Question about military uniforms

[PassedOut]

We invaded for only one reason - ONE ONLY: We were told that it was imperative to invade to protect ourselves from imminent terrorists attack, sponsored by Iraq, which could include a nuclear device.

Yes, the war became one of "nation-building" after Bush's original mistakes became clear to everyone.

 

Imagine what the republicans would have said if Al Gore had been president and:

 

1. Blown through the budget surplus in 6 months.

2. Let bin Laden escape after 9/11.

3. Attacked Iraq to save us from imaginary WMD.

4. Changed the war to "nation-building" when the truth became clear.

 

Their shouting would be loud and continuous.

[luke warm]

some want freedom, some don't.. to say the military can't or won't avail a country whose population wants freedom (and whose military backs that position) seems fallacious to me

But isn't this country on the whole strongly opposed to the current, what shall I call it, military mission?

yes... some in different ways though... for example, some were against it originally but now know we can't just pull out overnight... some were for it originally, found out there were lies told and then became opponents... but that just goes to my last point above

Huh? I am very strongly against the Iraq war, but I also believe it would be adding another mistake to pull out over night immediately. The US does have some responsibility for the mess it created.

 

This doesn't mean that my opinion changed at all.

some want freedom, some don't.. to say the military can't or won't avail a country whose population wants freedom (and whose military backs that position) seems fallacious to me

But isn't this country on the whole strongly opposed to the current, what shall I call it, military mission?

yes... some in different ways though... for example, some were against it originally but now know we can't just pull out overnight...

I don't know anyone whose beliefs have followed that path. As far as I can see, anyone who believes we shouldn't have been there but can't just pull out now is someone who believed we should go in at the beginning and then needed another (lame - IMO) excuse to justify their earlier belief.

then you seem to be saying that arend "...believed we should go in at the beginning and then needed another (lame - IMO) excuse to justify their earlier belief..." ... arend, maybe i didn't say it well but i was trying to convey the same thing you said... that there are people who were against the war but, now that we're there, know we can't just withdraw... jdonn is saying you weren't *really* against it at the start but are now just saying that as a "lame" excuse to justify being in favor of it

I am fully with Arend.

 

I was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq. It should have never happened. But once it started, continuing was the least of evils. Now, the USA will have to go all the way. They created the mess, they are responsible for the clean up.

 

For me, pulling out of Iraq now is the equivalent of causing a traffic accident and running away, leaving the victims behind.

 

Rik

and another who, according to jdonn, is just making up a "lame" excuse

Here, in their own words, are the reasons the Bush administration gave for the necessity of invasion: (emphasis added).

winston, i don't think anyone is saying anything against what you posted here... the question concerned the military and whether or not a country owed its military for some things

[matmat]

We invaded for only one reason - ONE ONLY: We were told that it was imperative to invade to protect ourselves from imminent terrorists attack, sponsored by Iraq, which could include a nuclear device.

Yes, the war became one of "nation-building" after Bush's original mistakes became clear to everyone.

 

Imagine what the republicans would have said if Al Gore had been president and:

 

1. Blown through the budget surplus in 6 months.

2. Let bin Laden escape after 9/11.

3. Attacked Iraq to save us from imaginary WMD.

4. Changed the war to "nation-building" when the truth became clear.

 

Their shouting would be loud and continuous.

what's your point?

[jdonn]

Lukewarm, you are totally misrepresenting everything that is right in front of your nose!

 

Firstly, Arend isn't someone who as you keep saying 'was' against the war but now believes we have to stay. He still is against the war!

 

I am very strongly against the Iraq war

See, right there in your own quotation! Big difference, hombre! So please don't tell me I'm accusing him of in any way justifying being in favor of it when he is quite clear that he is not in favor of it.

 

As for Trinidad, read the last few posts before yours. His excuse is indeed quite lame, and I'll take the company who agrees with me any day. Indeed I was generous not to also include other negative adjectives to describe it. The only point I can see you having is that I was wrong to say that he doesn't exist? (Well I actually said I don't know anyone who ____, and indeed I don't know him.)

[Winstonm]

The difficult decision in Iraq comes from opposing views. Obviously, there is the policy line of staying in order to maintain stability. Not everyone shares those views, as recently exhibited by Retired Lt. General Odom in front of Congress:

 

Odom concluded: “Naysayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran’s regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a U.S. withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies’ interest.”

 

All I can say is if a destablized Iraq is such a threat then we never should have destabilized it in the first place.

[luke warm]

i believe you're the one misrepresenting things... you quoted part of my post and said:

some want freedom, some don't.. to say the military can't or won't avail a country whose population wants freedom (and whose military backs that position) seems fallacious to me

But isn't this country on the whole strongly opposed to the current, what shall I call it, military mission?

yes... some in different ways though... for example, some were against it originally but now know we can't just pull out overnight...

I don't know anyone whose beliefs have followed that path. As far as I can see, anyone who believes we shouldn't have been there but can't just pull out now is someone who believed we should go in at the beginning and then needed another (lame - IMO) excuse to justify their earlier belief.

arend then said:

Huh? I am very strongly against the Iraq war, but I also believe it would be adding another mistake to pull out over night immediately. The US does have some responsibility for the mess it created.

 

This doesn't mean that my opinion changed at all.

and now you say:

Firstly, Arend isn't someone who as you keep saying 'was' against the war but now believes we have to stay. He still is against the war!

 

I am very strongly against the Iraq war

See, right there in your own quotation! Big difference, hombre! So please don't tell me I'm accusing him of in any way justifying being in favor of it when he is quite clear that he is not in favor of it.

 

As for Trinidad, read the last few posts before yours. His excuse is indeed quite lame, and I'll take the company who agrees with me any day. Indeed I was generous not to also include other negative adjectives to describe it. The only point I can see you having is that I was wrong to say that he doesn't exist? (Well I actually said I don't know anyone who ____, and indeed I don't know him.)

in my post that you quoted i never said a person who was against the war was now in favor of it (show me where i did)... i said some who were against the war originally are not in favor of pulling out now... it's black and white above, you said "...anyone who believes we shouldn't have been there but can't just pull out now is someone who believed we should go in at the beginning and then needed another (lame - IMO) excuse to justify their earlier belief..." arend is one who was against it originally but who agree with my statement that "...for example, some were against it originally but now know we can't just pull out overnight..."

 

whether he is still against it or not is irrelevant to what you said and what i replied... i never even implied that one who was against it originally changed his mind and is now in favor of it because we can't just up and leave... i did say that many who were against it originally know we simply can't leave

[jdonn]

in my post that you quoted i never said a person who was against the war was now in favor of it (show me where i did)...

 

Gladly.

 

some were against it originally but now know we can't just pull out overnight... some were for it originally, found out there were lies told and then became opponents...

First note the combination of your carefully chosen word but taken in conjunction with the word were.

 

but1

–conjunction 1. on the contrary

 

'Some people WERE against the war, but CONTRARY to that now believe [insert other belief here].'

 

You tell me, what would be contrary to being against a war? Wanting pizza for dinner that night?

 

 

But if the words aren't enough, we can also examine the context. This all started something like this, if I may paraphrase the points instead of quoting directly so things are more clear:

 

LW "I disagree with you, other poster [Trinidad ironically], in your implication that the military shouldn't avail a country whose population wants freedom."

JD "But how is our military availing us if most of us don't want them there?"

LW (this being the key point) "People don't want them there for different reasons though. Some WERE against the war BUT now are for it, others WERE for the war BUT are now against it."

 

I know, those weren't your exact words. But they were the point being made. Frankly in that context I can't think of what other point would make sense. So, sorry, but it drives me batty when people try to hide from clear implications they have made by saying "I never said that!" The only thing that makes it worse is, ahem, when they did say that!

 

I guess that makes this my version of a rant. Rant over.

[Winstonm]

I guess that makes this my version of a rant. Rant over.

 

That was really l-a-m-e for a rant. I'm starting a remedial rant class and have one spot still open. ;)

[Trinidad]

As to: How is that worth it...

 

If you invade a country and claim to do that to improve the lives of its inhabitants you cannot possibly consider leaving the country shred to pieces and with refugees spread all over the world. You would be declaring bankruptcy on your integrity.

This is a classical fallacy. Bygones are bygones. The integrity of the US government is already bankrupt and there's nothing that can be done about that, but fortunately it's irrelevant. The question is: what are the costs and benefits of staying in Iraq, compared to the option of leaving? This is all that matters. How Iraq was before the invasion, and how it might have been in the absence of an invasion, is irrelevant.

We are not talking about taking a loss on the stock market. There, bygones are bygones. This is a matter of responsibility and liability.

 

If I crash your car, I can obviously not return to the situation before the crash. But you won't let me get away with: "Oh well, bygones are bygones." or "The cost of paying for your damages is higher than the benefit for me.". You will let me pay for the damage.

 

Rik

[Al_U_Card]

Before the next generation of "Death to America" comes of age in the middle east, just withdraw and send money on a monthly basis (I figure at a billion per, you will save a bundle!)

 

Let the Iraqis have their country back to do with as they see fit.

[luke warm]

in my post that you quoted i never said a person who was against the war was now in favor of it (show me where i did)...

 

Gladly.

 

some were against it originally but now know we can't just pull out overnight... some were for it originally, found out there were lies told and then became opponents...

First note the combination of your carefully chosen word but taken in conjunction with the word were.

 

but1

–conjunction 1. on the contrary

 

'Some people WERE against the war, but CONTRARY to that now believe [insert other belief here].'

how would "some were against it originally; nevertheless they know we can't just pull out now" have sounded to you? or "some were against it originally; however they now know we can't just pull out" or "there are some who were against it originally yet know we can't just pull out now" or even "some who were against it originally still know we can't just pull out now" ... to you, do all of those imply that a person who *said* he was against something was really lying and was in fact *for* it all along?

 

those words are all synonyms for 'but' ... why should i take your simple definition 'contrary' and your impression of how i meant the word over how i know i meant the word?

 

in any case, you did say "As far as I can see, anyone who believes we shouldn't have been there but can't just pull out now is someone who believed we should go in at the beginning and then needed another (lame - IMO) excuse to justify their earlier belief."

 

arend said "I am very strongly against the Iraq war, but I also believe it would be adding another mistake to pull out over night immediately. The US does have some responsibility for the mess it created." ... your quote above implies he is lying, that he *did* agree with the war originally... the fact that he gave a reason why we shouldn't pull out now is irrelevant

But if the words aren't enough, we can also examine the context...

 

LW "I disagree with you, other poster [Trinidad ironically], in your implication that the military shouldn't avail a country whose population wants freedom."

JD "But how is our military availing us if most of us don't want them there?"

LW (this being the key point) "People don't want them there for different reasons though. Some WERE against the war BUT now are for it, others WERE for the war BUT are now against it."

 

I know, those weren't your exact words. But they were the point being made.

you're right, those aren't my words... they might be the point you thought was being made, they aren't the point i was making...

Frankly in that context I can't think of what other point would make sense.

would the use of however, nevertheless, still, or yet have made sense in the context of your imagined dialog?

[PassedOut]

We invaded for only one reason - ONE ONLY: We were told that it was imperative to invade to protect ourselves from imminent terrorists attack, sponsored by Iraq, which could include a nuclear device.

Yes, the war became one of "nation-building" after Bush's original mistakes became clear to everyone.

 

Imagine what the republicans would have said if Al Gore had been president and:

 

1. Blown through the budget surplus in 6 months.

2. Let bin Laden escape after 9/11.

3. Attacked Iraq to save us from imaginary WMD.

4. Changed the war to "nation-building" when the truth became clear.

 

Their shouting would be loud and continuous.

what's your point?

The point is that none of the statements from republicans endorsing the foolish actions of their man Bush represent honest professions of beliefs and principles. Rather, they represent propaganda efforts intended to maintain political power, pure and simple.

 

Of course the republicans don't hold a monopoly on such hypocrisy. But few administrations have had such colosal blunders to gloss over.

[jdonn]

If I crash your car, I can obviously not return to the situation before the crash. But you won't let me get away with: "Oh well, bygones are bygones." or "The cost of paying for your damages is higher than the benefit for me.". You will let me pay for the damage.

Sorry for the broken record, but your analogy makes no sense because THEY DON'T WANT US THERE! Frankly that doesn't even matter since we are supposedly acting in our own best interests, in which case your entire argument represents irrational thought.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

[matmat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

"Overly optimistic probability bias" section is a cute read.

[Trinidad]

If I crash your car, I can obviously not return to the situation before the crash. But you won't let me get away with: "Oh well, bygones are bygones." or "The cost of paying for your damages is higher than the benefit for me.". You will let me pay for the damage.

Sorry for the broken record, but your analogy makes no sense because THEY DON'T WANT US THERE! Frankly that doesn't even matter since we are supposedly acting in our own best interests, in which case your entire argument represents irrational thought.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

The question about the physical presence of Americans is an entirely different question. Of course, I am all in favor of pulling the US troops out of Iraq, providing that the USA (since they are responsible for the mess) can basically that is done what should be done. Who will do that is not important. (I would even agree with you that it would be more efficient if it weren't Americans.)

 

But it should be clear that it is the US' responsibility to return security and stability to Iraq and see to it that the country is rebuilt. If another country wants to (and is able to) do that physically in Iraq (while being paid by the USA), by all means, go ahead.

 

Who did you have in mind?

 

Rik

[mike777]

Thank goodness for elections. In the USA with 100% of the House up for election, 33% of the Senate and of course the Presidential office, the American public can take full responsibility for what happens in Iraq starting in 2009 and not just blame one man. :) There will be no innocent adult civilians in the USA now.

 

The rest is sunk costs.

 

As for Iran, Darfur, North Korea, Afghanistan we have only ourselves to blame if we mess that up, starting in 2009. :) Maybe for before 2009 also but that is an old discussion. :)

 

The good news is I read about some smart PHd's types inventing bacteria to leach the oil out of the shale and tar sands......so Canada here we come. :)

 

On a more serious note, If we pull out of Iraq, can we send all our ships and airforce home also? I hope we dont just end up sending them all back in or overhead or off the coast for 100 years to be shot at or killed.

 

On a even more serious note, it really is hurting "service families" to keep them going back for tour after tour. I admit since I am over draft age this is pretty easy for me to complain about it but if we keep voting to be the world policeman, we need to expand our military, alot. And those of us who stay home need to give more, lots more. Otherwise lets keep these fine, very young men and women at home. Nato(europe) needs to step up in Afghanistan or pull out if it is not in the Nato charter and of course the USA even more so....AGain my main point in this paragraph is too few families are shouldering the burden. end of rant.

[helene_t]

If I crash your car, I can obviously not return to the situation before the crash. But you won't let me get away with: "Oh well, bygones are bygones." or "The cost of paying for your damages is higher than the benefit for me.". You will let me pay for the damage.

Yes, I would let you pay me some money and then I would decide for myself without your assistance how to spend those money, possibly to repair my car or to buy a new one, possibly something else. I certainly wouldn't let you repair my car, especially not if there was an indication that by doing so you would just do even more damage to the car.

 

Maybe it would be prudent for the US to pay Iraq a few hundred billion bugs in compensation for the damage. (Slight problem: it's not not quite clear who should receive the money on behalf of the Iraqi people). Then the Iraqi government could decide to spend the money on foreign (US or otherwise) security services. Or on something else.

[jdonn]

But it should be clear that it is the US' responsibility to return security and stability to Iraq and see to it that the country is rebuilt.

Responsibility to whom exactly? The very people that so intensely don't want us there? Don't you see the amazing contradiction in what you are saying?

 

No, our government's responsibility is first and foremost to its own people. To the thousands it is sending off to die, the tens of thousands it is sending off to be permanently injured, the millions who are affected by those deaths and injuries, and the hundreds of millions whose (trillions!!! of) tax dollars are being spent to fund the whole thing.

 

Suppose you did hit the car, and in order to rectify the situation for the owner it would take 20 years, every year kill 1 random American that you don't know, and cost every American family 1 dollar a month. Would you keep plugging along because it's your responsibility?

[Winstonm]

The obvious (to me, anyway) problem in Iraq is that the U.S. is trying to circumvent the desires of the majority by supporting by force a minority position.

 

If the U.S. foreign policy was truly geared to democratic decision-making, the U.S. would follow the mandates of the Iraqi majority. If that means pull out, so be it.

 

Whatever becomes of Iraq is the business of Iraq - and the Iraqi people. The U.S. should not be involved unless a majority of Iraqis wanted us there. To do otherwise is not to promote democracy but simply a display of stubborn willfulness.

 

The time to help Iraq and repay them for the U.S. war crimes is after the Iraqi civil war has been settled - at that time the U.S. would have to deal with the prevailing parties, whomever that might be.

[mike777]

The obvious (to me, anyway) problem in Iraq is that the U.S. is trying to circumvent the desires of the majority by supporting by force a minority position.

 

If the U.S. foreign policy was truly geared to democratic decision-making, the U.S. would follow the mandates of the Iraqi majority.  If that means pull out, so be it.

 

Whatever becomes of Iraq is the business of Iraq - and the Iraqi people.   The U.S. should not be involved unless a majority of Iraqis wanted us there.  To do otherwise is not to promote democracy but simply a display of stubborn willfulness.

 

The time to help Iraq and repay them for the U.S. war crimes is after the Iraqi civil war has been settled - at that time the U.S. would have to deal with the prevailing parties, whomever that might be.

You raise alot of interesting points to discuss here. Hopefully we can explore them without vulgar insults but.....:)

 

1) I disagree that the Iraqi's should have the final vote(say) here when it comes to sending Americans to die or get wounded. IN any case it seems the "polls" I see change from month to month on what the iraq's want us to do but .....

2) Likewise with our American leaders, this is a 200+ year debate, should American leaders be leaders or just take a poll and do what the popular poll says.

3) I was taught 66% of Americans were neutral or against the Revolutionary War.....:) It was a small group of liberals, many would say left wing radicals, for that war. :)

4) Of course right or left wing, liberal or conservative, most of the time it seems these terms are interchangeable :)

[Winstonm]

You raise alot of interesting points to discuss here. Hopefully we can explore them without vulgar insults but.....

 

1) I disagree that the Iraqi's should have the final vote(say) here when it comes to sending Americans to die or get wounded. IN any case it seems the "polls" I see change from month to month on what the iraq's want us to do but .....

2) Likewise with our American leaders, this is a 200+ year debate, should American leaders be leaders or just take a poll and do what the popular poll says.

 

 

I agree with your assertion in #1 that it should not be the Iraqis who decide when it comes to sending Americans to die or get wounded; however, the occupation of Iraq, once no legitimate grounds for invasion were ever discovered, is not about sending Americans to die - it is about prolonging an error - and in that the Iraqis should have a say.

 

#2 doesn't make much sense to me as an argument. Iraq has nothing to do with polls - it has everything to do with an invasion of a sovereign country for reasons that turned out to be invalid. The simplistic thought (mine) is that we have no right to be there so should get out unless an Iraqi majority wanted us there.

[mike777]

You raise alot of interesting points to discuss here. Hopefully we can explore them without vulgar insults but.....

 

1) I disagree that the Iraqi's should have the final vote(say) here when it comes to sending Americans to die or get wounded. IN any case it seems the "polls" I see change from month to month on what the iraq's want us to do but .....

2) Likewise with our American leaders, this is a 200+ year debate, should American leaders be leaders or just take a poll and do what the popular poll says.

 

 

I agree with your assertion in #1 that it should not be the Iraqis who decide when it comes to sending Americans to die or get wounded; however, the occupation of Iraq, once no legitimate grounds for invasion were ever discovered, is not about sending Americans to die - it is about prolonging an error - and in that the Iraqis should have a say.

 

#2 doesn't make much sense to me as an argument. Iraq has nothing to do with polls - it has everything to do with an invasion of a sovereign country for reasons that turned out to be invalid. The simplistic thought (mine) is that we have no right to be there so should get out unless an Iraqi majority wanted us there.

I think we all agree 100% we should never do wrong! We should never do something invalid.

 

Let me use a crazy silly example:

 

Iran maybe trying to get a nuclear bomb the next 4 years.

What is not wrong or invalid the USA and Nato(europe) should not do? I agree we should do no wrong or invalid but what does that mean we should do?

 

I repeat I am all for peace, love and understanding...I agree with that! I agree we should never do wrong or something invalid!

 

I have even gone on the forum record we all should be allowed nukes.....all of us! Yes, that means you!

 

If you think we should do nothing ok, but even nothing can be wrong or invalid!

[Winstonm]

Iran maybe trying to get a nuclear bomb the next 4 years.

What is not wrong or invalid the USA and Nato(europe) should not do? I agree we should do no wrong or invalid but what does that mean we should do?

 

Israel, India, and Pakistan already have nuclear weapons - perhaps the U.S. and NATO should sign a treaty with Iran to protect Iran from aggression from nuclear armed countries?

 

Or perhaps the U.S. should simply follow the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which both the U.S. and Iran signed, and which Iran is following by allowing the IAEA inspectors to follow the treaty's mandates.

 

Or maybe we should just, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," as Senator John McClain and presidential hopeful so righteously sung to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann.

 

Just a few thoughts....so what are your ideas?

 

I have even gone on the forum record we all should be allowed nukes.....all of us! Yes, that means you!

 

If you think we should do nothing ok, but even nothing can be wrong or invalid!

 

Does this mean you've stopped taking your medicine, again?

[mike777]

Iran maybe trying to get a nuclear bomb the next 4 years.

What is not wrong or invalid the USA and Nato(europe) should not do? I agree we should do no wrong or invalid but what does that mean we should do?

 

Israel, India, and Pakistan already have nuclear weapons - perhaps the U.S. and NATO should sign a treaty with Iran to protect Iran from aggression from nuclear armed countries?

 

Or perhaps the U.S. should simply follow the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which both the U.S. and Iran signed, and which Iran is following by allowing the IAEA inspectors to follow the treaty's mandates.

 

Or maybe we should just, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," as Senator John McClain and presidential hopeful so righteously sung to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann.

 

Just a few thoughts....so what are your ideas?

 

I have even gone on the forum record we all should be allowed nukes.....all of us! Yes, that means you!

 

If you think we should do nothing ok, but even nothing can be wrong or invalid!

 

Does this mean you've stopped taking your medicine, again?

ok so you want to bomb Iran or do nothing or follow the treaty ..ok that is clear...:) I think no one is against

1) doing wrong

2) following a treaty

3) do something invalid

 

 

so far everyone agrees with you :)

I think we all agree a country is in its right to follow a treaty and a country is in its right to aborgate a treaty...both are right and valid....

[luke warm]

Thank goodness for elections. In the USA with 100% of the House up for election, 33% of the Senate and of course the Presidential office, the American public can take full responsibility for what happens in Iraq starting in 2009 and not just blame one man. :( There will be no innocent adult civilians in the USA now.

 

The rest is sunk costs.

 

As for Iran, Darfur, North Korea, Afghanistan we have only ourselves to blame if we mess that up, starting in 2009. :) Maybe for before 2009 also but that is an old discussion. :)

 

The good news is I read about some smart PHd's types inventing bacteria to leach the oil out of the shale and tar sands......so Canada here we come. :)

 

On a more serious note, If we pull out of Iraq, can we send all our ships and airforce home also? I hope we dont just end up sending them all back in or overhead or off the coast for 100 years to be shot at or killed.

 

On a even more serious note, it really is hurting "service families" to keep them going back for tour after tour. I admit since I am over draft age this is pretty easy for me to complain about it but if we keep voting to be the world policeman, we need to expand our military, alot. And those of us who stay home need to give more, lots more. Otherwise lets keep these fine, very young men and women at home. Nato(europe) needs to step up in Afghanistan or pull out if it is not in the Nato charter and of course the USA even more so....AGain my main point in this paragraph is too few families are shouldering the burden. end of rant.

uncle