fushj00mang I hope you and your fellow service men and women make it back safely. Good luck luck over there.
Well, it’s only noon, but this is the most asinine thing I’ve read all day.
The troops are not incommunicado. They are on the internet, which means they read the same news and see the same discussions you do. Are you going to sit here and say that a guy who hangs out on the SDMB as much as fushj00mang does is just plain uninformed about why some people oppose the war? Gimme a break.
Spent any time reading the military blogs? There’s dozens of soldiers over there posting about what they think, feel, see and do every day. There is a lot of bitching about weather, about superiors, about typical military bureaucratic crap, and yes, about policy in Washington. A few of them of them dislike W and say so. But almost to a man and women they believe strongly in their mission, and do not feel it is a waste of time.
Now it could be they’re all slack-jawed dupes, brainwashed minions unable to think for themselves … or it could be that they are there, they see the situation, they talk to the people and they know what effect their mission has had on people’s lives, and they just flat-out see what you and I don’t. Are they all complete suckers because they have come to hold different opinions than yours?
You wanna differ with the Airman over foreign policy, fine, debate him. But you can take your condescending poor-boy-doesn’t-know-as-much-as-me horseshit and cram it hard up your ass. The man is putting his life on the line in what he believes is an effort to make the world a marginally less shitty place and you patronize him? Agree or disagree with him as you wish; but you owe him your respect.
Which brings me to Diogenes the Cynic’s
You’re an intelligent guy, DtC, but some bright morning in the future you’re going to wake up and realize that you are not the all-knowing all-wise arbiter of everything that you think you are. You may even come to think of humility as virtue, and that one can simultaneously hold strong opinions and still allow that others might see things differently without necessarily being evil or stupid.
But until then, it appears that you’ll just keep on saying utterly contemptible things like this that reek of intellectual and emotional immaturity.
Perhaps on that day you will be qualified to make such a judgement. Please disabuse yourself of the notion that that day has arrived. True enough, friend Diogenes has been showing the effects of frustration of late, his remarks are becoming intemperate and unbecoming. However, on any given day his contributions are more humane and intelligent that anything you have posted in any given month.
Ok, luci, you’re on. Search for everything I’ve said in the last year that strikes you as insufficiently humane or intelligent. Put 'em together and Pit me. I’ve never been pitted, and I double-damn-dog dare you to be the first. Something tells me that your objections are solely that I am not a hard leftist and ergo bad and stupid, but try anyway.
I’ll take your failure to do so as citable evidence that you’re full of shit.
Excuse me, is this your gauntlet? You seem to have dropped it, its either a challenge or a inept attempt at flirtation…
I don’t have any need to prove myself to you, Furt. Rather than search for and read every one of your posts for the last years, I’d rather nail my pecker to a tree and set the tree on fire. Your esteem for me, or the lack thereof, is inconsequential. I don’t argue to be thought highly of, I argue because I think I’m right.
You are entirely at liberty to interpret that as “citable evidence that I am full of shit.” You can also go pound burdocks, for all I care.
I didn’t ask you to prove yourself to me. I asked you to back up own words in your personal slam on me. Playing “above the fray” doesn’t work when YOU start it, charlie.
You said my posts were inadequately “humane” and “intelligent.” If you stand by that, find an example. You won’t because you can’t; you’re manufacturing personal insults out of thin air, like a nine-year old screaming “gay” without even knowing what it means.
Not that anyone’s surprised.
furt:
It is illegal for soldiers to criticize the war or the Commander in Chief. After several soldiers made disparging remarks about Rumsfeld in an interview they were warned the Commander of US Forces in Iraq, General John Abizaid.
I repeat, they are not allowed to say anything critical of their mission on blogs or anywhere else. This administration is especially hardcore about punishing offenders. It doesn’t just apply to the military either. My Dad is in the State Department currently serving a tour at an American Embassy is South America. He was visiting over Christmas and told me that several DOS vets were forced to retire recently because they had sent some GWB jokes to each other through the email at the Embassy. They had said nothing publicly but because they had used the Embassy’s internal computer sytem to spread a few W jokes they were threatened with invetigations and disciplinary actions unless they retired.
As to the “God and Country” thing, I heard that shit every day when I was in the military and only the most gung ho idiots took it seriously. I refuse to take anyone seriously who actually believes he is fighting for God.
So 500 people died in the cause of the advancing of USA.plc’s power and influence – it’s hardly news. It’s what empires do, and it’s what you do if you’re a soldier of empire, ‘cept empire troops get to do it with new technology so they get to kill more people more efficiently. And it’s always been thus.
For this particular capitalist empire, stack ‘em up on any continent you like, 100,000s of them. Where shall we start:
Africa ?
Asia ?
Middle East ?
Central America ?
South America ?
500 eh ? Geez, I should think that barely a mornings work for the CIA in the good ‘ole Reagan years.
A fair point and worth making, but I think there is a difference between calling for Rummy’s resignation on national TV and anonymous bitching in cyberspace. Most of soldiers I’ve seen on blogs or message boards are using psuedonyms, perhaps in part because many DO criticize (unnamed) superior officers and their decisions.
But all that’s beside the point. If the split in this country is mirrored in the armed forces, all that proves is that the troops as a whole are NOT uninformed on the reasons why many oppose the war, and are able to form thier own positions. Which is why calling them “slaves” is out of line IMO.
My wholehearted assent. It’s exactly that sort of thinking that got us into this situation to begin with.
So, do you have an actual point here? Oh, wait, US = Evil. Right. I guess you do have a point. Sort of.
Actually, now that I think about it. You don’t.
The US is not an empire. No matter what you say, or what you read, or what the usual shrieking members of the Left say, or no matter how much the Idiot Right wish it was, it still won’t be an empire. We’re not carting off warehouses full of Iraq’s finest possessions. Iraq’s oil fields aren’t being vaccumed onto waiting US super tankers crewed by salivating bigots. Are there questionable things happening there? Of course. There are questionable things happening everywhere. The only recourse is to investigate them, find anyone dicking around, and string them up.
What’s that? Cultural imperialism? Yeah, sure, whatever you say. I’m not about to debate it with you since I know that I won’t change your mind. Just let me say that there’s must be some reason McDonald’s and Coke is popular, and I highly doubt that anyone’s forcing poor oppressed non-Americans to eat Big Macs and watch The Simpsons.
You know something else? We’re not mindless, bloodthirsty rednecks. We don’t like war. I don’t recall Bush calling for more Americans to die like Mussolini did. I’m sure most Americans would bring every last GI home yesterday if they thought it would fix things. But it won’t. Iraq is a damn mess right now, and the only thing worse than staying there until it’s fixed is pulling out now and leaving everything broken. That’d go over well, wouldn’t it? “Well, we’ve gotten rid of the Ba’athists and Saddam for you. Sorry about the infrastructure, by the way. Still, good luck with everything, we gotta go. Bye!”
Oh, and one more thing: Hows about you find the nearest American soldier, and ask them if they think they’re a “soldier of empire”. Then repeat this tedious little snit fit. Better yet, go repeat it to my cousin’s parents. I’d be interested to know their reaction. But then, I doubt you’d have the nerve to say this bullshit to their faces. It’s always easier in cyberspace.
Nice gratuitous bullshit here, Sammy. Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Oh, wait, Reagan supported Saddam. Right. I don’t suppose you’ve noticed, but nowadays, just about all Americans say that it was a mistake. Kind of like the Balfour Declaration was a mistake. [sub]Yes, that was gratuitous. Just like your Reagan crack was.[/sub]
I know that nothing I’ve said will change your mind about anything. But frankly, I don’t give a dead rat’s ass one way or another. I don’t care about what you think. No, really, I don’t. But saying it like this is much better than a simple “Fuck you”, which is what I really feel your post warranted.
Jaade, your position is compromised by the fact that some of the people who see no rational connection between the security of the nation and the invasion / occupation of Iraq are soldiers who came back from Vietnam. What is more they are men who are no longer young but they still feel the pain of loss for friends and comrades who died for the sake of a horrible misperception of that ill conceived and ill advised foreign adventure. They see the same thing happening again. When confronted with a simplistic slogan as a justification for a blunder they tend to get a little short. We understand a soldier’s need to think his sufferings are for a noble cause but we also know that the God and Country line is a lie and an evasion of truth and a misrepresentation of motivation.
We don’t want our children and grandchildren to die for a lie–we want them home and safe. You must try to understand that there is a difference between contempt for a government that blundered into this fiasco and a lack of appreciation for the difficult, dangerous, hateful and obscene work that soldiers are required to do. We can have contempt for the government and at the same time hold the traditions and members of that very government’s armed forces in high regard.
You must also understand that the question for some of us is not whether Saddam was a bloody dictator that Iraq is better off without. The question is whether Saddam presented any real and immediate threat to the vital interests of the nation that could only be confronted and deflected by resort to war.
fushj00mang:
If you happen to look back in on this thread I just want to apologize for the shortness of my tone before and my insults.
I have a Pavlovian reaction to military propaganda. I’m sorry. Please take care of yourself and get out of there safely. I hope you have a boring tour and I mean that in a good way.
But, PLEASE, dude. Try to be a little more cynical. You have to do what they tell you but you don’t have to believe all the bullshit.
He called fungj00mang a slave, because he dared to repeat something that every soldier is told in boot camp. I don’t think that means he was holding him in high regard, do you?
And he also apologized, so let’s all let it drop now.
I’m sorry tough guy, but this is a bizarre statement. I don’t know how old you are, or what level of education you’re at but, at this point, I stopped reading.
The USA is the first empire of the capitalist era, that is, it has a different MO to previous examples: it dominates though economic influence and it backs that up with military power. Empires prior to fully blown capitalism did it the other way around. This is not seriously in issue any more in any political, academic or other circles and hasn’t been for 10, 20, 30 years.
People, especially a lot of young people, have a need to feel good about the country they were born in. That’s fine, but it’s also good to separate an emotional desire with the rational world.
You seem to not to have read much on US Foreign Policy. I’d suggest something for context like the early imperialism of the Philippine-American War, or something more local like US involvement in Nicaragua from the 1920’s or 30’s up to Iran-Contra – those are probably sound starting points.
And yes, US foreign policy has been directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of wholly innocent people, and yes, the US has probably had overthrown more democracies than it likes to claim it helped put in place – you don’t get all that power and influence and cheap gas by accident. Someone, somewhere always has to pay a price.
By the way, I’m not right wing or left wing; I just deal in realpolitik.
I’d encourage you to examine the data and information without the flag fluttering in your eyes.
Did I say that we hadn’t? I’m not denying any of that. All wonderfully depressing screw ups and idiocy. US foreign policy was and generally is screwed up. Just like everyone else’s.
But my point is this: Implying that because someone fucked up something once (or twice, or eighty-eight thousand times) means they shouldn’t try to fix something else is asinine.
Because that’s what we’re doing right now, more or less. Trying to fix a damn mess. No matter what Bush and Co.'s actual motivations are for all this, I doubt that the folks that are actually in Iraq are thinking of more than actually trying to fix things.
Feel free to dismiss the above as flag-waving bullshit. I’m sure you were going to do that anyway.
Trouble is they’re “fixing it” in the same way a witchdoctor might trepann a patients skull to cure the headache caused by drinking too much with the witchdoctor.
This is such a stupid line it makes me sick, and you regurgitating it shows what a fucking sheep you are.
Did GW look us in the eyes last year and say…
“My fellow Americans, we must take out SH, he has become a menace to his people. He is killing them by the thousands, millions of people are suffering under his reign, and this must stop.”
I didn’t think so. Here’s what he did say.
“But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.”
–George W. Bush Interview with TVP Poland 5/30/2003
“Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons”
George Bush, US President 18 March, 2003
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. "
Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention August 26, 2002
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. "
George Bush Speech to UN General Assembly September 12, 2002
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there. "
Ari Fleischer Press Briefing January 9, 2003
“25,000 liters of anthrax … 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin … materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent … upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents … several mobile biological weapons labs … thousands of Iraqi security personnel … at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors.”
George Bush State of the Union Address January 28, 2003
"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. "
Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council February 5, 2003
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons – the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. "
George Bush Radio Address February 8, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. "
George Bush Address to the Nation March 17, 2003
"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. "
Ari Fleisher Press Briefing March 21, 2003
"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. "
Gen. Tommy Franks Press Conference March 22, 2003
"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. "
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark Press Briefing March 22, 2003
"We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. "
Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview March 30, 2003
"I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now. "
Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters May 4, 2003
"I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program. "
George Bush Remarks to Reporters May 6, 2003
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. "
Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview May 28, 2003
"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons …They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two…And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on "
–George W. Bush Press Briefing 5/30/2003
Lies, lies, fucking lies, and you swallow them hook, line, and sinker.
Were the Iraqis better off with SH in power? I dunno, ask them in 20 years.
I also had to mention that this is about the most fucked up cheapshot I’ve seen in all my time here.
I’m not implying anything to the best of my knowledge. But, firstly, your point – before I stopped reading - was about some nonsense evil thing I couldn’t quite understand, and also that the US is not an empire. The latter is a foolish statement. That is what I was expressly, not implicitly, addressing.
I can’t comment oven this “fixing” thing because it’s too homey to make sense. You’re talking about the war of aggression against Iraq, I assume?
As to what you think I “implied”, I’ve expressly stated the following in the above two posts and stand by it. Nothing is implied. At all:
It is an empire
They are empire troops
The US has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents across the world
The US has * probably * overthrown more democracies than it’s claimed to put in place
500 people is, therefore, a drop in the ocean
Reasonable starting places for more information are the Philippine-American War and the US experience in Nicaragua from the 1920’s or 30’s up to Iran-Contra
Nothing implied, it’s reasonably clear, I believe, and stays on point.