ubi.com 
Forums Ghost Recon Ghost Recon Off-Topic Chat The "Honesty" & "Integrity" Of The Anti-War Movement
Forums Ghost Recon Ghost Recon Off-Topic Chat The "Honesty" & "Integrity" Of The Anti-War MovementModerators: MiNeRvA.
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Here is an interesting bit I saved from an article (I can't remember where I got this from)
"The Bill Clinton regime, now seemingly forgotten except as a kind of Camelot II by the American Left, featured most of the same patterns of imperial conquest and domestic repression, though all of this was marked by Clinton's inimitable style. A different cast of characters achieved the same result with the same methods for the same ends. For example, the bombing of Serbians to spread democracy, though dwarfed by the latter attack, was in principle little different from the conquest of Iraq. It is vital to remember that the bombing of at least something or someone in Iraq went on practically every day for all the years between the Gulf wars, as did the murderous embargo. Most of this destruction belonged to Clinton. Indeed, even now much of the bold Democratic (that is to say, social democratic) opposition to the war in Iraq comes from folks who were happy enough to see the war happen, though earlier this year some of those war supporters did add the reservation that our slaughter of Iraqis would be better if we did it in unison with the United Nations. The hard, antiwar left, was no part of this, but note well that most of the leading Washington Democratic politicos and pundits now coming out as opponents of the Occupation supported both the Serbian war and the war on Iraq." Hypocrites at their best. |
||||
|
 |
Ahhhh the vaunted Libercrats...
Never met an issue they didn't want to flip flop on...  SODsniper XBOX 360 suffering from RROD Design Flaw?? I can fix. PM me  Pain heals... Chicks dig scars... Glory lasts forever... |
|||
|
Sorry for the delay. Busy day. I'm off to SF to see family so I'll get back at you with more info when I get back. However, wanted to drop in to say....
Yes, Sniper, I can support the military even if I have to include the caveat that their "commander" is a baboon. I know, I know. I'm not a patriot in your eyes. Can I roll my @#$%! eyes any wider thinking about the disappointment you must feel? I have a story for you about those removed from command prior to the Iraq war for giving Bush info he didn't want to hear, but I need to get the names straight so give me a few on that. More to follow when I have more time. Till then, here we go with the conservatives slamming people that disagree with them, or who dislike Bush, by saying, "You left wing nut jobs", "fanatical", etc. C'mon Sniper, you said yourself that you have conservative views, but you disagree with Bush on some things too. So it's okay for you to be less than black and white, but for us "left wing nut jobs", we have to fall into your stereotypical generalizations? Finally, why is it when people slam Bush, conservatives come back with, "Well, can you imagine how Hilary would be", or "Well, Clinton was poopy toooo". Why can't you people accept criticism of Bush and not feel the need to compare him to others? I think I speak for at least some of the readers when I say that people find crtiicism of Bush without having to compare him to other politicians. Oh, and also because it just comes SO easy! Oh, and jchung, my fault with Bush is the fact that he ignored the advice of his generals, not to mention the UN and world opinion, and sent our troops to war in the way that he did. So don't put me in the category of those that supported the war in the first place and are now backing down. It didn't make any sense in the first place as far as I'm concerned. More later. D |
||||
|
|
|
Bit o sarcasm there?  Supporting SOME of the military is like being a LITTLE bit pregnant.. You are or your aren't.. You support them or you don't.. It's really that simple...
I look forward to it..
That's because the left wing nut jobs are so fanatical about their hatred of Bush. You don't "criticize" him.. You basher attack him in the most vindictive, viruelent ways you can think of. Hint for you. Calling someone a "baboon" or an "idiot" or a "moron" is NOT critizising. That's fanatical attacks. Unfortuanatly for Libercrats, that is ALL that they stand for. That is their ENTIRE plan for the country.. They have NOTHING else but BASH BUSH... And that is why they will continue to lose elections...
Be accurate.. SOME of his generals...
Oh, screw the UN and screw world opinion.. Is THAT the kind of president you want?? One who leads this country at the behest of the UN and "world opinion"!!?? ppppuuuuuhhhhleeeeeeessssssseeeeee This may seem kind of harsh, but think about it. Do you REALLY want a president who will take into account the UN and World Opinion when they are making decisions regarding national security???The day we get THAT kind of President is the day you will see the beginning of the end of the good ole US of A...
Again, be accurate. As FAR as you know, it did not make sense... SODsniper XBOX 360 suffering from RROD Design Flaw?? I can fix. PM me Pain heals... Chicks dig scars... Glory lasts forever... |
|||
|
Yes and many fine programs such as COINTELPRO were used to flush Communist spies out various groups that were opposed to the American way many years ago under the similar conditions. The problem comes from the fact that in order to get around certain legal precedents already on the books. Loop holes were were created via ambiguously written legislature. Nothing would have been wrong at all if such statutes were put out in the open to allow for careful examination of such legislation. As far as internal problems destroying more nations have a gander at post Warsaw Pact Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Cuba, a large percentage of Africa, South and Latin America have their fair share of issues. That 15 period of internal reorganization in Lebanon did wonders for that nation as well. There plenty more too. Some nations have been able to put themselves on the correct path, but there's still a lot that are struggling. |
||||
|
|
|
Key words there being "many years ago"....
While I agree with you in principle, a "COMPLETELY" open society cannot survive.
I had misundestood what you were trying to say and therefore, I cannot find fault with your argument that internal strife has destroyed countries. I just don't think it's happening to the US right now. SODsniper XBOX 360 suffering from RROD Design Flaw?? I can fix. PM me Pain heals... Chicks dig scars... Glory lasts forever... |
|||
|
|
|
True, war is one big gray area... But I maintain that you can believe a commander made a wrong decision about something, but you still can support that commander AS the commander.. But what you CANNOT do is say you support the military, then turn around and call the commander a "baboon", a "moron" or an "idiot"... It is simply not possible to claim to support the military, yet treat a commander in such a manner..
Exactly... Those who are castigating Bush, the US etc etc etc simply haven't clue #1 about what has REALLY gone on... I have said it before and I will say it again. I honestly and truly believe that, despite my MANY disagreements with Bush, I have no doubt that future historians will view Bush with the same reverence and honor that we afford to Lincoln and Washington today... SODsniper XBOX 360 suffering from RROD Design Flaw?? I can fix. PM me Pain heals... Chicks dig scars... Glory lasts forever... |
|||
|
I agree 100% as well. Now whether or not cuurent actions have opened up the doors for another administration to do so be it far left or right is another thing. As far as past actions, sometimes bad ideas have a way of being reinvented and resold. Fortunately the slight optimist within believes that people do become a little smarter to such actions over time. |
||||
|
While I agree with you that Hitler was a horrifying dictator, he surely wasn't the worst. Joseph Stalin was by far the worst and most brutal. The GUGB (Soviet Secret Police) under the NKVD was responsible for many millions of deaths as a result of ethnic cleansing, genocide, suspected threats to national security and anything deemed "anti-Soviet." Soviet records from the time add up to about 3 million total victims, including about 800,000 political prisoners and criminals that were executed, 1.7 million deaths from privation and the Gulags and about 389,000 deaths during kulak resettlement. You can also attribute about 6-8 million (depending on the source) dead from the famine of 1932-33 to Stalin and his regime. Many historians don't trust the Soviet figures, due to careless recording of the deaths, and attribute any where from 9 million victims of repression to 20 million, most are deaths. These figures don't include the famine deaths...
When I think about that war and the years before where it could have been prevented, I am reminded of various world governments' inability to do anything about it forcefully, basically because everyone was opposed to war after witnessing WWI, which was the world's first really brutal war. Especially the British and French, but particularly British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who followed a policy of appeasement in order to placate Hitler in the late 1930s. This led to the Munich Agreement of September 29, 1938, in which Chamberlain, backed by the U.S. ambassador to Great Britain, Joseph Kennedy (a staunch isolationist, mainly because he did not want his sons to potentially enter a war), essentially abandoned Czechoslovakia by giving control over most of it to Germany. It failed a few months later when Germany disregarded the agreement and invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. And of course war broke out September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland under the pretext of a Polish attack on the German border posts, which was staged by the Germans to justify the invasion of Poland. Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later. I think about Hitler's disregard for the Munich Agreement, and wonder how the Soviets could trust Hitler enough after that to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on August 23, 1939, which was a non-aggression treaty between the two nations. I guess it's one of those enigmas of history. If I could go back in time and change something about the world reaction, I would pressure the Soviets not to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and convince both the U.S. government and the Soviets to declare war on Germany soon after it invades Poland. I think this would have prevented much of the war and probably saved many hundreds of thousands of lives. I look back and this that this is what should have happened. But most of the U.S. population, including Congress, were solid isolationists at the time, with the memories of WWI still fresh in their mind. Nobody wanted that again, and you can hardly blame them because WWI was a real meat-grinder. Roosevelt, despite the U.S. Neutrality Acts passed by Congress, which he opposed, and to his credit, was eager to assist China during the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937. When war broke out in Europe 1939, Roosevelt vigorously fought to find ways to assist France and Britain militarily despite the Neutrality Acts and isolationist public opinion. Later he began secret discussions with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on ways of assisting Great Britain during the war. In hindsight (which is always 20-20  ), it's hard to understand why some nations could ignore the signs of aggression, which were clear, even at the time. Including the huge German military build-up in the late 1920s and 1930s and its disregard of the Munich Agreement in 1938, Mussolini's move to create a police state out of Italy in the 1920s, having complete control over Italian government and its people by 1926, Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937. But to support the isolationists, it's understandable that they didn't want any more war after WWI. No one in history had seen a war as brutal.I see a similar attitude today, regarding much of the Western world's attitude toward war. It's a similar attitude that more or less allowed WW2 to take place. They don't want it. No one wants war, it's terrible. But it's a necessary part of human existance, as history has shown. In fact, the very definition of the word "peace" is "The absence of war or other hostilities." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=peace&db=* One cannot exist without the other. This is why I support the war in Iraq now. Initially I, like many people, supported the war because of the supposed existance of WMDs in Iraq. Easy to imagine due to Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), the Anfal Campaign (the gassing of the Kurds) in 1988 and his later invasion of Kuwait. Personally I believe the WMDs were transported to Syria and Lebanon before the war began, so that no WMDs would be found, resulting in the U.S. effort looking aggressive and "war-mongering," and to create a large rift between Americans at home who support the war and those who don't, similar to the one during the Vietnam War. Several former Iraqi army officers have attested to this. Also there was unusually heavy large truck traffic between these nations before the war began, but nothing has been proven thus far. There are even theories that Russia and China were involved in transporting these WMDs. But this is off topic and can be explained in another post at a different time. I believe that the U.S. has acted properly in removing Saddam Hussein from power BEFORE anything can possibly happen. It's one less opponent in an imminent WW3. The only problem is, there's still two very hostile nations out there, North Korea and Iran, that urgently need to be dealt with, and arguably should have been dealt with first. It's unfortunate that the war has not gone as well as it should have. But I think in time hindsight will view it as the right thing to do, despite public opinion. Personally I think the signs of a future world war are easily visible, especially with recent activity in the Middle East, but with North Korea's craziness also. It's how we (the world) deal with it beforehand, and hopefully prevent, most hostilities which will benefit the world in the prevention of yet another world war. -Paladin1 |
||||
|
|
|
A very good read, Orbit...
Which underscores quite nicely a concept that liberals just cannot seem to understand. There are WORSE things than war... Or, more accurately, it is usually better to fight a small war sooner rather than a larger war later. As far as Iran and North Korea being dealt with first, I honestly believe that the strategic plan was to deal with Iraq initially. Once Iraq was secured it would provide us with a great InTheater base and the necessary oil to be able to take on Iran.. The tenacity of the insurgency was a surprise to everyone and problably delayed plans. The fact that the administration DID underestimate the insurgency is one of the mistakes that the Bush administration DID make in IRAQ. However, I do not know enough about their intel to decide whether the mistake could have been prevented. Beyond the 20/20 hindsite intel, of course.. SODsniper XBOX 360 suffering from RROD Design Flaw?? I can fix. PM me Pain heals... Chicks dig scars... Glory lasts forever... |
|||
|
Even though Iran and North Korea aka Democratic People's Republic of Korea
were much more of threat. I can definitely see why both weren't really touched. For one Iraq had a badly battered air defense force. They probably didn't even have a basic integrated air defense system at the start of the war. Iran and North Korea do, not to mention the alleged deal for the Iranians purchasing S-300 SAM's. The big problem come with fact that there's no USAF EW aircraft which means only the Navy's EA-6 Prowlers exist. Those aircraft are on their death bed and I don't even want to get into the EA-18 programs short comings. There's the very serious issue of how do you attack the DPRK without ensuring that Seoul is turned in a pile of ruble from their 10,000+ arty pieces within range of that city. |
||||
|
|
|
While you might be right, I would think (hope??) that the administration knows that eventually it MUST deal with NK and Iran.. And, to be honest, the way things have been going recently, I don't see a diplomatic solution possible..
Yea, it's going to be dicey.. I cannot forsee a scenario where NK can be attacked and the ROK survive, short of tactical nuclear strikes. I have worked with the ROK soldiers (a while ago, true) and they are a dedicated lot. But hardly suicidal.. It's rather ironic. I can't see a diplomatic solution, but I also can't see a military solution that has anything CLOSE to good results.. I guess it's a good thing I ain't the Prez, eh? SODsniper XBOX 360 suffering from RROD Design Flaw?? I can fix. PM me Pain heals... Chicks dig scars... Glory lasts forever... |
|||
|
ROT the last two posts by me were addressing just what you said, and the people who seem to continue to complain that we still have not found any WMDs. It is simply ignorance and hypocracy. For those like yourself who simply oppose the war regardless of the reasons, that is a different discussion altogether. |
||||
|
Sniper, here’s the background on the general being relieved of duty, as promised.
Shinseki tells Rumsfeld and the administration that he’ll need several hundred thousand troops to stabilize Iraq after the invasion – recognizing the chaos and anarchy that would likely follow. Rumsfeld, however, has been on his own private, somewhat bizarre crusade to show that the U.S. can get by with a smaller force. Good source of the details: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Eric_Shinseki Even though we are at war, Rumsfeld decides to replace Shinseki as Army Chief of staff at the end of his “regular†tenure – unheard of to do so for a country at war (i.e., he was fired). Firing an Army Chief of Staff is unheard of in modern history. The Korean War theater commander, McArthur, was fired, but he wasn’t the CoS, and he openly defied Truman, but Shinseki was simply giving truthful, responsible information and was fired for it. So then Bush & Rummy ask a number of active duty 3- & 4-star generals that they want to backfill Shinseki with (don’t remember how many, but it was a “holy $#!@%†moment for anyone above the rank of Major when it happened). All who they asked turned the job down. Instead, they find a retired 3 –star (the Army CoS position is a 4-star position) who will agree with them, and that’s who gets the pick. Powell is also on Shinseki’s side, but as has been reported pretty widely up to the 2nd term, Powell was on the outs with the administration. Article 1: Washington Times The pick is viewed as a slap at the current roster of Army four-star and three-star generals vying for the service's top post, because defense secretaries do not usually reach outside the ranks of current active-duty officers to pick a chief of staff. Mr. Rumsfeld has often battled senior Army officials, including Gen. Shinseki, during the past two years about the pace of his "transformation" plans for the Army. Army Secretary Thomas White, who also clashed with Mr. Rumsfeld, resigned in April under pressure. The White House has nominated Air Force Secretary James Roche, who is considered a Rumsfeld loyalist, for the Army post. Mr. Rumsfeld has had close ties to Gen. Schoomaker, unlike Gen. Shinseki. In the fall of 2001, the defense secretary called on Gen. Schoomaker for advice during the start of military operations against the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. The former official said. "Rumsfeld has been talking to Schoomaker on and off since October 2001." Gen. Shinseki ran afoul of Mr. Rumsfeld last year after he, the general also challenged civilian Pentagon officials on the issue of Iraq, saying in congressional testimony that the United States would need several hundred thousand troops to stabilize and occupy Iraq after a war. Article 2: Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page A10 Franks also discloses that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in an unusual move, bypassed the Pentagon chain of command to call him in September 2002 to express unease about aspects of the developing war plan for Iraq. "I've got problems with force size and support of that force, given such long lines" of communication and supply, Franks reports that Powell said to him in warning that he intended to raise his concerns with Bush. Powell's criticism of the plan, especially its relatively small troop numbers, anticipated that made by many retired generals in television commentary when the war began six months later. May 2003, after the opening of the Iraq campaign, their relationship had so improved that Rumsfeld offered to make him the chief of staff of the Army, Franks writes. Any of you can probably do a Google search on any of the topics above and get more sources & info. D |
||||
|
Don't get me wrong, I was merely stating that some people argue why we didn't go after North Korea and Iran first. I don't believe that we should have and I essentially agree with both of you on why. Perhaps I should have worded it differently. -Paladin1 |
||||
|
|
|
OK So we have one General who did not approve of the plan and who would not get on board when Bush chose to listen to all the other generals and not to him... Since he would not get on board, Bush fired him... I don't see the issues. All officers serve at the pleasure of the President. You give your input and the President makes the decision. Once the president makes the decision, that is the end of it. In HINDSITE, General Shinseki turned out to be right.. Too bad, we can't make ALL decisions with the advantage of hindsite, eh?? SODsniper XBOX 360 suffering from RROD Design Flaw?? I can fix. PM me Pain heals... Chicks dig scars... Glory lasts forever... |
|||
|
|