June 07, 2008 02:00 PM
Will the Media ask McCain about this?
Were you aware that John McCain wrote the foreward to an edition of The Best And the Brightest? And were you aware that it said this?
It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn't support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay. No other national endeavor requires as much unshakable resolve as war. If the nation and the government lack that resolve, it is criminal to expect men in the field to carry it alone.
I'd like to see some of McCain's Media ask him about this over doughnuts on the Straight Talk Express bus.
It is doubtful this question will arise; the journalists will be too busy enjoying McCain's famous "dry rub"(?).
hahah wow
talk about flip floppers
He wrote that? Sure he did.
.
Just causes give rise to noble wars which are supported by a country sacrificing for the greater good...
Where's the draft to supply the military's endeavor at maintaining an illegal occupation?
Where's the rationing so as to not dry up the reserves the troops need to fight this illegal occupation?
Where's the war bonds to fund the troops in the field of an illegal occupation?
.
It is also shameful when a person makes the choice to enlist to kill and cause suffering abroad to sustain our "way of life" in America.
Soldiers are hired killers. Now that several hundred thousand lives have been taken by American intervention abroad, where are we?
What good came of all that killing?
Whats being said about it on the Strange-talk Express ......
((((((((((((((((((((((((((more crickets)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Ya got some 'splainin' to do there John Boy.
Embittered-Max-Hussein-1 @ 4:
What its the definition of a "noble war" ?
Embittered-Max-Hussein-1 @ 4:
Very Well Said.
If ANY of those three things were asked of the citizens of the U.S. they would be in the streets as they were in 1968.
The problem with that quote becoming any kind of a "Gotcha" is the qualifier:
"If the nation and the government lack that resolve..."
McCain would argue that he is "resolved" to "win" the, uh... "war", "occupation", "police action"... whatever they are calling it today. Unlike Vietnam, where eventually, those Commie Democrats, eager to surrender, dared "talk to our enemies", end the war and negotiate John's release from captivity.
And I wish a commentator would ask John McCain what kinds of "pressures" he's under to make him flip-flop so. We know that he must have felt pressure from the Vietcong to make those anti-American statements while he was a POW, even if we don't know what the pressure was. Danger to life and limb?
But he's consistently flip-flopped on numerous issues even while he's a free man, and I, for one, am curious about why.
You say it's yes, and then it's no;
You say you'll stay, and then you go -
You're undecided now, so what are you gonna do?
First you say you do, and then you don't,
And then you say you will, and then you won't;
You're undecided now, so what are you gonna do?
Now you want to play, and then it's no,
And when you say you'll stay, that's when you go -
You're undecided now, so what are you gonna do?
they may ask him about it but lieberman will answer the question
Grampy McSame can't be expected to remember what he said in yesterday's flip-flop, much less something that he "wrote" ( if indeed he wrote it and not some aide) for a forward to a book.
No. The Media is pretty much "hopeless". The extent of their creativity (zero) and commitment to change is putting stuff like this on the front page of the nations sunday papers.
http://tinyurl.com/4vfgfj
Underground Pirate @ 5:
OK, we get it that you choose to classify all those in the armed services as "killers". While we are sorry about your inability to distinguish between young men and women serving their country and ordered into an occupation that most of us believe is criminal and people who sit home on their fannies serving only themselves and their delusions, how about you focus your energies on those in the White House and Congress who chose to put these service people in this situation. Who or what have you served in hopes of protecting our freedoms? I hope you don't think these kids who make it home from the Middle East are not permanently harmed by the experiences they have had there. We need to help and honor them while we get about the business of holding their superiors accountable but we really don't need you inserting your "killers" madness into every forum.
He "flopped" from that position weeks ago. You just can't keep up with this man.
And they accused Kerry of "flip flopping"? OMG!! What hypocrites.
He
misspokemiswrote!El Cid @ 1:
Notice how everyone has forgotten the MSM is as much responsible for the damage the Bush Cabal has reeked yet they now act like everything is "would you like a milkshake son"?
I guess what I am suggesting don't get your hopes up to high the MSM is going to suddenly become the Champion of Truth.
♠Bangkok-Bob♠ @ 9:
That's crap. There is no such thing as a "just war." That's just another Madison Ave. talking point. Wars are always fought for stupid reasons, mostly because some king or president (and their buds) wants more toys or more power, and instigates a fight. Really....go back and look at the wars America was involved in in the 20th Century. They all could have been avoided and none was "just" - the PtB needed more war to keep the money flowing - into their pockets. And who is always asked to sacrifice for the "greater good?' Whose greater good?? Same stuff - different day.
Bob: 1968 was a different time. If angry people hit the streets now, thousands will die from Blackwater bullets, or tasers, or some other dastardly weapon we probably don't even know about. And, in case you missed it, the President/Congress conveneinetly implemented directives and acts that have effectively repealed posse comitatus and give the Unitary Exec the power to use the US Military and the National Guards of the several states internally, againt US citizens. Cheney would love it if people satrted storming the gates.......so would McPain, for that matter.
I’d like to see some of McCain’s Media ask him about this over doughnuts on the Straight Talk Express bus.
But not Dunkin' Doughnuts.
The media wants to keep this race close so their viewers will turn to them so they can tell them what they should think about each candidate. Remember not so terribly long ago they told us the candidates would be Rudy and Senator Clinton. They said we could take that to the bank. Ha! They didn't know any more about the race at that time than we did. So now when they predict and pontificate, just ignore them and remember, they really don't know any more than you do, and in some cases, I would say they know less.
The only thing I fear is that McCain's and his campaign look so bad that they may have sympathy for him.
All these articles about the bad bad McCain. About the good good obama. The bad bad Hillary..hell they people that are going to vote for obama that have their head up his butt don't need persuading....but you ain't gonna change the mind of those who are going to vote for McCain.
Brint Humis might ask a question something like this,
men suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat.
Would you say that is a true statement of belief on your part? As you know others have tried to take your words out of context and make them sound like you were against war but we know that is not true. do you agree senator?
Mcsame- yes.
AMERICAblog.com
"Why is McCain getting $58,000 a year in disability income?
First off, I find it fascinating that John McCain, who is refusing to vote for the GI Bill for our troops because "it's too generous," is himself getting $58,000 a year, tax-free, from the US government for his military service. Had McCain been getting that amount every year since Vietnam, that would total $2,000,000 for the man who isn't into overgenerous government. I just find that interesting.
His staff responded with the classic "he was tortured for his country." Yeah, we get it. The torture card. It's to McCain what 9/11 was to Giuliani's candidacy - the never-ending name-drop. Though what McCain's staff actually said was downright, um, we're being nice to Clinton now, so I won't say Clintonian. Here's the quote:
McCain campaign strategist Mark Salter said Monday night that McCain was technically disabled. "Tortured for his country -- that is how he acquired his disability," Salter said."
continued:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/why-is-mccain-getting-58000-year-in.html
Amitola @ 20:
So what you are saying is that fear works - that it can subdue a populace so that refuses to stand up to tyranny. All the more reason for us to get off our butts (as those fighting segregation did in the face of bullets and nooses and worse) and lie down in front of tanks. Digital protest is fun, but it is trivial when compared to the real impact of collective, physical confrontations with those seeking our submission.
Now that's a good find. I'm cutting/pasting and emailing this to everyone, Russert, Olbermann, everyone.
You're totally correct, Marge. McSame is bad, bad, bad.
And the people who'll vote for him (despite the ruined GOP brand) are stupid, stupid, stupid.
pissed off patricia @ 22:
bingo........that's part of their unwritten strategy.. older vet senior that can't talk as well getting picked by elitist especially a time when many are struggling many seniors look out it's trap and many will fall for it
reality bites @ 15:
"...young men and women serving their country..." In what way, by occupying and brutalizing the Iraqi and Afghani people? "...Protecting our freedoms..." From whom, the 2 per cent of the foreign jihadists who are aligned against the U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq? Where did you get that cliche, from a neoconservative website? Or perhaps from a U.S. army recrutiting poster? "We need to help and honor them..." Certainly they need to be helped but why in the world should they be "honored" for taking part in the subjugation of another country? Returning soldiers should be considered as victims not as being mythical heroes. That statement makes absolutely no sense at all. As a returning soldier from Vietnam said to soldiers who were about to leave to go to Vietnam in the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir!, do not think that being a clerk typist will get you off the hook, since it still makes you a part of an organization that is illegally occupying another country. The true heroes in this country are those soldiers, such as those in the IVAW, who have courageously said NO to the U.S. war machine.
You may want to try asking the average Iraqi or Afghani if he or she believes that American soldiers should be "honored" for terrorizing their citizens and shooting them at checkpoints and torturing them at Abu Ghraib and committing atrocities at Haditha and Fallujah and other places in that country. But since they have been the recipient of American aggression and militarism, it is highly unlikely if they would look upon their occupiers as being heroes.
Apparently keeping us out of war requires more resolve than getting us into one. Because those of us who are resolved to it didn't make it happen.
I'm sure Senator McCain would be against the aforementioned quote. Just as he is against anything that is against anything, or appears to be anti-anything.
Is there a contradiction here? Yes.
And he is against THOSE as well.
*faces the press corp with unflappable confidence*
Any questions?
Amitola @ 20:
So call me an America-hater but I'd say the Iraqis are fighting a "just war" right now, same as we would if some foreign power occupied our country, slaughtered our loved ones, destroyed our infrastructure ..
And btw "just war" is not a Madison Avenue term, it's been around nearly 2000 years.
As for 1968 .. people hit the streets, people died, people were maimed. I hit the streets, many times from 1965 to 1970. I was gassed several times. I saw people brutally beaten. I was lucky.
Amitola @ 20:
My saying is "War is the ultimate symptom of a failed foreign policy." Of course, I said that back in the day when I believed that peace was the goal of foreign policy, rather than profit.
Underground Pirate @ 5:
A good portion of recruitment is of very young adults, with little life experience, raised in poverty with limited choices, being persuaded through patriotic propaganda and lured by offers of college tuition into signing with the military. These are not people deciding to "killand cause suffering" to sustain "our 'way of life,'" these are people gambling on improving their lives, based on recruitment lies.
The government does not work to reduce poverty in part because the government needs the poor as fodder for its wars. Don't blame the poor for choosing the military over limited other options, blame our government for perpetuating poverty and misery as a deliberate strategy against its own people.
John Amato:
I'd like a flying sparkle pony.
I'd like to see the media ask him about this as well. I suppose this demonstrates how much influence a few hundred million dollars in campaign contributions has over his opinions.
A date on this quote would be very helpful. I think this would be a nice quote to send around in email. The crap going around about Obama is unbelievable. And you know there are dopes out there who still believe that everything they get in email is true because they got it from their friends. Sending around something factual could be quite a concept.
"It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die...."
".....for a cause that the country wouldn’t support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay."
Words that haunt widows and wounded veterans everywhere.
Amitola @ 20:
In case YOU missed it .. it's already been done.
I was a student at UC Berkeley when Reagan called out the National Guard to occupy Berkeley and enforce a dusk-to-dawn curfew - after he (Reagan) and his cohorts had started one police riot (riot caused by police) after another on the campus.
Reagan solidified his right-wing creds by busting student's heads.
The UC Campus paper put out a special edition called "Days of Blood Nights of Terror."
Ali @ 36:
Follow the link above to the original detailed article.
As I recall, when Admiral Stockdale was announced as Ross Perot's running mate, the Republican's attacked him as a poor candidate because he had been a POW in Viet Nam and wasn't qualified to hold such a high office because of the stresses he endured as a POW. Yet McCain, who suffered those same stresses as a POW is a good candidate for president. WTF?
Ralph Kramden @ 40:
You should read post #25 above and follow the link which is apropos to your comment.
Albatross Says:
Well said. May I use?
Erroll @ 30:
As I tried to indicate, I agree with you about the atrocities going all the way back to the adoption of "shock and awe" as some justifiable act when it sounds like terrorism to me. You appear to wish everyone were a pacifist which might be a good thing but there are tons of solid arguments for having an army. And I am a very large supporter of IVAW, by the way. My question remains: if you are so incensed about our troops in Iraq or anywhere else, what are you doing about it?? What would like the rest of us to do about it in addition to vilifying those still there?? And to be clear, I am a vet and I did march in the streets in the 60's and 70's.
Yup. he whole concept of "just war" is problematic.
What would YOU do... if a foreign army gated the MALL in Washington D.C.... controlled the skies over all major American cities... and patrolled our neighborhoods with HumVees, machine guns, and rocket launchers?
I can tell you what these Texas boys and girls would do. They'd be out there hiding bombs in the gutters and sniping the drivers of the assault vehicles.
Embittered-Max-Hussein-1 @ 42:
I'd be flattered!
" I’d like to see some of McCain’s Media ask him about this over doughnuts on the Straight Talk Express bus."
You're not going to hold your breath, are you?
"Unless it gets the hicks, MICs and oil slicks ta put me in the White House...then it's OK." - John McCraven
Proud2bHumble Hus(in)sein Withalongname Sodontbehatinyashortymonikerwhiners LOL @ 47:
Monikers Digest version...
McDogsofWarwhore
;-}
Proud2bHumble @ 48:
McWhoreOfWarDogs
McLowerThanShitFromDogsofWarwhores
that name is so flexible, so utilitarian.
I'm feeling a need to wash now.
i am a member of the armed forces...medical field...pharmacy tech to be exact...not a hired killer by any means.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory @ 49:
A McDogsofWarwhoreHero alcohol-based full-frontal lobe disinfecting flush would be my wreckomendation...
Hi CIP, always a pleasure exchanging highgene tips, haha...gotta go, will check back.
;-}
and.... Speaking of "the media".
"ABC media" asking to continue to setup debates to stage the "republican controlled media show" environment.
Many are saying NO... to the staged McSame townhall media show...
http://www.democrats.com/just-say-no-to-the-rich-republican-town-hall
MountainMan23 @ 38:
Was he President or Governor?
Oh man, I really hope Keith Olbermann gets tapped to moderate one of the debates in the fall. I can see it now...
[Flash forward]
KO: Next, I am going to read a short passage from the foreward of a best selling book detailing the decisions that led to U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. Quote...
(Proceeds to read aformentioned quote)
KO: ...end quote. For the edification of our audience, that passage was authored by Senator John McCain in 1992. Senator McCain, do you think the same words and sentiments could be applied to the current war in Iraq, and if so does it not follow that continuation of the war is equally criminal?
[/Flash forward]
I honestly think a line of questioning like this would sufficiently point out the walking inconsistency that is John McCain enough to end his bid for the presidency.
Ask St. McShame about this...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-c...
Sorry, should have been foreword and not foreward. When is C&L going to move to user accounts so we can edit our posts already!
MICHAEL YON: An Open Letter to U.S. Senators
I hereby offer to accompany any Senator to Iraq, whether they are pro-or anti-war, Democrat or Republican. I will make this offer personally to a few select Senators as well. Our conversations during the visit would be on- or off-record, as they wish. Touring Iraq with me, as well as briefings by U.S. officers and meetings with Iraqis, would provide an accurate and nuanced account of the progress and challenges ahead, so that the Senators might have a highly informed perspective on this most critical issue. Our civilian leaders need to make decisions based on the best information available. The only way to learn what is really going on in Iraq is to go there and listen to our ground commanders, who know what they are doing. Generals Petraeus and Odierno have years of experience in Iraq, and vast knowledge of our efforts there. But the young soldiers who have done multiple tours in Iraq also have unique and invaluable perspectives as well. These young soldiers have personally witnessed the trajectory of the war shift dramatically, and can articulate those changes in concrete and specific terms. It doesn’t matter if a soldier is only twenty-something. If he or she spent two or three years in the war, that person is likely to have valuable insights. The best way to understand what is really going on is to listen closely to a wide range of service members who have done multiple tours in Iraq. Some will be negative, some will be positive, but overall I am certain that the vast majority of multi-tour Iraq veterans will testify that there has been great progress, and now there is hope. Combat veterans don’t tolerate happy talk or wishful thinking. They’ll tell you the raw truth as they see it.
Days since Barack Obama visited Iraq: 882
Reality bites at #43 states that "... there are tons of solid arguments for having an army." You may wish to pick up American Militarism by Andrew Bacevich, a former Vietnam veteran and professor of history at Boston college, who makes a persuasive argument throughout the book that there "tons of solid arguments" why the United States should not be engaging in any needless acts of aggression throughout the globe. Chalmers Johnson also does the same thing in his trilogy, starting with Blowback, and then The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis.
I think I may have mentioned this to you before on another post. Certainly people by now should realize by now that if they join the military today there is an excellent chance that they will end up either in Iraq or Afghanistan. You claim to be "... a large supporter of the IVAW..." and yet you believe, as you stated at comment #15, that those in the military, for some bizarre reason, should be "honored." You have never said why they should be so honored. As I said at comment #30, ask the average Iraqi or Afghani if he or she believes that an American soldier should be "honored." But when I raise this question, you then claim that I am vilifying commenters on this site for asking that question. A person who joins the military today has to be either extremely naive, terribly uninformed, or just plain stupid to not realize that his presence in the military is supporting an organization that is suppressing the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Regarding what I would like reality bites to do, that would be very simple. Do not take hypocritical positions by claiming to support the IVAW and then saying that he also supports everyone else in the military. To do both is simply illogical, as one group is clearly against American aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan while the others passively go along with whatever the military tells them to do. Reality bites may want to refer to what the former soldier said in Sir! No Sir! in comment #30 about those soldiers who simply go along with the program.
Even if someone actually did ask the question, he would just get that stupid annoyed grin on his face and say the quote was taken out of context. That would be the end of it.
I still believe in the domino theory.
Was this before or after McCrazy's frontal lobotomy?
This forward written by this neo-warmonger needs to be sent to every media outlet in this country as well as internationally so the world can see what a liar this man is.
He's clearly still being blackmailed by the GOP to keep his judgement errors in the USS Forestal Disaster (largest disaster in naval history) quiet. Google it: USS Forestal and John McCain. I see that some of the sites have recently been "scrubbed" either by McNutcase or by the GOP but plenty of people know the facts.
I surely hope that one of the 501's will pick up on this Forestal disaster and how Pappy and Grandpappy McSame factored into the death of 168 of our own men.
Once the general public is made aware of what McSame "really did" in his military career (violation of the military code of ethics three times with his Pappy, Admiral McSame, bailing his sorry butt out (sounding a bit familiar to the Bush story?). This will certainly put a serious "dent" into his military war hero status. When the facts are revealed, he'll be dodging questions about his military career and not puffing them up any longer.
am i late?
I think it's quite amusing to see the GOPher talking heads actually trying to spin that McCrazy actually has a snowball's chance in hell in the election in November. They're all deluded or mentally compromised; certainly, they are totally in Bubbleland and not in touch with the Obama Tsunami sweeping this country by storm. Just like the Midterm elections where they believed their own pathological lies and lulled themselves into complacency, they're in for a rude awakening come November.
If Pappy Johnny McSame is questioned about what he wrote, this will be one instance where he can legitimately claim "he doesn't know anything about it". The John McCain of then is definitely the blackmailed John McCain Warmonger of today. This man we see now can't complete a sentence without a teleprompter and even with one, botches the hell out of it making a jackass of himself every time. He's going to have a lot of "splainin'" to do during the debates and will be chewed up like chopped liver by Obama.
skud @ 59:
You're right - when he's hoist on his own pitard, all he does is give that jackass grin and try to be cute or funny - something he's not creative enough to do and comes off making an even larger issue of his antics and the issue in question. He's no more qualified to be commander of a bathtub boat then a country in jeopardy. His lack of intelligence and comprehension of the complex issues facing this country right now is downright frightening. His lights are on and his eyes and teeth are flashing, but, clearly, nobody's home. I'm afraid that his brain checked out during his POW days.
"A person who joins the military today has to be either extremely naive, terribly uninformed, or just plain stupid" - Erroll
I think the point was there is also a 4th option, which is "extremely desperate."
Anyway, to switch gears a bit, I think you make a cogent argument, Erroll, but you stumble when you disregard reality bites' argument as being without merit. You are both discussing a very complex and important issue, and both sides of the argument have merit, regardless of each side's ability to fully articulate their side here on C&L.
Query: Is physical force ever justified in conflict resolution when all other options have been exhausted?
I think the answer is clearly yes in matters of self-defense. Is war ever self-defense? Even if America's wars were never wars of self-defense (i'm not going to argue either side of that here or now), surely we can both agree that it is possible to wage a systematic (armed) struggle against an enemy that has shown over and over that they wish nothing but your complete destruction. Again, I'm not talking about history, just possibility and defining terms and clearly laying out a stance.
Is there a history of human beings waging wars for power, money, hatred, ignorance, etc. and concealing their motives under the facade of justice, equality, self-defense, etc.? Absolutely; most of history is thus. But does that mean that it is never justified to stand in opposition to tyranny, hatred, oppression, etc. and, sometimes to stand in opposition against it using physical force when all other options have failed?
I believe that, in certain cases, it can be justified. Whether that means there is "such a thing as a just war" or not, I cannot say. But there is such a thing as just, armed opposition. "War"? I will leave that word with the philosophers, along with "terrorist" and "freedom fighter".
That said, this current war is not just. Few are. With that I gladly agree. What worries me is a stance that holds that ALL those who fight are killers. It worries me because I believe that tyranny thrives when the oppressed "bring a knife to a gun-fight".
dennis @ 57:
Does Michael Yon, whoever that is, masterbate along...or do you help him Dennis?
As someone famous wisely said, War Is a Racket.
The country will be much better off if every American understands that.
eyepennies @ 67:
You state that "... it is possible to wage a systematic [armed] struggle against an enemy that has shown over and over that they wish nothing but your complete destruction." If one were to see that statement anywhere else, it could certainly be construed as a neoconservative argument for staying in Iraq. I am not trying to be patronizing but let us look at this intelligently and logically, shall we? This enemy that you are claiming that is "wishing for your complete destruction" [if I can assume that you are referring to Iraq] only comprises 2 percent of those who are aligned against the U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. Again, that figure is not 92 percent, it is a paltry TWO percent. The overwhelming majority of those who are fighting against U.S. forces are the resistance fighters who are, naturally enough, trying to drive the invaders, i.e. the imperial United States, from their soil.
In your last paragraph, you attempt to exonerate those who are in the military by stating that it is not true that "... ALL those who fight are killers." As a said to reality bites, I do not think that your argument will go very far if you try getting it past the average Iraqi. In your last sentence, you state that "... tyranny thrives when the oppressed 'bring a knife to a gun fight.' " One does not know whether to laugh or cry at that statement. Are you actually trying to argue that the United States is somehow fighting against tyranny in Iraq? As I pointed out earlier, there are extremely few foreign jihadists operating in Iraq [ the number of two percent has been put forth by, among others, Congressman John Murtha, military reporter Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post, Senator Evan Bayh and former commandant James Jones of the United States Marine Corps.] But the ones who are there are there because of the inflammatory presence of the U.S. military.
I would like to, if I may, return briefly to your comment that not " ALL those who fight are killers." As I mentioned in comment #30, if you were to see the documentary Sir! No Sir! [which I strongly recommend], which told the story of the GI movement during the Vietnam conflict, you would hear a soldier who had returned to Vietnam say at a GI Coffeehouse that if one is simply a clerk typist, that does not get them off the hook, since it means that they are still a part of an organization that is oppressing and brutalizing the citizens of a third world country.
As former Green Beret Donald Duncan wisely observed in Sir! No Sir!: "The problem that I had was realizing that what I was doing was not good. I was doing it right but I wasn't doing right." One wonders if the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, both combat AND non-combat, will ever come to that same realization.
The words of director David Zeiger of Sir! No Sir! should also be remembered, when he correctly noted that the soldiers "are just as capable as anyone of knowing right from wrong." Such as the members of the IVAW as opposed to those in the military who blindly obey the orders that they are given, either implicitly or explicitly, in the illegal and immoral occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bill R @ 69:
Excellent link to a former Medal of Honor winner who eventually, as the link states, "denounc[ed] war on moral grounds". If only U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan could reach the same epiphany as General Smedley Butler.
Erroll @ 70:
Accepting graciously that your comments/assertion are not meant to be "patronizing", I do not understand the core of your thesis. First, many of us, myself, included have stated that we agree that this adventure in Iraq is unjust. And your knowledge of how to simplify the many, complex thoughts of the "average Iraqi" is impressive but doesn't help me understand what you would suggest as a resolution to this. Since you have not responded with any actionable ideas other than to attack other's thinking, I must assume are arguing for a total dissolution of our military at most and an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan as a minimum; if not; then a requirement that those in the military simply refuse to fight if they think it is wrong. That leaves us with the issue of terrorism and an effective plan to defend ourselves from further attacks. What is your suggestion here?
I would love to see a world at peace where everyone respects and celebrates the many differences among us and works to assure war never occurs again. That is not the current reality. We can have this as a goal, but we have to move from where we are toward that place. In the meantime, we can support those soldiers who have personally come to reject this war, all wars, etc. without being so casual with blanket condemnation of those who for all kinds of legitimate reasons are in our military today. If you think the world is a place where we can have the safety and freedoms we think we deserve without a military I would love to hear how you think we can do this.
You missed the gist of what I was saying, Erroll. I wasn't talking about Iraq. I stated in my post that I do not consider Iraq a just war. I was merely trying to say that I take issue with the notion that no war is ever just.
372-reality bitres
First of all, the thoughts of the "average Iraqi" are not that complex. What they want is what any occupied citizens of a country wants and that is for the occupiers to leave their land. Is that so difficult to understand? If another foreign country occupied the United States, would you not want those soldiers to leave the country? Apparently just another example of how Americans seem to possess empathy in their DNA.
You are partially right on other issues. I have never advocated for the "dissolution of our military." That bizarre suggestion makes absolutely no sense at all, just as it makes no sense for th United States to spend more on its military budget than all the other countries in the world combined. The United States is its own worst enemy, since it is the presence of the U.S. military that is the cause of so many of the problems in the Middle East. I certainly am in favor of the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan since, as I previously stated, it is the existence of the U.S. military in Iraq that is exacerbating tensions in that war ravaged country. You are also right that it would be most helpful if those in the military would refuse to fight since, as the GI movement proved during the Vietnam conflict, the best way for a war to end is to have it happen from within.
You inquire what can be done about the issue of terrorism. As others have also argued, such as supposed radicals such as Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn and Arundhatti Roy and John Pilger and Anthony Arnove [who wrote Iraq-The Logic of Withdrawal] and Harold Pinter and John LeCarre, and others, the United States must change its policy in the Middle East by removing its troops from that region, for the simple reason that U.S. forces are feared, hated and loathed due to their imperialistic behavior. The United States should also change its favored behavior toward Israel [ with about 150 nuclear weapons, it is more than capable of taking care of itself] and think more about the plight of the Palestinians and the Lebanese people.
Fighting the terrorists by military means is like an elephant trying to crush a flea, an example of overkill at its worst. The best and most efficient way to combat terror is to do what the UK and Spain have done and that is to rely upon the police and the cooperation of intelligence agencies around the world in order to monitor their activities. The terrorists are reputed to be in 50 to 60 other countries. Do you propose that the United States invade and occupy those other countries in order to hunt down these fearsome terrorists? Again, one should attempt to understand why these terrorists so resent the U.S. and that is because of America's foreign policy in the Middle East. Until that is done, more people around the globe will be flocking to the cause of the terrorists.
Correction on comment #74
The last sentence in the first paragraph should read "Apparently just another example of how Americans do not seem to possess empathy in their DNA."
Erroll @ 75:
To end this peacefully, I will simply repeat that we agree wholeheartedly on the criminal approach that this Administration has taken in almost everything that it has done and that "we" have no business occupying Iraq. The disagreement rests with your wanting to push the blame and anger down to the foot soldier. I want to focus the blame where I think it belongs - on those with the power to send our young people into unjust wars in the first place. "We" are actually responsible for electing and supporting that leadership while "we" are free from sacrifice and horror of either going to fight or being put in the stockade for refusing to go. If "we" act responsibly and accept our own accountability and make sure this doesn't happen again, then, perhaps, we can stop laying the blame at the feeet of the least powerful.
The McCain of yesteryear (if he was genuine) and the McCain of today are examples of what ultimate fate of everybody who sells their soul piecemeal fashion over a decades-long period. The person who was no longer exists, destroyed by his own hand. Self-corruption is always an incremental process, made one choice at a time. McCain is just one example of the outcome. The foreward that Digby cites and the McCain we have today is a demonstration of that outcome. Mostly, McCain is pathetic.
Comments are closed on this entry