Truly supporting our troops

[dilloduck]

You can stop guessing, I'll dumb it down for you. One of your co-geniuses suggested that Bush's 2004 election campaign was in effect his recruiting pitch for the War on Terror and that we Dems. didn't notice because our heads were ... Oh well, you can just scroll back up to see the remark.

Accepting the premise about the campaign, I'd say that the cowadly sliming of Kerry's war record from the supporters of a candidate whose daddy got him jumped over 184 guys on the waiting list for a safe berth in the TANG wasn't much of call to the defence of freedom. The fact that the little doper went AWOL and got away with it because of his political connections might also be why Bush didn't have much to say about active duty service during the campaign.

As for being called a twit by the likes of you, it only hurts when I laugh.

How many times were you passed over before you "retired" ? Something had to turn you this bitter.

 

[mrsx]

How many times were you passed over before you "retired" ? Something had to turn you this bitter.

I was never passed over. I was a Navy nurse (officer in name only) with a spotless record. My bitterness comes from the sadness I feel over the death of my stepson who died on active duty with 82AB in Santo Domingo way back when. In the many years since that loss, I've come to see that the loss of that young man's entire future and what it meant to his family really wasn't justified by the situation he was sent to respond to - it was presidential politics. That hasn't made me at all bitter about the uniformed military. I'm still in touch with a couple of his army buddies who are by now like nephews or something to me. I have nothing but pride and respect for those boys (as I think of them, even though they are getting a bit long in the tooth and I am positively ancient). I feel the same about the young men and women in Iraq today. They are doing their part as American patriots. I think the political leadership is exploiting their sense of DUTY HONOR COUNTRY for unworthy ends.
BTW my own father died when I was just a little girl. He was a Marine killed by a sniper on Okinawa. I never really knew him. Even today, the nation honors the memory of those brave men who died protecting our country in World War II. And that is as it should be. The nation (not the military family) has had a very different take on people like my stepson, like the Marines who died in Beirut, like the Rangers who died in Mogadishu. I don't think anyone believes that those boys were any less brave or patriotic; but their mission was more questionable and less central to what this country is all about.
The Commander-in-Chief holds in trust the "lives, fortunes and sacred honor," of the our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. When there is a consensus that we are striking back a those who have attacked us in order to preserve our liberty and our independence, the military becomes the highest expression of our national will and our national value system.
Colin Powell insisted that there be broad national support before our troops were commited. Bush didn't do that in Iraq. I'm afraid that as a result a very large number of our citizens think that our troops are not acting in their name, that they are mercenaries fighting for foreign oil. I'm not saying I think that, but I remember how ambivalent we were about the sacrifices of our troops in Viet Nam. I never want to see anything like that again, but I am afraid I'm going to.
I think it is great and honorable that the Army is recognizing that MI was out of control in Abu Ghraib and that those undertrained reservists were not "bad apples." I note that it is still only the uniformed officers who are stepping up to the issue. The role of Bush, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Feith, Cheney and others in suspending SOP in regard to interrogation procedures is on the record but not yet being connected to events in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It will be some day I am sure. I see them as sleazy, dishonorable rats who tried to hang the blame for everything on a couple of privates. I can't imagine George Marshall or Franklin Roosevelt (whose son was a colonel in combat) doing that to the WWII generation. I think it stinks. If you want to defend it, go ahead.
I hope this clarifies my position. I can tell from the flames and name calling that I'm not getting through to a lot of you on this. I'm sorry for my poor communication. Please check to see if you are really listening.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Colin Powell insisted that there be broad national support before our troops were commited. Bush didn't do that in Iraq.

And in your son's honor you disrespect the loss of lives of 15 nation's shildren who have died as a part of the multinational force in Iraq? Shame on you!

To state that there is no broad support is a complete abberration of the facts, ma'am!

Tell that to the Poles, or the Italians, or the Dutch, or the English, or the Estonian parents who have lost children, 92 in all from other countries!

Don't lecture me about loss! I don't expect, nor want a pity party! I don't need a nation to "recognize" any sacrifice...nor expect it.

Thanks for your diatribe. I suspect many here have heard about enough of your sniveling!

 

[mrsx]

Your courtesy is exceeded only by your good sense, Sir! As to our noble allies - the retreat that began with the Royal Army of Tonga has become a rout. The original list of so-called allies and their relative contributions was pathetic - which is why you chest-beaters never go into details about it. The leaders who pushed their folks into it without popular support have paid a political price. "Allied" opinion is solidly against Mr. Bush's Arabian Nights fantasy and Americans now say it was a mistake by 2-to-1. Most of America and all the rest of the world can see that we got in there by mistake (at best) and are losing worse and worse each day. There isn't going to be any "stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq." What's going to be left is a couple of thousand white crosses and 20,000 kids blind, maimed and disabled because armchair superpatriots like you were suckered by a crafty old Haliburton executive who didn't go to Viet Nam because, in his immortal words, "I had better things to do" and a blustering ex-drunk whose pappy bought him out of the war and covered up his AWOL.

As for my "sniveling" I dare you to find any statement of self-pity in what I wrote about my father or my stepson. My late husband was career Navy. I served honorably for over eight years. My father died in the service. I am a gold star mother. Who the hell are you and what gives you the right to characterize my opinions as snivelling? You are a disgrace to the uniform you are trying to hide behind. Shame on you!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your courtesy is exceeded only by your good sense, Sir! As to our noble allies - the retreat that began with the Royal Army of Tonga has become a rout. The original list of so-called allies and their relative contributions was pathetic - which is why you chest-beaters never go into details about it. The leaders who pushed their folks into it without popular support have paid a political price. "Allied" opinion is solidly against Mr. Bush's Arabian Nights fantasy and Americans now say it was a mistake by 2-to-1. Most of America and all the rest of the world can see that we got in there by mistake (at best) and are losing worse and worse each day. There isn't going to be any "stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq." What's going to be left is a couple of thousand white crosses and 20,000 kids blind, maimed and disabled because armchair superpatriots like you were suckered by a crafty old Haliburton executive who didn't go to Viet Nam because, in his immortal words, "I had better things to do" and a blustering ex-drunk whose pappy bought him out of the war and covered up his AWOL.

As for my "sniveling" I dare you to find any statement of self-pity in what I wrote about my father or my stepson. My late husband was career Navy. I served honorably for over eight years. My father died in the service. I am a gold star mother. Who the hell are you and what gives you the right to characterize my opinions as snivelling? You are a disgrace to the uniform you are trying to hide behind. Shame on you!

Negativism and naysaying is not the height of intellectual achievement. You distort facts to support your negative view. Bush won reelection; blair won reelection. Put that in your peace pipe and hit it.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

The original list of so-called allies and their relative contributions was pathetic - which is why you chest-beaters never go into details about it. The leaders who pushed their folks into it without popular support have paid a political price.

They have paid the political price by being re-elected by the majority...remember the whole red state, blue state thing that happened last Novemember. The price is high...for those who support your appeasement, and weak knees, as you so proudly proclaim.

Your claim of being is Gold Star mother would be accurate, had you had a son who served in WWII, but then again, your revisionist history books have proven to be skewed....

Your opinion of me, and my service is a non issue....you should do better to serve the memory of your son! His death is no less important than the deaths of the 92 international troops who has died in Iraq, bringing democracy to thier country. You'd best re-think your opinion of those who have served and died...

I wish you well...but you do no honor to those who have served, sacrificed, and continue to do so.

Have a nice day!

 

[dmp]

Your courtesy is exceeded only by your good sense, Sir! As to our noble allies - the retreat that began with the Royal Army of Tonga has become a rout. The original list of so-called allies and their relative contributions was pathetic - which is why you chest-beaters never go into details about it. The leaders who pushed their folks into it without popular support have paid a political price. "Allied" opinion is solidly against Mr. Bush's Arabian Nights fantasy and Americans now say it was a mistake by 2-to-1. Most of America and all the rest of the world can see that we got in there by mistake (at best) and are losing worse and worse each day. There isn't going to be any "stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq." What's going to be left is a couple of thousand white crosses and 20,000 kids blind, maimed and disabled because armchair superpatriots like you were suckered by a crafty old Haliburton executive who didn't go to Viet Nam because, in his immortal words, "I had better things to do" and a blustering ex-drunk whose pappy bought him out of the war and covered up his AWOL.

As for my "sniveling" I dare you to find any statement of self-pity in what I wrote about my father or my stepson. My late husband was career Navy. I served honorably for over eight years. My father died in the service. I am a gold star mother. Who the hell are you and what gives you the right to characterize my opinions as snivelling? You are a disgrace to the uniform you are trying to hide behind. Shame on you!

selfish. ethnocentric. fantasy. Those terms describe your posts so-far.

 

[mrsx]

Negativism and naysaying is not the height of intellectual achievement. You distort facts to support your negative view. Bush won reelection; blair won reelection. Put that in your peace pipe and hit it.

Thank you for moving beyond the politics of personal distruction and back to the issue. I am surprised to see you citing Blair's re-election because a) I thought you didn't care what furriners thought about our invasion of Iraq and b) Blair lost both seats and credibility over the Iraq issue. He won despite Iraq not because of it. The Conservatives did not oppose Iraq so the anti-war vote had no place to go and most Labor voters didn't want to commit suicide on important social issues by throwing their vote away on a 3rd or 4th party candidate that would only help the Conservatives.

As for Bush's "mandate" and "political capital," he did everything he could to avoid making the election about Iraq. Vague references to "the War on Terror," shameful sliming of Kerry's Viet Nam service (I'd agree Kerry was a bit glory hungry but he did volunteer, did go there, did get shot at, all of which is a lot more than Bush could say).

Which brings us back to "values voters" and the issue of gay marriage. Everyone from Carl Rove to the TV pundits agrees that this, not the war in Iraq, was what gave Bush his tiny margin of victory in Ohio and thus the election. Bush himself has attributed that margin of victory to the Catholic Cardinals who announced that Kerry should not be given the Eucharist. It is really a stretch to say that Bush squeaked into a second term because the country backed him on Iraq. We've learned (after the election curiously enough) that the information he gave us about Saddam etc. was "flawed." Whatever they thought on election day, most voters think it was a mistake in hindsight. Opinion in the rest of the world, including our brave allies in Palau and Togo, has taken an even dimmer view of the whole business. The Spanish government fell because of its involvement. The Italian government fell apart because of sending troops to Iraq "to die for Bush" as their press puts it. Cram that in your war pipe and suck it!

BTW I have no problem with the legality of what Bush has done (morality, definitely an issue for me) and, although I disagree with you, I respect your view on the Iraq policy. The point I am trying to make - and I'm sorry if I get too shrill when people attack me personally and call me names - is that Bush did not follow the "Powell Doctrine" which he specifically endorsed before the election. That doctrine, as you may recall, was designed to avoid future Viet Nam type debacles and "nation building" fantasies by insisting that:
1) military intervention have broad popular support
2) overwelming military force be employed for a swift conclusion
3) the plan include a clear exit strategy at the outset.

The issue I am trying to raise is that the growing disenchantment with this botched adventure is going to splatter back on the military long after Bush is back in Crawford clearing brush or whatever. I have already seen arguments that the drop in recruiting shows that our soldiers join the service for the economic benefits not because of patriotic valor. Before you vapor lock over that one, let me state I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IS TRUE. It is evidence of who is going to carry the can (however unfairly) for this one. That is what I worry about.

I respect your right to your view. If you insist that unless I am enthusiastic about the leadership of our elected politicians I am unpatriotic and do not support our military, then you just don't understand the American system. Do you agree?

 

[dmp]

our soldiers join the service for the economic benefits not because of patriotic valor.

Irrelevant.

 

[mrsx]

selfish. ethnocentric. fantasy. Those terms describe your posts so-far.

We've crossed swords and I've whipped your ass before. When pontificating fails, you turn to personal attacks and name calling. When you fail to cow your victim with that crap, you utter these summary judgements as if you had proved anything beyond your own shallow pomposity and lack of information. It's your way of saying "you got me but I'll never admit it." Thanks

 

[5stringJeff]

BTW I have no problem with the legality of what Bush has done (morality, definitely an issue for me) and, although I disagree with you, I respect your view on the Iraq policy. The point I am trying to make - and I'm sorry if I get too shrill when people attack me personally and call me names - is that Bush did not follow the "Powell Doctrine" which he specifically endorsed before the election. That doctrine, as you may recall, was designed to avoid future Viet Nam type debacles and "nation building" fantasies by insisting that:
1) military intervention have broad popular support
2) overwelming military force be employed for a swift conclusion
3) the plan include a clear exit strategy at the outset.

I think you are incorrect about this.

1. The Iraq war had broad support at its outset, even if a minority disagreed. Bush also had broad support in Congress, who authorized him to deploy troops.
2. This was quite obviously done. The war itself lasted a few weeks. The "nation-building" phase is still on going. This leads right into...
3. The plan has always been for troops to leave once Iraq had a stable democracy established and was able to defend itself. We're not there yet; thus, our troops are still there.

 

[mrsx]

Irrelevant.

A high-minded and patriotic sentiment indeed.

 

[dmp]

We've crossed swords and I've whipped your ass before. When pontificating fails, you turn to personal attacks and name calling. When you fail to cow your victim with that crap, you utter these summary judgements as if you had proved anything beyond your own shallow pomposity and lack of information. It's your way of saying "you got me but I'll never admit it." Thanks

Whipped my ass? You should be so lucky. Here's how your posts are exactly what i describe:


selfish: Poor Me! I've lost a stepson. No other loss of life is important. Because of MY loss, I have the right to insult the honor of OTHERS serving, especially those dead who come from small countries.


ethnocentric: Related to above: you don't seem to give two rat's asses about the loss of life and the support given by other countries; you dissmiss them because of the AMOUNT Of help they've given, while ignoring the sacrifices made. Doing this brings shame upon you, and your stepson.

Fantasy: You create generalizations to support your view - instead of looking at hard facts, you present twisted facts. You make facts line up with your views, instead of the other way around.

 

[dmp]

A high-minded and patriotic sentiment indeed.

Okay - as if to a 5 year old:

The reasons a man or woman joins the Military are numerous. Some are financial. Some are for Education. Some are out of a sense of patriotism. The 'reason' people enlist is irrelevant to how they are serving....or the reasons they 'stay' in.

 

[mrsx]

I think you are incorrect about this.

1. The Iraq war had broad support at its outset, even if a minority disagreed. Bush also had broad support in Congress, who authorized him to deploy troops.
2. This was quite obviously done. The war itself lasted a few weeks. The "nation-building" phase is still on going. This leads right into...
3. The plan has always been for troops to leave once Iraq had a stable democracy established and was able to defend itself. We're not there yet; thus, our troops are still there.

Thank you for the courtesy of your reply. I agree with you that "we're not there yet." Staying until Baghdad turns into East Mayberry may have always been the plan, but it isn't quite what Cheney and the boys were saying before the shooting started. "Greeted as liberators ... showered with flowers and candy ... out in a matter of weeks, a year at most," is what I remember hearing from them on Meet the Press etc. So now we should continue to borrow a billion dollars a day from the Chinese to pay for this bloody quagmire until pigs fly? Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.

 

[5stringJeff]

Thank you for the courtesy of your reply. I agree with you that "we're not there yet." Staying until Baghdad turns into East Mayberry may have always been the plan, but it isn't quite what Cheney and the boys were saying before the shooting started. "Greeted as liberators ... showered with flowers and candy ... out in a matter of weeks, a year at most," is what I remember hearing from them on Meet the Press etc. So now we should continue to borrow a billion dollars a day from the Chinese to pay for this bloody quagmire until pigs fly? Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.

So you're upset because it's taken longer than a year?

 

[dmp]

So you're upset because it's taken longer than a year?

Jeff - this chick REALLY needs to see Don's ppt presentation, eh?

 

[5stringJeff]

Jeff - this chick REALLY needs to see Don's ppt presentation, eh?

Yeah... too bad it's 43MB!

 

[dmp]

Yeah... too bad it's 43MB!

Do you have a copy? send it to me, if you will...

 

[mrsx]

Okay - as if to a 5 year old:

The reasons a man or woman joins the Military are numerous. Some are financial. Some are for Education. Some are out of a sense of patriotism. The 'reason' people enlist is irrelevant to how they are serving....or the reasons they 'stay' in.

I was refering to your intention to fight to keep as much of YOUR money as you possible can.

As for military service, I agree with you that the motivation is irrelevant; it's the service that counts. Most of WWII's heroes were draftees. I have no problem admitting that I joined the Navy because it seemed like the best deal. The difference between an all-volunteer force and a standing army of mercenaries is one of political perspective, not paychecks. I'm very concerned that opinion is going to turn against the military and that they will be denigrated for a situation in which they acted honorably and with success but which the politicians screwed up.

I don't know why you have to try to be sarcastic and condescending. It doesn't strengthen your argument and it makes it harder for me to focus on the issues.