Yup.. those pesky Iraq Vet's coming back to America... they are going to be the death of us all! :sleeping:
Its so annoying to have an administration doing non-stop campaigning 3.5 years before the election.
I seriously doubt it would have been modified. Post release reaction may have been different. But, as I'm fond of pointing out...
Irish Cannon specifically asked: "Do you really think Bush would have been okay with the release of this?" To which my answer was: "Yes." Care to point out the red herring their?
Actually you started with the Bush response.
Yeah... Paul's national defense and war views were his downfall.. i dont like serving in a war and being told it was for nothing.
I think RP's views were different because he served as a medic in Vietnam. No one would have like serving during that time.
Correct, but did you know that DHS's legal counsel advised against using overly broad language in the report. DHS's head shed went against the advice of their own legal counsel and released it without changes. I don't think they would have released it without modifying it under Republican leadership. The Republican party calling their entire political platform a justification for terrorist activity doesn't pass the common sense test.
Because RobIn Kuwait said: "Its so annoying to have an administration doing non-stop campaigning 3.5 years before the election." The report's initiation and for the most part completion during the past administration would have some bearing on that statement. Once more, seems you guys are a little defensive on the Bush administration when, to be blunt, the blatant big government spending trends and police state habits of our current 'leaders' probably have more root in the last eight years than in any previous administration.
This belies the Republicans vociferous objections to Clinton's military 'adventurism'. Paul is the only Republican with a spine, spine enough to stand up to the war faction of his own party and calmly explain that consistently bombing people in the name of peace is idiotic, counterproductive, and as economically desctructive as any welfare program.
Even if that's the truth? In order to correctly identify the proper use of the military in world affairs we need to abandon the BS ideology that every time a soldier cuts a fart they're defending our freedom. In order to be defending our freedom they need to be put against a legitimate threat to our freedom. Al Qeda and by default Afganistan? Yes. Arguable, but solid enough. Iraq? No. Iran? Likely not. At some point in the debate over the middle east our past interventions and the people they have legitimately pissed off are going to have to be dealt with as a matter of making current and future policy. So long as people like McCain insist on calling that reasoned approach "blaming America," as if our foreign policy is somehow magically immune to negative consequences, no progress will be made on this front. Paul brought blow back into the national debate on this issue from the conservative stand point, a debate that has been all too long dominated by morons like Hannity.
Possibly. This however does not change the substance of the report and what it means for US citizens.
Actually it does. It shows that even after they were warned that the report was "overly broad" and that they should narrow the focus they still choose to go against that recommendation and release it. I personally believe it was done to create division and foster a mentality that opponents to the Democrat's platform are terrorists. Also, it should be noted that the only other group that the term "extremist" has been applied to is Islamic extremists. All the memos warning of left wing groups did not include that term.
You are ingoring the broader problem associated with this memo. Past memos are arguably just as overly broad in defining leftist, peace oriented groups as terrorist or extreme in nature. Remember Project Megiddo? The various communications during the Bush years that indicated the FBI/CIA were potentially monitoring groups like Green Peace? This is hardly new. What is new is the source: ERB. The Extremist and Radicalization Branch of DHS. This is in effect the first government office whose sole purpose is to spy on, classify, and asses threats based on US citizens' ideological and political associations. ERB was brought into existence under Bush, not Obama. A recent article on the subject points out that,
The import of this report isn't that the current administration is anti right wing, it's that for the first time in the history of this country - thanks to Bush and all those who under his leadership were so quick to **** on the consitution and use such feces as lube for a nice slippery slope - federal, state, and local police have essentially all be deputized to report on the peaceful and constitutionally protected activities of the citizens of this country for possible use in detention and questioning. Your fixation on the ideological slant has lead you to ignore this point altogether. Or, perhaps you wouldn't much care except that by an accident of administration it was pointed at your ideology and not the lefty's?
You and CDB can piss off on this theory... only people that haven't served criticize so blatantly. To go through what myself or any other Sailor/Soldier/DevilDog/Airman at least deserves some sort of respect. The shear amount of getting pissed at least deserves them that. They should be afforded some extra respect and/or leniency while following orders, cause Lord knows nothing else is given.
This is a bullshit argument. I don't need to be a master carpenter to know a shitty dovetail joint when I see one, I don't need to be a soldier to know what is and is not a proper or constitutional use of the military. I respect the military and all those in it who are willing to sacrifice for this country's good. However, soldiers are not automatically saints, nor are the civilian politicians who decide how they are used. In fact the latter tend to be idiots more often than not, and in my opinion the military has been ill used by them for the better part of the last century and currently.
And exactly how is questioning the use of the military as dictated by politicians disrespectful? You are not saints, what you go through does not excuse you or the people who give you assignments from moral and ethical judgement.
I am not questioning the troops, I am questioning morons like Sean Hannity and his ilk who try to transform legitimate policy debates and dissents into attacks on the military. It's a bullshit debate tactic and only idiots and people who are overly emotionally involved fall for. My guess is you're in the latter category. Get over it.
No, they are not. Soldiers are only defending our freedom if they are fighting a legitimate threat to our freedom. Iraq in general, Saddam in particular, and the thirty thousand or so dead Iraqi civilians out there, not to mention the thousands of troops we lost in achieving the end of killing all of them, were never a threat to US security or safety. They were never a threat to any US citizen's rights or well being. Our security is arguably worse off because of the troops we had to sacrifice thus far.
Your emotions are clouding your judgement on this one, DA. If you honestly conflate questions of policy with attacks on the troops then you need to take a step back and realize there is a big difference between honorable men and women who are willing to die for the well being of others, and the **** storm of vile ****s in DC who are mostly responsible for taking these well meaning people and using them for means other than for which they were intended.
I agree Adams. To say that one doesn't agree with a war is one thing, but to imply that an individual Soldier has anything other than one vote out of 110 million to do with the decision to wage war is totally off base. The decision to use force always falls back on civilians in Washington. They're the ones that should be held accountable for US foreign policy.
Link, please.
So by your logic every soldier that ever accomplished a mission in history should be congratulated?
Way to liberally twist my words to make it say what you want.. if you do not see the US implementation of my comment, then you are not for this conversation.
Funny... cause when you DON'T agree... you REALLY don't agree. No middle ground for you my friend.
I'm not "liberally twisting," your words. I'm asking you a question and you're completely avoiding it. Let's try again. So, based on what you've just added, only US soldiers should be congratulated on a completed mission?
YES... I thought that was the implication. If a US soldier is ordered to perform a mission, and he succeeds, he SHOULD be congratulated. There was no skating the question, your words were loaded and didn't warrant a response.
If you have a problem with the mission US Soldiers are assigned, you should criticize the politicians who assign them the mission. US Soldiers don't get to pick and choose missions.
They do however have a choice whether or not to join the military, and I assume have some idea of the missions they are go on beforehand. I can understand not criticizing soldiers for policy, but nor do they deserve automatic congrats for completing a mission. If they want congratualtions then the mission better be constitutional, authorized along the same lines, and to the benefit of the population at large in defending their liberties. I have yet to see a single mission that I know of that fits that bill in the last few decades at least.
Aha, so it's only US soldiers that can do no wrong and deserve universal praise...
We're wasting our time with this line of questioning. Reason is not the driving force behind the other side of this argument. Plain statements are in order:
irrationally suggested? Do you live under a rock?
Yes, and last I checked I had not only not spit on any soldiers, but the last donation I had given to someone was to a local guy who my dad used to work with who works personally with vets who have mental problems adjusting to civilian life. Before that it was my friend's lukemia charity.
No, DA, it is your views that are tunneled and skewed to the point that anyone not offerring free blow jobs to enlisted men is somehow defiling their honor and that of the whole military. Please explain to me what is so wrong with this particular statement. I'm not asking for another emotional tirade about soldiers being spit on, how hard their lives are, what wonderful people they all are, etc., etc., etc. I want to know what specifically is wrong with this statement: "Not all US military missions are in the best interests of the United States, especially when they are not constitutionally authorized and do not serve to protect the freedoms and lives of American citizens from clear and present dangers."
I know, I know, God forbid the enlisted man think for himself, the world might end in an orgy of gay ass ****ing or something... This is completely beside the point as no one is blaming the soldier for the policy he is enforcing, just as I wouldn't blame a gun or a knife for the way it is used. However a soldier is not an inanimate object and can't be regarded as such.
Sure. Just point me to the statement where I said soldiers are immoral you liar. Quote me directly. Where is it? I have said soldiers are capable of making moral judgements on their own. How the **** does that translate what passes for your mind into "soldiers are immoral"?
This was a generalization, not directed at you per say, but aimed at the rationale that US soldiers are bad because they carry out the orders from above them, and that since not disregarding such orders is a mark on their moral character.
There is NOTHING wrong with THAT statement. But your notions earlier were not expressly directed at the policy makers.
HOLY FCK man... You just don't get it. A soldier CAN think for themselves... BUT can they act for themselves... FCK NO. Get that into you skull, democratically elected officials gets to tell the military what to do, the E3 on the front line getting shot at has no SAY in what he/she can or cannot elect to do.
Your statement of soldiers can think for themselves and does not absolve them of the atrocities they have committed implies their acts are immoral, thus they are immoral... do you not get your own statements?
I don't even know why I debate with you... you have no concept of the military heirarchy, and what a troop can or cannot do. Question policy all you want, i don't care about policy... but disregarding the troop at the ground level serving out those policies pisses me off. Join the military and walk up to your CGO, and let them know the dead Iraqis hold more weight in your mind than your own fallen citizens, and see what that gets you.
I don't think congratulations are necessarily in order, but criticizing those sworn to follow the orders of elected officials for following the orders of elected officials is ignorant.
Obviously you've never been a Soldier, so I'll excuse your ignorance. Soldiers take pride in their country and thus take pride in executing the orders of their country. They have a choice....to be a good Soldier or bad Soldier. A good Soldier follows orders with very few exceptions.
Why? It's not something I'm prone to do, I'd rather give people, especially soldiers the benefit of the doubt. But it's not like what the military does is by and large a secret. However, doesn't joining and swearing to follow those orders at least on some level indicate a general agreement with them on an individual level?
Irrelevant. I have been and continue to be a citizen whose life and liberty are on the line and in greater danger these days than before because of what politicians have ordered the military to do currently and in the recent past. And since the last attack, 9/11, was essentially in my backyard and a few hundred people I was connected with got wiped among the thousands, my opinion will ****ing be heard, military experience or not.
So there are exceptions then, as I said. Thanks.
You should have pressed the question. The answer might not have been good, or useful, or one either one of us would want to hear. But the question needs asking in my opinion if the military is to be regarded as more than a mere tool, like a knife or gun.
I joined because I love this country for what it represents and its founding principles, though I agree that of this country's principles have changed for the worst over time. I also joined to pay for college. This wasn't my primary purpose for joining, but many Soldiers do join initially as a way of bettering themselves. The military offers "a way out" for many poor and and inner city kids.
You misread what I was saying. I didn't say your opinion was irrelevent, I was saying if you have never been a Soldier or been around other Soldiers you probably don't understand a Soldier's mentality. Soldiers often take pride in remaining apolitical and following orders. A professional Soldier is an occupation, the best Soldiers seek to be the best at their job that they can be, just like the best firefighters or police officers seek to be the best at their job they can be. As a Company Commander, my goal is to get my 200 Soldiers as ready to execute the mission tasked to me as possible. I want them to know their job and know the skills necessary to do whatever is asked of us, whether that is assisting in Katrina or fighting in Afghanistan. I know that these Soldier's lives are in my hand and that distractions can be lethal to them. While you seem to be considering whether force should be applied. They are considering the best way to apply that force. If they expanded to determining whether force should be applied, it would be at the detriment of their mission and ultimately could cause Soldiers to die.
I'm a Soldier speaking out right now. At the same time, Soldiers have to be very careful about speaking out as it is illegal to speak out against those in your chain of command for while still active duty. Soldiers are not mindless wretches trained like dogs, they just understand that they execute orders, not decide orders. That's why our armed forces is ran by civilians, as a check and balance against military dictatorship.
There are exceptions, I won't murder a baby even if the President is standing next to me ordering me to do so. At the same time, if I am ordered to execute a mission that goes against my sensibilities on what the role of the government and military should be, I'll execute anyways. I may not like it, but I took an oath.
I really already knew the answer. Just war is irrelivant to Soldiers, as they don't pick when and where they'll fight. I don't think the military should be regarded as anything more than a tool to execute directives for the elected officials in this country.
And I'm not happy about that as I feel some of them are basically railroaded into the military. However, as to you specifically: one, thanks for the service; two, I personally will never vote to send your ass anywhere unless the threat is clear, present, and about to blow up; three, I have no problem footing the education bill as I'd rather have smart people with guns than stupid. Now try and not get shot.
Dad was a ranger, trust me when I say I get it. I might have been in the military too had I not been 6'4" by the time I was in fifth grade with shitty eyes and knees. Suffice it to say I was the only kid I know not in the military who awoke to reveille almost every morning. Dad was a card.
Fair enough, as a matter of priorities I could care less if the 'rightness' of the mission is way, way down on the list for the most part.
Good balance against dictatorship, bad balance against frequent, bloody ass wars it seems.
Good advice. :numbered:
Damn....how tall are you?
Also, what's 'right' at the tactical level is a lot different than what's right at the strategic level. Congress and the President may be worried about whether invading Iraq is the 'right' course of action, whereas I'm worried about my Soldiers doing the 'right' thing staying alive and not killing non-combatants. On some level, it could be analogous to the question of whether any Soldiers in Nazi Germany did the 'right' thing, or were they all wrong simply because their nation was wrong strategically.
True.
Still 6'4". Seems that was all I had in me.
And not necessarily in the army's interest.
