American news

[RiverwoodCLT]

This mess in Iraq reminds me of Vietnam. You could watch the war on TV every night and get the body count for the day.

Now you have 24 hr. cable news, so you get it all day. I think a lot of good over there is not reported, because it makes for a slow news day.

For what we are spending over there, (approx. 3.5 billion a week) we could fix our

interstructure in no time. This action in Iraq is a big drag on our economy, but I do not see very much on the news about it.

I do not thinks we are getting the complete picture of whats going on over there.

[pvenne]

Actually, most people in the military loathed Clinton much as he "loathed the military".

As for nation building, ask the Germans and the Japanese how good we are at nation this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1.) were you talking about military officials under clinton or the your everyday foot soldiers?

2.) you are absolutely right on the Japan/Germany issue. if it wasn't fr the U.S., neither would be in the shape they are today (I know jaoan isnt doing so well, but it never would have become a major economic force if it werent for the U.S.). the presence of the united states is the single most important factor in the positive development of japan and germany over the past 50 years, he is right about that.

[monsoon]

Indeed. But nation building in those countries occured after we had completely flattened Germany and droped atomic bombs on Japan. (not to mention buring Tokyo to the ground). WWII was a war in which 50 million died and most of German and Japan were completely destroyed. A lot of nation building was needed. There is no debate on what happened in WWII and it is is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The most disingenious arguments in support Bush's war against Iraq are the ones that attempt to draw parallels to what happened in WWII.

[Ruso]

I am sure they will give you quite an ear full over Iraq as they fortunately have access to better media than we do here in the USA.  The question is, will you be listening as most of the supporters of Bush's wars would not be.  They are happy to watch the glorious war news on CNN, ABC and Fox while munching on their freedom fries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen, RiversideGator you really should ask them. They do not have the USA as their saviors.

I do not thinks we are getting the complete picture of whats going on over there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course you are not. Many erronously believe that in democracy, differently from a dictatorship, you are provided with truthful information. The fact is that you are not provided with it, you have to look for it. That is the only difference, media-wise: In the USA you can look for more information, from more than one source, whereas in other places you can not. Look for information from more than one source, from other nations. Currently, with the internet, it is not hard. That will give many a different perspective of what is happening.

RiversideGator: Again, with my all due respect, do you really think that the idea of the USA "saving" all those nations is objective? If there is something important about history is to be as ojective and stick to the facts as possible. Then you can form your opinion, but to assure that you "saved" them seems to me as an extremely subjective, limited idea. Of course that is me, a man also vulnerable to subjectivity....

[pvenne]

Indeed.  But nation building in those countries occured after we had completely flattened Germany and droped atomic bombs on Japan. (not to mention buring Tokyo to the ground).  WWII was a war in which 50 million died and most of German and Japan were completely destroyed.  A lot of nation building was needed.    There is no debate on what happened in WWII and it is is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.   

The most disingenious arguments in support Bush's war against Iraq are the ones that attempt to draw parallels to what happened in WWII.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i was simply agreeing with him that we helped japan and germany out tremendously, like he had implied in an earlier post, not necessarily making a comment on iraq.

[monsoon]

i was simply agreeing with him that we helped japan and germany out tremendously, like he had implied in an earlier post, not necessarily making a comment on iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you should think before you post. A large number of your posts in this section are to explain that you didn't really mean what you posted in the first place.

[RiversideGator]

There is no debate on what happened in WWII and it is is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

monsoon: You said the US was "terrible at nation building" and I cited two of the most successful examples in history of nation building, Germany and Japan, and you find these to be irrelevant. But they are relevant and they completely refute your statement.

Amen, RiversideGator you really should ask them. They do not have the USA as their saviors.

Ruso: Obviously not all Germans and Japanese appreciate the fact that we defeated them in WW II. But, I have heard and read examples of both Germans and Japanese stating that the US and its Allies saved them from totalitarian rule. Either way, it is better for the world that the Germans and the Japanese are like they are now as opposed to how they were in 1941. This is undeniable.

1.) were you talking about military officials under clinton or the your everyday foot soldiers?

pvenne: By and large the US military disliked Clinton. This is a fact supported by opinion and exit polls.

This mess in Iraq reminds me of Vietnam. You could watch the war on TV every night and get the body count for the day.

Now you have 24 hr. cable news, so you get it all day. I think a lot of good over there is not reported, because it makes for a slow news day.

For what we are spending over there, (approx. 3.5 billion a week) we could fix our

interstructure in no time. This action in Iraq is a big drag on our economy, but I do not see very much on the news about it.

I do not thinks we are getting the complete picture of whats going on over there.

Liberals want everyone to think this is just like Vietnam when in fact it is in no way like Vietnam, except that casualties occur in every war. You are correct in stating that we are not getting the complete picture in that we are not hearing the positive developments. Having said that, would I have handled the occupation different? Sure. First, I would have shot all insurgents, no questions asked, not just put panties on their heads. Second, I would have, instead of disbanding the Iraqi military had it sent to its barracks and retrained, restructured and paid (to avoid the temptation of joining the terrorists).

And, I am not completely opposed to the idea of partition for Iraq since its boundaries are rather arbitrary. The problem is this weakens it tremendously and makes it susceptible to being taken advantage of by stronger neighbors. That region isnt like the EU. So, I think union makes sense for now until things can cool down over there. And, I would write the Iraqi constitution for the Iraqis like we did for the Japanese - not give them a choice in the matter. Let them amend it later when things cool off, but make them do the right thing now.

But, you must consider that there are not easy answers to the many problems over there. I think Bush has done a good job in foreign affairs overall.

[Ruso]

Ruso: Obviously not all Germans and Japanese appreciate the fact that we defeated them in WW II.  But, I have heard and read examples of both Germans and Japanese stating that the US and its Allies saved them from totalitarian rule.  Either way, it is better for the world that the Germans and the Japanese are like they are now as opposed to how they were in 1941.  This is undeniable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you. If there are good examples of an efficient nation building, is Germany and Japan. Nevertheles, It is not that the USA did all the work. They gave them the first "push". You can not forget that Germany, in special, was able to rise without American help. I hope that you do remember that the USA was not the only developed nation at, or before the time. It is not like you constructed a nation from zero, the German culture was meant to recover.

Liberals want everyone to think this is just like Vietnam when in fact it is in no way like Vietnam, except that casualties occur in every war. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can not deny the similarities. The USA is facing the same Guerilla tactics, and, differently from other wars, they are not fighting an official army, they are fighting anyone. Everybody might be an enemy. About the numbers of deaths, just give it some time.

[Ruso]

You are correct in stating that we are not getting the complete picture in that we are not hearing the positive developments. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh that depends. Have you seen Fox News? Or, the bigot, "antijournalist" Michael Savage? If I was to base my opinions on that media, I would see Iraq as a Paradise, and the americans as angels. Again, what is important is to look for more than one source. Read an american paper, read a british paper, read a cuban paper, read an arabic paper. The constrasts will surely make you understant how relative truth is.

Having said that, would I have handled the occupation different?  Sure.  First, I would have shot all insurgents, no questions asked, not just put panties on their heads.  Second, I would have, instead of disbanding the Iraqi military had it sent to its barracks and retrained, restructured and paid (to avoid the

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not just put panties? What does that mean sorry?

And again, to bother you with my crude, repugnantly liberal wit:

Dont you think that many of those insurgents have reasons to do what they do? I am sure that you would not like it if the Chinese decide dto invade your nation. Am sure you would fight also. (they consider you a threat, carrying WMD, and see Bush as a terrible capitalist) I know I would...

[monsoon]

monsoon:  You said the US was "terrible at nation building" and I cited two of the most successful examples in history of nation building, Germany and Japan, and you find these to be irrelevant.  But they are relevant and they completely refute your statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They are irrelevant because WWII is irrevelant to discussions about Iraq. Neo-Conservative chicken hawks like to hide behind WWII, because they say oh we were so successful in Japan & Germany, hoping that people will think Iraq was a noble a cause as WWII. Give me a break. Bring up Vietnam, however which is very very similar to Iraq, and there is silence. (proven by the fact you left it off your list of "glorious wars") Especially since most of tne neo-conservative chicken hawks used every tactic in the book to keep from doing their duty in that war.

On the earlier statement of soldiers like Clinton vs Bush. Well one only has to look at recruitment numbers to tell which President was better liked in the military. The Army is failing to meet its goals now even though we supposedly have the fearless leader at the helm and his actions are leading to a safer happier America and world for us all. Yeah right.

[RiversideGator]

Liberals calling people names like "chickenhawk" doesnt help their argument, it just demonstrates an inability to form a coherent argument without ad hominem attacks. First, we have in this country civilian control of the military as opposed to a military dictatorship, so obviously it would be civilians sending soldiers into wars. Second, Bush was in the National Guard serving as a fighter pilot in the 60s and 70s and Rumsfeld served in the US Navy as a fighter pilot in the 50s, which is more service than most elected Democrats have had (including Clinton who actively evaded the draft). I didnt realize that combat service in Vietnam was a prerequisite to being in leadership today anyway. Third, some of the recent Republican leaders have in fact served in combat. See Dole's and Thurmond's service in WW II, etc. Anyway, speaking of irrelevant, one's combat service is completely irrelevant to whether or not their policy prescriptions are sound.

As to comparing Vietnam to Iraq, let's talk about the dissimilarities: One was in Asia, one is in the Middle East. One involved over 500,000 US soldiers at its peak, one just 120,000. One had over 50,000 US deaths, one has about 1,800. One involved a struggle against Communism, one involves a struggle against militant Islam, dictatorship and nihilism. One involved other countries as part of a global war against Communism, one is largely limited to remnants of a defunct regime and Islamic kooks. As is obvious, example one is Vietnam, example two is Iraq. Clearly, there is no comparison (although Vietnam was a noble endeavor which was won until a Fifth Column of leftists, who today like to toss around words like chickenhawk, sabotaged our war effort and the S Vietnamese).

[pvenne]

Maybe you should think before you post.

[Ruso]

Liberals calling people names like "chickenhawk" doesnt help their argument, it just demonstrates an inability to form a coherent argument without ad hominem attacks.  First, we have in this country civilian control of the military as opposed to a military dictatorship, so obviously it would be civilians sending soldiers into wars.  Second, Bush was in the National Guard serving as a fighter pilot in the 60s and 70s and Rumsfeld served in the US Navy as a fighter pilot in the 50s, which is more service than most elected Democrats have had (including Clinton who actively evaded the draft).  I didnt realize that combat service in Vietnam was a prerequisite to being in leadership today anyway.  Third, some of the recent Republican leaders have in fact served in combat.  See Dole's and Thurmond's service in WW II, etc.  Anyway, speaking of irrelevant, one's combat service is completely irrelevant to whether or not their policy prescriptions are sound.

As to comparing Vietnam to Iraq, let's talk about the dissimilarities:  One was in Asia, one is in the Middle East.  One involved over 500,000 US soldiers at its peak, one just 120,000.  One had over 50,000 US deaths, one has about 1,800.  One involved a struggle against Communism, one involves a struggle against militant Islam, dictatorship and nihilism.  One involved other countries as part of a global war against Communism, one is largely limited to remnants of a defunct regime and Islamic kooks.  As is obvious, example one is Vietnam, example two is Iraq.  Clearly, there is no comparison (although Vietnam was a noble endeavor which was won until a Fifth Column of leftists, who today like to toss around words like chickenhawk, sabotaged our war effort and the S Vietnamese).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if I can recall well, Ad hominem attacks have been made before by you, attacking some of the brightest liberal minds of the time.

But again, I think that something that characterizesMOST conservative minds, is their lack of arguments. There is a reason for most PHD and intelectuals in the world to be against this war. There is a reason for most ignorant people in the USA(from the poorest states, ie Kentucky, Missisipi), to be conservative.

"You depend on our protection"-"We are saving the iraqis"

You are not conerned about saving anyone, if you were, you would not be in Iraq, you would be Sudan, or North Korea What the USA wants is the oil, period. It is the perfect depiction of moral hipocrecy:"We sold the weapons to Hussein, because he was an allied, we did not care what he did against his people, but when we need the oil, we do care"

[Viper]

Ruso, if you believe any statement made in this thread, this is the one to believe.

We did not go to Iraq for oil.

I can back that up with pages of documentation, sources, debates and much more if you need it.

monsoon: It's true, the military didn't like Clinton very well. I'm not saying they all love Bush either but they didn't like clinton much at all. As for recruitment, we did make it for the year. What was missed were certain monthly goals. It also doesn't help when the liberal media blasts the whole war effort on TV. What do you expect recruits to think? All they hear is death "Every soldier in Iraq is dead today." If question why recruitment is low, you can blame the media doing everything they can to see to that fact.

[monsoon]

Viper the media does not do enough to report about the dead in Iraq. If Americans saw what was really going on, as they did with Vietnam, there would be outrage, protests and demands to get out of Iraq as there was with Vietnam. The American media is carefully controlled these days by the corporations that own them to give the impression they are liberal, by reporting on sensationalist irrelevant tabloid trash instead of real news. They have gladly accepted the Bush Administration's demands that no caskets be shown of the war dead, we have owners of vast numbers of broadcast station refusing to show programs that honor the dead, and a general disdain to report anything controversial about Iraq.

Like Vietnam, nobody knows why we are in there, the government has no plan for getting out, and there seems to be no endpoint to the violence fighting and continued dead. The only reason that soldiers are not dying as they did in Iraq is because medical technology has advanced greatly since then. But the tens of thousands of injured that have had their lives shattered due to injuries from Iraq are going to suffer as much as the returning Vietnam vets. The media is failing to cover this tragedy too.

I do believe the military loved Bush before the war. That ended shortly after Bush landed on the Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln and declared "Mission Accomplished". Then the realities of a protracted, endless war set in and soldiers, most of which were not born during Vietnam, began to learn the lessons that have been forgotten from that war.

[RiversideGator]

monsoon: But re-enlistment rates for the military are at record highs. This article is from 2004, but I believe it still holds: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1331...C=airforce-a.nl

Well, if I can recall well, Ad hominem attacks have been made before by you, attacking some of the brightest liberal minds of the time.

Ruso: The only "great liberal mind" I recall personally ridiculing was Noam Chomsky who has been so wrong about so many things that I believe he is deserving of ridicule. I agree we should all avoid personal insults and stick with the facts.

There is a reason for most PHD and intelectuals in the world to be against this war.

Your evidence for this statement is what? And, even if true, so what? I, by the way, have a post-graduate degree (JD) also.

There is a reason for most ignorant people in the USA(from the poorest states, ie Kentucky, Missisipi), to be conservative.

Now you smear entire regions of the US. There are plenty of conservative all over the country, by the way. Anyway, too much education can sometimes cause a weakness of character known as moral relativism, i.e. the inability to clearly tell right from wrong.

What the USA wants is the oil, period.

So why didnt we just seize the oil fields in the South and let the rest of Iraq descend into civil war? The truth is we clearly have an interest in the free flow of oil (as well as other commerce), but this is not our only goal in all foreign policy. People attach so much emotion to oil, but it is just a commodity like soybeans or cotton or anything else. Commerce makes the world go round. Nothing wrong with this.

[RiversideGator]

We did an excellent job in Japan and Germany. And when Iraq is finished, it will be an excellent U.S. asset in the region.

pvenne: I agree. No matter what our position was before the war, I think every American has a strong interest in seeing this thing through to absolute victory. A stable, successful, democratic Iraq will be a positive benefit to the world for generations.

[Ruso]

Ruso:  The only "great liberal mind" I recall personally ridiculing was Noam Chomsky who has been so wrong about so many things that I believe he is deserving of ridicule.  I agree we should all avoid personal insults and stick with the facts.

Your evidence for this statement is what?  And, even if true, so what?  I, by the way, have a post-graduate degree (JD) also.

Now you smear entire regions of the US.  There are plenty of conservative all over the country, by the way.  Anyway, too much education can sometimes cause a weakness of character known as moral relativism, i.e. the inability to clearly tell right from wrong.

So why didnt we just seize the oil fields in the South and let the rest of Iraq descend into civil war?  The truth is we clearly have an interest in the free flow of oil (as well as other commerce), but this is not our only goal in all foreign policy.  People attach so much emotion to oil, but it is just a commodity like soybeans or cotton or anything else.  Commerce makes the world go round.  Nothing wrong with this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RiversideGator:

I thought, from what I read a time ago in the NY times, that the military was having a crisis because of the lack of volunteers. They were thinking about reducing the two years of rest after one in Iraq. I'll try to find the article.

I agree about ad hominems. I completely disagree about your views on "too much education". I think that is the problem. Many will discard or ignore extremely educated thinkers by labeling them as inmoral. The same happened with Socrates, Plato, etc. Nietzche is even known seen as nothing but a pervert by many.

Moral relativity is present in conservadurism too. I've explained why before, and that is a completely different and complex topic. What liberals do(the ones that know why they are liberlas) is accepting that that relativity exists, and that we cannot avoid it. Conservatives deny it, even if they are part of it.

And again, I know that there are conservatives from all over the country. One of my best friends is from NY and is a conservative(not even himself can understand why). My only point is that there is a reason for more educated people to be liberal, they are minds are usually more open to different ideas.

I want to remind you that I tried not to generalize and underlined that most, not every conservative tends to come from a lesseducated background.

Also, a degree might not mean anything. I knew a person who was a BA in history from a well know university, and did not know who was Ernesto Guevarra, Mao Tse Tung, nor Eva Per

[Viper]

RiversideGator:

I thought, from what I read a time ago in the NY times, that the military was having a crisis because of the lack of volunteers. They were thinking about reducing the two years of rest after one in Iraq. I'll try to find the article.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As one in the military, I can assure you there is no crisis. We have met our yearly recruitment goals for all branches every year since the war began. What we have had an issue with was missing monthly goals in the Marines and Army a few times but as I stated, the full year goal was still met.

We are also no where near exhausting our resources and total force power as many liberal media outlets like to claim.

Hope that clears a few things up.

[Ruso]

pvenne:  I agree.  No matter what our position was before the war, I think every American has a strong interest in seeing this thing through to absolute victory.  A stable, successful, democratic Iraq will be a positive benefit to the world for generations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with that too. It sounds ironic but I certainly hope you are right about Iraq.(even though you are not )

I certainly hope the USA government was as many picture it.

As one in the military, I can assure you there is no crisis.  We have met our yearly recruitment goals for all branches every year since the war began.  What we have had an issue with was missing monthly goals in the Marines and Army a few times but as I stated, the full year goal was still met.

We are also no where near exhausting our resources and total force power as many liberal media outlets like to claim. 

Hope that clears a few things up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did not find the articly from NY Times( biased liberals for you?), but I did find one from the LA times in my files. I cannot assure anything, but I'll post it anyway. It is from June. Personally, from the brochures am getting, I see that they are giving a lot of priviledges to any volunteers. According to an ex recruit friend, more than before. But, who knows.

enlstees_pentagon_25.txt

enlstees_pentagon_25.txt

[Ruso]

So why didnt we just seize the oil fields in the South and let the rest of Iraq descend into civil war?  The truth is we clearly have an interest in the free flow of oil (as well as other commerce), but this is not our only goal in all foreign policy.  People attach so much emotion to oil, but it is just a commodity like soybeans or cotton or anything else.  Commerce makes the world go round.  Nothing wrong with this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because it would be accepting that the only interest was the oil. Not even Bush would have done that mistake and lose the little support they have in the international community.

[Viper]

Ruso, that advertising campaign was being contemplated in case it got to levels the current force couldn't handle and more recruits would be needed quickly.

Much of that, they've always done anyway so there really isn't anything new there just slightly more of it.

[P-Land]

Anyway, too much education can sometimes cause a weakness of character known as moral relativism, i.e. the inability to clearly tell right from wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He is right, it is called a relativistic fallacy, and it prevents some people from seeing that some actions are unquestionably wrong, regardless of cultural perspective. And Noam Chomsky is a brilliant idiot.

[RiversideGator]

Ruso: I was referring not to enlistment figures, which are for new members of the armed forces, but to re-enlistment figures, which are for people already in the armed forces who choose to stay in the military for longer than they have to - this is at record highs.

[Ruso]

He is right, it is called a relativistic fallacy, and it prevents some people from seeing that some actions are unquestionably wrong, regardless of cultural perspective.  And Noam Chomsky is a brilliant idiot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Brilliant idiot is nothing but a ad hominem attack. Who are you to call him an idiot? He has different ideas, ideas based on reason and education. Education makes you think about that moral relativity, of course, makes you realice that it exists. Ignorance denies it, even though it does not stop it from being present. I think that that praise on ignorance and that fear to extreme education is a way of denying that certain ideologies are based on the lack of understading of the world,(ignorance) while others are based on reason and awareness. ("too much"education)

But then, again, this is another topic. Chomsly is literally a genius. Regardless of his ideology, his contributions to linguistics and cognitive sciences are priceless.