Conscientious Objector

[highsky]

I'm surprised you could get your head out of Cheney's ass long enough to type all that.

I'm done with you now.

Go away. You belong at the kid's table.

 

[highsky]

I probably should keep my dog out of this likely pointless fight, but I have a hard time letting emotion and ad hominem attacks get in the way of logic. Nothing like a little Hollywood propaganda to prop up your argument. Peaceful and stable is a matter of perspective. I was deployed 6 months out of the year throughout the 90's, and it wasn't building schools.

1. "Vietnam style war"--There are really only three things about this war that make it "Vietnam" like. 1. We are militarily kicking the crap out of the enemy (even more so than Vietnam). 2.There is a opposition political movement in this country, driven by the media, who's motivation is to lose the war (the good of the country be damned) and that is keeping the enemy fighters motivated to continue fighting. 3. The "insurgency" is being supported by neighboring countries and we are not prosecuting them for their support because of #2 (although a large portion of the fighters and their leadership are NOT Iraqis, unlike Vietnam).

There are dozens of ways this war is completely unlike Vietnam.

2. "No Reason"--Rid the Middle East of a mad dictator with WMD. Don't pull the "lie" crap out, everyone from the UN to Saddam himself thought he had more WMD than he did (and he did--most is likely in Syria).

3. "No Objective"--You mean besides establish a democratically elected stable government, that will not threaten it's neighbors? The hidden objective here is for Iraq to serve as a platform for spreading democracy through the Middle East. Prior to the Bathe party, Iraq was a democratic nation, and the most highly educated people in the ME. The problem with instability in the region is the lack of vibrant economies--unemployment and undereducation lead make the populace susceptible to radicalism. A further sub-objective is to anchor the fight in the middle east, and not here. Don't think it can't happen, you're fooling yourself. I'd much rather be killing them over there than here. This is working quite well, BTW.

4. "No definition of victory"--That would be meeting the objective, which you obviously didn't know, i.e. a stable Iraqi government that can survive without our direct (i.e. military) support.

5. "no exit strategy"--Do you mean no loser strategy? We exit when we achieve victory, and not one minute before. If you are not committed to that, you have no business going in in the first place. That is what torques me about politicians that voted FOR this when it benefited them, and are now looking for ways out. If the enemy smells weakness (and our press and dems reek of it everyday), they will stick it out. If they smelled our commitment, they would know it was lost and have gone home by now.

6. "That is not a reason I would join military"--Hmm, would there be a reason for you? Joining means self sacrifice and commitment...

Excellent post.

 

[pilotyip]

We won in Vietnam

1. "Vietnam style war"--There are really only three things about this war that make it "Vietnam" like. 1. We are militarily kicking the crap out of the enemy (even more so than Vietnam). 2.There is a opposition political movement in this country, driven by the media, who's motivation is to lose the war (the good of the country be damned) and that is keeping the enemy fighters motivated to continue fighting. 3. The "insurgency" is being supported by neighboring countries and we are not prosecuting them for their support because of #2 (although a large portion of the fighters and their leadership are NOT Iraqis, unlike Vietnam).

Unlike the Vietnam war which had been won and then Congress elected to tell the NVA we would not interfere with anything they did in the South. One of the most repressive regiems in the world, but it was the during of the American liberals. The South fell to a mechanized 16 Dividison strengh conventional Army. The very Army the US was designed to destroy. They could not win in guerrila stlye, so when the US said they would not interfere, they went conventional. Have doubts check history, even the NVA admitt they ran the US out of SEA using the American Press.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

How about specific examples, supported by facts? And seeing as how you are saying pathological, I'd like to see a pattern, and not just one.

It is easy and cheap to make ad hominem attacks, a little harder to support them with logic.

"We will be greeted as liberators."

"I'd be surprised if this lasts more than a few weeks."

"Saddam Hussein is undoubtedly connected to al Qaeda"

"Saddam has WMD's."

"Saddam is an immediate threat to the US."

"If you don't elect us (Bush/Cheney) we'll be attacked again."

"The insurgency in in it's last throes."

"Iraq oil money will pay for all of this."

"Saddam is developing nuclear (nukular?) weapons."

"I'm not part of the executive branch."

At first tried to cover shooting his friend on the face.

To this day, refuses to release any information about his "energy policy" meeting with oil execs.

Is pushing for war with Iran using the same scare tactics used to support attacking Iraq.

Just saw footage a few nights ago of him in 1993-4 saying that we should not overthrow Saddam; that it would be chaos, a quagmire and would destabilize the entire region. Maybe that was Halliburton's Cheney speaking then?

Etc, etc.

 

[NewmanF16]

"We will be greeted as liberators."

"I'd be surprised if this lasts more than a few weeks."

"Saddam Hussein is undoubtedly connected to al Qaeda"

"Saddam has WMD's."

"Saddam is an immediate threat to the US."

"If you don't elect us (Bush/Cheney) we'll be attacked again."

"The insurgency in in it's last throes."

"Iraq oil money will pay for all of this."

"Saddam is developing nuclear (nukular?) weapons."

"I'm not part of the executive branch."

At first tried to cover shooting his friend on the face.

To this day, refuses to release any information about his "energy policy" meeting with oil execs.

Is pushing for war with Iran using the same scare tactics used to support attacking Iraq.

Just saw footage a few nights ago of him in 1993-4 saying that we should not overthrow Saddam; that it would be chaos, a quagmire and would destabilize the entire region. Maybe that was Halliburton's Cheney speaking then?

Etc, etc.

Etc, Etc.? You have failed to support your own argument. In case you didn't know a lie is an intentional misrepresentation of facts. Almost everything you quoted is plainly stated as opinion, so I won't even bother to refute it, although about half of it is correct, and the rest was speculation. The only "lie" I could see is the one on the executive branch, but that was clearly a misspeak, and not a deliberate lie.

I figured WMD would come out--it isn't a lie if you (and OBTW, everyone else on the planet ) believe it is true. The Army and Marines didn't wear MOP gear just for the heck of it, we really thought they were ready to use it. Heck, the previous administration, Al Gore and all the Dem leadership said they had it, and they read the same intel Cheney did.

You are letting your personal prejudices get in the way of your logic. I wish our press would spend more time challenging our elected leaders (dem and rep) on facts and less time "reporting" whatever comes out of their mouths.

 

[HoursHore]

look familiar?

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

[/FONT] CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.
In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

 

[HoursHore]

pt 2

So Iraq has abused its final chance.
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.
If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.
That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.
We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.
In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.
Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

 

[HoursHore]

You can second guess till your blue in the face, but the fact remains that the US Military is the nations insurance policy whoever is elected has the ability to implement what they believe to be the collective best interest will of the American people.

Not your will, or my will, but what ever they think is best.

Its got to be one of the loneliest jobs in the world.

After 9/11, what would your inclination be regarding Iraq? Different than Clinton? Who didn't even have 9/11 as a catalyst?

 

[pilotyip]

Not like Vietnam, more like Northern Ireland

From Belfast To Baghdad - What Have We Learned?
Britain took 38 years to bring the warring parties to the middle ground.
MONTEREY, CALIF. -- At first glance, recent developments in Northern Ireland offer signs of hope for mending Iraq. But the deepening peace in Belfast has taken four decades to craft, a sobering thought for those who want to see analogs with Baghdad. The lessons that can be drawn from Britain's longest-ever military occupation are many, but the element of time is the most brutal. The warring parties were all Christians, spoke the same language, were racially indistinguishable, and were all part of the same great Western "civilization." Thus, even if peace takes hold, it can take a very long time.
When British troops were first sent to Northern Ireland in 1969, they embroiled themselves in a sectarian conflict between Protestants and Catholics. Initially, Catholics in Belfast welcomed the soldiers with expectations that they would be able to divide the warring sides and provide security. After witnessing British operations, which seemed to unilaterally focus on Catholics, however, this attitude changed. As a result, the Provisional IRA emerged as the key insurgent force opposing British occupation and Protestant political domination.
Britain's support among Protestants was also tenuous. In 1972, after the Protestant-led Stormont Parliament proved itself incapable of reaching a political settlement, the Crown imposed Direct Rule on Northern Ireland. This caused many Protestants who were satisfied with the status quo to question Britain's long-term commitment. As such, what had originated as a quarrel between two Irish populations soon morphed into a much more difficult triangular conflict. The complexity was further enhanced by inputs from the international environment. IRA members used the Republic of Ireland's territory as a haven for launching operations into the North and as a place of sympathetic refuge. Meanwhile, Irish Americans created a logistical network that was to supply the IRA with weapons and money.
Eventually, the British realized that some of the lessons of defeating the Malay insurrection (1945-1989) could also apply in Northern Ireland. Good intelligence was critical for hunting IRA members, but it could only be gained through the local Catholic populace. That local populace would only provide intelligence if they felt the local government was acting in their interests by providing security, employment, and education. Direct rule provided these elements, but it was a slow and painful process. A heavy emphasis on community policing conducted by the local police (not the British military) was also critical for success. However, victory required that the police be trained properly and be perceived as even-handed in dispensing justice.
Finally, patience was key. The British could take steps to alter the political landscape, but it was not until the Protestants and Catholics became exhausted by decades of violence and moved toward peace themselves that a solution was found. While the sectarian blood ran hot, the British could do little but to hold the line and absorb casualties. Unlike Malaya, however, the British were politically constrained in Northern Ireland. They felt they could not pursue heavy-handed policies like restricting food rations and using strict population-control measures that had eventually smoked the ethnic-Chinese communist insurgents out of the jungles of Borneo. Brutality can shorten the length of some insurgencies, but when a democracy is involved, usually the insurgents can stomach more of it than the state.
In analogous fashion, American forces in Baghdad were welcomed as liberators in 2003. However, within a year, the United States was faced with a full-blown insurgency, primarily led by Sunni militants who perceived the US as siding with the Shiites. As occurred in Belfast, the new Iraqi military and national police force were seen as being partial to one side. Baghdad's Sunnis feared the Shiite death squads operated by the firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr (whose Mahdi Army also attacked Americans), but they equally feared the Shiite dominated national police. As a result of a sharp upswing in sectarian killing in the capital, Baghdad became the center of gravity in American strategy, resulting in the "surge" of forces this spring. However, after witnessing growing levels of cooperation between American forces and Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar Province, it is now the Shiites who increasingly distrust the Americans, with serious tensions arising recently between US Army General David Petraeus and Iraq's Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. And Shiite militias are presently the biggest threat to US forces in Baghdad.
Northern Ireland was a tough and thorny situation, but in terms of relative complexity, it was a game of checkers compared with the three-dimensional chess board that Iraq has become. Indeed, what began as a simple, old-fashioned war between the US and Iraq has now evolved into a nest of infernal complexities that almost defies description. When the US does something to support or appease one party, it creates hostility in at least two of the other internal actors and one or more external players.
Like the British in Ireland, the US has morally constrained itself from simply choosing one side and repressing or killing everyone else, but as a result the only "middle ground" in Iraq is the ground American combat forces now occupy. It took 38 years in Northern Ireland for the British to bring the warring sides to the middle ground, to make peace, and to withdraw. Anyone who claims the US can resolve the situation in Iraq more quickly is sadly mistaken.
Douglas A. Borer is an associate professor at Monterey's Naval Postgraduate School. He is the author of "Superpowers Defeated: Vietnam and Afghanistan Compared" and co-editor of "Information Strategy and Warfare: A Guide to Theory and Practice." The views here are his.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

Etc, Etc.? You have failed to support your own argument. In case you didn't know a lie is an intentional misrepresentation of facts. Almost everything you quoted is plainly stated as opinion, so I won't even bother to refute it, although about half of it is correct, and the rest was speculation. The only "lie" I could see is the one on the executive branch, but that was clearly a misspeak, and not a deliberate lie.

Ok, some of it was his opinion, although he didn't present it that way. As for the executive branch comment. I don't think it was a misspeak at all. I think it was used deliberately to avoid any oversight.

I wish our press would spend more time challenging our elected leaders (dem and rep) on facts and less time "reporting" whatever comes out of their mouths.

Finally some common ground. I couldn't agree more!!:beer:

PS. I'm disgusted with the Dem Congress now in place, too. Actually I'm disgusted with ANY of the "leadership" in DC at this point.