Dean on Saddam capture: "America is no safer"

WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam all saw surges in military enlistments when they started. These were all pro-war people doing what they thought should be done. The Iraq war saw no surge, people are for it as long as they don't have to participate. I've noticed the people on this group are clearly to chickensh!t to say why they won't serve, especially since you can serve a year and not have to worry about supporting other causes you don't believe in. Or mayybe you all are afraid you won't get sent straight to the fields in Iraq, since it seems to be the general consensus on here that the only people that count are the people on the ground carrying guns.

I don't understand why Americans that think that the world will be safer and America will be much safer in the future won't sign up to ensure a better future for their children?

 

quote of the day:

"I destroy my enemy when I make him my friend."
- Abraham Lincoln

 

On Saddam, to quote Sublime:

"But that's the way it had to be.
They locked him up and threw away the key.
Well, I can't take pity on men of his kind,
even though he now takes it in the behind."

Let's put it this way, the only way Dean has a shot is if he calls the Dept of Homeland Security the Guestappo (which their tactics do mimic) and gamble on:

A) sympathy votes from the us citizens that agree
b) he does not do jail time for being 'unpatriotic' for stating the obvious
c) he can pull a miracle with unemployment
d) admits that the true term is not 'Shock and Awe' but 'Blitzkreig'

Because we are about as safe as we were 9-10-01, just loads more paranoid. I'll still vote Republican, although I would have preferred Mcain.

 

Also should be "who's ignorant," LOL and "led astray,"

 

I've already explained to you why not everyone who believes in the righteousness of a cause has to participate themselves. If you still don't understand, then you need your head examined.

 

To: ART355, Well said. I only disagree with Bush snubbing the world.
My opinion is they didn't want to get involved because Iraq was a cash cow for many surrounding countries and Europe.(again just my opinion)


To: MarkG, Lottery #93. Didnt take long for that # to come up.


To: SLIM, Re: Abe. I wonder how he would feel about John Wilks Booth as a friend. A little Home Security would have gone along way.


Can't believe we said all this without cussin.

Dave

 

I guess overall I'm simply not willing to treat strangers any differently than I treat the people I come into contact with on a daily basis. If it turns out that certain people on the other side of the world simply are different and innately evil and will still stab me even when I've treated them fairly, then that's just too bad for me. I'll die. But I'll have lived in a way I can... uh, live with.

It sucks that I'm going to be grouped in as a member of a society that is already a target. Be it because this society doesn't follow the above rule, but is instead intent on poking people with a stick(the radical left view), or be it simply because this society is too successful and too free and therefore a subject of jealousy(the republican view): I could care less what the reason is. Regardless I suppose it makes me a potential random victim. But I'm less afraid of that happening than I am in what the effects on my life would be by becoming a bloodthirsty, vengeful, selfish citizen who advocates preemptive military action and invasion and who views people I've never met as enemies worthy of death.

To turn a phrase around, think locally when acting globally. We're all brothers, and if we aren't, well we should be and the best way to get there is to pretend it's already so.

-Slim

 

Yeah, they seem like a very fun, nice bunch.

 

Upset because I pointed out two spelling mistakes in your last post?

Of course I don't think my opinions are the only ones that count. My entire participation on this thread has basically been in response to this Navy guy's posts, who certainly does believe that his opinions are the only ones that count - and his contention is that if you don't fight, you can't support the actions who do. This is a ridiculous claim.

I think Slim's posts are admirable, and I share similar sentiments. I am a universalist, not a relativist. Unfortunately, I believe that when you think globally, you sometimes have to weigh difficult decisions, and it's not always an easy choice to make... There's a reason why our country's seal has the eagle holding two seemingly antithetical items in his talons, each representing peace and war respectively; and, often, the two go hand in hand, the latter paradoxically sometimes leading to the former.

 

Randall, if you want to get under my skin you're going to have to try a LOT harder than that. I said before it has nothing to do with cowardice. It has to do with my personality and what I want in my life. I am a business owner and I have always made my own decisions. The military is the definition of "taking orders", which I just won't do. I believe they probably give you an overview of how much "at risk" you are when you sign up - how high were you on that list? Not very, I imagine. I did do a lot of work for the government in the past, some of it on defense projects, and in the past I've signed things stating I would go to places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Chechnya if necessary. And I did end up going to some places on the Russian/Chechen border. Probably a lot closer to danger than you see sitting on base in Hawaii, unless Japan is coming back for a sequel attack! Tell me Randall, do you get "danger pay" or whatever it's called - where those in the line of fire get additional benefits? I'm guessing no... which kinda makes you the armchair quarterback, no?

ASVAB? I don't know if that was it. I came home and two marines were in my driveway. They came inside (and although it was cooking hot, declined to take off their jackets LOL) and they gave me a test - several pages, pretty easy stuff. The guy scored it in front of me and I aced it. This was in 1994. I have no idea what test it was, I never said it was an ASVAB. If you care to check your facts, I'm sure the Boston area of the marine core recruiting division will be happy to tell you what the aptitude test they were giving out in 1994 was. They also took a bunch of blocks with word like "security", "financial independence", "honor", "respect" and such on them, and asked me to arrange them in the order in which they were important to me. Then they went down the list and told me how the marines could help me achieve each of those. Sound familiar? They went over some brief medical stuff, and some brief psychological questions, asked me what I wanted to do, and that was that...3-4 hour visit all together.

I recall the recruiter calling me about once a week for MONTHS offering me better and better 'deals', and all but begging me to sign up. I know I'm sharp - not the sharpest, but I do Ok, so I wasn't surprised I did well on the test. Maybe you didn't do so well and are taking out your frustration on me? I dunno. Just because we occupy opposite sides of the bell curve, there is no need to get angry.

Are couch warriors that do nothing sort of like Hawaii warriors that do nothing?

Randall, you're still not getting it. Maybe I need to simplify it a little. YOU are the one who is saying that ONLY people who sign up should have a valid say in the war effort (ironically not a single law anywhere in the nation makes a provision for extra voting rights for service personnel). But YOU also participate in something you DON'T believe in. It's just as hypocritical! And you comment on politics, but have you ever run for office? Don't bother telling me, I already know the answer.

 

Art,

I disagree - I don't see any consensus that we aren't safer. I think we are. I think many others think we are too. With all due respect (don't take this the wrong way), the people who think like you do are only seeing one half of the equation. If you look at statistics on attacks on US soil, I think we are safer, aren't we? I think you base your "less safe" ideas on the fact that there is more resentment of the US than there was previously. But what you are forgetting is that there is also a lot more fear (maybe thats a bad word to use) about repercussions of attacking us. What did we do in the Clinton years? Launch a few cruise missiles here and there. Even during the Reagan era, invading a country that posed a threat wasn't even an option... and Reagan was seen by many as a hard-liner against terrorism!

So yes, there are more pissed off Frechmen than there was before - but so what? Are they going to actually attack us? What about the people that actually WOULD attack us - fringe elements in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Well, they have a hell of a lot less places to hide - and not because we invaded those places they did hide (because we all know there weren't a lot of terrorists in Iraq), but rather because the GOVERNMENTS of those countries (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, etc, etc) now realize that they can't be two faced and tell us they are on our side, while clandestinely supporting terorrists. It's a tough life for terorrists nowadays. Governments that used to look the other way now want you out of there, and will cooperate with the USA in hunting you down and killing you. That is a direct result of our foreign policy of "no BS with rogue states".

So are we safer? Yes, I think we are, because I think we have effectively damaged in a very severe way the ability of terorrists to harm us, and we have also damaged the will of many terrorists to harm us. Those that are still determined to harm us were always determined... we just pissed them off more. So what?

 

"and his contention is that if you don't fight, you can't support the actions who do."


You never explained why you don't think this is a worthwhile enough cause to get involved in? If you saw someone keying your car, would you try to stop it, or call the police? What about 3 12 year olds beating up one 8 year old, is that another cause worth standing by and letting others deal with? When is a cause important enough for you to actually step up and do something, instead of sit at home and say others should do something about it?

 

If you joined the Navy for an education, at least practice your reading comprehension from your comfortable non-combat post in Hawaii or on whatever ship you call home.

To answer your second question, something to make you look beyond your own selfish desires that earned you a spot in the Navy in the first place and you volunteer for a tour over there.

What does your job have to do with supporting anything going on in Iraq?

What does your "dream sheet" look like for assignments and how did you go into the Navy, open or guaranteed?

You are a meat shield with an opinion, just like we are. The only difference between you, Mike, and I is we wear suits to work and you wear a uniform and you are duty bound to keep your mouth shut when voicing your opinion against, with or without distain, your superiors in such a public manner.

Until you prove what you are doing or have done to make a difference, how about leading the way and volunteer for a tour over there instead of suggesting how other people should act?

People in uniform have been dishonorably discharged for having attitudes half as bad as yours. From my point of view having been prior service, Mike is twice the patriot and more American than you can ever hope to be with that attitude of yours.

Peace out,
Sunny

 

YOU, and I do mean just you

1. YOU indicate that women should be your prostitutes - YOU, on FChat had said that a secretary's job is to give you a "blow job".

2. YOU are a proud citizen of a country that, along with Somalia, has yet to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Abuses/Child.asp

3. YOU are a proud citizen of a country that sabotages its children,
not only through poverty and one of the most imbecilic education systems in the world, but also via institutionalized murder http://www.reprieve.org.uk/students.shtml


>Nibblesworth

Untermensch

 

Practically everywhere the US intervenes (breaching international laws naturally), suffering escalates, economies crumble, coca-cola and other formidable American treasures arrive.

Human rights - this is the presidential marionette performing his job, opening markets to the mostly mediocre American businesses, who cannot compete any other way, except through brute force.

So, yes, the US is generally laughable.
Progress is inevitable - http://www.obesity.org
Misery at home, misery for export. Mirrors are everywhere.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1103566,00.html

Of the 100 largest economic entities in the world half are nation states. The rest are corporations.
US businesses cost society ~$3 trillion per year, this is 5 times their profit.

This isn't about national or ethnic borders.

 

"assasinate" -> assassinate.

Why, did she differ on what constitutes an altruistic gesture?
There is no generosity without intelligence.


>MarkPDX

Alliances help one attain new forms of BIGness + Intimacy.

 

Oops... I deleted my post and you posted before I could repost it with the correct spelling.

 

85% deaf since birth in 1960. Therefore, unable to enlist in Marines or Air Force, though I gave it my best shot. Chicken****, my ass. It's nice to have gumption, but be careful of whose intelligence and patriotic sense of duty you insult - as it wears as thin as "Where were you in Chicago, '68, maaaaan?"

I have a total of four (4) cousins, nieces and nephews in the Air Force. All, as it happens, serving in the MidEast in various locales and capacities. Don't know current status of one (1) nephew who is Army - he's either in Iraq or Texas base or California home on R&R. Only talk to folks 1-2 times a month for updates of whatever. Let's put it this way - Patriotic, Military duty is considered just that in my family - a duty. But...
Old family joke: Nobody in the wax family has ever sunk so low as to be in the Navy.

Have you spent any time offshore of any Theatre of War? Been the hunted, as well as the hunter?

 

zjpj, I concede your impressive circular logic is basically ... impressive.
You are right that you are right because you are right.

Seneca has said: it is logical that the illogical should contradict the logical.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1214-08.htm



>Just like stopping Germany from rebuilding its military would have done.

EVERYONE, but you, and perhaps Derrida, will disagree with you.

 

2 things: 1. In response to your questions: If it requires immediate action, I would get involved. If the action is right in front of me, I would stop it. If Saddam was in front of me, I would capture him (similar to your hypotheticals.) 2. It's your job, which you get paid for. Stop acting like you are doing an act of charity. Again, I will repeat that I know more heroes personally that you will ever come in contact with, and none of them agrees with you about this civilians' support of a war effort.

 

What the hell are you talking about? Everyone would disagree that keeping a closer eye on Germany would have stopped WWII? I can't think of anyone who wouldn't agree with that.

 

This is the second time you have posted this link on FChat. Don't post it again. To begin with, it's absoltue rubbish and is as big a work of fiction as as a site devoted to the contention that Elvis is still alive. The final paragraph is the clincher: "While lauding the capture of Mr. Hussein, experts caution that the War on Terror is far from over, noting that Osama bin Laden, James Baker and George W. Bush remain at large."

 

Before the current administration wears it's elbows out slapping itself
on the back for the choreographed (staged) capture of Saddam, a visit to recent history is in order.

Let us not forget that the installation of Saddam into power was backed
by the US government in a coup of a democratically elected president in Iraq much the same way the Shaw of Iran was installed (also in a coup of a democratically elected president). The State Department also propped up the installation of leaders and dictators like Manuel Noriega in Panama and even the CIAtrained Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

We see time and again the insane interventionist foreign policy of the United States drawing us deeper and deeper into unfathomable debt, creating more enemies around the world. The U.S. currently occupies over 120 countries obviously ignoring the lessons learned from the fall of Rome.

The fact that Saddam's tenure was not only supported but bolstered by the American State Department, he was indeed supplied by the CIA and American defense contractors with chemical, biological and conventional weapons. Added to this, Saddam (in the insane policy of "Enemy of our enemy is our friend") was GIVEN the blueprints to the Manhattan Project.

The American State Department points to the 1983 gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq as an indication of his brutality. However, the very gas Saddam used to kill innocent civilians was indeed sold to him by the United States and as we see in this attached image, our current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld ("The Prince of Darkness") met
with Saddam, embracing him openly before committing more weapons and support to his regime mere days after the gassing of the Kurds which was
conveniently ignored as the perceived threat from Iran at that time blinded Washington, D.C.

Did Saddam have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities?
Of course he did, the United States sold, traded and gave and trained him how to use these very materials in the first place!

Should Saddam come to trial, the government of the United States, the
State Department and Mr. Rumsfeld himself should also be made co-defendants and it may be hoped that Saddam sings like a bird on the witness stand (should it come to this).

The unconscionable thing about this weekend's events are that the
current administration is congratulating itself for something which should have been carried out a dozen years ago when they had the opportunity.

How many more mistakes must the U.S. State Department make before they are finally reigned in? How many more innocent lives will be wasted in their bid to tell the rest of the world how to live?

BHW