Truly supporting our troops

[Fmr jarhead]

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.

I hope you don't think that we should let the British decide when and where we need to make a stand. Hell, why not just leave it to the French?

History will not stand on your side MRSX.

 

[no1tovote4]

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.

The Pope is a religious leader, not an international law attorney. Neither is Lord Goldsmith...

Once again, the UN definitely knew what they were voting on when the resolution included the words "Serious Consequences", they'd have to have been traveling in the dark with their heads in their asses not to have understood.

However, returning to the old "Only the UN can decide when we go to war" mentality that lead us to the attack on 9/11 would be disastrous. It is a clear danger to the nation to return to the policies the UN proposes that allow only for the "stability" of the region in question, only the insane person would think that we should continue on the same path that led to an attack yet still expect a different result.

In fact it is one of the definitions of insane to repeat the same behavior over and over, yet continue to expect a different result.

 

[mrsx]

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.

I suppose the definition of a dumb veteran would be a dumb guy who served in the armed forces. The service of dumb guys is no less worthy and all those of them who made the supreme sacrifice for their country are just as noble as anyone else who did the same. I think we agree that its the service and the sacrifice that are valuable. There are no resumes on those white crosses in Arlington.

We agree that the simple opinion is just as valuable as the nuanced one. That's why we each get one vote and all votes count equally (or at least they are supposed to). Many times, the simple people (and that's your term, not mine - dumb isn't the same as simple, see below) perceive the situation more clearly than those who process experience through the lense of some abstract theory. "No Viet Cong ever called me '******'" comes to my mind as an immediate example of a simple perception that revealed a deep truth.

There are some things where training and expertise weigh heavily. I'll go with the Ivy League trained surgeon over that nice guy, Vern, down at the bus depot when it comes an organ transplant every time. Modern warfare is another field in which there is no substitute for professional training. Gen. Shinseki was right about the troop levels required to secure lines of communication in Iraq. Dick Cheney, Doug Feith and company were wrong. Hundreds of our finest young people were blinded, maimed or killed because these dumb Ivy Leaguers -Cheney flunked out of Yale, Feith graduated Harvard - pulled rank on a professional soldier who was telling them something they didn't want to hear. That's not my idea of supporting the troops.

 

[mrsx]

The Pope is a religious leader, not an international law attorney. Neither is Lord Goldsmith...

Once again, the UN definitely knew what they were voting on when the resolution included the words "Serious Consequences", they'd have to have been traveling in the dark with their heads in their asses not to have understood.

However, returning to the old "Only the UN can decide when we go to war" mentality that lead us to the attack on 9/11 would be disastrous. It is a clear danger to the nation to return to the policies the UN proposes that allow only for the "stability" of the region in question, only the insane person would think that we should continue on the same path that led to an attack yet still expect a different result.

In fact it is one of the definitions of insane to repeat the same behavior over and over, yet continue to expect a different result.

Let's not jumble up two very different theaters of operation. I said in my very first post that I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban were in the pay of the people who attacked us on 9/11. No doubt about our right of self defence there - in the UN charter or anywhere else.

Iraq is a very different kettle of fish. There is good evidence that the administration was fooled about Saddam's WMD because it wanted to be fooled. However it came about, they were dead wrong about the WMD which *at the time* was the rationale they gave for attacking Iraq. The diversion of resources to the Iraq theater appears to be a very significant factor in Osama's escape from Tora Bora. U.S. military doctrine emphasizes focus on the "over-all strategic objective," and supports the ancient maxim against dividing one's forces in the face of the enemy. The Iraq adventure violated both principles and we are paying a heavy price for that folly. Support the troops indeed! The tragic irony is that the troops are supporting the administration.

 

[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.

You may think you can speak for most vets, but that's just part of your hysteria. No one has authorized you to speak for "most veterans" and it is presumtuous to claim to do so. This is another one of those false assertions of authority which, along with the name calling turns off someone like me who is trying to learn what you think. Now I have to ask not "what" but "if" you think.

 

[Annie]

You may think you can speak for most vets, but that's just part of your hysteria. No one has authorized you to speak for "most veterans" and it is presumtuous to claim to do so. This is another one of those false assertions of authority which, along with the name calling turns off someone like me who is trying to learn what you think. Now I have to ask not "what" but "if" you think.

And in no way do you speak for anyone but yourself. Actually, -=d=- has much more right to speak in a 'member of the military voice' than you do to chastise him for it. He's earned the right, you just complain.

 

[Annie]

Actually you can pretty much thank any vet for the stupidity you are spewing out at the moment, they are the ones that gave you the right and keep it your right!

Speaking of hysteria and turn off's???

It's the reason I had to ding her. Let her rant for awhile, but after the while, she showed her true feelings on the military.

 

[dmp]

You may think you can speak for most vets, but that's just part of your hysteria. No one has authorized you to speak for "most veterans" and it is presumtuous to claim to do so. This is another one of those false assertions of authority which, along with the name calling turns off someone like me who is trying to learn what you think. Now I have to ask not "what" but "if" you think.

Nobody has to authorize me to speak for most vets. I have God-given common sense to listen to vets; I'm around vets and current soldiers DAILY.

Here are 'other' facts I don't need authorization to proclaim, yet I know them to be true:

Most guys like sex.
Most women love to shop.
Most Republicans voted for GWB.
Most Fathers of Daughters love their little girls.

(shrug).

Here is what you are doing, and it's not intellectually honest:

You are looking - no SEARCHING for the onesies and twosies of vets which may share your point of view. That's fine - I've acknowledged their existance.

What I'm trying to TEACH you is, you're going to live a miserable, mis-guided life if you don't apply your beliefs to Common Sense, AND learn from those who know MORE than you.

In the area of what "soldiers think", I am an expert. There are others here who also are experts in that field...some more than I.

It's your lack of reading comprehension which makes me ask not 'what' but 'if' you think - as I didn't 'name-call'. I applied your "Fuck The Army" statement (which is insultive) to "You".

(shrug).

www.hop.com Check it out.

 

[Shattered]

Let the road to Goat Sucking status begin!

 

[mrsx]

The Pope is a religious leader, not an international law attorney. Neither is Lord Goldsmith...

Once again, the UN definitely knew what they were voting on when the resolution included the words "Serious Consequences", they'd have to have been traveling in the dark with their heads in their asses not to have understood.

However, returning to the old "Only the UN can decide when we go to war" mentality that lead us to the attack on 9/11 would be disastrous. It is a clear danger to the nation to return to the policies the UN proposes that allow only for the "stability" of the region in question, only the insane person would think that we should continue on the same path that led to an attack yet still expect a different result.

In fact it is one of the definitions of insane to repeat the same behavior over and over, yet continue to expect a different result.

I think it is possible that you do not comprehent the immediate and mid-term consequences of the situation in which Bush has put us. The pope is indeed a theologian; he is also a head of state of a soverign nation with which we have full diplomatic relations. He also has a staff of pretty good lawyers. They have reached the same conclusion as Goldsmith and the government of most members of the Security Council and the vast majority of governments in the world. This is a legal matter, not a philosophical one.

Of course, the United States is unlikely to be formally charged with war crimes, although Rumsfeld is being investigated by Germany on that charge as their law requires. He may possibly end up like Kissinger unable to travel to any of the nations which are signatories to the treaty establishing the World Court of Justice. But that is not really the point, either. Given the widespread hatred and fear our government has aroused in Europe, there is a very good possibility that the Europeans will lift their voluntary ban on high-tech weapons sales to China. This would allow China to purchase defense systems that would make the deployment of our Seventh Fleet to the Taiwan Straights untenable -a major loss of global power. There is a rapidly growing consensus that America has become unstable and threat to world peace. BTW, China has the money to buy all this stuff because of our multi-billion dollar trade imbalance. China, Japan and South Korea are currently lending the U.S. government a billion dollars a day. Without this support, the dollar would collapse and the American economy would plunge into a generation-long depression. The brief, glorious "American century" will come to a crashing close after only 90 years or so. We are weak and vulnerable beyond the realization of most Americans. All those billions worth of nukes aren't worth whale water in this millenium - just ask Putin. I am amazed at the lack of perspective you swaggering kids display. And Bush? - Truly, the monkey has opened the tiger's cage. Support the troops indeed!

 

[5stringJeff]

I think it is possible that you do not comprehent the immediate and mid-term consequences of the situation in which Bush has put us. The pope is indeed a theologian; he is also a head of state of a soverign nation with which we have full diplomatic relations. He also has a staff of pretty good lawyers. They have reached the same conclusion as Goldsmith and the government of most members of the Security Council and the vast majority of governments in the world. This is a legal matter, not a philosophical one.

Of course, the United States is unlikely to be formally charged with war crimes, although Rumsfeld is being investigated by Germany on that charge as their law requires. He may possibly end up like Kissinger unable to travel to any of the nations which are signatories to the treaty establishing the World Court of Justice. But that is not really the point, either. Given the widespread hatred and fear our government has aroused in Europe, there is a very good possibility that the Europeans will lift their voluntary ban on high-tech weapons sales to China. This would allow China to purchase defense systems that would make the deployment of our Seventh Fleet to the Taiwan Straights untenable -a major loss of global power. There is a rapidly growing consensus that America has become unstable and threat to world peace. BTW, China has the money to buy all this stuff because of our multi-billion dollar trade imbalance. China, Japan and South Korea are currently lending the U.S. government a billion dollars a day. Without this support, the dollar would collapse and the American economy would plunge into a generation-long depression. The brief, glorious "American century" will come to a crashing close after only 90 years or so. We are weak and vulnerable beyond the realization of most Americans. All those billions worth of nukes aren't worth whale water in this millenium - just ask Putin. I am amazed at the lack of perspective you swaggering kids display. And Bush? - Truly, the monkey has opened the tiger's cage. Support the troops indeed!

You have yet to answer my last post:

You will have to prove your case better than that. Not only were there 17 separate UN resolutions that the US stood its case on, there was also the original cease-fire from the 1991 Gulf War, which Iraq violated numerous times by shooting at US airplanes enforcing the no-fly zone. That alone would have been justification to take down Saddam's regime.

 

[mrsx]

Nobody has to authorize me to speak for most vets. I have God-given common sense to listen to vets; I'm around vets and current soldiers DAILY.

Here are 'other' facts I don't need authorization to proclaim, yet I know them to be true:

Most guys like sex.
Most women love to shop.
Most Republicans voted for GWB.
Most Fathers of Daughters love their little girls.

(shrug).

Here is what you are doing, and it's not intellectually honest:

You are looking - no SEARCHING for the onesies and twosies of vets which may share your point of view. That's fine - I've acknowledged their existance.

What I'm trying to TEACH you is, you're going to live a miserable, mis-guided life if you don't apply your beliefs to Common Sense, AND learn from those who know MORE than you.

In the area of what "soldiers think", I am an expert. There are others here who also are experts in that field...some more than I.

It's your lack of reading comprehension which makes me ask not 'what' but 'if' you think - as I didn't 'name-call'. I applied your "Fuck The Army" statement (which is insultive) to "You".

(shrug).

www.hop.com Check it out.

Do you know how many living American veterans there are? I checked with the V.A. to find out before responding to your silly proclamation. What percentage of that number have you even met? Pounding brews at the V.F.W. with a few other jingoes doesn't make you an expert. Biography doesn't confer authority; if it did, I happily match mine to yours. As for FTA, the fact that even you know what it means suggests that there may be a few more disaffected vets than a pathetic old RA lifer like you imagines. You have offered nothing in this discussion - neither facts nor analysis, only the comic assertion that you speak for millions. It would be "insultive" if it weren't so sad.

 

[Shattered]

Do you know how many living American veterans there are? I checked with the V.A. to find out before responding to your silly proclamation. What percentage of that number have you even met? Pounding brews at the V.F.W. with a few other jingoes doesn't make you an expert. Biography doesn't confer authority; if it did, I happily match mine to yours. As for FTA, the fact that even you know what it means suggests that there may be a few more disaffected vets than a pathetic old RA lifer like you imagines. You have offered nothing in this discussion - neither facts nor analysis, only the comic assertion that you speak for millions. It would be "insultive" if it weren't so sad.

My god, are YOU a fucking bitch.

Precisely what did you join this board for? Matters not. I doubt you'll be staying.

:fu2: :finger:

 

[Hobbit]

Do you know how many living American veterans there are? I checked with the V.A. to find out before responding to your silly proclamation. What percentage of that number have you even met? Pounding brews at the V.F.W. with a few other jingoes doesn't make you an expert. Biography doesn't confer authority; if it did, I happily match mine to yours. As for FTA, the fact that even you know what it means suggests that there may be a few more disaffected vets than a pathetic old RA lifer like you imagines. You have offered nothing in this discussion - neither facts nor analysis, only the comic assertion that you speak for millions. It would be "insultive" if it weren't so sad.

And precisely what have you done? You've spoken for hundreds of millions by claiming how much Europe is actually against us. You've told us how our puny nation stands on the brink of destruction and how Europe is going to sell us out to the Far East, yet you've given no evidence to back up your claim. Have you even been to Europe. Do you know anyone from Europe. Even if you do, I'm holding you to the same standard. I want notorized proof that you've personally spoken to at least 50% of the European population. Actually, I'll go easy, 50% of all members of European ruling bodies.

All you've done is insult our members and the country that most of us have pledged allegience to, and if I find out you're foreign, so help me, I'll verbally eat you alive. I live on a college campus and the thing that irks me the most is foreigners making themselves feel better by laughing at how dumb Americans are and how weak our country is, and that just barely beats Americans who barely try to contradict them in an apoligetic tone. As far as I can tell, you're the queen of an ivory tower, showering your infinite wisdom on the masses, and the 'kids' comment didn't help. Fine, you want the opinions of the masses? Go look at the statistics of polls taken on veterans' beliefs. You'll find that -=d=- is right. We watch the news. We read the papers. We talk to people. Collectively, we know at least as much as you do, so come down out of your ivory tower before we have to tear it down.

 

[CSM]

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?

I say horsecrap!

I am not angry, but you are trying to tell me that my opinions are of no value and yours are sacrosanct. The fact is, I am involved in much of the planning (past, present and future) of military operations where all those factors you mention are indeed a consideration. You make it sound like the "crimes" are soley the result of military action which leads me to believe you are slanting the perspective to make a point. As for adequate logistics, don't believe everything you read in the papers; some of us know different.

As for my military background...try figuring out what CSM stands for. Yes I have been to Okinawa...stationed there for 4 years, as a matter of fact.

You denigrate my authoritarian stance but laud your own; just a bit hypocritical, isn't it?

Finally, I would like to point out that I have neither defended nor approved any of the acts you mentioned in this thread in any of my posts in this thread. Unlike you, I prefer not to make inflamatory generalizations just to get somebody spun up.

 

[CSM]

I suppose the definition of a dumb veteran would be a dumb guy who served in the armed forces. The service of dumb guys is no less worthy and all those of them who made the supreme sacrifice for their country are just as noble as anyone else who did the same. I think we agree that its the service and the sacrifice that are valuable. There are no resumes on those white crosses in Arlington.

We agree that the simple opinion is just as valuable as the nuanced one. That's why we each get one vote and all votes count equally (or at least they are supposed to). Many times, the simple people (and that's your term, not mine - dumb isn't the same as simple, see below) perceive the situation more clearly than those who process experience through the lense of some abstract theory. "No Viet Cong ever called me '******'" comes to my mind as an immediate example of a simple perception that revealed a deep truth.

There are some things where training and expertise weigh heavily. I'll go with the Ivy League trained surgeon over that nice guy, Vern, down at the bus depot when it comes an organ transplant every time. Modern warfare is another field in which there is no substitute for professional training. Gen. Shinseki was right about the troop levels required to secure lines of communication in Iraq. Dick Cheney, Doug Feith and company were wrong. Hundreds of our finest young people were blinded, maimed or killed because these dumb Ivy Leaguers -Cheney flunked out of Yale, Feith graduated Harvard - pulled rank on a professional soldier who was telling them something they didn't want to hear. That's not my idea of supporting the troops.

Waddyaknow, something we can agree upon.

I do wonder what "deep truth" was revealed by that supposed quote about the Viet Cong? Could it be the VC didn't generally speak English very well???

 

[Said1]

I say horsecrap!

I am not angry, but you are trying to tell me that my opinions are of no value and yours are sacrosanct. The fact is, I am involved in much of the planning (past, present and future) of military operations where all those factors you mention are indeed a consideration. You make it sound like the "crimes" are soley the result of military action which leads me to believe you are slanting the perspective to make a point. As for adequate logistics, don't believe everything you read in the papers; some of us know different.

As for my military background...try figuring out what CSM stands for. Yes I have been to Okinawa...stationed there for 4 years, as a matter of fact.

You denigrate my authoritarian stance but laud your own; just a bit hypocritical, isn't it?

Finally, I would like to point out that I have neither defended nor approved any of the acts you mentioned in this thread in any of my posts in this thread. Unlike you, I prefer not to make inflamatory generalizations just to get somebody spun up.

Actually CSM, I think she sounds a little angry in most of her posts.

 

[CSM]

Actually CSM, I think she sounds a little angry in most of her posts.

I don't know about angry but the arrogance displayed is truly awe-inspiring!

 

[Annie]

I don't know about angry but the arrogance displayed is truly awe-inspiring!

Anger, ignorance, and unwanton sense of superiority all would be apt descriptions of her posts thus far.

 

[mrsx]

I don't know about angry but the arrogance displayed is truly awe-inspiring!

You are right that I have become more and more angry in this thread and I apologize to everyone. I am not used to this on-line exchange of ideas and I wasn't well prepared for the name calling, pontificating, and nit-picking that form the lingua franca of this discourse. I apologize for becoming like my opponents and contributing to the very thing that I have criticized. Originally, my interest was "the troops" as individual human beings. Perhaps that isn't a topic that works here. I certainly couldn't make it work, but then I'n not a blogger type.

Having failed to make this thread pleasant or useful, I'm going to sign off; but before I do, I want to tell you just a little about my background - not to justify what I have said, but in the hope that you all will understand me better and forgive my having offended you.

I grew up in a tiny, isolated town in the mountains of Pennsylvania. Both my parents died before I was 12 (I think I mentioned that my Dad died on active duty - he was killed on Okinawa). The relatives who raised me were a lot older than my parents. They were kind, but distant and I was a lonely kid. I did go to college at a little place no one has ever heard of, and then to nursing school courtesy of the G.I. Bill benefits from my Dad. Try telling me these government programs are a waste of money!

I was recruited into the Navy right after graduation and spent almost my entire service in Norfolk. The hospital was bigger than the entire town in which I grew up. I did the full rotation but spent the largest part of my two tours in the maternity ward. I loved the Navy. Being an officer was a big step upward for a little girl from nowhere. This was during the period between Korea and Viet Nam, so we saw a lot more car wrecks than combat casualties.

I met my husband, a widower, 20-and-out Chief who was on the edge of retirement. We married at the end of my second tour and moved to a town here in Maine. We had a son from my husband's first marriage. He meant the whole world to me and when he joined the military, it seemed the most natural thing in the world. He didn't go Navy; instead he followed two of his best friends from high school into the Army, joined the 82nd Airborn. He was deployed to the Dominican Republic in one of those nation building expeditions that seemed like a big deal at the time but nobody remembers any more. He died in a freak accident while they were loading up to come home.

I have never blamed the military for my son's death the way some mothers do. I am proud he served his country. As I have sat here and watched TV, it seems to me that the gap between them the military my Dad was in and where we are now has grown and grown. From fighting to be left alone, we've become like the Roman Legions, scattered around the world holding down people for fun and profit. I don't have the sense of certainty you-all seem to have about what's right. I wish I could have grown up with my Dad, but I understand. I know the Navy is good people. I can still see the brave face my son put on for his Mom. I can't say what his death accomplished and I think of him when I think of supporting the troops. I'm glad to be driving Frankie. I just don't know. You folks seem so sure that you do.

Bye for now.