a link.
This is the beginning of the end for Humpty Dumbty bush.
‘Military members call for troop withdrawal from Iraq’http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/4471933.html“More than 20 active-duty service members and about 100 supporters appeared at an event highlighting the efforts of Appeal for Redress, which calls for Congress to end the war, rather than increase troops in Iraq, as President Bush has planned. More than 1,000 military members have added their names to the appeal’s list, which is to be given to Congress on Tuesday.”
You are right, jr, this is a disaster. A seargent wants to go home. It’s the beginning of the end.
Wants to go home? HE IS HOME. Did he serve in Iraq? I haven’t heard anything but ‘Let’s get the job done.’ Come from service men/women that have actually fought in Iraq.
And the news for this morning – over 100 killed in Baghdad today in sectarian violence…..
And Bush thinks that just another 21,500 troops is going to clean up his mess.
Forty four months since “Mission Accomplished.”
Interesting article Cosmos.
After doing some Internet digging I found some interesting items concerning Appeal for Redress APPEALFORREDRESS.ORG.
First, APPEALFORREDRESS.ORG claim to have a list military members, although that list is not publickally available which is understandable.
Secondly, there is no confirmation of who may sign the list. In other words, anyone or their pet cat can sign the list if they wish to do so.
Thirdly, it seems the Website was promoted heavily in the following way:
There is a term called “Astroturfing”
Astroturfing may be undertaken by anything from an individual pushing their own personal agenda through to highly organised professional groups with financial backing from large corporations.
Now, who would be a person who would do this for APPEALFORREDRESS.ORG.
Here is an answer provided, uncomfirmed (forgot to get the URL) I think it was MilBlog or something like that.
“”Yesterday, a company that does public relations for the liberal activist political action committee MoveOn.org, Fenton Communications, organized a conference call for reporters and three active-duty soldiers to unveil the soldiers’ anti-war group Appeal for Redress.
A staff member at Fenton Communications who requested anonymity said his company was approached last week by a longtime peace activist and former director of the anti-nuclear proliferation front known as SANE/Freeze, David Cortright, to publicize Appeal for Redress. Mr. Cortright is now president of an Indiana-based nonprofit group, the Fourth Freedom Forum, and his biography on the organization’s Web site says he helped raise “more than $300,000 for the Win Without War coalition to avert a preemptive attack on Iraq in 2002–03.”"
Who owns the Domain for APPEALFORREDRESS.ORG
From Internic:
Domain Name:APPEALFORREDRESS.ORGCreated On:07-Sep-2006 11:37:49 UTCLast Updated On:11-Jan-2007 16:30:51 UTCExpiration Date:07-Sep-2007 11:37:49 UTCSponsoring Registrar:Intercosmos Media Group Inc. (R48-LROR)Status:OKRegistrant ID:ODN-774081Registrant Name:Michael McPhearsonRegistrant Organization:Veterans for PeaceRegistrant Street1:216 S. Meramec Ave.Registrant Street2:Registrant Street3:Registrant City:St LouisRegistrant State/Province:MORegistrant Postal Code:63105
No smoking guns really, appears to be a forthright websight about some people addressing the issue of the Iraq war.
However, I would caution people to be cautious and skeptical about any claims coming forth about signatories of said website.
oops, forgot to mention that after Mr. David Cortright’s effort to publicize the APPEALFORREDRESS.ORG Website, more than 200 news media outlets, mostly newspaper, picked the story up.
Sol,
According to the research I’ve done and I can’t verify any of this as it is like third hand info:
The guy who runs the Website at APPEALFORREDRESS.ORG is an O-3 ranked, Anesthestist at Norkfolk who claims to have served two duties in Iraq. (didn’t say whether he is a doctor or nurse, but I’ve only of nurses being called Anesthetists, Doctors as Anesthesiologists.)
No other information at this time.
JM,
“But as I predicted, the slam on the troops is present just like it was during Vietnam and it will only get worse.”
Do you have any specific examples of the “slam”? Or is that just the generic (and false) claim that everyone who opposes a failed strategy is also anti-troop?
JM: “anyone or their pet cat can sign the list if they wish to do so.”
The group tries to verify the names, and I assume Congress would also.
JM,
Do you have any specific examples of the “slam” on the troops?