Um... ok... I don't know about you, but everything I've researched shows that Al Quida is primarily present in Pakistan and Afghanistan right now. THAT's where the fight is. Fuck this sectarian bullshit. Iraq needs to sort this out on it own terms. Al Quida is the real threat, and it's in Pakistan, not Iraq.lowing wrote:
I do not support our troops in Iraq to build a nation, I support our troops in Iraq because THAT is where the fight is right now. If the fight somehow moved to Canada, I would support our troops in Canada. If the fight switched to France, I would support our troops in France. I would only hope we could moblize before either fuckin' surrendered.Turquoise wrote:
How about we use the term "realist" -- as in realizing that nation-building is a HUGE fucking mistake.lowing wrote:
"progressive" I am thinking, is now the politically correct term for............................spineless, appeasing, liberal apologist, pussy? I will take note of that.
If you really support smaller government, you should support withdrawal.
There was no Islamic terrorism in Iraq to fight against until the US invaded.Turquoise wrote:
Um... ok... I don't know about you, but everything I've researched shows that Al Quida is primarily present in Pakistan and Afghanistan right now. THAT's where the fight is. Fuck this sectarian bullshit. Iraq needs to sort this out on it own terms. Al Quida is the real threat, and it's in Pakistan, not Iraq.lowing wrote:
I do not support our troops in Iraq to build a nation, I support our troops in Iraq because THAT is where the fight is right now. If the fight somehow moved to Canada, I would support our troops in Canada. If the fight switched to France, I would support our troops in France. I would only hope we could moblize before either fuckin' surrendered.Turquoise wrote:
How about we use the term "realist" -- as in realizing that nation-building is a HUGE fucking mistake.
If you really support smaller government, you should support withdrawal.
That is the definition of conservatism. Too bad the 'cons' in the US simply don't have the vocabulary to understand that.Turquoise wrote:
If you really support smaller government, you should support withdrawal.
Well, Turquoise, I am here right now, and I can tell you our choppers are not getting shot down with rocks! The locals here do not usually keep a stash of RPG's or bomb making materials including chlorine. They have shit here now, that can turn an M1 Abrams inside out. There is long standing proof that Al Quada IS in Iraq and that Iran is backing the efforts here. Your research does not reveal that?? Add to it, I support going to Pakistan and reinforcing our efforts in Afghanistan as well, but please make no mistake into thinking Al Queda is not in Iraq. This is the very reason this war can not be won by the US alone.Turquoise wrote:
Um... ok... I don't know about you, but everything I've researched shows that Al Quida is primarily present in Pakistan and Afghanistan right now. THAT's where the fight is. Fuck this sectarian bullshit. Iraq needs to sort this out on it own terms. Al Quida is the real threat, and it's in Pakistan, not Iraq.lowing wrote:
I do not support our troops in Iraq to build a nation, I support our troops in Iraq because THAT is where the fight is right now. If the fight somehow moved to Canada, I would support our troops in Canada. If the fight switched to France, I would support our troops in France. I would only hope we could moblize before either fuckin' surrendered.Turquoise wrote:
How about we use the term "realist" -- as in realizing that nation-building is a HUGE fucking mistake.
If you really support smaller government, you should support withdrawal.
I would think that most of the enemies we face in Iraq are Shia militias and Sunni extremists. Among the Sunnis, there are some Al Quida members.lowing wrote:
Well, Turquoise, I am here right now, and I can tell you our choppers are not getting shot down with rocks! The locals here do not usually keep a stash of RPG's or bomb making materials including chlorine. They have shit here now, that can turn an M1 Abrams inside out. There is long standing proof that Al Quada IS in Iraq and that Iran is backing the efforts here. Your research does not reveal that?? Add to it, I support going to Pakistan and reinforcing our efforts in Afghanistan as well, but please make no mistake into thinking Al Queda is not in Iraq. This is the very reason this war can not be won by the US alone.Turquoise wrote:
Um... ok... I don't know about you, but everything I've researched shows that Al Quida is primarily present in Pakistan and Afghanistan right now. THAT's where the fight is. Fuck this sectarian bullshit. Iraq needs to sort this out on it own terms. Al Quida is the real threat, and it's in Pakistan, not Iraq.lowing wrote:
I do not support our troops in Iraq to build a nation, I support our troops in Iraq because THAT is where the fight is right now. If the fight somehow moved to Canada, I would support our troops in Canada. If the fight switched to France, I would support our troops in France. I would only hope we could moblize before either fuckin' surrendered.
However, if you're wondering where the munitions come from, you have to remember that we poured arms into Iraq back when Saddam was our ally. After Saddam was deposed, it came as no surprise that many weapons went "missing." So really, this is more a matter of Al Quida entering Iraq at a chaotic time than it is a true establishment of Al Quida forces.
If we leave Iraq, it will make it easier for the Shia militias to deal with the Sunnis in the ways that are necessary to maintain order. Essentially, it's going to take a civil war between the Shia and Sunnis to stabilize Iraq, and it won't work unless we leave.
When this pure chaos erupts, Al Quida will be too busy fighting Shia militias in Iraq to establish any cells that are a threat to us. Meanwhile, our forces in Afghanistan and near Pakistan aren't powerful enough to get the job done over there. We really need to shift our manpower to that region and finish off what's left of Al Quida and the Taliban.
After that, we can see how Iraq turns out. Until then, we're just wasting money and lives in Iraq postponing an inevitable civil war.
Whatever happens in Iraq if we leave will not be in the best interests of the west. Al Queda with Iran backing will make sure of it.Turquoise wrote:
I would think that most of the enemies we face in Iraq are Shia militias and Sunni extremists. Among the Sunnis, there are some Al Quida members.lowing wrote:
Well, Turquoise, I am here right now, and I can tell you our choppers are not getting shot down with rocks! The locals here do not usually keep a stash of RPG's or bTurquoise wrote:
Um... ok... I don't know about you, but everything I've researched shows that Al Quida is primarily present in Pakistan and Afghanistan right now. THAT's where the fight is. Fuck this sectarian bullshit. Iraq needs to sort this out on it own terms. Al Quida is the real threat, and it's in Pakistan, not Iraq.
omb making materials including chlorine. They have shit here now, that can turn an M1 Abrams inside out. There is long standing proof that Al Quada IS in Iraq and that Iran is backing the efforts here. Your research does not reveal that?? Add to it, I support going to Pakistan and reinforcing our efforts in Afghanistan as well, but please make no mistake into thinking Al Queda is not in Iraq. This is the very reason this war can not be won by the US alone.
However, if you're wondering where the munitions come from, you have to remember that we poured arms into Iraq back when Saddam was our ally. After Saddam was deposed, it came as no surprise that many weapons went "missing." So really, this is more a matter of Al Quida entering Iraq at a chaotic time than it is a true establishment of Al Quida forces.
If we leave Iraq, it will make it easier for the Shia militias to deal with the Sunnis in the ways that are necessary to maintain order. Essentially, it's going to take a civil war between the Shia and Sunnis to stabilize Iraq, and it won't work unless we leave.
When this pure chaos erupts, Al Quida will be too busy fighting Shia militias in Iraq to establish any cells that are a threat to us. Meanwhile, our forces in Afghanistan and near Pakistan aren't powerful enough to get the job done over there. We really need to shift our manpower to that region and finish off what's left of Al Quida and the Taliban.
After that, we can see how Iraq turns out. Until then, we're just wasting money and lives in Iraq postponing an inevitable civil war.
This country does not need a civil war!, It needs time to stablize, for the govt. to take hold and establish managable law and order.
Right now the insurgents are doing their best to make sure everyone is worse off than before, this fuels the fire against the coalition. The reality is, if the people would join our efforts, the govt could get control and take over for themselves sooner so we CAN leave.
Al Quida and Iran hate each other. Iran is Shia, and Al Quida is Sunni.lowing wrote:
Whatever happens in Iraq if we leave will not be in the best interests of the west. Al Queda with Iran backing will make sure of it.
This country does not need a civil war!, It needs time to stablize, for the govt. to take hold and establish managable law and order.
Right now the insurgents are doing their best to make sure everyone is worse off than before, this fuels the fire against the coalition. The reality is, if the people would join our efforts, the govt could get control and take over for themselves sooner so we CAN leave.
Al Quida even recently made threats against Iran.
A common enemy in the west though. How does that go? The enemy of my enemy is my friend??Turquoise wrote:
Al Quida and Iran hate each other. Iran is Shia, and Al Quida is Sunni.lowing wrote:
Whatever happens in Iraq if we leave will not be in the best interests of the west. Al Queda with Iran backing will make sure of it.
This country does not need a civil war!, It needs time to stablize, for the govt. to take hold and establish managable law and order.
Right now the insurgents are doing their best to make sure everyone is worse off than before, this fuels the fire against the coalition. The reality is, if the people would join our efforts, the govt could get control and take over for themselves sooner so we CAN leave.
Al Quida even recently made threats against Iran.
Extremists are too fractious to capitalize on that kind of synergy.lowing wrote:
A common enemy in the west though. How does that go? The enemy of my enemy is my friend??Turquoise wrote:
Al Quida and Iran hate each other. Iran is Shia, and Al Quida is Sunni.lowing wrote:
Whatever happens in Iraq if we leave will not be in the best interests of the west. Al Queda with Iran backing will make sure of it.
This country does not need a civil war!, It needs time to stablize, for the govt. to take hold and establish managable law and order.
Right now the insurgents are doing their best to make sure everyone is worse off than before, this fuels the fire against the coalition. The reality is, if the people would join our efforts, the govt could get control and take over for themselves sooner so we CAN leave.
Al Quida even recently made threats against Iran.
Whatever the case, I just don't see how you can support the continuing efforts in Iraq, while more crucial battles are fought in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Actually I see the extremists as very deliberate in their actions, almost scary in their adaptations to the efforts launched against them. They are definitely a force to be reckoned with and not a bunch of local yokels running around shootin' up the place. They are underestimated by far, and that is what makes them so dangerous. Kinda like our arrogant attitude in Somalia in the early 90's.Turquoise wrote:
Extremists are too fractious to capitalize on that kind of synergy.lowing wrote:
A common enemy in the west though. How does that go? The enemy of my enemy is my friend??Turquoise wrote:
Al Quida and Iran hate each other. Iran is Shia, and Al Quida is Sunni.
Al Quida even recently made threats against Iran.
Whatever the case, I just don't see how you can support the continuing efforts in Iraq, while more crucial battles are fought in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
True... but again, if you believe that, wouldn't the higher numbers of extremists in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region justify more of an American presence in that area and less of one in Iraq?lowing wrote:
Actually I see the extremists as very deliberate in their actions, almost scary in their adaptations to the efforts launched against them. They are definitely a force to be reckoned with and not a bunch of local yokels running around shootin' up the place. They are underestimated by far, and that is what makes them so dangerous. Kinda like our arrogant attitude in Somalia in the early 90's.Turquoise wrote:
Extremists are too fractious to capitalize on that kind of synergy.lowing wrote:
A common enemy in the west though. How does that go? The enemy of my enemy is my friend??
Whatever the case, I just don't see how you can support the continuing efforts in Iraq, while more crucial battles are fought in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Perhaps, but it is no big secret that the US can not handle this situation alone. We toppled the govt. in Iraq for reasons that had nothing to do with terrorism. We have a responsibility to stay here and help sort this out \. We can not or should not abandon the people of Iraq. What needs to happen is more efforts from the rest of the world to get involved and maybe help out more in those two countries, or, relieve the US in Iraa so we can concentrate greater efforts there.Turquoise wrote:
True... but again, if you believe that, wouldn't the higher numbers of extremists in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region justify more of an American presence in that area and less of one in Iraq?lowing wrote:
Actually I see the extremists as very deliberate in their actions, almost scary in their adaptations to the efforts launched against them. They are definitely a force to be reckoned with and not a bunch of local yokels running around shootin' up the place. They are underestimated by far, and that is what makes them so dangerous. Kinda like our arrogant attitude in Somalia in the early 90's.Turquoise wrote:
Extremists are too fractious to capitalize on that kind of synergy.
Whatever the case, I just don't see how you can support the continuing efforts in Iraq, while more crucial battles are fought in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
...and what do you think the odds of that happening are?lowing wrote:
Perhaps, but it is no big secret that the US can not handle this situation alone. We toppled the govt. in Iraq for reasons that had nothing to do with terrorism. We have a responsibility to stay here and help sort this out \. We can not or should not abandon the people of Iraq. What needs to happen is more efforts from the rest of the world to get involved and maybe help out more in those two countries, or, relieve the US in Iraa so we can concentrate greater efforts there.Turquoise wrote:
True... but again, if you believe that, wouldn't the higher numbers of extremists in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region justify more of an American presence in that area and less of one in Iraq?lowing wrote:
Actually I see the extremists as very deliberate in their actions, almost scary in their adaptations to the efforts launched against them. They are definitely a force to be reckoned with and not a bunch of local yokels running around shootin' up the place. They are underestimated by far, and that is what makes them so dangerous. Kinda like our arrogant attitude in Somalia in the early 90's.
I know it's pessimistic, but seriously, why not own up to the fact that we're not going to get anymore help on this and that Pakistan is really our greatest threat? We seem to be holding out for what will never come....
Lack of help does not negate our responsibility to the people of Iraq. We can only do the best we can. If the world would rather sit back and criticize instead of help in this war against Islamic extremism ( that is, until they need help with it) then there is nothing we can do to stop them. I think toppling Saddam was just, I think the fight that ensued afterword is a fight that needs to be fought.Turquoise wrote:
...and what do you think the odds of that happening are?lowing wrote:
Perhaps, but it is no big secret that the US can not handle this situation alone. We toppled the govt. in Iraq for reasons that had nothing to do with terrorism. We have a responsibility to stay here and help sort this out \. We can not or should not abandon the people of Iraq. What needs to happen is more efforts from the rest of the world to get involved and maybe help out more in those two countries, or, relieve the US in Iraa so we can concentrate greater efforts there.Turquoise wrote:
True... but again, if you believe that, wouldn't the higher numbers of extremists in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region justify more of an American presence in that area and less of one in Iraq?
I know it's pessimistic, but seriously, why not own up to the fact that we're not going to get anymore help on this and that Pakistan is really our greatest threat? We seem to be holding out for what will never come....
Here's something I find odd... You've stated that you're against welfare, but you're in favor of what essentially is welfare for Iraq.lowing wrote:
Lack of help does not negate our responsibility to the people of Iraq. We can only do the best we can. If the world would rather sit back and criticize instead of help in this war against Islamic extremism ( that is, until they need help with it) then there is nothing we can do to stop them. I think toppling Saddam was just, I think the fight that ensued afterword is a fight that needs to be fought.Turquoise wrote:
...and what do you think the odds of that happening are?lowing wrote:
Perhaps, but it is no big secret that the US can not handle this situation alone. We toppled the govt. in Iraq for reasons that had nothing to do with terrorism. We have a responsibility to stay here and help sort this out \. We can not or should not abandon the people of Iraq. What needs to happen is more efforts from the rest of the world to get involved and maybe help out more in those two countries, or, relieve the US in Iraa so we can concentrate greater efforts there.
I know it's pessimistic, but seriously, why not own up to the fact that we're not going to get anymore help on this and that Pakistan is really our greatest threat? We seem to be holding out for what will never come....
Personally, I'd rather spend tax money on our own people than the people of Iraq. Yes, I understand the responsibility we have to these people because we ousted Saddam, but I think 4 years of help is more than enough. They need to be cut off now.
I just don't get how welfare offends you so much for our own people, but 4 years of it to Iraq is ok with you.
easily distinguishable. The people of America, have all the assistance they need to build a fantasitc life here. We have the freedom to choose our destinies. Enough said.Turquoise wrote:
Here's something I find odd... You've stated that you're against welfare, but you're in favor of what essentially is welfare for Iraq.lowing wrote:
Lack of help does not negate our responsibility to the people of Iraq. We can only do the best we can. If the world would rather sit back and criticize instead of help in this war against Islamic extremism ( that is, until they need help with it) then there is nothing we can do to stop them. I think toppling Saddam was just, I think the fight that ensued afterword is a fight that needs to be fought.Turquoise wrote:
...and what do you think the odds of that happening are?
I know it's pessimistic, but seriously, why not own up to the fact that we're not going to get anymore help on this and that Pakistan is really our greatest threat? We seem to be holding out for what will never come....
Personally, I'd rather spend tax money on our own people than the people of Iraq. Yes, I understand the responsibility we have to these people because we ousted Saddam, but I think 4 years of help is more than enough. They need to be cut off now.
I just don't get how welfare offends you so much for our own people, but 4 years of it to Iraq is ok with you.
The people of Iraq, Not the Islamic extremists, deserve the same choice.
A fantastic life, eh?... Is that why 80 million Americans don't even have health insurance?lowing wrote:
easily distinguishable. The people of America, have all the assistance they need to build a fantasitc life here. We have the freedom to choose our destinies. Enough said.Turquoise wrote:
Here's something I find odd... You've stated that you're against welfare, but you're in favor of what essentially is welfare for Iraq.lowing wrote:
Lack of help does not negate our responsibility to the people of Iraq. We can only do the best we can. If the world would rather sit back and criticize instead of help in this war against Islamic extremism ( that is, until they need help with it) then there is nothing we can do to stop them. I think toppling Saddam was just, I think the fight that ensued afterword is a fight that needs to be fought.
Personally, I'd rather spend tax money on our own people than the people of Iraq. Yes, I understand the responsibility we have to these people because we ousted Saddam, but I think 4 years of help is more than enough. They need to be cut off now.
I just don't get how welfare offends you so much for our own people, but 4 years of it to Iraq is ok with you.
The people of Iraq, Not the Islamic extremists, deserve the same choice.
Life here is obviously better than in Iraq, but the focus on the Middle East over the last several years has allowed things to deteriorate here at home.
I'm sorry, but I believe in putting America first. The Iraqi people are a distant second in my priority list.
couls it be that they do not have health insurance because they don't have marketable skills that companies are willing to pay for including a benifits package with health insurance? Like I said only the disabled and children warrant assisted living. That is of course you can tell me one single circumstance that can happen toa person that is completely beyond their control which warrants a free ride through life on the govts. back, IE the taxpayers back, IE MY BACK.Turquoise wrote:
A fantastic life, eh?... Is that why 80 million Americans don't even have health insurance?lowing wrote:
easily distinguishable. The people of America, have all the assistance they need to build a fantasitc life here. We have the freedom to choose our destinies. Enough said.Turquoise wrote:
Here's something I find odd... You've stated that you're against welfare, but you're in favor of what essentially is welfare for Iraq.
Personally, I'd rather spend tax money on our own people than the people of Iraq. Yes, I understand the responsibility we have to these people because we ousted Saddam, but I think 4 years of help is more than enough. They need to be cut off now.
I just don't get how welfare offends you so much for our own people, but 4 years of it to Iraq is ok with you.
The people of Iraq, Not the Islamic extremists, deserve the same choice.
Life here is obviously better than in Iraq, but the focus on the Middle East over the last several years has allowed things to deteriorate here at home.
I'm sorry, but I believe in putting America first. The Iraqi people are a distant second in my priority list.
How do you feel about the fact that HMO's reserve the right to deny coverage to their clients even after they've told them that they will pay for a given operation?lowing wrote:
couls it be that they do not have health insurance because they don't have marketable skills that companies are willing to pay for including a benifits package with health insurance? Like I said only the disabled and children warrant assisted living. That is of course you can tell me one single circumstance that can happen toa person that is completely beyond their control which warrants a free ride through life on the govts. back, IE the taxpayers back, IE MY BACK.Turquoise wrote:
A fantastic life, eh?... Is that why 80 million Americans don't even have health insurance?lowing wrote:
easily distinguishable. The people of America, have all the assistance they need to build a fantasitc life here. We have the freedom to choose our destinies. Enough said.
The people of Iraq, Not the Islamic extremists, deserve the same choice.
Life here is obviously better than in Iraq, but the focus on the Middle East over the last several years has allowed things to deteriorate here at home.
I'm sorry, but I believe in putting America first. The Iraqi people are a distant second in my priority list.
Our privatized healthcare has created a situation where most people can't afford health insurance and those that have it often are denied coverage. An entire component of this industry revolves around finding reasons to deny coverage.
This "fantastic life" you speak of is reserved for the rich and the lucky few that either make enough money to afford health insurance or happen to work for companies that provide it.
It's not a matter of marketability -- it's a matter of being at the mercy of HMO's.
You are switching from welfare to health insurance. Which topic do you prefer to discuss?Turquoise wrote:
How do you feel about the fact that HMO's reserve the right to deny coverage to their clients even after they've told them that they will pay for a given operation?lowing wrote:
couls it be that they do not have health insurance because they don't have marketable skills that companies are willing to pay for including a benefits package with health insurance? Like I said only the disabled and children warrant assisted living. That is of course you can tell me one single circumstance that can happen toa person that is completely beyond their control which warrants a free ride through life on the govts. back, IE the taxpayers back, IE MY BACK.Turquoise wrote:
A fantastic life, eh?... Is that why 80 million Americans don't even have health insurance?
Life here is obviously better than in Iraq, but the focus on the Middle East over the last several years has allowed things to deteriorate here at home.
I'm sorry, but I believe in putting America first. The Iraqi people are a distant second in my priority list.
Our privatized healthcare has created a situation where most people can't afford health insurance and those that have it often are denied coverage. An entire component of this industry revolves around finding reasons to deny coverage.
This "fantastic life" you speak of is reserved for the rich and the lucky few that either make enough money to afford health insurance or happen to work for companies that provide it.
It's not a matter of marketability -- it's a matter of being at the mercy of HMO's.
You know my position on welfare, so to answer your question on health insurance, no it isn't perfect, and you can most assuredly "what if" me to death with countless scenarios of fraud, waste and abuse.
However putting the govt. in control of health care does nothing except tighten the grip of the govt. on the people. Even greater dependency on the govt. is the goal of the democrats, they just mask it as "concern" for the people when in reality, all they want to do is gain even more control over your life. Unless you honestly believe that health care would be the ONLY govt. program that would be pure and not infested with corruption fraud waste and abuse.
Tim O'Brien and American National Identity:Marinejuana wrote:
The stories remind me of things I heard in Tim O'Brien books.
A Vietnam Veteran's Imagined Self in The Things They Carried
Paper given by Lynn Wharton at a conference on National Identities, held at King Alfred College, Winchester, England, in September 1999
In this paper I shall be examining Tim O'Brien's treatment of both the national and the personal American self in his collection of Vietnam War stories The Things They Carried. I will look at some of the ways in which O'Brien renders frail that veneer of authenticity traditionally associated with autobiographical first-person fiction. I will consider how O'Brien manipulates the reader's customary 'suspension of disbelief' by giving the narrator of The Things They Carried his own name and many of his own biographical details (date of birth, military record, and so on), while simultaneously stressing, throughout the narrative, that all the characters (including the narrator) are fictional and all the stories (including those in which the narrator takes part) are invented. It could be said that, in The Things They Carried, everything is true but nothing is authentic.
This dichotomy is not merely an academic conceit. O'Brien himself has repeatedly made two statements, throughout the text of The Things They Carried and in interview since the book's publication: 'This is a true story' and 'Everything is made up.' In writing specifically about war, O'Brien says, 'To generalize about war is like generalizing about peace. Almost everything is true. Almost nothing is true'.1 O'Brien thus effectively hampers any significant effort on the part of the reader to distinguish between fact and fiction, reality and imagination in this book. Most apposite to this paper, he hampers any attempts to distinguish between his 'real' self (the author Tim O'Brien) and his fictitious self (the narrator Tim O'Brien - the book's 'I' character). The two personae often give the appearance of becoming intertwined and almost indistinguishable, even in the author's mind. O'Brien's narrator says in The Things They Carried, 'It's not the surface that matters, it's the identity that lives inside' and this does seem to indicate that the 'real' identity of the narrator may not always be as clear-cut as it seems
http://www.49thparallel.bham.ac.uk/back … harton.htm
Last edited by Comrade Ogilvy (2007-07-23 13:53:31)
Don't be sorry, that's the way it should be. A country shouldn't be running around the world 'helping' people who haven't even asked for help when there are people suffering at home.Turquoise wrote:
A fantastic life, eh?... Is that why 80 million Americans don't even have health insurance?lowing wrote:
easily distinguishable. The people of America, have all the assistance they need to build a fantasitc life here. We have the freedom to choose our destinies. Enough said.Turquoise wrote:
Here's something I find odd... You've stated that you're against welfare, but you're in favor of what essentially is welfare for Iraq.
Personally, I'd rather spend tax money on our own people than the people of Iraq. Yes, I understand the responsibility we have to these people because we ousted Saddam, but I think 4 years of help is more than enough. They need to be cut off now.
I just don't get how welfare offends you so much for our own people, but 4 years of it to Iraq is ok with you.
The people of Iraq, Not the Islamic extremists, deserve the same choice.
Life here is obviously better than in Iraq, but the focus on the Middle East over the last several years has allowed things to deteriorate here at home.
I'm sorry, but I believe in putting America first. The Iraqi people are a distant second in my priority list.
Back on topic...To go along with these fake soldier stories...about 6 months ago or so, there was a person claiming to be an Iraq war veteran spewing all kinds of negative press about what he said our soldiers were doing (very similar and much worse than these stories). The left wing and anti-war activists jumped all over this guy, had him speaking at their rallies and video-taped his stories for use on websites all over the net. They were treating this guy like he was royalty....but...oops...turns out that he wasn't a soldier, he made everything up and nobody had taken time to find out that he was a fake. Actually people were pretty stupid and naive to not even check.... a lot of this type of stuff is out there and its a shame.
Sweet Jesus, the Turquoise Lowing show
Stephen Glass Meets the Winter Soldiers
The tendency to believe the worst.
By Mackubin Thomas Owens
As everyone knows by now, bloggers (including on National Review Online’s “The Tank” and “The Corner”) have begun to question the veracity of several The New Republic articles purportedly authored by an active-duty soldier serving in Iraq. The three articles by the pseudonymous “Scott Thomas” describe behavior by American soldiers that, while not rising to the level of atrocities, is nonetheless troubling. TNR’s “Baghdad Diarist” describes his mates mocking a woman horribly scarred by an IED, portrays another wearing part of a human skull, and depicts yet another using a Bradley fighting vehicle to run over stray dogs. What are we to make of these stories?
Michael Yon, perhaps the most reliable observer of troops in Iraq, labels the “Diarist’s” stories as “garbage.” Most of the other comments I have seen, especially by soldiers and Marines who are serving or have served in Iraq, describe the stories in less polite terms.
Nonetheless, the “Diarist’s” stories remind me of the sort of shocking and outrageous statements young men like to tell to credulous listeners. As the late Harry Summers, a veteran of two wars once remarked, such stories are intended to have the same impact as the sight of two Hell’s Angels French kissing in front of a group of bystanders: shock and awe. They also remind me of the predisposition of the American press to believe the worst about American soldiers, a predisposition that dates to the Vietnam War.
NRO readers may recall that I wrote a number of articles about atrocities, real and alleged, during the run up to the 2004 election. I was especially critical of John Kerry, who, despite honorable service during the Vietnam War, essentially smeared all of his comrades as war criminals after he left active duty. Who can forget his 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Here he invoked the so-called “Winter Soldier Investigation,” organized by such antiwar celebrities as Jane Fonda and conspiracy theorist Mark Lane, in which:
over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. . . . They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
As with the TNR case today, most Vietnam veterans took these confessions with a grain of salt. When I read Mark Lane’s 1970 book, Conversations with Americans, and the transcripts of the Winter Soldiers Investigation, I was struck by how implausible most of the atrocity claims were. I was apparently not alone. Lane’s book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as war supporters; Sheehan demonstrated that many of Lane’s “eyewitnesses” either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacities they claimed.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OW … ExMzAyNDU=
The tendency to believe the worst.
By Mackubin Thomas Owens
As everyone knows by now, bloggers (including on National Review Online’s “The Tank” and “The Corner”) have begun to question the veracity of several The New Republic articles purportedly authored by an active-duty soldier serving in Iraq. The three articles by the pseudonymous “Scott Thomas” describe behavior by American soldiers that, while not rising to the level of atrocities, is nonetheless troubling. TNR’s “Baghdad Diarist” describes his mates mocking a woman horribly scarred by an IED, portrays another wearing part of a human skull, and depicts yet another using a Bradley fighting vehicle to run over stray dogs. What are we to make of these stories?
Michael Yon, perhaps the most reliable observer of troops in Iraq, labels the “Diarist’s” stories as “garbage.” Most of the other comments I have seen, especially by soldiers and Marines who are serving or have served in Iraq, describe the stories in less polite terms.
Nonetheless, the “Diarist’s” stories remind me of the sort of shocking and outrageous statements young men like to tell to credulous listeners. As the late Harry Summers, a veteran of two wars once remarked, such stories are intended to have the same impact as the sight of two Hell’s Angels French kissing in front of a group of bystanders: shock and awe. They also remind me of the predisposition of the American press to believe the worst about American soldiers, a predisposition that dates to the Vietnam War.
NRO readers may recall that I wrote a number of articles about atrocities, real and alleged, during the run up to the 2004 election. I was especially critical of John Kerry, who, despite honorable service during the Vietnam War, essentially smeared all of his comrades as war criminals after he left active duty. Who can forget his 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Here he invoked the so-called “Winter Soldier Investigation,” organized by such antiwar celebrities as Jane Fonda and conspiracy theorist Mark Lane, in which:
over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. . . . They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
As with the TNR case today, most Vietnam veterans took these confessions with a grain of salt. When I read Mark Lane’s 1970 book, Conversations with Americans, and the transcripts of the Winter Soldiers Investigation, I was struck by how implausible most of the atrocity claims were. I was apparently not alone. Lane’s book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as war supporters; Sheehan demonstrated that many of Lane’s “eyewitnesses” either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacities they claimed.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OW … ExMzAyNDU=
Last edited by Comrade Ogilvy (2007-07-25 13:26:43)