Truly supporting our troops

[mrsx]

The troops are what they are doing. The troops are their cause.

Who in the administration has publicly or privately stated that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint"?

I totally disagree with your second paragraph. If such were the case, our college campuses would all be in flames.

Finally, I was in the Army both during the Viet Nam "adventure" and for a long time after. There is no comparison between then and now.

The now A.G. Mr. Gonzales, I believe, was the one officially responsible for the argument that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the "war on terror." Bush and Rumsfeld have both made noises to the effect that prisoners are going to be treated humanely even though the GC does not protect them. It is not surprising that the administration would take this view of a treaty ratified by the Senate - after all, Bush has also described the Treasury bonds held by Social Security as "worthless I.O.U.'s."

Subsequent revelations about widespread torture and even murder in both Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention at Guantanamo and flying detainees to Kyrgistan or Egypt for torture by outsourcing) make clear that Abu Ghraib was not an isolated incident.

A number of the infamous photos of prisoner abuse show what are clearly older men with greying crew cuts and BDU without insignia, both watching and participating in these war crimes. Do you think they might be just tourists, or could they be spooks? Did Lyndie buy that dog leash (now being called a "restraint") in the PX?

Your service in Viet Nam does not give you any special knowlege or value as a witness beyond those things you actually saw. Tell me that you never saw or heard of any atrocities by U.S. troops there and I'll believe you. The overwhelming majority of German soldiers in Hitler's Werhmacht neither saw nor committed any war crimes. They were honest patriots caught up in the acts of an evil regime. For me, making that distinction is basic to honoring our troops in both Viet Nam and Iraq, or are you suggesting that Lt. Calley should be honored for his services at Mai Lai?

BTW I wasn't suggesting that our armed forces at this moment are in the same predicament the Viet Nam war put us in in the early 1970's. History doesn't repeat itself that way because the social and political climate is so different. But we are headed for real trouble. Recruiting quotas are unfulfilled and recruiters are involved in a scandal that is just beginnning to break. The morale situation in-country is far more complex and less rosy than the TV is showing us. The widening gap in treatment of National Guard vs RA is leading to a real split between the country and the professionals. The regular army itself - especially the officer corps - is becoming more isolated and more culturally homogeneous (small town, born again, social conservatives). In Germany, these were the Prussians. Put them in charge of a self-selected standing army backed up by Fox TV and Karl Rove's fake news machine and you have a prescription for something far more dangerous than the Viet Nam malaise.

The sad fact is that we're out of money, out of lies and getting our ass whipped over there. If Bush wanted to support the troops, he'd learn from Reagan's blunder in Lebanon and send them all to Grenada.

 

[mrsx]

We had the legal right based on UN Security Council mandates. Do some research before you come spoutin' off.

In fact....in FACT...if I had my druthers, we'd lay the smack down upon a few 'other' nations, too.

Now, now, sonny let's not be gettin' our panties into a bunch. The issue of whether the US had a mandate from the UN to start bombing Baghdad is far more murky than you suppose. Besides the Sec. Gen. most of the Security Council and almost all of the General Assembly did not read it that way - which is why Bush decided to start shooting without any clear resolution of authorization.

This smack we are laying down doesn't seem to be working very well. They used to hate and fear us. Now they just hate us. What's more, we haven't the force level to move on to Teheran and we don't have the balls to take on North Korea (thank God!)

 

[Said1]

Your service in Viet Nam does not give you any special knowlege or value as a witness beyond those things you actually saw. Tell me that you never saw or heard of any atrocities by U.S. troops there and I'll believe you. The overwhelming majority of German soldiers in Hitler's Werhmacht neither saw nor committed any war crimes.

YOU are a vile worthless slime. You don't deserve to drive a vet, let alone be present to discuss anything on this message board you scum bag.

 

[mrsx]

YOU are a vile worthless slime. You don't deserve to drive a vet, let alone be present to discuss anything on this message board you scum bag.

"Well, I can only say I'd hoped you would not be making that point. This is where my argument falls to the ground." - Monty Python.

When you finish hyperventilating into that combat boot, I'd appreciate an elucidation of this synoptic presentation of your views on WWII, Viet Nam or whatever it is the voices are telling you.

 

[Said1]

"Well, I can only say I'd hoped you would not be making that point. This is where my argument falls to the ground." - Monty Python.

When you finish hyperventilating into that combat boot, I'd appreciate an elucidation of this synoptic presentation of your views on WWII, Viet Nam or whatever it is the voices are telling you.

How about you get bent pit stain?

 

[mrsx]

How about you get bent pit stain?

I just got off the phone with the vet I'll be driving for treatment Monday. It's a five hour commitment, plus gas and tolls. He doesn't sound anything like your or that other foul mouthed dork. I'd love to know what you lads are doing to support the troops besides making fools of yourself on this BBS.

Aside from the invective, I did learn that "support the troops" means back the government policy - at least to the chest thumpers. Oh well, in that case, I don't support the troops, I guess. I have a lot of sympathy for all those working class kids for whom the military is their best economic opportunity and whose heads have been stuffed with all that "defending freedom" and "be all you can be" stuff. Everyone uses that brass band when sending 19-year-olds off to slaughter. We used to do it better, but it's always sad.

As for bullying other countries around, I notice that the Pentagon is now saying that Uncle Sam's ability to do more than bluster has been "significantly degraded" by getting his dick caught in the Iraq meat grinder. Nice going, all you bully-boys! You armchair generals get all hopped up on Bill O'Reilley and Enzite, then it's off to war (on TV only). Too bad you picked on Muslim fundamentalists instead of some hapless Guatamalan Indians. Osama & Co. think very much the way you do, except they really believe in God and are ready to die for their beliefs.

I'll ask Frankie (that's the name of the vet I'm driving for) what he thinks of all this and let you know. From the sound of his voice, he's pretty young. Maybe he was in Gulf I.

P.S. Women can't get bent (or didn't you know?). Your wit and wisdom have done your cause proud anyway.

 

[GotZoom]

I just got off the phone with the vet I'll be driving for treatment Monday. It's a five hour commitment, plus gas and tolls. He doesn't sound anything like your or that other foul mouthed dork. I'd love to know what you lads are doing to support the troops besides making fools of yourself on this BBS.

Aside from the invective, I did learn that "support the troops" means back the government policy - at least to the chest thumpers. Oh well, in that case, I don't support the troops, I guess. I have a lot of sympathy for all those working class kids for whom the military is their best economic opportunity and whose heads have been stuffed with all that "defending freedom" and "be all you can be" stuff. Everyone uses that brass band when sending 19-year-olds off to slaughter. We used to do it better, but it's always sad.

As for bullying other countries around, I notice that the Pentagon is now saying that Uncle Sam's ability to do more than bluster has been "significantly degraded" by getting his dick caught in the Iraq meat grinder. Nice going, all you bully-boys! You armchair generals get all hopped up on Bill O'Reilley and Enzite, then it's off to war (on TV only). Too bad you picked on Muslim fundamentalists instead of some hapless Guatamalan Indians. Osama & Co. think very much the way you do, except they really believe in God and are ready to die for their beliefs.

I'll ask Frankie (that's the name of the vet I'm driving for) what he thinks of all this and let you know. From the sound of his voice, he's pretty young. Maybe he was in Gulf I.

P.S. Women can't get bent (or didn't you know?). Your wit and wisdom have done your cause proud anyway.

I'm glad you are volunteering your time. Frankie, and other veterans will appreciate your efforts - it would be nice if more people did what you are doing.

Don't automatically assume that "support the troops" means to "support the war." A lot of people can't differentiate between the two. And a lot of people can.

As long as you can - and you continue to support the troops, then you will hear nothing negative to you from me.

 

[no1tovote4]

Now, now, sonny let's not be gettin' our panties into a bunch. The issue of whether the US had a mandate from the UN to start bombing Baghdad is far more murky than you suppose. Besides the Sec. Gen. most of the Security Council and almost all of the General Assembly did not read it that way - which is why Bush decided to start shooting without any clear resolution of authorization.

This smack we are laying down doesn't seem to be working very well. They used to hate and fear us. Now they just hate us. What's more, we haven't the force level to move on to Teheran and we don't have the balls to take on North Korea (thank God!)

First of all, the entire Security Council knew what "Serious Consequences" meant when they voted for that resolution.

Secondly, North Korea wouldn't even have Nuclear weapons if we didn't pay them with food and money in order to keep them from building them, while they went behind our back and used the food to feed the scientists building them and the money to pay for the materials to build them. The failed policies of "pay for Peace" and bilateral talks was shown to be a farce of monumental proportions.

Thirdly, the policies in the Middle East appear to actually be working as shown by the actions in Lybia and the letters we intercepted talking about the low morale of the terrorist operatives. We cannot afford to go back to the State Dept. mentality of supporting governments no matter how repulsive in order to keep the "stability" of the region for business transactions.

And lastly, easy as it is to point out mistakes, as demonstrated here by you, we seem to be hearing very few positive plans from you that would point us in the "right" direction. So far all you have shown us is that it is very easy to criticise and much more difficult to come up with a working plan, especially when the actual results have little impact on the criticism.

 

[CSM]

The now A.G. Mr. Gonzales, I believe, was the one officially responsible for the argument that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the "war on terror." Bush and Rumsfeld have both made noises to the effect that prisoners are going to be treated humanely even though the GC does not protect them. It is not surprising that the administration would take this view of a treaty ratified by the Senate - after all, Bush has also described the Treasury bonds held by Social Security as "worthless I.O.U.'s."

That doesn't answer my question. Who said the Genevea Conventions are "archaic"? You made the statement that this was said. Whether they apply to terrorists or not is a whole different issue.

Subsequent revelations about widespread torture and even murder in both Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention at Guantanamo and flying detainees to Kyrgistan or Egypt for torture by outsourcing) make clear that Abu Ghraib was not an isolated incident.

Allegations and conjecture, although I have no doubt that some torturing of prisoners did occur. I wont get into the whole debate about the difference between "abuse" and "torture" as it has been done to death on this board.

A number of the infamous photos of prisoner abuse show what are clearly older men with greying crew cuts and BDU without insignia, both watching and participating in these war crimes. Do you think they might be just tourists, or could they be spooks? Did Lyndie buy that dog leash (now being called a "restraint") in the PX?

She could have bought the dog leash at the PX, but I doubt it. There is no question that there were and are "spooks" in many facitlities in Iraq.

Your service in Viet Nam does not give you any special knowlege or value as a witness beyond those things you actually saw. Tell me that you never saw or heard of any atrocities by U.S. troops there and I'll believe you. The overwhelming majority of German soldiers in Hitler's Werhmacht neither saw nor committed any war crimes. They were honest patriots caught up in the acts of an evil regime. For me, making that distinction is basic to honoring our troops in both Viet Nam and Iraq, or are you suggesting that Lt. Calley should be honored for his services at Mai Lai?

What does Mai Lai have to do with your original statment about young soldiers resorting to rape and murder? That generalization is what got my hackles up and now you imply that the majority of soldiers neither saw nor committed such acts. which is it? And why are your opinions of that era any more valid than mine?

BTW I wasn't suggesting that our armed forces at this moment are in the same predicament the Viet Nam war put us in in the early 1970's. History doesn't repeat itself that way because the social and political climate is so different. But we are headed for real trouble. Recruiting quotas are unfulfilled and recruiters are involved in a scandal that is just beginnning to break. The morale situation in-country is far more complex and less rosy than the TV is showing us. The widening gap in treatment of National Guard vs RA is leading to a real split between the country and the professionals. The regular army itself - especially the officer corps - is becoming more isolated and more culturally homogeneous (small town, born again, social conservatives). In Germany, these were the Prussians. Put them in charge of a self-selected standing army backed up by Fox TV and Karl Rove's fake news machine and you have a prescription for something far more dangerous than the Viet Nam malaise.

I know far more about the relationship between the Guard, Reserves, and active duty than you ever will. I know more about active duty members (officer and enlisted) than you ever will and I know far more about the level of morale among the troops over than than you ever will. What is the source of your information in this regard? Mine is first hand experience (recent and other wise) as well as having personal contacts with many, many soldiers (including my sons) who have been there, returned, and are going back.

The sad fact is that we're out of money, out of lies and getting our ass whipped over there. If Bush wanted to support the troops, he'd learn from Reagan's blunder in Lebanon and send them all to Grenada.

I don't agree that we are "getting our ass whipped over there". If you wanted to support our troops, you would stop making specious allegations about the level of their morale or morals.

 

[Said1]

I just got off the phone with the vet I'll be driving for treatment Monday. It's a five hour commitment, plus gas and tolls. He doesn't sound anything like your or that other foul mouthed dork. I'd love to know what you lads are doing to support the troops besides making fools of yourself on this BBS.

Aside from the invective, I did learn that "support the troops" means back the government policy - at least to the chest thumpers. Oh well, in that case, I don't support the troops, I guess. I have a lot of sympathy for all those working class kids for whom the military is their best economic opportunity and whose heads have been stuffed with all that "defending freedom" and "be all you can be" stuff. Everyone uses that brass band when sending 19-year-olds off to slaughter. We used to do it better, but it's always sad.

Why in the hell would anyone let you near a vet? Seriously? Are you planning to have this cool “rap” session regarding your opinions/bullshit?

What have I done you ask? Well, aside from spending many years at Loebs selling poppies, up until 2000, my husband and I volunteered at two local legions in this city. We did whatever was asked, from cleaning to setting up for banquets etc. I started doing that with him in 1993, and he had been doing that since he was a teenager. I sold poppies with my father in-law and another family friend until my father-in-law died in 1997. Having a family and a job, and going to school part time does not allow much time for extras anymore.

As for bullying other countries around, I notice that the Pentagon is now saying that Uncle Sam's ability to do more than bluster has been "significantly degraded" by getting his dick caught in the Iraq meat grinder. Nice going, all you bully-boys! You armchair generals get all hopped up on Bill O'Reilley and Enzite, then it's off to war (on TV only). Too bad you picked on Muslim fundamentalists instead of some hapless Guatamalan Indians. Osama & Co. think very much the way you do, except they really believe in God and are ready to die for their beliefs.

Wow, go smoke another one, you armchair freak. Oh, and nice language asshole. Again, who in their right mind would let you near a vet?

I'll ask Frankie (that's the name of the vet I'm driving for) what he thinks of all this and let you know. From the sound of his voice, he's pretty young. Maybe he was in Gulf I.

And make sure you tell us what he thinks of your opinion of his service, and the service of others. I’m sure “Frankie” will agree with whatever you say......NOT.

P.S. Women can't get bent (or didn't you know?). Your wit and wisdom have done your cause proud

As yours must be proud too.
And besides, with a little creativity, anyone can get bent. In your case, once that vet hears the spooge you’ve been posting here, I think he might do it for you.

 

[dilloduck]

Why in the hell would anyone let you near a vet? Seriously? Are you planning to have this cool “rap” session regarding your opinions/bullshit?

What have I done you ask? Well, aside from spending many years at Loebs selling poppies, up until 2000, my husband and I volunteered at two local legions in this city. We did whatever was asked, from cleaning to setting up for banquets etc. I started doing that with him in 1993, and he had been doing that since he was a teenager. I sold poppies with my father in-law and another family friend until my father-in-law died in 1997. Having a family and a job, and going to school part time does not allow much time for extras anymore.




Wow, go smoke another one, you armchair freak. Oh, and nice language asshole. Again, who in their right mind would let you near a vet?



And make sure you tell us what he thinks of your opinion of his service, and the service of others. I’m sure “Frankie” will agree with whatever you say......NOT.



As yours must be proud too.
And besides, with a little creativity, anyone can get bent. In your case, once that vet hears the spooge you’ve been posting here, I think he might do it for you.

Spooge???? Canadian I guess

 

[Said1]

Spooge???? Canadian I guess

Might be. :huh:

 

[dilloduck]

Might be. :huh:

LOL think I'll use it around here and see if anyone knows what the hell I'm talking about

 

[no1tovote4]

Spooge???? Canadian I guess

Nah, we use that in Colorado too. Of course that may be why all those Niagara, NY folk thought my accent was Canadian.

I couldn't figure it out, no "eh's" in my conversation....

Those people in the UK thought I sounded Canadian too.

We also don't say "aboot" and other Canadianisms.


:cof:

 

[mrsx]

If you look back, the adjective used about the GC was by the AG was "quaint." My statement about young soldiers on occupation duty in a country where they don't know the language etc. is supported by every study done by our armed forces as well as those of culturally similar nations. It is pretty much a truism in military history and a discussion of the issue can be found in official manuals such as The Officer's Guide and the curriculum of the various staff schools run by the army at places like Benning or Leavenworth. Much as it might trouble us to have to think about it, this is a fact of military life. Ever been to Okinawa? I have.

A more useful line of discussion is the incidence (as in rapes per 1,000 soldiers per year). Here I think we can both be proud of our personnel, who are substantially less likely to be involved in these incidents than soldiers in other armies. Nonetheless, each such incident is a crime and a tragedy with life-long consequences for perp as well as vic - whether apprehended or not. Like collateral damage, these crimes are a (statistically) forseeable consequence of military operations and add to the gravity of the decision to go to war, a gravity that seemes to have escaped this administration along with the need for adequate logistics etc. etc. I'm not trying to attack every act by every American in the military - it would be foolish for you to try to defend every act by every American in the military.

Your authoritarian assertions about how much you know from personal experience are off point for two reasons. One, I haven't told you very much about my own military background execept for the fact that my Dad was killed in WWII and that I have been on Okinawa, so we can't really compare resumes. Two, even if we could, anecdotal experience isn't of much help in discussing the effects of 140,000 personnel stationed in a country of 26 million. It's like saying, "my brother-in-law used to live in Milwaukee and he said that crime there is just as bad as in New York City."

The assertion of authority, like the personal invective, is an indication of an inappropriately emotional approach to the discussion. If you can put aside your anger and your fear, I would like to learn what I can from your knowlege and experience. Whaddaya sa?

 

[mrsx]

I'm going to support Frankie, not to quiz him about politics; however, if the opportunity comes up, I'll definitely sound him out and let you know what he says. Meanwhile, I'd ask you to reconsider your idea that "vets" have a single set of opinions and speak with one voice about anything - especially the military and American foreign policy. There is a lot of fear and anger out here now, some of it stirred up by politicians for tactical advantage. There are thoughtful (as well as dumb) veterans on every side of every issue. Let's not stereotype veterans or presume to speak for all of them.
F.T.A.
mrsX

 

[dmp]

Let's not stereotype veterans or presume to speak for all of them.
F.T.A.
mrsX

No...how about F.mrsX.?

How about this - I can speak for "most" vetarans on subjects regarding Military Service, and the current war. Sure - I know some Far-Left Vets...one SGT in my office continues on rants and ravings fit for DemocraticUnderground. He's in the minority.

 

[Said1]

I'm going to support Frankie, not to quiz him about politics; however, if the opportunity comes up, I'll definitely sound him out and let you know what he says. Meanwhile, I'd ask you to reconsider your idea that "vets" have a single set of opinions and speak with one voice about anything - especially the military and American foreign policy. There is a lot of fear and anger out here now, some of it stirred up by politicians for tactical advantage. There are thoughtful (as well as dumb) veterans on every side of every issue. Let's not stereotype veterans or presume to speak for all of them.
F.T.A.
mrsX

That isn't my idea, nor have I given any indication that what you've said about me in the above quote is true. I have not stereotyped anyone, with the exception of possibly you. I'd also ask YOU to re-read some of the things you've posted in this thread with respect to vets. You have made some very generalized, derogetory AND stereotypical statements, perhaps you would like to take a second and retrack them. Or is that what you just did above?

PS: Are you scared and angry?

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Most of us veterans can and do speak for ourselves, quite well....what would be a definition of a dumb veteran? Should their service be of less value because they are not as smart (or have the same opinion) as others?

I would happily consider the value of a simple opinion not muddled by life's complexities rather than one that has been brainwashed by Ivy League schools....but then again, I am just a simple (dumb) jarhead who grew up in Wyoming.

 

[mrsx]

The problem with your conclusion is that it totally ignores the terms of the cease-fire that ended the 1st Persian Gulf War. In the terms of the agreement, hositilities were ceased as long as Iraq complied with the terms. Well, he didn't comply and 12 years laters, we finally did something about it and forced compliance upon him. Therefore, the war, if tried by a jury, would not be found to be illegal as he was in direct violation of the cease-fire agreement.

A couple of easily accessible opinion makers who have concluded that the American attack was not authorized the UN resolutions are:
Britain's attorney general Lord Goldsmith, who warned Mr. Blair about the legality of taking Britain to war in Iraq in 2003 without specific new authorization from United Nations, and Pope John Paul II, who has written that the war was both illegal and immoral. You can Google either of these leads with ease, but if you are having trouble, I'll help you find the documents.