The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
so.... can we invade France? Pleeeease!
where pray tell did I say that?
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
You didn't - I was just asking! Us Brits never miss an opportunity to invade France - it's a national sport; a tradition. :-D
-
Yes. And Burma and Zimbabwe. But i wouldn't bother with the "winning the peace" crap afterwards. It's time we stopped being so bloody nice/diplomatic to these bastard rulers, but walk in there, kill them and walk out again. If they don't manage better with their next leader, we should do it again. And again, until they get it right. If your next door neightbour was torturing / abusing / about to kill his wife/child, would you not think you had a moral duty to intervene? Why is it any different just because these people hide behind an artificial boundary on a map? They are torturing / abusing / murdering millions of living breathing people every day, and we smile and trade with them and sell them our weapons.... Still, why should we care, eh? They're just a bunch of darkie foreigners, aren't they?
Fred_Smith wrote:
But i wouldn't bother with the "winning the peace" crap afterwards. It's time we stopped being so bloody nice/diplomatic to these bastard rulers, but walk in there, kill them and walk out again. If they don't manage better with their next leader, we should do it again. And again, until they get it right.
I hope that your foreign policy newsletter is written at the fourth grade level because that's the only way supporters of such a myopic, infantile, irresponsible military interventionism are going to be able to understand it.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
To hear many Americans talk about it though, you'd think they were blind, the refusal to consider one's own place in the outcome of events. Every event is an opportunity for introspection yet that seems to be the one activity in which Americans categorically refuse to engage.
Golly. You're right. I'm going to reflect on how our international policy prompted the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Red Stateler wrote:
Golly. You're right. I'm going to reflect on how our international policy prompted the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
What if there was something that could have been done to prevent the bombing of Peal Harbor? What if that something was American action in some way or another? Are you so averse to considering your nation's decisions that you'd rather lose thousands of lives in war than admit your country may have done the wrong thing? It's OK to be wrong, Red, no one will think less of you.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
But i wouldn't bother with the "winning the peace" crap afterwards. It's time we stopped being so bloody nice/diplomatic to these bastard rulers, but walk in there, kill them and walk out again. If they don't manage better with their next leader, we should do it again. And again, until they get it right.
I hope that your foreign policy newsletter is written at the fourth grade level because that's the only way supporters of such a myopic, infantile, irresponsible military interventionism are going to be able to understand it.
Sometimes the simple solutions really are the best... trouble with you post-graduate level intellectuals is you are too damn clever for your (and everyone else's) good at times... so far up the backside of your pet theories you forget that the answers are more often than not staring you in the face. Science needs clever intellectuals. Politics needs people that understand people - they are the bottom line of politics. And most people (uneducated morons that they/we are) don't give a damn about your "must-see-the-bigger-picture" realpolitik, oh-so-mature, oh-so-responsible policies that have led us all deeper and deeper into the shit we now find outselves in. Realpolitik - christ, whoever dreamt that one up should have been shot at birth. It's nothing but an excuse for megalomaniacs to do the wrong thing on the gronds that "it just isn't practical" to do the right thing. Contrary to popular belief, life and politics is (should be) very simple; just do the right thing - always. If some shit-for-brains is out there murdering and torturing and abusing people by the millions,. the right thing is simple: shoot him dead. End of that problem. Then deal with the next one. God, it's so simple I thought it up in fourth grade.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Golly. You're right. I'm going to reflect on how our international policy prompted the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
What if there was something that could have been done to prevent the bombing of Peal Harbor? What if that something was American action in some way or another? Are you so averse to considering your nation's decisions that you'd rather lose thousands of lives in war than admit your country may have done the wrong thing? It's OK to be wrong, Red, no one will think less of you.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
What if there was something that could have been done to prevent the bombing of Peal Harbor? What if that something was American action in some way or another? Are you so averse to considering your nation's decisions that you'd rather lose thousands of lives in war than admit your country may have done the wrong thing? It's OK to be wrong, Red, no one will think less of you.
It was American action (not inaction) that knowingly led to Pearl Harbor. The administration knew that an oil blockade would be considered "an act of war". The Japanese said so. History is full of mistakes, but you use those mistakes to help you make decisions in the future. You don't take a conciliatory stance towards those who want to exterminate your nations simply because you feel bad. I thought you were an urban cowboy, not a sissy.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
What if there was something that could have been done to prevent the bombing of Peal Harbor? What if that something was American action in some way or another? Are you so averse to considering your nation's decisions that you'd rather lose thousands of lives in war than admit your country may have done the wrong thing? It's OK to be wrong, Red, no one will think less of you.
It was American action (not inaction) that knowingly led to Pearl Harbor. The administration knew that an oil blockade would be considered "an act of war". The Japanese said so. History is full of mistakes, but you use those mistakes to help you make decisions in the future. You don't take a conciliatory stance towards those who want to exterminate your nations simply because you feel bad. I thought you were an urban cowboy, not a sissy.
Red Stateler wrote:
History is full of mistakes, but you use those mistakes to help you make decisions in the future. You don't take a conciliatory stance towards those who want to exterminate your nations simply because you feel bad.
What if you take a conciliatory stance because it will save American lives? It's called diplomacy, and it doesn't make you a sissy, it makes you successful in international politics.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
History is full of mistakes, but you use those mistakes to help you make decisions in the future. You don't take a conciliatory stance towards those who want to exterminate your nations simply because you feel bad.
What if you take a conciliatory stance because it will save American lives? It's called diplomacy, and it doesn't make you a sissy, it makes you successful in international politics.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
What if you take a conciliatory stance because it will save American lives? It's called diplomacy, and it doesn't make you a sissy, it makes you successful in international politics.
That's naive. Even for a 23-year old urban cowboy. Diplomacy is that art of international negotiation...Not emotive, propagandistic attacks against your home country while it's under attack from a foreign enemy. I hate to break this to you, but you're a cowboy living in the ghetto...Not a diplomat.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
What if you take a conciliatory stance because it will save American lives? It's called diplomacy, and it doesn't make you a sissy, it makes you successful in international politics.
That's naive. Even for a 23-year old urban cowboy. Diplomacy is that art of international negotiation...Not emotive, propagandistic attacks against your home country while it's under attack from a foreign enemy. I hate to break this to you, but you're a cowboy living in the ghetto...Not a diplomat.
Red Stateler wrote:
That's naive. Even for a 23-year old urban cowboy. Diplomacy is that art of international negotiation...Not emotive, propagandistic attacks against your home country while it's under attack from a foreign enemy. I hate to break this to you, but you're a cowboy living in the ghetto...Not a diplomat.
You cut me to the quick, Red. You're a hypocrite living in the middle of nowhere that hates your life and is unhappy in your marriage. Keep calling me whatever you wish, but it's not going to make you any happier with the way your life turned out. Anyway,
Red Stateler wrote:
emotive, propagandistic attacks against your home country
Who is talking about that? We're just discussing the inspection of US foreign policy to determine if there was anything we could change about the way we behave that could save lives. Obviously, there was something wrong in our foreign policy before 9/11. "They're just crazy and jealous of our freedoms" is a nice, pat explanation that enables us to go to war indiscriminately without making any changes in the way we deal with foreign powers. I think that perhaps it's a bit too easy, and I choose to acquire more details about the way we've been conducting ourselves overseas for the last few decades. You go ahead and stick your head in the sand, everyone knows ignorance is a staunch ally when making policy.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
That's naive. Even for a 23-year old urban cowboy. Diplomacy is that art of international negotiation...Not emotive, propagandistic attacks against your home country while it's under attack from a foreign enemy. I hate to break this to you, but you're a cowboy living in the ghetto...Not a diplomat.
You cut me to the quick, Red. You're a hypocrite living in the middle of nowhere that hates your life and is unhappy in your marriage. Keep calling me whatever you wish, but it's not going to make you any happier with the way your life turned out. Anyway,
Red Stateler wrote:
emotive, propagandistic attacks against your home country
Who is talking about that? We're just discussing the inspection of US foreign policy to determine if there was anything we could change about the way we behave that could save lives. Obviously, there was something wrong in our foreign policy before 9/11. "They're just crazy and jealous of our freedoms" is a nice, pat explanation that enables us to go to war indiscriminately without making any changes in the way we deal with foreign powers. I think that perhaps it's a bit too easy, and I choose to acquire more details about the way we've been conducting ourselves overseas for the last few decades. You go ahead and stick your head in the sand, everyone knows ignorance is a staunch ally when making policy.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You cut me to the quick, Red. You're a hypocrite living in the middle of nowhere that hates your life and is unhappy in your marriage. Keep calling me whatever you wish, but it's not going to make you any happier with the way your life turned out.
Actually I own a home in an upper-middle class neighborhood in a sprawling metropolis and my legitimate wife of over two years and I get along swimmingly. We're practically inseparable, the two of us. That's why we got married instead of just shacking up in the ghetto while seeking meaning in life by avoiding big-box stores.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Who is talking about that?
We were. Follow the conversation or shut up. The whole point of my criticism of Mr. Sears was that he advocated "introspection" which is, by definition, emotion-based soul-searching. Diplomacy isn't about making yourself feel warm and toasty inside, cowboy. That's what legitimate relationships like marriage are for. Diplomacy is doing what best benefits your country, not proclaiming your hatred for the President when we're in the middle of a war with people desperate for inspiration.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Obviously, there was something wrong in our foreign policy before 9/11.
b-but...Clinton! Get over it.
-
Sometimes the simple solutions really are the best... trouble with you post-graduate level intellectuals is you are too damn clever for your (and everyone else's) good at times... so far up the backside of your pet theories you forget that the answers are more often than not staring you in the face. Science needs clever intellectuals. Politics needs people that understand people - they are the bottom line of politics. And most people (uneducated morons that they/we are) don't give a damn about your "must-see-the-bigger-picture" realpolitik, oh-so-mature, oh-so-responsible policies that have led us all deeper and deeper into the shit we now find outselves in. Realpolitik - christ, whoever dreamt that one up should have been shot at birth. It's nothing but an excuse for megalomaniacs to do the wrong thing on the gronds that "it just isn't practical" to do the right thing. Contrary to popular belief, life and politics is (should be) very simple; just do the right thing - always. If some shit-for-brains is out there murdering and torturing and abusing people by the millions,. the right thing is simple: shoot him dead. End of that problem. Then deal with the next one. God, it's so simple I thought it up in fourth grade.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Sometimes the simple solutions really are the best... trouble with you post-graduate level intellectuals is you are too damn clever for your (and everyone else's) good at times... so far up the backside of your pet theories you forget that the answers are more often than not staring you in the face.
So, Kindergarten World Cop, how do you deal with the thousands dead during the chaos that follows after you assassinate a world leader? Who chooses which countries' leaders are assassinated? What about the reduction in supply of whatever exports that country made that will be disrupted? What about refugees? What about the stockpile of nuclear and conventional weapons that will go unaccounted for? Who maintains and protects the infrastructure of the country while they rebuild? What if they never rebuild? What about the inevitable health crises that arise as a result of beheading a populous country? Who reports to the UN and the World Court to answer for such an act of aggression? On and on and on, the uncomfortable complications that arise from your "simple" plan. We're seeing the results of such short-sighted and poorly-planned actions right now in the form of US and Iraqi casualties as a result of our simple-minded President. Look how many words it took for you to even defend such a plan! Unfortunately, reality is complicated. As much as you'd like to reduce it all to slogans and battle cries, real life has a staggering level of detail, and these details don't take care of themselves. Ever wonder why we don't allow fourth graders to become President?
Fred_Smith wrote:
God, it's so simple I thought it up in fourth grade.
Well, you probably know now. Go back to your television, vote on the next American Idol and leave the politics to the deep thinkers. :)
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You cut me to the quick, Red. You're a hypocrite living in the middle of nowhere that hates your life and is unhappy in your marriage. Keep calling me whatever you wish, but it's not going to make you any happier with the way your life turned out.
Actually I own a home in an upper-middle class neighborhood in a sprawling metropolis and my legitimate wife of over two years and I get along swimmingly. We're practically inseparable, the two of us. That's why we got married instead of just shacking up in the ghetto while seeking meaning in life by avoiding big-box stores.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Who is talking about that?
We were. Follow the conversation or shut up. The whole point of my criticism of Mr. Sears was that he advocated "introspection" which is, by definition, emotion-based soul-searching. Diplomacy isn't about making yourself feel warm and toasty inside, cowboy. That's what legitimate relationships like marriage are for. Diplomacy is doing what best benefits your country, not proclaiming your hatred for the President when we're in the middle of a war with people desperate for inspiration.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Obviously, there was something wrong in our foreign policy before 9/11.
b-but...Clinton! Get over it.
Red Stateler wrote:
Actually I own a home in an upper-middle class neighborhood in a sprawling metropolis and my legitimate wife of over two years and I get along swimmingly. We're practically inseparable, the two of us. That's why we got married instead of just shacking up in the ghetto while seeking meaning in life by avoiding big-box stores.
Whatever, man, I seriously don't care. You don't act happy, and if this internet persona you've developed is anything like your real personality, you should talk to someone about your anger. But seriously, stop with the personal attacks. It's lame, and obvious to everyone that you feel inadequate.
Red Stateler wrote:
The whole point of my criticism of Mr. Sears was that he advocated "introspection" which is, by definition, emotion-based soul-searching.
1 introspection, self-contemplation, self-examination the contemplation of your own thoughts and desires and conductYou know what introspection means, surely. Refusing to examine yourself and your actions results in ignorance and mistakes happening again and again. -
K(arl) wrote:
There are many examples of regime changes without an invasion.
But few without a war.
Red Stateler wrote:
But few without a war.
I think we're about to see one in November ;)
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Sometimes the simple solutions really are the best... trouble with you post-graduate level intellectuals is you are too damn clever for your (and everyone else's) good at times... so far up the backside of your pet theories you forget that the answers are more often than not staring you in the face.
So, Kindergarten World Cop, how do you deal with the thousands dead during the chaos that follows after you assassinate a world leader? Who chooses which countries' leaders are assassinated? What about the reduction in supply of whatever exports that country made that will be disrupted? What about refugees? What about the stockpile of nuclear and conventional weapons that will go unaccounted for? Who maintains and protects the infrastructure of the country while they rebuild? What if they never rebuild? What about the inevitable health crises that arise as a result of beheading a populous country? Who reports to the UN and the World Court to answer for such an act of aggression? On and on and on, the uncomfortable complications that arise from your "simple" plan. We're seeing the results of such short-sighted and poorly-planned actions right now in the form of US and Iraqi casualties as a result of our simple-minded President. Look how many words it took for you to even defend such a plan! Unfortunately, reality is complicated. As much as you'd like to reduce it all to slogans and battle cries, real life has a staggering level of detail, and these details don't take care of themselves. Ever wonder why we don't allow fourth graders to become President?
Fred_Smith wrote:
God, it's so simple I thought it up in fourth grade.
Well, you probably know now. Go back to your television, vote on the next American Idol and leave the politics to the deep thinkers. :)
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Unfortunately, reality is complicated
Indeed it is - and as the utter failure of every attempt to control it shows - in extremis, think of communism, the ultimate social-control experiment - it is beyond the wit of Man (and politicians especially...) to control life at this level. There are too many variables - and it is chaotic, in the mathematical-model sense. You *have* to let it take care of itself - let market forces rule. Who decides? the strong do, obviously - such is the nature of life, of evilution - and the nature of people is such that in the end (we may have to fight for it) the strong will be those who are free to think and act without the controlling straight-jacket of politicians (or religious leaders) who think they know more than they do. It is no accident that the free-thinking West is the strongest, and best society that history has ever thrown up (for all its faults.) Who takes care of the chaos, the refugees etc etc? They do, for crying out loud. No-one took care of "us" (the West), when we dragged ourselves out of the dungeons of the middle-ages, and we're better for it. All we need to do is make it absolutely clear that we are not going to tolerate despotic leaders. We should never have put up with Saddam Huseein, and his ilk; we shouldn't now stil be putting up with Robert Mugabe and whatisname in Burma. Your "deep-thought" politics just sanctions these bastards; they know they can get away with it as long as you are in power. We should just take them out, and let them come up with a new leader. And carry on doing that until a decent leader is established. I am sorry, but I will not ever accept any reason, any philosophy, any politiccal system, that results in "my" leaders shaking hands with (ie dealing with) the Sadfdam Hussein's of this world - and we see it happening all the time; they disgust me when I see that. (btw, I hardly ever watch television. Total cr*ap, day in day out, as far as I can see. And I never vote - I wouldn't give my endorsement to any one of those amoral bastards if you paid me.) Honestly - stop trying to be so clever! Life is simple... if you let it be. Fred "Now at midnight all the agents And the superhuman crew Come out and round up everyone That knows more than they do Then they bring them to the factory Where the heart-attack machine Is strapped across their shoulders And then the kerosene Is brought down from the castles By insurance men who go
-
Red Stateler wrote:
But few without a war.
I think we're about to see one in November ;)
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
I think we're about to see one in November
Really? Elections change our system of government[^]?
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
I think we're about to see one in November
Really? Elections change our system of government[^]?
At this point, returning the powers stolen by the Executive, rescinding the Patriot Act, closing Guantanamo and ceasing warrant-less wiretapping would return our system of government to a constitutional democracy, all of which would occur under new leadership. So, yes, thanks for helping to support my point :)
-
At this point, returning the powers stolen by the Executive, rescinding the Patriot Act, closing Guantanamo and ceasing warrant-less wiretapping would return our system of government to a constitutional democracy, all of which would occur under new leadership. So, yes, thanks for helping to support my point :)
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
ceasing warrant-less wiretapping
:laugh: The Democrats just passed a bill granting Bush more warrantless wiretapping than he ever wanted. You are so clueless.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
ceasing warrant-less wiretapping
:laugh: The Democrats just passed a bill granting Bush more warrantless wiretapping than he ever wanted. You are so clueless.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml Actually, your precious Rs passed that bill, there just weren't enough Dem votes to stop it. Less laughing more reading next time, Red. You're making yourself look ridiculous. Didn't you read this when I killed your other thread on the same subject? YOU LOSE AGAIN.