Dems Demand Pullout

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I just have to say that I have had it with this whole thing. I have had two good friends go over there in the last year, one of whom is still over there. Another very close friend is going to be over there as soon as he graduates college in May, which is why I hope the pullout comes sooner rather than later.

I have had it with the people who are not fighting talking about how righteous this war is. i have had it with those, whose best friends are not going, talking about how right this war is. I have had it with girls I know praying to God that their fiances do not go back to iraq. I have had it with fearing that every moment I am awake, waiting for that call that says, “Mike got killed in Iraq”. I have had it with all you guys that are too damn old, or could get deferments, talking about how we should still be over there. Put your fucking brothers there, put yourselves there, and see how much you care about Iraqi freedom. Watch your wives cry (like all the girls I know will) when my buddies get killed for no reason. I have had it. This is my generation’s Vietnam. Keep talking. The tide is changing.[/quote]

Nobody like to go to war and kill Irish but when you join the military sometimes it’s your duty, whether you agree with the reason or not. How a war is prosecuted, even in the internet age, is not subject to the approval of those who fight. That’s the hard truth of military service and always has been.

I’ve mourned friends killed in battle and lost friends in training. It sucks but duty, honor and country is not a slogan to the soldier but a belief. The leadership and officer corp isn’t as cold and callous as the left believes it to be. They have a responsibilty and are living up to it. If you don’t like it then vote for new ones at the next election.

This may be your generations Vietnam. If so, that’s not something to be proud of. Anti-war protestors cursed at my father when he came home from Vietnam. They protested in front of the VA hospital where the Veterans recieved treatment. They called the troops criminals and baby killers. It’s more PC now but not much has changed.

I just read a post from an English liberal talking about combat troops using white phosphorus in combat, as if he actually knows what the fuck he was talking about. I am sure he has the cajones to lead a frontal assault on a dug in enemy instead of shooting some WP into the bunker but what do I know compared to an English college kid.

I am being sincere. You want to support your friends going into combat. Tell them you’ll keep an eye on their families when they are away and do it… Tell you are proud of them and tell them to be safe. When they come home listen to them and say thanks. But mainly just listen. Telling someone who has been getting shot at and killing those who are trying to kill him, that you opposed the war, for his sake, will ring very hollow to a combat vet.

22

[quote]ZEB wrote:

At this early stage of the new government there is no doubt in my mind that it would indeed be overthrown. We would probably end up with some sort of anti American regime in power.

Also the terrorists would feel that they have us on the run. It would be a huge victory for the terrorists.

[/quote]

What makes you think it won’t be overthrown anyway? I get the feeling the only way they will be able to stay on power is to have an iron fist about it…I see bad things in the future here.

23

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:

At this early stage of the new government there is no doubt in my mind that it would indeed be overthrown. We would probably end up with some sort of anti American regime in power.

Also the terrorists would feel that they have us on the run. It would be a huge victory for the terrorists.

What makes you think it won’t be overthrown anyway? I get the feeling the only way they will be able to stay on power is to have an iron fist about it…I see bad things in the future here.[/quote]

Yea, could be. But keep in mind, bad things or good things we need to stay the course. At this point we owe it to not just the Iraqi citizens, but to the reputation of the US to stay and make sure that the current government and their military are strong before we leave.

I see the House agrees. Only 3 people voted to abandon our mission.

24

Hedo,

I haven’t seen this type of thing mentioned or even considered anywhere. I disagree with the “more PC” but not much has changed.

It is important to discern where criticisms are being levied, and I don’t believe it is at the troops or officers either. The fact that some loonies exist out there isn’t fair to the rest of the people you brand as reprehensible because they have liberal views.

If anyone is taking things out on the soldiers, they are idiots.

Just up and pulling out is a bad idea and pretty much everyone knows that things should be left in a better state than that.

Regardless of when the west gets out of Iraq, terrorism, violence and a set of half-arsed human rights will be left in that place.

25

[quote]vroom wrote:
This may be your generations Vietnam. If so, that’s not something to be proud of. Anti-war protestors cursed at my father when he came home from Vietnam. They protested in front of the VA hospital where the Veterans recieved treatment. They called the troops criminals and baby killers. It’s more PC now but not much has changed.

Hedo,

I haven’t seen this type of thing mentioned or even considered anywhere. I disagree with the “more PC” but not much has changed.

It is important to discern where criticisms are being levied, and I don’t believe it is at the troops or officers either. The fact that some loonies exist out there isn’t fair to the rest of the people you brand as reprehensible because they have liberal views.

If anyone is taking things out on the soldiers, they are idiots.

Just up and pulling out is a bad idea and pretty much everyone knows that things should be left in a better state than that.

Regardless of when the west gets out of Iraq, terrorism, violence and a set of half-arsed human rights will be left in that place.[/quote]

As far as soldiers being spit on, I do believe that with growing media and the fact that the general public is much more informed about the actual feelings and opinions of many soldiers who may be fighting (as well as understanding of the constitution), it is difficult in 2005 to paint a soldier’s actions in war on the ground as individually in line with his true political opinion.

My dad was one of those soldiers who returned home without great acknowledgement for what they endured. I have no idea what the media propaganda was like in the 60’s and 70’s regarding the military. I would imagine that the internet alone has allowed more diffusion of the idea of what being a soldier is really about.

This war has put us in a very fucked up position. You would have to be clueless to think that region is anywhere close to being capable of avoiding massive internal conflict if we left right now. Because of that, I doubt many people are actually for immediately retracting all troops…but many people are pissed off that we got into this position in the first place. Saddam was a madman. However, unless we had a solid plan in place for replacement of that regime and the resurrection of a new one, our actions add up to a great loss of life and decades (if not longer) of Iraq occupation. I seriously doubt this will eventually go down in history as a great strategical operation overall. It may take long enough for this “football fan” approach to politics to die out, however.

26

[quote]hedo wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I just have to say that I have had it with this whole thing. I have had two good friends go over there in the last year, one of whom is still over there. Another very close friend is going to be over there as soon as he graduates college in May, which is why I hope the pullout comes sooner rather than later.

I have had it with the people who are not fighting talking about how righteous this war is. i have had it with those, whose best friends are not going, talking about how right this war is. I have had it with girls I know praying to God that their fiances do not go back to iraq. I have had it with fearing that every moment I am awake, waiting for that call that says, “Mike got killed in Iraq”. I have had it with all you guys that are too damn old, or could get deferments, talking about how we should still be over there. Put your fucking brothers there, put yourselves there, and see how much you care about Iraqi freedom. Watch your wives cry (like all the girls I know will) when my buddies get killed for no reason. I have had it. This is my generation’s Vietnam. Keep talking. The tide is changing.

Nobody like to go to war and kill Irish but when you join the military sometimes it’s your duty, whether you agree with the reason or not. How a war is prosecuted, even in the internet age, is not subject to the approval of those who fight. That’s the hard truth of military service and always has been.

I’ve mourned friends killed in battle and lost friends in training. It sucks but duty, honor and country is not a slogan to the soldier but a belief. The leadership and officer corp isn’t as cold and callous as the left believes it to be. They have a responsibilty and are living up to it. If you don’t like it then vote for new ones at the next election.

This may be your generations Vietnam. If so, that’s not something to be proud of. Anti-war protestors cursed at my father when he came home from Vietnam. They protested in front of the VA hospital where the Veterans recieved treatment. They called the troops criminals and baby killers. It’s more PC now but not much has changed.

I just read a post from an English liberal talking about combat troops using white phosphorus in combat, as if he actually knows what the fuck he was talking about. I am sure he has the cajones to lead a frontal assault on a dug in enemy instead of shooting some WP into the bunker but what do I know compared to an English college kid.

I am being sincere. You want to support your friends going into combat. Tell them you’ll keep an eye on their families when they are away and do it… Tell you are proud of them and tell them to be safe. When they come home listen to them and say thanks. But mainly just listen. Telling someone who has been getting shot at and killing those who are trying to kill him, that you opposed the war, for his sake, will ring very hollow to a combat vet.[/quote]

I agree with what you are saying. I have always respected the military, and have always had a fascination with all military history, from the the ancient times to now. Hell, I even wanted to go to West Point when I was young. However, my philosophies on politics changed as time went on (not to mention seeing Saving Private Ryan and realizing that it is simply luck as to wether you live or not), and I don’t think I would fit too well with the military anymore, even though I still think about joining once in a while.

And about the white phosphorous, read my post in the other thread. Once again, I agree with you. When it comes down to it, its more important to me that my buddies come home…give’em the damn grenades, give them a .50, and let them kill any asshole pointing a gun at them. War is war, regardless of politics. You kill the other before they kill you. This I understand, and I would be the same way if I was there.

I have never blame the soldiers for anything, and I would be infuriated if anyone tried to in my prescence. What happened with the protesters during Vietnam is something to be ashamed of and never repeated. Ever.

But the way I see it, don’t put the damn guys in the position where they have to kill unless it is absolutely worth it. It should be the last course of action. It was not the last course for us…you all know my views. I damn that sonofabitch that sent the troops there in the first place for this big debacle, and the blood of all are on his hands. My opinion, of course.

27

Murtha is not the first high profile Marine to change his mind about War. In 1935 General Smedley Butler, one of the most decorated Marines of all time (he twice won the Congressional Medal of Honor), wrote a small book called, “War Is a Racket”. This book definitely wasn’t included in the lore of the Corps that we learned in boot camp. In it General Butler described War as follows:

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

Times haven’t changed much.

28

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Murtha is not the first high profile Marine to change his mind about War. In 1935 General Smedley Butler, one of the most decorated Marines of all time (he twice won the Congressional Medal of Honor), wrote a small book called, “War Is a Racket”. This book definitely wasn’t included in the lore of the Corps that we learned in boot camp. In it General Butler described War as follows:

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

Times haven’t changed much.

[/quote]

I’d take Smedley Butler’s book with a huge grain of salt. The man was a hero, no question, but his post-retirement indictment of Wall Street and U.S. interventions is borderline Chomsky stuff. Read Max Boot’s chapter on Butler in The Savage Wars of Peace to get a fuller explanation.

29

To reiterate, Murtha didn’t exactly have a conversion the other day – he’s been anti-war for a long time.

ALL MURTHA ALL THE TIME: Forgive me for beating a dead horse, but I am extraordinarily frustrated by the way that almost every major media outlet is spinning Murtha’s “conversion” as a major blow to the war effort.

Anyhow, all I want to in this post is take a somewhat closer look at what Murtha said in an interview with CNN (Hat tip: GP) in May 2004 ( CNN.com - Transcripts ), shortly after he first described the war as “unwinnable”. Here goes:

[i] MURTHA: But if you listen to what Shinseki said, we needed several hundred thousand. And then Wolfowitz said, Secretary Wolfowitz said, we only need 30,000 and the oil is going to pay for it. Now, these young people over there fighting deserve better than that. They deserve a plan not based on what we have available, but based on the need in the war. And that’s not what we’re planning to.

[LOU] DOBBS: Some may not be entirely aware that you are one of the strongest, stalwart supporters of our troops, of our military in Congress, in either house of Congress.

But can we realistically -- and this is a huge issue I know that you've also struggled with -- in the war against terror, against the impact it would have not only in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East, is withdrawal of U.S. force from Iraq a truly viable choice?

MURTHA: Well, let me put it this way. We can struggle along with the number of people we have...We've spent $200 billion in this fight in Iraq and it wasn't supposed to cost us anything. So when you say, it is realistic to pull out? It would be an international disaster I think if we pulled out. But the alternative is, we're going to struggle along, get more and more young people killed...

DOBBS: Congressman, as you talked about this and you used the expression, we're fighting this war on the cheap. $200 billion, estimated $60 billion just for current military operations in Iraq alone per year. It's hardly on the cheap. You're also talking, as General Shinseki advised, really tripling the number of U.S. troops as the first choice that you would make, tripling it which one would assume would triple the cost.

At some point doesn’t someone in Congress or this White House or this Pentagon, somewhere in Washington have to understand that we are embarked upon an absolutely mindless ratio of expenses to a result, and that we have to come up with new strategies? Is there anyone in the Pentagon, is there anyone in the White House, to your knowledge, and Congress trying to bring costs and effective results into line?

MURTHA: Well, I keep telling them, you have to be more realistic about our goals...

DOBBS: Congressman, let me ask you this. Directly as you possibly can. Is it time, in your judgment, for the United States to leave Iraq?

MURTHA: Well, it would be disastrous if we were to leave under those circumstances without making every effort... Lou, you have to go back to the original planning. You have to look at there should have been a couple hundred thousand people. They said you only need 30,000 people. You have to look at not having enough people. That's the first plan...

DOBBS: Excuse me, Congressman. I hate to interrupt. We're really out of time. Let me ask you for a short, straightforward statement. You've offered two choices, in your judgment. Either increase troops or get out. Which is your preferred policy choice?

MURTHA: My preferred case is to increase the number of troops and provide the military security, which will give us a chance that Iraq could become an independent country and move on from the war that we've been involved in. [/i]

At first glance, one might say this excerpt vindicates the media’s decision to cover Murtha’s conversion as a major change of heart. After all, what Murtha is calling for here – an extraordinary increase in US manpower – is the polar opposite of withdrawal.

But on the other hand, Murtha seems to recognize that this kind of increase in manpower is simply impossible. Thus, the real choice to be had is between withdrawal – an “international disaster” – and "struggl[ing] along, get[ting] more and more young people killed.

But what is the point of struggling along in an unwinnable war with mounting casualties? Murtha’s logic clearly points to withdrawal as the least-worst option. But he wasn’t ready to say it in May 2004, so he kept his options open by going on record in favor of the impossible option, a Shinseki-style occupation.

So, yes, one can argue that Murtha’s decision to call for a withdrawal is news. But it is hardly a revelation.

30

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I’d take Smedley Butler’s book with a huge grain of salt. The man was a hero, no question, but his post-retirement indictment of Wall Street and U.S. interventions is borderline Chomsky stuff. Read Max Boot’s chapter on Butler in The Savage Wars of Peace to get a fuller explanation.[/quote]

It will be a few days before Amazon.com gets Boot’s book to me. Can you give a me a brief summary of the theories Boot (the features editor of the Wall Street Journal) has about Smedley Butler (a man who actually fought the “small wars” that Boot writes about)?

31

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
I’d take Smedley Butler’s book with a huge grain of salt. The man was a hero, no question, but his post-retirement indictment of Wall Street and U.S. interventions is borderline Chomsky stuff. Read Max Boot’s chapter on Butler in The Savage Wars of Peace to get a fuller explanation.

It will be a few days before Amazon.com gets Boot’s book to me. Can you give a me a brief summary of the theories Boot (the features editor of the Wall Street Journal) has about Smedley Butler (a man who actually fought the “small wars” that Boot writes about)?
[/quote]

It’s a great book, even without all the stuff on Butler’s heroism in China and the Caribbean. Boot doesn’t spend a ton of time talking about Butler’s political career, and he doesn’t smear him, he just says Smedley became increasingly left-wing in the 1930’s, quite possibly because his long-suppressed Quaker upbringing came back with a vengeance, and that he was a fighting soldier, one of the best, but not someone involved in political decisions to use military force abroad. The better refutation, not sure which spot in the book it’s at, is where Boot explains how the majority of American interventions in Latin America pre-World War II (and afterward, I would argue) were motivated by Wilsonian ideals, not commercial interests.