Kerry, the 4-Month Warrior

Mike Eberhart | July 30, 2004
This is from the epilogue of his 1971 anti-war book, The New Soldier, the following:

"We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day waving small flags. We are asking America to turn from false glory, hollow victory, fabricated foreign threats, fear which threatens us as a nation, and shallow pride which feeds off fear. It is from these things that the new soldier is asking America to turn."

Also some little bits from some Vietnam Vets...:
Kerry's repeated mention of Vietnam in his presidential bid has irked some veterans because of the anti-war positions he took once he returned from his four-month tour of duty. Kerry became an influential leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, aligning himself with activist Jane Fonda. One sign on Wednesday compared "Hanoi Jane" to "Hanoi John."

The future U.S. senator also testified before Congress about alleged atrocities that American soldiers had committed in Vietnam. Those memories still linger for some veterans.

"Because of people like Kerry and Fonda, Vietnam vets had to hide under a rock for 15 years," said Reg Cornelia, 60, East Hampton, N.Y. "He came back and he lied about the atrocities, and worse still, he brought guys to testify before Congress who he knew had never served in Vietnam." "We know he's a phony," Booth said. "You don't get two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star in 21 days. You don't do it, no way. I was at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] for 18 months. I got one Purple Heart. I lost an eye, part of my jaw and got hit in the arm. This guy's got three scratches and he's making a big deal out of it. It doesn't seem right."

This is who we want possibly leading the country. An anti-war hippie. Not for me thanks.....

Jackie Mason | July 30, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 30, 2004
I have great respect for anyone who went to Vietnam. I certainly wouldn't have gone.

Better than Bush, who went AWOL from the National Guard.

Jackie Mason | July 30, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | July 30, 2004
From Kerry's speech last night:
"I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States."
and
"As president, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system, so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to."

No matter what conservatives do, they always take quotes out of context. Like 4 years ago with Gore's "I invented the internet." He was making a joke for crying out loud.

And about "war", war should be fought to defend your country, not for revenge. Iraq has never attacked the United States. Why should we invade them? Because they're a possible threat.? Or because Saddam planned an assanination attempt on President Bush Sr.?

Anna Gregoline | July 30, 2004
Oh, I'm sure liberals take a lot of quotes out of context too. Everybody does it.

I don't blame Bush for not wanting to go to war either - but he signed up, and if he was going to be sent, he should have gone. Kerry at least fulfilled his duty. I find it odd that people stand by a military deserter that starts wars, if that stuff is important to you, instead of seeing the merits of a man who went and fought and then after seeing the atrocities, tried to do his best to bring his comrades home.

Scott Horowitz | July 30, 2004
My main hope is this president is elected by the people, not by the supreme court. Hopefully, Jeb won't throw a few thousand ballots into the Gulf Of Mexico this time.

Mike Eberhart | July 30, 2004
Yeah, that really happened.

John E Gunter | July 30, 2004
[quote]Oh, I'm sure liberals take a lot of quotes out of context too. Everybody does it.[/quote]

Thanks for saying something I was going to say Anna. It's good to see that we see eye to eye on that point at least.

[quote]Hopefully, Jeb won't throw a few thousand ballots into the Gulf Of Mexico this time.[/quote]

Scott, I hope you have evidence to uphold that statement, especially since you were just making a comment about conservatives taking quotes out of context. I seem to remember part of the big stink about the voting problem, which by the way happened in the state I happen to live in, so I was watching it somewhat closer than I usually watch the news, was that people claimed they were confused by the ballots.

I saw the images of the ballots that they posted and they didn't look that confusing to me. Course I would prefer that voters were a lot more educated on the issues rather than just listen to the hype of one particular candidate or the other. You're much better off at looking at their past accomplishments rather than what they are saying right now, since they are only trying to win votes at the moment.

John

Scott Horowitz | July 30, 2004
I was kidding about the Jeb Bush thing... not about the supreme court thing. I saw the ballots too and did not see them confusing either. But, don't forget we are much younger than some of the voters in the area, and what might look easy to us, looks confusing to others.

In my opinion, what should have happened is as follows:
1) Due to inaccuracy in votes, Florida should either have been forced to do a full manual recount or their votes labeled invalid.
2) if labeled invalid, neither candidate would have had a majority of the electoral college, and then the senate would vote
3) Bush becomes president because the senate at the time was republican.

If it went like that, at least it would have been constitutional.

But, with all the problems, and the candidate's brother is the governor, it does seem suspicious.

Aside from that, Gore didn't lose the election because of Florida. He lost because he didn't win Tennesse, Missouri, or Arkansas.

Melissa Erin | July 30, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | July 31, 2004
Many of the "flip-flopper" or "wishy-washy" charges against Kerry are spurious, but I'm especially wary of the charge that he argued for peace after going to war. He has said many times over the years that being in the war, the things he saw and experienced, changed his mind. He also didn't say he's against all wars, only wars fought on false pretenses, something that everybody should be against.

It's coming time as a culture for us to agree upon a statute of limitations after which public figures are no longer held accountable for the things they said in their youth. What, you haven't changed your mind about something since 1971? I was particularly irked by Schwarzenegger's opponents using the quotes he gave to Oui magazine in the seventies, as though any of it could possibly resemble his opinions today or diminish his ability to lead. Kerry is entitled to change his mind, especially when he has given the matter due consideration and explained his shift at length, which he has done for almost every contradiction in his record, many of which were drummed-up or taken out of context to begin with.

And as much respect as I have for Kerry's military service, I have to say, enough already about being a decorated Vietnam vet. We know, John! Give it a fucking rest! Cheney made some charge last week that Kerry might seek a constitutional amendment based on his voting record, and Kerry's spokespeople responded to the effect of "not having served in Vietnam or earned three Purple Hearts, Mr. Cheney has a lot of guts questioning somebody else's patriotism." So that's their answer to everything now? It bugged me before the invasion that Bush's answer to every problem was "invade Iraq", and now Kerry's getting on my nerves with the same one-track mind.

Anthony Lewis | August 30, 2004
"And as much respect as I have for Kerry's military service, I have to say, enough already about being a decorated Vietnam vet. We know, John! Give it a fucking rest! Cheney made some charge last week that Kerry might seek a constitutional amendment based on his voting record, and Kerry's spokespeople responded to the effect of "not having served in Vietnam or earned three Purple Hearts, Mr. Cheney has a lot of guts questioning somebody else's patriotism." So that's their answer to everything now? It bugged me before the invasion that Bush's answer to every problem was "invade Iraq", and now Kerry's getting on my nerves with the same one-track mind."

Well, it appears as though Kerry doesn't really have a choice BUT to continue talking about it, because the GOP won't let it go. It's not like THEY (the GOP) have much of a record to run on. I'm interested to hear what they will say this week. Will they talk about their "accomplishments", or will this be a "Bash Kerry" bash?

I'm also interested to see how much primetime coverage they get as well.

Anna Gregoline | August 30, 2004
I was glad to re-read this: ""We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day waving small flags. We are asking America to turn from false glory, hollow victory, fabricated foreign threats, fear which threatens us as a nation, and shallow pride which feeds off fear. It is from these things that the new soldier is asking America to turn."

What a beautiful quote. And so right on.

Robert Phillips | August 30, 2004
Cost Benefit Analysis...simply on deaths after 9/11...



As of right now thousands of Iraqi citizens dead from American soldiers. If there had been no American invasion...Maybe 100 Iraqi's dead from Saddam. So thousands vs at most 100.

As of right now more than 1000 American soldiers dead from the invasion of Iraq. This is where the tricky part comes in...How many would have died if we had simply gone after Osama in Afghanistan assuming possible terrorist activities...We can not say for sure, but would there have been another terrorist attack that killed more than 1000 americans. Possibly but doubtful...These people have been trying to kill us en masse and has not really had any major successes since 9/11. So I will give the benfit of doubt and say 500 people would die from terrorist activities. Add them all up..

1. Thousands of Iraqi's dead vs 100.
2. 1000 vs 500 Americans.

To me logic of invasion is wasted. What is the deal with this?

Beyond that to say that none of the stuff that Kerry talked about when he returned from Vietnam happened is plain wrong. It did. As a kid I used to listen to my father's Vietnam support group buddies talk about all the crazy crap that happened. I asked my father who was in the marines during Vietnam if any of the stuff happened that John Kerry talked about...His answer was simply "it did". If you were someone with morals who needed to communicate the evils that were happening what would you do? John Kerry did what he could.

I am sick and tired of those with power and privelage using it to avoid duties that others then have to take on. This will be a big issue to me and will remain a big issue to me. Mr "let someone else die for me" Bush (and Cheney) will never get my vote even though I am more republican than democrat. Bush makes a mockery of my grand fathers duty in World War 2, and my fathers duty in Vietnam. I fortunately did not have to go to war during my Army days but I would have if it was necessary. EVERYONE should be required to join the service and do duty to those who fought and died before us. It sickens me to no end that Bush has been able to grab the mantle of patriotism. That is the mantle that Kerry is trying to win back and that is why this issue keeps coming up and will continue to keep coming up until the election is over, and then everyone is going to analyze why it worked for one group and not the other.

I sure wish we could have a logical republican party that does not cater to the extreme right wing bigots who believe that their religion is the only religion. Give me a republican party that does not fight the friggen crusades 800 years after they are over.

Anna Gregoline | August 30, 2004
I largely agree with you - but I don't think that everyone should be required to join the military service. Many people do not have the skills or mental attitude needed for it.

Scott Hardie | September 1, 2004
I'm most disappointed by Bob Dole. Here's a multiple Purple Heart recepient himself, denouncing the merit of Kerry's Purple Hearts to help the campaign of two men who found ways not to serve at all. Band of brothers indeed.

Jackie Mason | September 1, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 1, 2004
Welcome to an election year, where everything is mockable!

Robert Phillips | September 1, 2004
Yes the band aid thing was way out of line. At least Kerry freely went to Vietnam where he knew his chances of death were just as high as anyones. Every vet should be infuriated at that I know I am...Again it is beyond stupid and makes a mockery of any military service. All I can say is a big FU to those who attempt to remove a guys honor like that.

Anna Gregoline | September 1, 2004
Can the candidates stop bickering over these boring points and just start burning effigies of each other already? That would be way more interesting.

Robert Phillips | September 1, 2004
Mr Eberhart,
I listened to John Kerry's testimony and in my opinion there was nothing in it that blames the soldier for doing what he was told to do. Kerry criticized the policies of Nixon that were getting soldiers killed. He questioned the value of the war and the need to be in Vietnam, weighing the deaths of American soldiers against the percieved need to fight communism the world over. There is no indication in any of his testimony that he was or is an "anti war hippie". My GOD the simple saying of such a thing implies that you like war Mike. Would you like to be any where people are fighting and dying. The biggest anti-war people are vets. They are just not hippies who advocate such things as free love and free drugs. I hope you feel somewhat foolish for suggesting that by definition being anti-war also means being a hippie. Forget it...it is foolishness and crazy.

Scott Hardie | September 3, 2004
There's hypocrisy across the political spectrum, but these days a lot of conservatives seem to be forgetting their values when those values become politically inconvenient. I hope that every person who denigrated Clinton as a "do-nothing draft dodger" takes a good, long look at what they're saying about Kerry in deference to Bush. The urge to diminish one of Kerry's main selling points as a candidate is understandable, but it's time to stop this mass self-delusion.

Kris Weberg | September 3, 2004
It's just the Right's attempt to pretend the Vietnam era was hunky-dory. Witness Arnold Schwarzenegger praising Richard Nixon in his speech last night. Sure, he was a criminal, disgraced the office, set intelligence services on domestic critics, and authorized the illegal bombing of Cambodia (as confirmed by the Haldeman Diaries), but he wasn't a "socialist" welfare supporter like that awful Hubert Humphrey!

Witness, too, conservative Michelle Malkin's new book, entitled -- I kid you not -- In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror, which defends the mass imprisonment of Japanese-Americans in WWII for the crime of their ancestry and gleefully suggests the same technique should be used on Arab-Americans today.

Witness Ann Coulter's Treason, which takes time away from accusing all liberals in the last 50 years of being effective traitors for the unspeakable crime of arguing for progressive causes, claims that Joseph McCarthy was actually a hero.

Witness Dick Cheney lambasting John Kerry for voting against defense proposals in the 1980s, proposals that Cheney himself, as Secretary of Defense, also vocally opposed and did his best to squash. Read Zell Miller's interview after his speech last night, wherein he proived to be outright wrong about Kerry's voting record.

Witness the claim, repeated here and there, that it was "Democrats who opposed segregation," ignoring the facts: 1) that the key civil rights legislation of the 40s and 60s was pushed through by Democratic presidents Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson; 2) that the Democrats who opposed Truman, including Strom Thurmond, ran as a third party, the Dixiecrats; and 3) that most of those Dixiecrats and their political heirs became Republicans during the Reagan Revolution. I hear the name Robert Byrd conjured, as though one Democratic Senator's racist past were equivalent to what amounted to a pro-segregation political platform from the GOP for two straight decades of Selma, Alabamas, of sit-ins and Freedom Rides and Jim Crow's long, hard-fought defeat.

Witness the assaults on Democratic campaign headquarters this week in Grand Rapids, and State College by those who have no ground on which to argue but the thrown brick, the threat of violence.

These people are not engaging in political speech, in rough rhetoric, not as civil society understands it. They are engaged in a programmatic redaction of established history, in the silencing of all dissent. Disagree and you are a traitor, a hippie, a girly-man, a liar, a fraud. They have a slur for every opponent, a stereotype for anyone who dares to bring logic, humanity, facts, and understanding to the debate. To them, helping the poor is a crime against the rich. To them, you should be jailed for the country of your ancestry, denied rights because of the person you choose to love. They cannot conceive of nuance, nor the notion that a position can change when new information appears. That is weakness, anything but blind allegiance ot the program, to their idea of the nation, to their wars, to their pocketbooks, is treason.

It is easy to shout treason, to claim that consideration and thought are weaknesses, to live the life of the fearful, to impose the tunnel-vision of willful ignorance, to surrender one's own rights to terror and sacrifice the rights of others to greed.

It is harder to live despite fear, not within it; to reconsider a cherished position in the face of facts; to live for others, not for oneself.

It is harder to allow history to speak for itself, so that prosperity might learn from it and fairly judge us and our forebears.

These people have no interest in the challenges of history, of the present, of the future. They are that part of our country devoted to the long backwards march into less-enlightened times, into a darksome past of autocracy and blindness, back to Gilded Ages of plunder masquerading as patriotism, to scaremongers waging war on their fellow Americans because it was easier than fighting the real enemy in an intelligent, effective way; back, back to a time when dissenters hung under the rubric of the kangaroo court and the trumped-up charge.

It is time that march ended. It's long been time. It's been time to take the gloves off for 4 years now. It's time to fight for America against those who would make it a mockery of itself, those who have never and may never understand what this country stands for. Againt those who'd rather call a name, or levy a false accusation, than debate in a forum that might expose the bankruptcy of their ideas.

I know I'm willing to fight against that.

Scott Horowitz | September 3, 2004
not to be picky, Kris, but the town is State College and it is Centre county. It's where I went to college. Just FYI

Kris Weberg | September 3, 2004
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
"Germans?"
"Forget it, he's rolling."

Seriously, though, thanks. Will correct.

Robert Phillips | September 4, 2004
Kris your point is well exemplified by the response from Zell Miller when asked why he was at the RNC. He made the point that John Kerry is incapable of seeing things in black and white. Isn't that one of the craziest things you have ever heard...Physics goal is to break things down to black and white, social interaction is NEVER black and white.

Robert Phillips | September 4, 2004
Even admitting the possibility that invading Iraq was the correct choice to keep America safe what is the best way to do that?

Anna Gregoline | September 4, 2004
Well, first of all, I don't believe that invading Iraq had anything to do with keeping America safe, and it didn't accomplish that goal either, as they weren't a threat to begin with.

Mike Eberhart | September 6, 2004
Robert,
You obviously haven't been around here enough to understand how I think. Yes, I am for war, and if that's what I takes, then I'm all for it. I served in the Air Force for 5 years, so I'm a veteran, and I still support our military fiercely. I still work at an air force base as a contractor. Invading Irag was a good thing, look what it forced Libya to do. They knew they couldn't stand a chance against us, so they willingly gave up their WMD production and starting talking to us and the UN again. I would have no problem going into IRAN and cleaning house there too. Shortly followed by Syria.

You all complain about how we deal with terrorists. Look how Russia deals with them. They just go in and clean house and sort it out later. That's the way we should be doing it. Fight terrorism with brute force. It's the only thing terrorists understand. They kill 200 of our civilians, we kill 1000 of theirs.

Melissa Erin | September 6, 2004
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | September 6, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 6, 2004
There might be 1000 pieces of information we don't hear, but I still don't want our government lying to us, which is what they did.

Melissa Erin | September 6, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 6, 2004
I'm not doubting your point. But the sheer facts are that they lied to us on many occaisons, and on many occaisons KNEW THEY WERE LYING TO US. I don't care if there was other information - why not put it forth? I don't like being lied to. How can we trust they're doing the right thing when they start out by having to hide the truth.

Robert Phillips | September 7, 2004
Mike,

There is a time for killing..I don't deny that. I have always said that it would be easier for me to kill an evil person than it would be for me to kill a deer. The problem is you need to know that who you are killing is actually guilty of the offense they are getting killed for. The thousands of Iraqi's who have been killed are not guilty of committing ANY crime against America. They are like the two-bit thief who gets accused of murder and put to death when he had nothing to do with the crime of murder. The Iraqi's are not innocent but they did nothing that warrented killing thousands of Iraqi citizens. This is all like that Tom Cruise sci-fi movie where he was getting arrested for a murder that supposedly took place in the future. The only way you would understand this is if you were arrested for something you did not do. At least Walker Texas Ranger never arrested the wrong guy. Might without intelligence is simply tyranny. There is a time for war...I am not a pacifist by any means. Bin Laden...They could torture that guy and I would be happy. Saddam...I am glad they have him, but was it worth the thousands of Iraqi lives and the thousand American soldiers. It is totally stupid to not analyze the costs vs the benfits. Of course it may just be that you don't care at all about Iraqi lives and did not put their lives into the equation. T hat is the thing that scares me more than anything. The fact that thousands of Iraqi lives have been lost apparently mean nothing to Bush and those who follow him blindly. Christianity has no borders and Iraqi lives are just as valuable as American lives to Christians. You my friend are not Christian.

Robert Phillips | September 7, 2004
I should also mention that I was a combat engineer in the Army and support the army fiercely as well. Look at some of my previous posts...Just because you strongly support the military does not mean you throw out your sense of justice and intelligence. In fact a good soldier is precisely the person who NEEDS justice and intelligence. By the way...If your child was in that school would you want the army to simply charge resulting in the deaths of your child and hundreds of others. I agree that a very strong response is appropriate but you need a cool head to deal with this stuff. Not inflated ego's and misinformation.

Anna Gregoline | September 7, 2004
To be fair, I don't think Mike ever proclaimed himself a Christian.

John E Gunter | September 7, 2004
I'm not surprised that we don't know the whole truth about what is happening. Any government is only going to let out what truths or lies that they feel the public is able to handle. I'm sorry, but the majority of the American public is not able to understand most of what goes on in the world. I'm not completely sure why that is other than the fact that most people are only interested in their own little corner.

It's evident in the me, me, me philosophy that I see time and again all day long. It can be as small as zipping up the right hand lane turn lane to get in front of the line in a car. All that results in is flared tempers and possible accidents. But I see it everyday in my commute from home to work and then the other way.

I usually try and follow the every other car rule of merging traffic, but when someone comes zipping along in that right turn lane, they usually know that they are supposed to turn right up ahead, but they just don't want to follow the rules.

Should we go in and just blast anyone who doesn't follow our ideals of freedom, I don't think it's a good idea. But, if a country is hiding enemies to world peace, why do we want that country to be part of the world? Something needs to be done to change that country's ideals and move them toward something that will benefit the world.

Right now, there is nowhere else we can go and we need to begin thinking about a unified world. I'm not saying one government controlling the world, I don't think we're mature enough for that, but we need to begin getting along, no matter what color, or race, or religion we follow or don't follow.

When will it happen? Probably not for a few more decades or more, but hopefully, I'll see it in my lifetime. But I also think we'll never see the truth from government, ours or other countries for at least that long, if ever.

Oh yeah, and I agree that what does it matter whether the candidate was a vet or not? Just because that person served in the military doesn't mean they can run the country!

John

Kris Weberg | September 8, 2004
With all due respect to the above positions, argung forma lackj of evidence is a logical fallacy. There could ALWAYS be "something that will change the way we think." Tomorrow we could learn that grvaity doesn't really exist, and we just didn't have the information that led us to that conclusion. But until that information is known, not just possibly out there somewehre somehow, it's best not to jump off any 30-story buildings because it's "possible" gravity isn't real.

Saying tha the the government knows things we don't doesn't allow us to blindly trust, or even to suspend judgement; it just means that we have to be aware that our current opinions might be proven wrong. For example, after 9/11 I was willing to believe that George W. Bush would respond sensibly and effectively to the crisis at hand, because as President he had the resources and presumably the intellect to do so; since then, a preponderance of new information has changed my mind quite a lot on that regard.

And Mike, if Russia's "housecleaning" works as it has in their last two major hostage crises, I think we can do without it. Or are hundreds of dead civilians worth the cost?

Jackie Mason | September 8, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 8, 2004
"Should we go in and just blast anyone who doesn't follow our ideals of freedom, I don't think it's a good idea. But, if a country is hiding enemies to world peace, why do we want that country to be part of the world? Something needs to be done to change that country's ideals and move them toward something that will benefit the world."

The only thing is, the Iraqi citizens didn't deserve to be bombed any more than Americans deserved to die on 9/11. It might be their GOVERNMENT's policies that got them in that place (meaning the citizens didn't hide terrorists) but it's ours that got us our killings - now it's not exactly the same thing, but it's close enough for me to say, hmmm.

Mike Eberhart | September 8, 2004
Jackie,
No, military force in Iraq didn't prevent this, because Chechnya(sp) is a totally different monster. Chechnya is Russia's Afghanistan. They are constantly having conflicts with them over having an independent state. However, I think the Chechnya terrorists went over the line this time and they are going to get a response that they didn't want. The Russian's don't mess around. They will respond and it won't be pretty. The one thing that will help us though, is that there is a link between the Chechnya rebels that took over that school and Al Qaeda, which will, hopefully, make the Russian's start combating terrorism in other countries with the US. The Russian's aren't people you want to fuck with.

Kris Weberg | September 8, 2004
Actually, wasn't Afghanistan once Russia's Afghanistan too? In fact, ah, wasn't it because the CIA gave combat training to anti-Soviet Muslim fighters there part of how Al-Quaeda had so many skilled candidates to pick from when recruiting? The Russians didn't mess around then, either: there were even reports of Russians using booby-trapped toy dolls and the like. And they still lost, partly bewcause we helped, but largely because as tough as the Russians are, a smaller but outright more fanatical army of mujahadeen refused surrender, fought to the man, and eventually inflicted heavy enough losses on the Russians that the Afghan war depleted the military financially, morally, and physically.

But leaving that aside, the Russians have already been using assassination against Chechen terrorist leaders, imposing curfews, questioning anyone suspicious who happens to be about at the wrong time. The school hostage situation still happened.

They've had a massive military presence there since the last big hostage crisis, the one in which overzealous antiterror troops used a gas that killed 141 hostages along with the terrorist targets. The school hostage situation still happened.

So unless the Russians start sacking Chechnya completely, killing innocent and terrorist alike, I'm not sure what escalation there is. When you occupy a place, assassinate possible terrorist leaders, and are willing, apparently, to "shoot the hostage," I'm not sure what constitutes escalation besides an atrocity of the "wipe it off the map" sort. And in that case, what would make Russia different than the people they're fighting, other than some schoolyard notion of "they did it first?"

Maybe that makes sense to von Clausewitz, but it would seem to reveal that Chechnya is less about soem kind of international morality and more about a province that Russia doesn't want to let go of.

That seems to have been the lesson of 1980s Afghanistan -- when a sizable, unified chunk of the local population hates you with a passion; when someone else equally hard to attack is providing them moral, military, and financial support; and when the enemy forces you to become the enemy, tactically, just to hold ground, you will probably lose in the long run due to simple exhaustion.

I will say that Iraq is quite different, for three reasons:

1) Many factions in the Iraqi insurgency is as interested in political influence in the new Iraq as in some kind of liberation from an occupying power. The U.S. will eventually leave Iraq, that's a known quantity. A lot of the current Al-Sadr stuff, and a number of the more fundamentalist groups in Iraq, are not pro-Saddam but just want a bigger piece of the Iraqi pie. The Chechens want to leave mother Russia, period.

2) Iraq, unlike Chechnya, is deeply factional. The Shiites hate the Sunni minority, even those who weren't actually Baathist. The Kurds, though Sunni, hate the Baathists for obvious, justified reasons, but they also want their own semi-autonomous region, rather like the Quebecois to the north of us. Everyone hates the Kurds, even many of the Sunnis. Iran wants influence. Turkey ahs problems with their own Kurdish minority, and wants the Kurds excluded. A civil war is still a possibility in Iraq, much more of a possibility than any anti-US uprising. In Chechnya, there seem to be two broad sides: the anti-Russian, and the Russian.

3) The Iraqi insurgency, in part because many people are glad to be rid of Saddam, in part because it's so factional, and in part because genuine possibilities for groups like the Kurds are still being held out by the provisional government, is less virulent, and less unified than the Chechen situation.

Iraq isn't Vietnam (in tactical terms), nor is it 1980s Afghanistan, nor is it Chechnya. It's still a bad situation, a country that probably cannot be stable in the long-term due to the ethnic divisions within it, and the sort of place which, if made a genuine democracy, would elect officials with views we'd find abhorrent.

Jackie Mason | September 8, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | September 10, 2004
Everyone seems to focus on the presidential candidates, and not the VPs as much in here. I really like John Edwards. I voted for him in the primary, and am thrilled he "hopefully" will become VP in November, and President in 2012. On the other side, I think Dick Cheney is one of the worst men in America.
1) He almost single handedly killed the economy of Long Island. (When he was secretary of defense, he got rid of many Grumman Contracts, destroying the company)
2) At the RNC, he had his "whole family" come up after his speech. Oh wait, he was missing one of his daughters... Could it be the one who stands the most to lose with Bush's beliefs on homosexuality?
3) How the hell did Haliburton get EVERY contract in Iraq? He has to be getting a huge kickback on that. They could have more on Cheney with this than they ever did with Clinton on Watergate.
4) "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." Dick Cheney, Tuesday, September 7, 2004

Anna Gregoline | September 10, 2004
That quote is so ridiculous I don't know where to start.

Mike Eberhart | September 10, 2004
That quote is so correct, I don't need to start.... :)

Anna Gregoline | September 10, 2004
How would having Bush for another four years prevent another attack? They didn't prevent the first one. Not that I feel that much safer with Kerry. If terrorists want to do another attack, they will. My sense of safety was forever shattered with 9/11. It will happen again.

John E Gunter | September 10, 2004
Guess depending on the outcome of the election, we'll know one-way or the other. Which I'm thinking will be the wrong choice according to Mr. Cheney.

Will it be wrong? I can't say, but that's where I think the vote will go. But either way the vote goes, we really can't say how things would be if the vote had gone the other way.

Sure we can hypothesize, which I feel can be a fun exercise, but you really don't know how it would have turned out. All I know is I've made up my mind and that's the way I'm going to vote.

Though I've got to also say, I'm not pleased with either candidate and I hate having to vote for the lesser of two evils, which is what I find myself doing more and more as I get older! Don't know if that's a fact of the times, or that I can find out more about each candidate or just the climate of politics as it were.

John

Mike Eberhart | September 10, 2004
I do agree with you John. Once the election is over, whatever happens, it will definately get blamed on whoever the winner is. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying another attack won't happen, it more than likely will. I'm just saying that if and when it does, if Bush/Cheney are in, the response will be much stronger then if Kerry/Edwards are in there.

As for not preventing the first attack, yes, there were mistakes by a lot of the INTEL organizations, and it lead up to the top. That's fine and I accept that. But this was being planned well before Bush was in the office of President. Both Clinton and Bush failed on doing something about the security of the country pre-9/11. Since then, the security has improved greatly. It's still not perfect and I don't think it ever will be short of shutting down the borders and deporting everyone who isn't supposed to be here.

Scott Horowitz | September 10, 2004
the geek in me came out when I read Mike's last post. I saw INTEL organizations and thought "why would computer companies care?". Anyways, Cheney's quote is designed to make people vote for Bush and him based on fear. As for terrorist attacks, it doesn't matter who's in office, they will happen. People hate us, and they will keep trying to take us down.

Anna Gregoline | September 10, 2004
I really don't see many security improvements. I think it's just as dangerous as before.

I thought the same thing, Scott, and I'm not THAT big a computer geek! Or so I thought.

Mike Eberhart | September 10, 2004
I only said INTEL because it was easier than saying, NSA, DIA, FBI, CIA, & other enforcement agencies.

As for not seeing many security improvements, the creation of the TSA was on improvement. Flying is definately more of a hassle now than it ever was, but I'm willing to deal with that inconvienance. They aren't on all flights, but there are more air marshalls now. The creation of DHS was big. The flow of information through the different agencies down to local law enforcement is improved, it's not great yet, but it's better. Security for major events is dramatically approved, and I'm not talking about the two conventions that just took place, things like sporting events, etc.... And I'm sure there is a lot of other improvements that I haven't listed here. It's definately better.

Scott Horowitz | September 10, 2004
These are things that would have been done by anyone. I'll tell you what I don't like. The formation of the Patriot Act is probably the biggest invasion of privacy in the history of the US. Knowing what library books I borrow will help determine if I am a terrorist or not? Give me a break. And DHS is useless.

Anna Gregoline | September 10, 2004
The library my mom works at took measures to make sure that if the government wanted to look at what books people had checked out, they wouldn't get records back really far. It's an invasion of privacy.

Flying isn't that much safer. There was that guy who got on board with all sorts of stuff and had to TELL people about it because it wasn't discovered. The only thing better is that people won't be passive anymore in the face of terrorists, but that would have happened anyway.

Security for major events doesn't seem much improved. I've been to many concerts and sporting events since 9/11, and in each one, I was given a cursory glance inside my purse before allowed entrance. At only one event was I patted down, and that was brief and barely touching me too. I could have brought anything from explosives to guns to drugs into these events, no problem.

So I think that while we're more AWARE of dangers, I'm not so sure we're better protected from it. And like we all said, it's going to happen again.

Mike Eberhart | September 10, 2004
How is DHS useless? Other than just saying that, please explain.

Scott Horowitz | September 10, 2004
First off, DHS has been using the Patriot act to arrest "possible terrorists." AKA, people who speak up against the government. Secondly, the only thing I have seen Tom Ridge do is change the Terror Alert. Look at the word "Homeland Security", I would equate that as Defense. What is the difference? With all the wars Bush has been raising, I'm surprised he hasn't appointed a "Secretary of Offense"

Mike Eberhart | September 10, 2004
Whoa, strong support of your case there. I didn't read anything that tells me that DHS is useless. First off, I don't have any problem with arresting possible terrorists. I'd rather arrest them, then clear them later if they aren't a threat. Other than that, nice try.

Scott Horowitz | September 10, 2004
The point is that they aren't arresting possible terrorists. They're arresting people who's opinions disagree with theirs and they don't want these people starting discord. It's almost like a totalitarian state. What has Homeland Security done that the Department of Defense can't do?

Anna Gregoline | September 10, 2004
But how is that fair, Mike? You are a possible law-breaker of every law, but we don't arrest you and then clear you later. That's not the way our laws work - why create one that overrides that? I know you don't support basic human rights on other issues though, so I guess I'm not surprised.

Mike Eberhart | September 10, 2004
How am I a possible law breaker of every law? I don't remember breaking any laws recently. And for basic human rights, which one's are you talking about? I don't remember saying that I was against human rights...????

Arresting people because their opinions differ is not what's happening. These people had to have said something that made them a suspect to begin with. They don't just go down the street and arrest your grandmother because she doesn't like the President. Your answer is what I expected you to say. It's what every liberal democrat says. You still haven't told me anything new.

As for the DHS and DoD, the DoD is not in the business of managing the different intelligence agencies. They take their direction from the President, and their intel comes from the DIA. The DHS is in-charge of sorting the info between the CIA, FBI, NSA, and whatever other agency may come along.

Scott Horowitz | September 10, 2004
Actually, they do arrest people who say stuff about The President. An acquaintance of mine was arrested on suspicion of terrorism because he sent an email with a political agenda against the war in Iraq. I read this email, and there were no grounds to arrest him. He has to appear in Federal Court and plead his case.

And as for the "management of Inteligence" that the DHS does. The CIA does not need a middle man to take information and give it to the president. If a competent president had been in office and taken the Intel reports seriously before 9/11, it might have been able to be avoided. IMHO, the DHS was created for 1 reason. So Bush could give Ridge a cabinet position

Anna Gregoline | September 10, 2004
My point is that many of these "terror suspects" are just that - suspects. The law gives the government the right to arrest them and hold them with little to no evidence, whereas our normal laws prevent us from doing that just because someone is "suspicious." It's a step backwards.

I say you aren't for all human rights because of things you've said here - wanting to bomb the middle east and kill everyone over there, regardless of their involvement in anything; denying gays the right to marry because of your religious and personal reasons, not because of any legal reason; and supporting acts like the Patriot Act that go against what we've established in this country as basic rights of being safe from unjustified arrest, right to attorneys, etc.

That's your right and you are definitely entitled to those opinions - but I don't see you as supporting basic human rights in these instances. *shrug*

Scott Horowitz | September 10, 2004
Anna, I have to say. The more you write, the more I agree with you.

Mike Eberhart | September 10, 2004
Well Anna, I'll give you the bombing the middle east and getting rid of all them, but I don't see denying gays the right to marry as a human right. It's not so much my religious views on that one, as it's more my personal views, but that has been discussed already in another thread so I'll leave it at that.

As for the email your friend sent, who did he send it to? There had to be something in there that didn't quite look right. I've seen a lot of emails floating around, and read several websites where they talk negatively about the government and they aren't being rounded up. Even though I'd like them to be :) That was a joke by the way.

As I've said before, I don't care who would've been in office before 9/11, I still don't think it could've been avoided. There were just too many other flaws happening all at once. Not just the President. As much as you want to keep saying that, even the 9/11 commision said that there were failures everywhere and the blame is on a lot of different people not just one guy.

As for the DHS, even though I don't like to say it, Bush didn't really want it to begin with, but he did it anyway. Who did you think he would appoint, a democrat. Of course he would be a republican, just like if there was a Democrat in office at that time he would have picked a Democrat as the head of DHS. That's just a silly arguement.

Mike Eberhart | September 10, 2004
Whoa that's a shocker, you agreeing with her. She always disagrees with me on almost every topic here. Plus, if your both Liberal, or close to it, and Democrats, then you should agree, if not, then there's a problem.

Scott Horowitz | September 10, 2004
I don't even know why I am bothing on this any more. Any argument I (or even Anna) can have will be rebutted by you, and vice versa.

But anyways, I read this email. There were no grounds for arresting this kid. He was used to make an example of. I don't have a problem with the choosing of a Republican by a Republican, I have a problem with the choice of Ridge. I feel he was a poor choice, with little background in the issue of Inteligence. I mean, he almost drove PA into the ground. Rendell is doing a much better job than he ever could have.

And I know many conservatives who voted for Bush last time, that won't be this time. And they would agree with most of the things I have written on this board.

Mike Eberhart | September 10, 2004
Wow, you mean I might actually win an arguement. That would be a first. I generally get beat because everyone on here is a democrat except for a few, but they don't post much to help defend my position. But, I doubt it.

Plus, that's the point. I make a statement, you all tell me I'm wrong and ask me something else to make points about. That's how it goes. Scott wants me to post more so there will be a different point of view, but it seems that that's not what you want. You'd rather have everyone agree and pat each other on their backs. So be it. I'll stop talking about this topic then.

John E Gunter | September 10, 2004
I can't buy the blame for nothing being done to stop 9/11 to be totally on the current president. But I've had this same argument with a co-worker and she completely refuses to admit that it was brought out during the 9/11 review that the Clinton administration knew about the coming attack just as much as the Bush administration.

I guess because it happened during the Bush administration, it was his fault.

Course, because Pearl Harbor happened when FDR was in office, that was his fault too!

John

Mike Eberhart | September 10, 2004
Exactly what I was talking about earlier. The 9/11 commision even said there were problems about this before Bush. They both failed on this, but that gets overlooked. But as you said, since Bush was in office, it's all his fault.

Kris Weberg | September 10, 2004
It also helps that FDR did't use images of the ruined Pearl Harbor in his campaign ads, or insist that the Democratic National Convention be held in Hawaii.

Anna Gregoline | September 10, 2004
"Well Anna, I'll give you the bombing the middle east and getting rid of all them, but I don't see denying gays the right to marry as a human right. It's not so much my religious views on that one, as it's more my personal views, but that has been discussed already in another thread so I'll leave it at that."

You can see it anyway you like - but religious and personal views do not dictate lawmaking. (Although with Bush and Co., they are more and more. I fear for the future.)

I know we've all argued in the past, but the thing is, I don't want these arguments to be about "winning." Instead of getting mad and calling each other names or using biting sarcasm, can we just discuss issues? I don't blame you Mike for feeling persecuted on here, but you often don't seem to consider any other viewpoint other than your own. I might be guilty of this more than any other person on here, but I'm trying my best now to read these posts carefully and weigh the responses.

Mike Eberhart | September 10, 2004
I think New York was already selected for the RNC before 9/11 happened. Not sure, but I think I heard that. So big freakin deal....

Mike Eberhart | September 10, 2004
Anna,
Oh, I read all your's and everyone else's viewpoints on here. That's why I go such a long time between posting. Some topics the viewpoints are all the same, so me posting mine would be useless. Much like this last conversation. I make a post, it draws two responses back. Yours, and Scott's and I'm sure if anyone else would have been on, probably more. I didn't think I was getting mad, or calling names, I may get a little sarcastic, but that's as far as I tend to go, at least try to.... :) Anyway, I'm trying to discuss the topics, but I mostly seem to be explaining why I said something in the first place.

John E Gunter | September 10, 2004
I wouldn't feel bad about not seeing things that are somewhat opposite of your views Anna. I'm not saying this to be mean or anything like that, but as humans we have a tendency to not like things that are different from our norm. So I'm not surprised that you might not see things exactly the same way I do. Heck, I don't always take a moment to see another persons view point.

But at least you are trying to see the other side lately, and that's a good thing.

Course, when it appears to me that the other person isn't even interested in seeing my point, that's a good way to get me fired up, whether that is a mistaken viewpoint on my part or not.

Kris,

With the level of technology that we have today and the political theatre the way it is today, I'm not surprised that we see images of the war on terror and we didn't see that in Pearl. I'm not saying that FDR was responsible for Pearl, but I have seen that the US knew more about what the Japanese were doing that they let on.

In fact, I personally feel that if Pearl hadn't happened, we wouldn't have been so gun-ho about getting into WWII. Well, let me re-phrase that, the US public wouldn't have been into it.

I also feel that if we hadn't dropped the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that the war with Japan would have continued much longer than it did. What the government did with those bombs borders on being war crimes and terrorist actions.

Those cities were civilian, not military targets, but it was felt that the only way to stop the Japanese was to shock their people into wanting the war stopped. Course; because we were the winners, it was portrayed as being a good thing, not a war crime.

Also, from the stories my father told me of the way the Japanese were treating the natives of the Pacific Islands, I have no remorse for what we did. I know, it was the Japanese military, but it was also the Japanese culture that was doing that.

I have a high respect for the dedication that the Japanese people have, but the average Japanese citizen is extremely prejudice and that grates on me. I hate racial bigotry more than anything, even to the point where black males call each other by the n word grates on me. I know that is something that is culturally ok to them, but to me that is one of the most degrading words in the English language.

It goes for me using the c word, the one that means a southern red neck. Same kind of degrading word, and I'm a white southern male. But it's just as bigoted a statement and grates on me if it is not used as humor. Even then, I find it fairly distasteful, though not as bad.

John

Anna Gregoline | September 10, 2004
I don't know - sometimes I think these discussions are a bit pointless.

Anna Gregoline | September 10, 2004
Of course we're way off-topic now, but the beginning of this post was pretty inflammatory. I guess I still don't get how Republicans (most of whom value military service) can bash Kerry for going to Vietnam.

But I'm sick of hearing about military records. They don't predict a good or bad President. I wish the whole darn election was over already.

Can we just agree that whoever wins, neither side will gloat about it? I swear on my heart I won't gloat if Kerry wins. I just want this all to end.

John E Gunter | September 10, 2004
It's their opinion, same as with your opinion you can't understand why they are bashing him. That help you understand it better?

It's all part of the mud slinging that continues to get worst with each election that deals with the major political parties!

John

Jackie Mason | September 10, 2004
[hidden by request]

Mike Eberhart | September 11, 2004
Of course the whole worlds wants John Kerry in as President. They know that if something comes up, he will be soft about it. He himself said he wants to fight a "sensitive war on terror". WTF is that. That's why he is so liked. You can't fight a sensitive war, you have to fight a hard war. Hit hard, hit fiercely, and scare the enemy until they stop. All a sensitive war will do is keep the terrorists going.

Oh, and if George Bush wins, I won't say anything about it.

Scott Hardie | September 11, 2004
This often-misquoted "sensitive war on terror" remark threatens to become Kerry's own "I invented the Internet." Anybody with common sense should be able to figure out that Kerry doesn't mean we should hit the terrorists with any less force than we do now. Kerry's actual quote referred to getting allies to help us instead of going it alone: "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side."

Anthony Lewis | September 11, 2004
Mike...it was your President who used the word "sensitive" first. And he used it twice.

http://www.news1130.com/news/international/article.jsp?content=w081247A
(I'm no good at HTML...you'll have to copy and paste)

And yes I said "your President", 'cause he sure as hell ain't mine.

Scott Hardie | September 11, 2004
Although I realize you're right, Mike... Here you were trying to make a point, and two liberals immediately accused you of being wrong. ;-)

Honest, I only wanted to try to set the record straight somewhere, because I'm fed up with reading about the "sensitive war" remark every morning in the political comics. My umbrage is over the remark getting misquoted, nothing in its content itself or any point you were making.

Anthony Lewis | September 11, 2004
Well, I wouldn't call myself a stone liberal. I'm conservative on some issues, no doubt.

Jackie Mason | September 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | September 11, 2004
So, uh, why does the rest of the world want America to be soft on terrorism? I'm failing to understand that, especially considering what an increase in terrorism against the US would imply for everyone else's security, and for the stability of the world economy.

There seems to be this odd idea that terrorists of all stripes -- Islamic, Marxist, Fascist, Irish independence, and so on -- didn't spend two decades blowing up people all over, say, Europe. Or that Europe, or pretty much any other part of the world, with the exception of a few developing nations who see it as their only effective military influence, like the idea of terrorism.

Of course, if the rest of the world really is unreasoningly, enviously hostile towards us, I suppse under the Bush doctrine we should just take it over for its own damn good. Or continue our current policy of making cracks about America saving Europe in two World Wars, as though the great distance across the Atlantic Ocean and the opening of the Russian front in WWII weren't huge strategic factors having nothing to do with some innate superhuman strength of America's people and military.

There is, after all, a distinct advantage in war when your enemy has no really good way of attacking you directly, while you get to use, say, Britain as a relay point against them. And there's a reason the only attack on US soil in a war up until September 11, 2001 was in Hawaii, far fromt he mainland but relatively close to the Micronesian and Polynesian area, where "island-hopping" was a strategy of both the American and Japanese forces.

America has accomplished a lot for freedom, a lot for the rest of the world. But it seems rather petulant and arrogant to behave as though that makes everyone everywhere who doesn't feel permanently and deeply indebted to us an anti-American pro-terrorist monster. And it certainly doesn't lead, in any reasonable way, to the ludicrous conclusion that the rest of the world would like to see us damaged or harmed grievously.

Jackie Mason | September 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | September 11, 2004
Paranoid schizophrenia is not a valid foreign policy.

Robert Phillips | September 11, 2004
And Mike...who had the balls to go actually go to war...?

As we are finding out Bush used others to die for him. I am totally at a loss to understand how anyone trusts Bush to do the right job when his behavior during the Vietnam war was clearly evasional. If that is not a flip-flop I don't know what is.

Scott Hardie | September 11, 2004
 

Scott Hardie | September 11, 2004
Jackie, I have to give Bush credit for taking as much action against terrorism as he reasonably could, by nearly destroying Al Qaeda's network in Afghanistan, by removing their prime supporters the Taliban from power, and by forming the DHS here at home to make intelligence more effective. If Bush gets (unfairly?) blamed for 9/11 because he was president the time, so too does he (unfairly?) get credit for there not being an attack on U.S. soil since. Whether the invasion of Iraq will lead to more or less terrorism in the future remains to be seen, but it can't be said that Bush has done nothing else on the matter.

Anna Gregoline | September 13, 2004
Great site showing the human cost that's often not reported.

Jackie Mason | September 13, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | September 21, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | September 27, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | September 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 29, 2004
How else are they going to motivate those new recruits?

John E Gunter | September 29, 2004
I don't think the company that is making the game has any ties with the military or the government, I just think they're trying to cash in on something they think the public is interested in. That's the whole point of free enterprise, offer you something that will cause you to give me your money!

John

Jackie Mason | September 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 30, 2004
No doubt, but I wouldn't be surprised if the military uses these games for training. They already do similar things, so why not? Saves them money, for sure. Man, I hate the military.

Kris Weberg | October 1, 2004
I don't hate the military, but I often hate the uses the military is put to.

Anna Gregoline | October 1, 2004
I hate the way it's set up and what it is put to.

Mike Eberhart | October 1, 2004
You know, I can't believe I just read that. You hate the military!!!!!! I don't even know how to respond to that. You know what, I'm just not going to. Unbelievable.

Jackie Mason | October 1, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | October 1, 2004
It pains me when I hear that someone hates the military; and it pains me, too, when someone in the military thinks that I must hate it because I oppose the war it is fighting. Soldiers stand and fight and sometimes die, give years of their lives and the best of their bodies and minds for their country's defense, and make a gift of themselves and their potential to the American people.

And for it, they are given the blame of a few; for their sacrifice they are often ignored and often spat upon; and the people they are willing to give their lives for often seem to turn on them. A soldier doesn't demand to be called a hero, but a soldier doesn't deserve to be called a criminal, and doesn't deserve to shoulder the prejudice of an unfair blame.

I can understand why a soldier might hate someone who criticizes the war, why they rightly bristle when people denounce the use of the miltary as though it were a crime, and why an idle criticism is the worst wound, the one inflicted from behind, by the people the soldier tirelessly works to protect.

Yes, when protesters tell soldiers they are participating in murder the protesters are hateful, when politicians tell them their sacrifice has been a waste or a mistake the politicians are hurtfully wrong, and when the crimes of a few individuals are described as the crimes of all the Army it is a travesty of justice. I can understand why this reaction occurs. To be a soldier is to feel a scrutiny that most of us can't imagine. But understanding it doesn't make it fair, or right.

I understand the necessity of the military, and I believe that soldiers get a raw deal in public opinion more often than they should; but that's a far different thing than deciding to rubber-stamp an idiotic war, or ignore those rare abuses within and of the military as part of some grossly unjust compensation.

All soldiers are not criminals, but William Calley was; all generals are not lunatics, but Field Marshal Haig was; all missions are not foolish, but Vietnam was. Do not mistake these instants for the whole.

I believe that the military, and of it, the lives of soldiers, are invaluable; tha they play the key role in maintaining the security of this country. A soldier gives up a lot, even a kind of freedom, to defend freedom for the rest of us.

And that's why I get mad as Hell when I see someone who doesn't seem to give a damn about soldiers sending them off into a war that was poorly planned. That's why I loathe policies that put soldiers on the front lines with nothing but high praise behind them, rather than the tools they need and the mission architecture their success requires. It's why I hold in utter contempt a leader who built a war on lies and wishful thinking, and sent good men to perform with admirable courage and grace in a manner almost designed to force their failure.

It's why I'm sickened by a President who speaks of supporting the troops while cutting veterans' benefits left and right to make his budget, a Defense Secretary who talks of easy success and does everything to preclude it, and most of all by an Administration that wants to enjoy the political fruits of war without doing the difficult work of properly planning and directing it. They do not support the military. Their praise for the use they make of it is not praise for a soldier, but praise for themselves.

A soldier never dies for a mistake, but for the country. Where the country is mistaken, the soldier sometimes dies defending it, but this is not the defense of its mistake. Where the country is misled, the soldier fights for it still. The soldier loves America, not because America is never wrong, but because a soldier knows better than most that America must be preserved, that this nation must be defended because it can and does achieve an unsurpassed good when it is right. To let it be destroyed for its mistakes is to rob humanity of that good.

I hate the war, and I hate Bush, but I don't mistake them for men and women in uniform doing better than most could with the mess they've been given. I only ask that they not mistake me for the one who's put them in that mess.

Anna Gregoline | October 1, 2004
I never said I hate soldiers, or people who are in the military. I said I hate the military, which, like the government, is an organization. I hate how it is set up and how the government uses it most of the time. What's wrong with disagreeing with how an organization is run?

Mike Eberhart | October 1, 2004
That doesn't even make sense. What is it about how's it setup that you hate? Being used by the government is their job. Yes, the government can be wrong sometimes, but it's our job to follow orders. Yes, it is an organization, but it's an organization of military members, that includes the soldiers, seaman, airman, & marines. You can't just pick and choose what you want from that. I really want to know what you hate about the set up.

And Kris, for once, I actually liked something you wrote. At least most of it. :)

Jackie Mason | October 2, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | October 2, 2004
It makes plenty of sense. I never said I hated people in the military, or anything like that. I said I hate the military, meaning as an organization. I hate the culture of it. I suppose that it has to be set up the way it is in order to desensitize humans enough so that they can kill, but most of the training just strikes me as supremely creepy. I'm sure though that's the best way they have of training people to do the unthinkable. I also have to hate the culture of any organization that can cover up things like rape of it's own cadets and physical abuse of prisoners in it's ward. Something obviously needs to change within it, but I'm not holding my breath.

I hate how our military is used by the government, how so often it seems that soldiers are treated as expendable. I wish that more regard was taken with sending human lives into harm's way.

Even Kris missed my point. He made the leap in assumption that I didn't think he would - that because I'm against the war, I'm against soldiers fighting it? That is in no way true, and it's a bad leap to make.

I don't understand anything wrong with my position, nor do I see anything really that offensive about it?

Kris Weberg | October 2, 2004
The amazing thing about Best Years is that the sailr who lost his hands was played by a real veteran -- the man really had been maimed in that fashion. He won an Oscar for the part.

And Anna, my post wasn't so much a response to your post as an effort to think through my own attitude towards the military during a war I strongly disagree with.

Jackie Mason | October 2, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | October 2, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | October 2, 2004
I respect most of the people in the military, and I suppose I respect those more that consider going to war a necessary evil in the worst of times - that they are not eager for it. I think that anyone who is eager to kill other human beings needs some help.

I know we have to have a military. It's a shame that our government thinks so little of human life that we would intentionally put soldiers in harm's way when it's not absolutely necessary. I don't think they really think of the human cost enough - even one life lost is too much.

And more so for the reasons I mentioned above - the entire culture of the military is what I dislike. There are far too many horrible things within it's own culture for me to respect the organization. That doesn't mean that all or even the majority of soliders are bad - it's just that I can't respect the organization as a whole.

Robert Phillips | October 7, 2004
The culture of the military is necessary. It is difficult to goad an untested and perhaps extremely frightened young man into firing at an enemy who has a family just like him. I don't think the military fosters hate or sexism or many other of the ism's that have in my opinion been incorrectly attributed to the "culture of the military". What the military does foster is professionalism. What I mean by this is that killing is set aside in the soldiers mind as simply something that is done as part of the job.

Anna Gregoline | October 7, 2004
Hmmm.....I think they are fostering something when they allow cadets to rape other cadets and treat the person who was raped like they are are liar and shameful for even bringing it up.

John E Gunter | October 8, 2004
The rape of a cadet and then cover up of it is not supposed to happen in the 'culture of the military' but as what happens when humans are given power, they abuse it. Not everyone does, but enough people do that it happens. So, to protect the 'brotherhood' some individuals cover up such things as that rape.

That's not how the military is supposed to work, or at least how the concept is supposed to work. The military is supposed to be a well-oiled machine that works together as a unit. That machine is given certain objectives and works toward obtaining that objective. One of the training methods of the military is to remove the sense of individualism from each recruit.

They train you to believe in the team, and not in selfishness. But not everyone gets that lesson, hence one cadet raping another one and the commanding officer covering it up. So you can’t really blame the military, you have to blame those individuals who were involved in the crime same kind of problem with blaming society for the murder of one person by another.

Society finds a problem with murder; hence that’s why we have laws against it. But some individuals can’t seem to learn that lesson, so they murder anyways, and someone else comes along and says, that individual is a product of their society and that’s not right!

John

Anna Gregoline | October 8, 2004
"So, to protect the 'brotherhood' some individuals cover up such things as that rape."

Sure, I get that. But it's not up to just individuals - because these things have been known about all the way to the top - it's just like the Al Garib prison abuse - known about all the way to the top. Was anything done? No. Silent condoning of those actions. It's sick and twisted and there is something very wrong with a group that allows these kinds of things to happen. You can blame individuals for not stopping something right under their nose, but when people who control the organization do nothing, then the entire thing is at fault.

Kris Weberg | October 8, 2004
Regardless how high they go, atrocities like Abu Ghraib are not what the military is supposed to be about. (In point of fact, running a massive prison in which not all inmates are POWs isn't what the military is supposed to do either.)

It's a bit like talking about, say, Watergate, and then saying you hate the American system of government; or saying that you hate Catholicism because of the recent scandals in the church. A system can have corupt instances or even entirely corrupt iterations without the idea behind that system being implicated.

I agree that questions have been raised about the current leadership of the military, but that isn't the same thing as invalidating the military itself, any more than a bad administration requires us to cease being a democratic republic.

And likewise, the fact that some or, if you believe, many in the curent military are betraying the ideals the military is supposed to uphold, that doesn't mean everyone in the service deserves to be tarred with the same brush just because they're in the military. If Nixon and most of his Cabinet and administration higher-ups were corrupt, and the used a nmumber of lower-level officials to conceal that corruption, does that mean we should have blamed every single person who worked for the federal government in 1974, and then condemned the whole idea of the government?

John E Gunter | October 8, 2004
Very good points Kris!

Also, if you're going to blame the federal goverment of 1974 for those issues, don't you also need to blame the people who put that government in power?

John

Scott Horowitz | October 8, 2004
Let's just do what every politician in this country does. Blame everybody but ourselves.

Kris Weberg | October 8, 2004
Actually, to an extent, in a democracy one can blame the people for a bad government and especially for the persistence of bad government, since the means to institute and to remove bad government are, albeit indirectly, vested in the people. Of course, Nixon and his cronies kept evidence of their corruption hidden for quite a while, so it's a bit more ambiguous there.

But the issue of an informed and empowered public is a whole other thread, of course :)

Back to the military -- were someone to show me some institution of the military, int he idea or legal erstablishment of it, that were deeply flawed, that would be grounds for demanding the reform, or, if warranted, the overhaul of the military.

If people in the military or running it are committing criminal, unethical, or corrupt acts, it's not the military but thsoe people that deserve our censure. If the whole organization, in contradiction to its principles, is corrupt, then the organization as a whole needs to be emptied out of its corrupt elements and rebuilt vigilantly in accord with those original principles.

It is difficult to talk about organizations, of course, because the idea of an organization demands we somehow are able to distinguish the organization as a framework or system from the individual people acting within it -- agents or actors , we might call them. An actor or set of actors may act badly; but if their action is not in tune with the framework of the organization, it's them, not the organization in concept, that is the problem.

Anna Gregoline | October 8, 2004
"And likewise, the fact that some or, if you believe, many in the curent military are betraying the ideals the military is supposed to uphold, that doesn't mean everyone in the service deserves to be tarred with the same brush just because they're in the military"

Once again. I. never. said. that.

I in fact said that not everyone who is in the military is bad. But you can't brush off these kinds of offenses and say, "Oh, well, it was just the actions of a few," when the organization itself will do nothing about it! If they want to not handle it publicly and keep it "within the fold," so be it, but I will not accept that it's hunky dory for the military to do nothing about these sorts of things, and as long as they continue to brush it under the rug, the military as an organization will not have my respect.

I don't see why it's hard to understand that I respect the soldiers who are upstanding citizens (most of whom are) and who are giving that sacrifice for the country - and at the same time despise how the organization they are fighting under is run. Why is that hard to understand?

And Kris, when the heck did I invalidate the military? I never did. If someone could explain to me why my reasoning is bad, I'll listen, but what I've heard so far is just twisting of my words.

John E Gunter | October 8, 2004
I don't really think anyone is twisting your words Anna, you are making statements where you say one thing and then a few words later appear to say something else. For instance...

"You can blame individuals for not stopping something right under their nose, but when people who control the organization do nothing, then the entire thing is at fault."

It looks to me like you start by saying that you can place the blame on an individual, but then if the people who are in control do nothing, then the organization is to blame. Am I reading that comment wrong or are you contradicting yourself?

The people who are in control are individuals also, and if they cover up the crimes of the person who commited those crimes, then they are just as to blame as the person they are covering for. It's still not the organization that is bad, but those who are in charge.

I'm not trying to argue with you, but point out that to me, it looks like you are saying because individuals have done things that are wrong, and other individuals have covered the wrong doings up, then the organization is bad.

But it's not bad, just those who are controling it are bad. Now, if something isn't done to correct those actions, then the organization could become bad, but only if individuals in that same organization were to allow it to continue. Like what Kris said with the organizations original goals being changed to something other than what it had originally been set up to do, which was protect this country from enemies of this country.

John

Anna Gregoline | October 8, 2004
When I say the organization is bad, I mean the people controlling it. Sorry if that was confusing. They are in charge of what goes on, and how they appear to the public, etc. By allowing these things to go on, they are tainting their organization. This is not contradictory to what I said.

Mike Eberhart | October 8, 2004
First of all, I didn't even want to get into this. SO, with that said, the general in charge of the Air Force Academy was relieved of duty after this all came down. The offending cadets were eventually dismissed and taken careof. It did work out in the end, just because you didn't see it doesn't mean that something wasn't being done behind the seens. But that doesn't mean anything to you, because the actions of these few individuals, then the whole organization of the military is corrupt. I can't even tell you how far leftest that thinking is. As for the Abu Ghraib crimes. Those individuals are all being court martialed and getting what's coming to them as well. But I guess that's not good enough for you either.

As I said before you can't seperate the two, the soldier's, airmen, seaman, & marines ARE the military. When you say you don't respect the military, YOU aren't respecting the members of the military. There is NO difference.

Anna Gregoline | October 8, 2004
Yes, I can seperate the two. That's a difference in opinion. You can't, but I can. I think in more shades of gray, I think, than you do.

I shouldn't have brought up Al Garib cause I haven't been following it. In talking about this, I'm mostly referring to cases of rape, which were already discussed on another thread. I provided many examples there of things that weren't done because of the culture of the military. I can't respect any organization that would allow it's own members to rape other women members and cover it up. That's not at all hard to understand, in my mind.

Things like that and soldiers who are doing their duty proudly are two very seperate things. I in no way ever condemed soldiers or people doing their jobs correctly and morally. Again, I'll say I've said nothing wrong nor do I see how this is even offensive.

We're all entitled to our opinions, I guess. *Shrug.*

Scott Horowitz | January 17, 2005
Is it me or does the guy in the "Kerry , the 4-Month Warrior" image header without a shirt on look like Gary Sinise?

Anna Gregoline | January 17, 2005
a little bit, yeah!