Accountability for War

[flavio]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
I'll be sure to tell my buddies when they come back from Iraq that they aren't in fact proud, that they are just in denial. I'll be sure to let them know, because they can't make up their own minds, that the sense of pride they have is really their denial oozing out of their confused/exploited brains. Poor poor creatures, if they only knew.

Any buddies that you have that come back from Iraq should feel proud if they did a good job. It's certainly not their fault that they were ordered to go over there. Their exploitation should not reflect negatively on their character but on the ones up top making the decisions.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
*plays the violin during ConclamoLudus's so eloquent, patriotic speech*

I appreciate the soundtrack and the compliment. Its not the same without the music behind it. I usually like to have the full marching band with the Battle Hymn of The Republic playing over anything and everything I say, but your violin is much more subtle and I can appreciate the gesture.

 

[phillyTIM]

lol!

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Every American serviceperson that performs their duties with utmost respect for human rights should be quite proud of their accomplishments. I do not believe anyone in this thread has implied serving in Iraq requires a sub-mean IQ or lack of personal integrity.

I want to echo this because I may not be entirely clear in the point I'm trying to get across. I have the utmost respect for our soldiers, I'm thankful for the sacrifices they have agreed to make, I just don't want to see that agreement taken advantage of. Soldiers conform, they believe what their superiors want them to believe, or they simply don't make it in the military. Some get out and realize this, some don't. I personally have a friend that did. He was thankful for the opportunities serving gave him, and proud of the sacrifices he made. But he also wisened up to what it had cost him, enough so that he forbid any of his sons from joining any branch of the military.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Vic
Did "the war" end up being a bad thing? Seems to me that we got a lot more accomplished than when it was Bush Sr.'s turn.

Hitler got more accomplished than Bush I too. I am shocked that you are equating Bush with Hitler.

Excuse me? :| Did I equate Bush with Hitler? Did Bush (Jr. or Sr.) round up millions of people in concentration camps and have them executed in genocidal delight? No. If anyone has equated Bush with Hitler, it is you. Don't put words in my mouth, troll.

I was against this war when it was first starting. I was concerned that it would upset the tenuous geopolitical climate. Fortunately, that did not happen, and in fact it appears that it has strengthened the political stability in the area and around the world. Did Bush lie? Looks like he did. That's bothers me a bit, but not very much because I assumed all along that he was lying. The blatant tone of the misleading sales pitch was pretty obvious, and I can only assume that you knew that he was lying then as well (or suspected it). That you pretend to be surprised by it now only implicates you as a liar as well.
What bothers me more is that all this WMD propaganda continues to be a destructive distraction, more so now than before the war. Would you mind not joining the idiot lynch mob? There still remains many more important questions... like where is Saddam?

My heart goes to the families of the soldiers who have died in the war and continue to die, but they signed their papers, they knew what they were getting themselves into when they enlisted, and unfortunately they have been called upon to pay that ultimate price. Were they "exploited by the country (they had) sworn to protect"? Why don't you ask their families? Perhaps they shouldn't have joined up then, eh?

All I see here is more destructive bipartisan politics. And to take quotes and articles from the discredited and highly partisan New York Times (or its sister paper owned by the same media conglomerate - The LA Times) and call them proof... that's just assinine.

edited: minor typos

Obviously the subtleties of right and wrong elude you in this matter. Let me help you.


"Did I equate Bush with Hitler? Did Bush (Jr. or Sr.) round up millions of people in concentration camps and have them executed in genocidal delight? No. If anyone has equated Bush with Hitler, it is you. Don't put words in my mouth, troll."

Is Bush Hitler? No, but if you justify an immoral act (lying to start a war) by looking at the sheer volume of what was accomplished, then others will use that same rational. Hitler certainly was a beast, but he did get rid of those pesky Jews. Oh, you don't agree? Well anti-Semitism was rampant in Europe those days, and no where moreso that Germany. The Jews to many, not all, were worthy of extinction. So what if Hitler lied about not invading? Many knew he was, but it was for the greater good as defined by them. You see once you embark down this road, you do not know where you will wind up. Troll? I let you and others to decide about that. I am not so sensitive about that. There are plenty others who start whole threads with that intent. My purpose was to have you do just what you did. We will continue to see what's what here.




"I was against this war when it was first starting. I was concerned that it would upset the tenuous geopolitical climate. Fortunately, that did not happen, and in fact it appears that it has strengthened the political stability in the area and around the world."

You were against the war for practical concerns only, or at least that is the only thing you mention. So be it. So far, there have been no major terrorist attacks or wars as a result. I can agree with that. How you arrive at the statement that the world is more stable does not follow. What has happened is that we have stopped shooting. That has by definition made things less violent. Everything else is as it was.


"Did Bush lie? Looks like he did. That's bothers me a bit, but not very much because I assumed all along that he was lying. The blatant tone of the misleading sales pitch was pretty obvious, and I can only assume that you knew that he was lying then as well (or suspected it). "

Now this is what troubles me, and clearly hinted at in your first post. In fact it is why I am taking the time to reply here. You accept the fact that the President lied to the country to start a war, the way Johnson did, yet this did not bother you, because you figured that he was lying anyway. Your standards are far to low. Bush the Liar, the Untrustworthy. He's your boy. Well, so be it. I would rather have a President that could be trusted somewhat, but that isn't much of an issue for you.

"That you pretend to be surprised by it now only implicates you as a liar as well."

No it indicates that I pretended ,rather transparently, to be suprised. If you missed that, you might have gathered it from my posts in many other threads, going way back before the war. You see, I bothered to stick to my principles and object to this before and after the war. I don't have to justify it now, because I did not justify the war before the fact. Admittedly much of my objections were based on right and wrong, as well as practical concerns, and that does not apply to many here. Right, wrong, morality - these things are so passé these days.


"What bothers me more is that all this WMD propaganda continues to be a destructive distraction, more so now than before the war. Would you mind not joining the idiot lynch mob? There still remains many more important questions... like where is Saddam?"

Again we disagree. If pointing out that any President is perfidious is a distraction, then so be it. You see, The fact that Bush did this is irrelevant to me. If it were Clinton, Gore, Regan, anyone. I would feel the same. Since Bush is responsible, he gets all the scorn I feel him worthy of. Important questions... like where is Saddam. Who cares? He is gone, and his support base is gone too. He is not like Al-Queda. He has no cult of personality working for him. He is either dead or irrelevant. I would like to know his fate, but there is nothing in this world that depends on us "getting him" in an objective sense.

"My heart goes to the families of the soldiers who have died in the war and continue to die, but they signed their papers, they knew what they were getting themselves into when they enlisted, and unfortunately they have been called upon to pay that ultimate price. Were they "exploited by the country (they had) sworn to protect"? Why don't you ask their families? Perhaps they shouldn't have joined up then, eh?"

Yeah, just like in Vietnam. Many signed up or at least did not dodge the draft right after the Gulf of Tonkin. I am sure they knew what they were getting into. A soldiers duty is to go where he is told, but it is the duty of the civilian leadership to do at least two things. Make sure it is a venture worthy of american lives, and to achieve the needed goal with the minimum necessary loss of life. Compared to Vietnam, we certainly have done better in keeping soldiers alive, but even the President was not sure enough to trust the judgment of the people to support his contention for the first requirement. Exploited? Used. BTW, my family was proud of the many we lost in Vietnam. Are we then to say that it was worth it? No, it was not. Our pride is in our men. Not Johnson. Not Nixon. Not our war in Vietnam. When YOU have lost a close relative, come to me about loss and sacrifice and tell me how it was ok no matter what because they signed their papers. If you have, I am sorry, but your cavalier attitude suggests otherwise.


"All I see here is more destructive bipartisan politics. And to take quotes and articles from the discredited and highly partisan New York Times (or its sister paper owned by the same media conglomerate - The LA Times) and call them proof... that's just assinine."

Interesting concept. Congressmen from both parties feel something wrong in this. They are starting to work together to ascertain what happened. If nothing comes of it, then Bush is better off. If something did, the people deserve to know what. This constitutes destructive bipartisan politics? Then I am all for destruction in this context. Like I was with Watergate. BTW, are you old enough to remember that supporters of Nixon made almost this very same claim?

One more thing. Many people love to link or cut and paste. There is nothing wrong with that. You will find relatively little of that from me, because I do not need to link what most have seen. Is everything accurate in reporting? Nope. Neither is everything wrong. You admit that you believed that Bush lied. Why, then do you cast aspersions on the papers who do not state with certainty what you claim to know? If you say a thing, you have your reasons to believe it's true. What quality of news reporting makes a similar argument invalid? Perhaps you mean those in support of Bush claims are to be discredited. Ok, I can agree with you on that.

 

[Gaard]

<<Did Bush lie? Looks like he did. That's bothers me a bit, but not very much because I assumed all along that he was lying. >>

Hmmm, some people, I would wager, are bothered a little more than 'a bit' that their president may have lied to them and the world.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Jumping in with both feet here - move over frying pan - I need more fire !

Gotta come to the defense of Johnson on this one - he inherited Viet Nam from Kennedy,
who had in turn inherited it from Ike's support of France. Johnson escalated the war when
he was informed of the Tonkin Gulf Incident from his trusted advisors. Note the emphesis
on trusted - McNamera & Co. He acted based on the best information that he had at the time.
(sound familiar ?) The only problem is that the incident never happened - McNamera & Co.
made it up, good for business you know. Johnson did find out about it being fiction near the
end of his first elected term, and declined to run for re-election, knowing that he had been
betrayed by his TRUSTED inner circle of advisors - he did what he felt was the honest thing to do.
Had his advisors been honest, we may have never reached the degree of involvement that we did.

Did Bush know that his inner circle of advisors were playing fast & loose with the facts?
Probably not, but it's hard to imagine this machine not being deceitful, after all it's a partial
re-incarnation of the remains of Nixon's people and Reagan's people - including those who
were convicted of lying to congress - felony charges, pardoned in part by Bush Daddy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Jumping in with both feet here - move over frying pan - I need more fire !

Gotta come to the defense of Johnson on this one - he inherited Viet Nam from Kennedy,
who had in turn inherited it from Ike's support of France. Johnson escalated the war when
he was informed of the Tonkin Gulf Incident from his <STRONG>trusted</STRONG> advisors. Note the emphesis
on <STRONG>trusted</STRONG> - McNamera & Co. He acted based on the best information that he had at the time.
(sound familiar ?) The only problem is that the incident never happened - McNamera & Co.
made it up, good for business you know. Johnson did find out about it being fiction near the
end of his first elected term, and declined to run for re-election, knowing that he had been
betrayed by his <STRONG>TRUSTED </STRONG>inner circle of advisors - he did what he felt was the honest thing to do.
Had his advisors been honest, we may have never reached the degree of involvement that we did.

Did Bush know that his inner circle of advisors were playing fast & loose with the facts?
Probably not, but it's hard to imagine this machine not being deceitful, after all it's a partial
re-incarnation of the remains of Nixon's people <EM>and</EM> Reagan's people - including those who
were convicted of lying to congress - felony charges, pardoned in part by Bush Daddy.

Sorry dude, but you cannot hang this just on Mac. Johnson knew it was phoney before he made his speech. How he handled it was to selectively view the intel that Mac had. Mac of course was happy to play along, because it was for the greater good. No I am not being sarcastic here. They really felt this way. Communism was the greatest threat America had ever faced, and that included Hitler. Perhaps they misled the people but it was felt that the ends would justify the means. BTW, Johnson was a scoundrel of immense proportions, probably the worst in modern history at least as far as wanting to personally benefit from his office. Any of this sound familiar?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Jumping in with both feet here - move over frying pan - I need more fire !

Gotta come to the defense of Johnson on this one - he inherited Viet Nam from Kennedy,
who had in turn inherited it from Ike's support of France. Johnson escalated the war when
he was informed of the Tonkin Gulf Incident from his <STRONG>trusted</STRONG> advisors. Note the emphesis
on <STRONG>trusted</STRONG> - McNamera & Co. He acted based on the best information that he had at the time.
(sound familiar ?) The only problem is that the incident never happened - McNamera & Co.
made it up, good for business you know. Johnson did find out about it being fiction near the
end of his first elected term, and declined to run for re-election, knowing that he had been
betrayed by his <STRONG>TRUSTED </STRONG>inner circle of advisors - he did what he felt was the honest thing to do.
Had his advisors been honest, we may have never reached the degree of involvement that we did.

Did Bush know that his inner circle of advisors were playing fast & loose with the facts?
Probably not, but it's hard to imagine this machine not being deceitful, after all it's a partial
re-incarnation of the remains of Nixon's people <EM>and</EM> Reagan's people - including those who
were convicted of lying to congress - felony charges, pardoned in part by Bush Daddy.

Kennedy signed executive order (can't remember the number) removing the 'advisors' over time. After Kennedy was shot Johnson recinded the order and ordered an increase. I believe Johnson knew of the Tonkin affair from the start. I've read some account of this recently... I'll try to find it.