JOHNSTOWN, Pa. -- U.S. Rep. John Murtha, a key Democrat on military issues, on Monday defended his call to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, saying he was reflecting Americans' sentiment.
"The public turned against this war before I said it," Murtha said. "The public is emotionally tied into finding a solution to this thing, and that's what I hope this administration is going to find out."
Murtha, 73, a decorated Vietnam veteran and the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said he has received support from the public since calling for the troop pullout on Thursday. He said he has gotten e-mails from World War II veterans and parents of American soldiers in Iraq.
Murtha noted that his great-grandfather served in the Civil War, his father and three uncles in World War II, and that he and his brothers were Marines. Murtha said western Pennsylvania, where his district is located, is a "hotbed of patriotism and they've lost confidence in this effort."
He said Iraqis must take control of their own destiny.
"We cannot win this militarily. Our tactics themselves keep us from winning," Murtha said at a scheduled news conference after a speech to a civic group in his hometown of Johnstown, about 60 miles east of Pittsburgh.
House Republicans on Friday pushed for a vote on a nonbinding resolution to pull out the troops after Murtha's comments. It was rejected 403-3, but Democrats said the quick call for the vote was a political stunt designed to undermine Murtha's comments.
"The guys in Congress are scared to death to say anything because they might be vilified," Murtha said.
"The soldiers can't speak for themselves. We sent them to war and, by God, we're the ones that have to speak out."
Murtha said he was unmoved by criticism he's received from President Bush, others in Congress and the public.
U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, spoke on the House floor Friday about a phone call she got from a Marine colonel who said, "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Asked about it, Murtha called the comment ridiculous.
"You can't spin this. You've got to have a real solution," Murtha said. "This is not a war of words, this is a war."
Aware that his comments last week would draw fire from conservatives, Murtha said he specifically asked more liberal members of his party not to step forward to support him.
"I didn't want (the public) to think this was a Democrat position plotted from the left wing," Murtha said.
Murtha expressed confidence that terrorist bombings in Iraq would cease once U.S. troops were gone and Iraqis became solely responsible for their destiny.
"Absolutely, we're the target. We're the enemy," Murtha said. "(The Iraqis) are a proud people, they've been around a lot longer than we have. They've going to win this themselves, they're going to settle this themselves. They have to, there's no alternative."
Murtha said he believes President Bush needs to realize how citizens feel about the war.
"All of us want to support the president when he's at war," Murtha said "But you can't support him when he won't change directions, won't listen."
� 2005 The Associated Press
-------------------- life shrinks and expands in proportion to one's courage -- anais nin Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The guys in Congress are scared to death to say anything because they might be vilified," Murtha said.
"The soldiers can't speak for themselves. We sent them to war and, by God, we're the ones that have to speak out."Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
LymeOjai
Unregistered
posted
Just a quick comment. I'll see if I can respond more later.
One cannot argue with Colonel Murtha's right to express his opinions concerning our war against terrorism. Not only has he earned the respect of all of us in uniform, he has won the respect of his constinuents who have put him in office to represent them.
Murtha:
"The guys in Congress are scared to death to say anything because they might be vilified," Murtha said.
"The soldiers can't speak for themselves. We sent them to war and, by God, we're the ones that have to speak out."
He's absolutely correct it his right and obligation to speak out for the soldiers currently serving in both of the fields of battle.
He was given that responsibility and honor as an elected member of Congress; however, he can only speak of his opinion concerning what he believes to be true. He cannot and I believe he does not pretend to speak for them.
I know I have never authorized anyone to speak for me.
Colonel Murtha is an American Hero and he has my deepest respect. I just don't happen to agree with most of his opinions.
posted
WOW! That was Amazing...especially being in Western PA!
I REALLY wish it would've been televised when the podium was stormed after Jean Schmidt (Rep.-Ohio, obviously)showed her VERY UGLY side...We're STILL waiting for Ohio results that we'll never see! tsk,tsk
There's speculation here that Murtha may run...His STRENTH & 39-year Military background are Admirable!!
Like we Lymies...You can't relate until you've been there!!! ~~Reno
-------------------- ~Life's too short, eat dessert first Posts: 134 | From PA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I've never seen anything like it, neither had those covering the floor for decades.
It was like the Parliament brawls -- waiting for them to start pulling wigs off eachother.
I think what has happened due to Murtha's stature, and moreover his POINTS - points that cut to the heart of the matter and right through the rhetoric (as he said, there is no spinning this.)
He has brought the issues raised by so many before him to the forefront.. and the usual smearing of individuls with NO address of the issue didn't wash with him, tho they tried. Can't get away with calling Murtha a coward or a 'lefty extremist'.
(this is allot of what we see here, you'll notice.. many old time members spending every post cutting down or commenting on individuals and their views, and not ever addressing the content.)
What I hope Murtha has accomplished is that the smears and attacks of individuals no longer take priority over and COVER UP the situation in Iraq. Also, that the points he raised regarding the effect on the military, terrorism, and Iraq are finally adequately addressed. It's truly inbelievable how supressed these issues have been. Rhetoric is cheap and is downright negligent in War time.
We can no longer accept 'We're makin' progress' without tangible evidence, truthful acknowledgement of what has gone wrong, and a clear plan.
I hope War supporters here will comment on those issues..
We have too much at stake as far as National Security, too many dieing, and the stakes all around for all involved are very high. It's long past time for open and respectful discussion.
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bigger and bolder font doesn't mean it's more correct or that more people will even read it. It's just obnoxious and usually indicates desperation. LOL.
Posts: 600 | From Las Vegas, NV | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Murtha's getting illogical and soft in his old age. I'll leave it at that.
Posts: 600 | From Las Vegas, NV | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
Yes I know some of these leaders said we would be "greeted as liberators"...and I think there was a lot of that early on...ya know when they tore down saddams statue etc......
But what bothers me is....the statements I've been hearing lately about us being the enemy.... about us being specifically targeted......
DUH HELLO!!!!!!
When were we NOT the enemy of those that are blowing stuff, and themselves up?????
Oh yeah, I don't hear the opposing side of politicians calling it an unconstitutional or illegal war either...Nor do they accuse Bush of deliberately lieing to the American public....
I only read that here...
Then lymedad and Ojai bring on board the opinions of those that have been incountry and actually fighting this war and actually seeing the good we're doing there but gee those comments are either glossed over or ignored completely by some on this board. They "cut to the heart of the issues" first hand with no political agenda's.
Yet they do little to impress those that are close minded about this war.
On a lighter note...Murtha's constituents are Pittsburg Steeler fans no doubt... Being a staunch Cleve Browns fan...I can tell you that the Steeler fans suck....
so much for what his constituents think...LOL
zman
[ 02. December 2005, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: lymie tony z ]
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
Help me out here. Not being the sharpest knife in the drawer, I confuse easily. Is the ``war'' over as soon as we ``bring the troops home''? The ragheads will leave us alone and let everyone live in peace? No more sneak attacks around the world? Well shoot, if that's the case, we should'a listen to the left along time ago. Bring the troops home and the war ends. Hell, we should have thought of that!
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm not saying this is the perfect plan, but for instance Murtha is talking about withdrawing from the civil war conditions between the sunni and the shiite Muslims..
afterall, that has been raging for eons, Saddams reign of terror sort of kept that in check..ironically.. and many who have studied the region for decades question whether the sunni, shiites and Kurds can make it under one (collaborative) government. Maybe they need a split? Not for us to say, IMO.
.. we have no business putting troops in harms way to deal with the in fighting.
In addition, insurgency attacking our troops is resulting in considerable civillian and military casualty and death.
If we are fighting a War on Terror, he is saying to withdraw from the in-fighting, strengthen the military and equipment that is worn..
(he and many others have commented on the TREMENDOUS job they are doing, the commentary is on extranious conditions) and re-deploy in strategic areas surrounding Iraq, leaving an adequate number of troops in the areas of stability.. the Iraqis must take more responsibility.. their police force as well.
and the US then being ready to go back in if there is Terrorist activity that threatens surrounding areas or Iraqis.
This will also require a much more beefed up intelligence effort. Specialized forces. Murtha -- from what I gather, is saying this situation will not be best addressed in continuing the ground War on the current path. We have certainly seen supporting evidence of that, and this administration needs to take another look at things.
Something along those lines... at least it's a plan -- a place to start thinking from, and I do agree 'we' are involved in too many things we shouldn't be, things we may not be able to change in the region.. and that this involvement is costing us troops and costing Iraqi lives.
Does any of this sound at all reasonable to you? He is not saying to 'give up' .. he's saying we need to change course to be more effective.. and ultimately to leave Iraq to the Iraqis. Why should we be policing the nation?
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
Ya know I get a real kick out of these armchair generals...
They have'nt been in a war like this so how the heck do they know what to do...
All do respect to what they did in the past...they ought to let those that are engaged with the enemy make the decisions as to what is the best approach.
Like the guy they interviewed on the tube who said it would be much better to deal with an enemy that is comming to them then to move out of the area and then have to fight their way back in.
Did ya miss that one.....??/
It would be much better if these warring factions sat down at a table and discussed their differences like SANE individuals instead of insane suicide bombing wacks.....
Like in a democracy...ya think???
zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Murtha's (and some other's who share his) opinions are dispensable.
refusing to even acknpwledge his points raised - or to even speak to them... misprepresenting his views as 'immediate withdrawal' (which he never suggested).. exemplifies the culture of exclusion practiced by the White House and the minority of Americans following suit.
Certainly if you look at what he has done and been involved in over the years... and his focus on Iraq throughout, and support of the Bush (sr and jr) admin in the past -- he should not be 'blown off', as some wish to do. Why do they wish to do that?
I mean -- you may not agree with his exact idea of a plan, but at this point if you blow him of like all the others before him in the need for a change of direction..perhaps you are too rigid in your views?
Is there no opinion to consider other than that which is in line with your own?
Effective strategies that may include rearrangement of troops does not mean 'we loose'.. in fact, it could be the way to ensure eventual resolve and fortify the effort (against TERRORISM!).
{what some might call 'winning', I am calling resolve}
Mo
[ 03. December 2005, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
LymeOjai
Unregistered
posted
Mo,
We've heard from Colonel Murtha and a lot of folks have ``hung their hat'' on the Colonel's opinion. He is, after all, a highly decorated Marine and a member of the minority political party in the U.S. Senate. His opinion should count for something.
I'd like you to hear from another Marine, the first Marine ever appointed to the office of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Peter Pace. (There's some real pride for us career Marines having General Pace as the CJCS).
(I've taken the liberty to paraphrase some of his comments for the sake of brevity. You can read his entire comments at:
Wouldn't the United States be better off if it simply left the terrorists alone and brought its troops home from Iraq? Wouldn't that stop the violence there?
His answer:
"That would be nice if it would work. But that's not the world we live in," he quickly added, noting that the United States was "leaving them alone" when terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001.
"I say, you need to get out and read what our enemies have said," "(There's) no equivocation on their part," the chairman said. "They're not saying, 'If you stay home, we will not come after you.' They are saying their goal is to rid the Middle East of all foreigners, then to overthrow all governments that are not friendly to them, which means every single one of those governments." Pace continued. Their ultimate goal is to bring the whole globe under their domination within the next 100 years, he said.
My purpose in posting the above was to reply to your point:
``withdrawing from the civil war conditions between the sunni and the shiite Muslims.. afterall, that has been raging for eons, Saddams reign of terror sort of kept that in check..ironically..and many who have studied the region for decades question whether the sunni, shiites and Kurds can make it under one (collaborative) government. Maybe they need a split? Not for us to say, IMO.
.. we have no business putting troops in harms way to deal with the in fighting.''
I have to agree with General Pace (now there's a surprise) I don't consider our involvement in Iraq to be one of fighting within another country's civil war. I believe that we're continuing the war that was declared against us beginning in 1979 and continuing through September 11, 2001 to today.
I continue to believe that we have the enemy located, we have fixed his position (the battlefields/streets of many cities in Iraq & Afghanistan), we have closed on those positions and we are killing as many of the enemy as we can. (I'm sure you're getting tired of hearing that phrase, but it is our main objective in any combat situation).
It is my opinion that if we were to allow ourselves to give ground to the enemy now, it will just costs us more in terms of the number WIA - KIA in the not too distant future.
We should never give ground on our pursuit to cut the enemy off and destroy his ability to fight. I'd much prefer going back to the desert again than to fight anything close to that war here on our soil.
(If you knew how much I hate that flight over, you'd know I mean that. In addition, I can't stand those camel spiders).
Your other points concerning our being involved in too many things we shouldn't be and our involvement is costing too many lives and that we shouldn't be policing Iraq.
I couldn't agree with you more!!! We are absolutely involved in too many things and those things are costing us way too many lives, lives that can never be lived again. Way too many young amputees, male and female. Way too many psychological problems that young people should not have to face.
However, these involvements are not of our choosing. War has been declared by our enemy, Islamic extremists. We are now without choice; we must make the necessary sacrifices to win this war without qualification. I just don't see any other way to go about it. It is not in our creed to hunker down and wait for the next attack to do something about it.
I just don't give a rat's butt about policing the Iraqi people, regardless of their religious beliefs. I'd love to let them police themselves, it's just not in the cards right now.
Finally, I'm a little concerned about our perceived need to be so politically correct, especially in terms of the Iraqi people. It's a tough job this war stuff and it's really not a good thing when civilians get killed, but you know; this stuff happens.
I have been involved in several circumstances where we worried way too much about the political rammifications of our actions, to the detriment of our troops and on more than one occasion my own skinny butt was put in "harm's way" because we were concerned about collateral damage to indigenous peoples.
I understand the need to be humane, even in a inhumane circumstance, but we've got to settle on the fact that we have to win this war regardless of the cost.
I've read about your sister in Medical and my heart goes out to the family and she.. we have been down the path she is on, paricularly similar with my son -- and with strength and perseverence and her LLMD among other type of care -- she will get through. It's usually almost impossible to beleive that when in the throes of that much pain and illness.
You're family must have allot of strength with two of you fighting Wars!
Regarding this discussion.. I want to say that tho some may be hanging their hat on Murtha.. I also see more of a galvinazation by his speaking out that has brought needed focus to the issue.
There were many before him with similar concerns..but politics and smears have beat down so many others without any address.. he was not someone the White House could do that with, tho they are trying.. some (I think this came from McCain for one, his eye on the Presidential ball on '08) even suggesting he has gotten too emotional in his old age' ..
I think this issue (with what limitations are appropriate) did need to come out 'on the table'.. if not for need for change of direction, at least to inform the public and unite Congress behind the War efforts, as you have said... we can't do this as effectively without the country united.
The majority of the public does not trust this administration -- accumulatively this number rises.... the majority of the Republican party and certainly the White House have repeated what can only be percieved as rhetoric, shallow claims.. (aside from misrepresentations) I have gotten more information important to copnsider in this in your posts than I have in three years .. that says something. Perhaps more along the lines of what you have articulated to be brought forth into the National discussion (of course, that which is appropriate, not threatening to the missions) but a clearer picture.
I hear what Pace is saying..
however, I don't think many want to somply 'leave the Terrorists behind and bring the troops home'.
Redirect, regroup, alter focus, get out of the civil War and pull back from the insurgency which is reactive to the military presence..
The cruxt of it is, are we fighting then on two different fronts.. the inssurgency in Iraq -- who are Terrorists.. but they are not the ones who did or are planning to attack other countries --
But then there is the WAR on TERROR.. which seems to me to be disjointed from the Iraq efforts.
The Islamic extremists who have waged this War for many years and recently in the US, Spain, London.. are both stand alone groups and networked alQaeda cells.
I guess we can't know what would happen if there was a re-deployment effort both in and outside of Iraq .. but I would think it prudent to try and decifer what of the fighting is insurgent based wanting the troops out.. what is Sunni/Shiite infighting..
Tho I guess, when you say yot have your sight s on the enemy.. do you mean there is assumption that the men setting the IED's, killing servicemen and civilians..
assumption that they will then go and join or form groups that will attack other countries?
It's hard to understand, as a victim of a Terror attack.. the disctinct posibility that the way the War is percieved by the Midle east, and the thriving operation or Islamic extremist groups GLOBALLY is a much graver threat than the threat (to the rest of the world and the US) than that of the enemy you are fighting on the ground in Iraq right now. THEY are a threat to the military, and I don't think for good enough reason should they be.
Of course control and tabs must be kept on what happens if the troops pull back from the in-fighting..
but that's where the Iraqis and their new government come in, or they should to the extent they can..
and perhaps then we can turn more focus on the Al Qaeda operatives.
We are etremely vulnerable here to another attack..it's not a question of if, but when.. as stated by the heads of the 911 Commission this weekend..
(an aside: they also noted five or six KEY steps needed to be taken by the Presidant and Congress regarding national Security at home that have NOT been taken! .. we saw in Katrina, we still didn't have the very easy to implement communications system set up that they reccomended, nor the nuclear proliferation steps..not the money funded to the high risk areas of NY, Washington, LA for safety measures.. none of this..)
Again, the sentiment in NY is very focused on the enemy.. but there seems to be some question as to where exactly the greatest threats of the moment lie. The President just keeps saying it is Iraq that we need to stick out.. but is not clear on why...relating to AlQaeda..
I also understand your point about rather fighting there than here..
but here's the thing --
I'm pretty confident (if we had our resources here) that any ground attack in the US would be nailed effectively by our most superior military forces...if anything like that were to happen.. but moreover, ALL of the Islamic extremist attacks have been sophisticated forms of Terror..not ground fighting.
suicide bombings.. missions laid by very small groups (compared to an army).. deadly and targeted, suprise attacks.. I think chemical and biological are a HUGE concern, as well as a hit on our electricity infrastructure.. taking out the grids..
which would render the US totally disfunctional.
This is the kind of War Islamic extremists are waging..and it only takes a couple of dizen of them to pull one of these attacks off, especially if they are funded and lead/trained by the higher operators...which they still are.
I think, from what I read on BOTH 'sides'.. there is no denying that the US military has done a remarkable job in Iraq with what they are facing. We have the DEST military machine in the World by far.
In adition, I think your point about making tough decisions and at times risking too much with concerns of 'colateral damage' when a much bigger threat or mission is being dealt with is really important. I don't think anyone in their right mind can blame the military for civillian casualties under the conditions faced in Iraq, and the missions that must be carried out.
The cruxt of the question is where is the head of the snake?
Cut off the head and it dies.. this is a resilient and networked snake, tho.. and even when they get a 'top' guy, they are trained and ready for that, and there is quickly another to take his place.
They are located all over the globe as well as the Middle East - but they are not the ground fighters in large part..
they are also operating, or 'casing' in most allied countries, and in Africa.. ect.....
the military efforts in Iraq may be giving the body of the snake a beating to an extent.. but my concern is that they are not getting the head, and depleting our resources both in manpower and money to the point where we won't be able to fight the kinds of attacks we face.. the ones that will hit here. Plus, there is arguement that the War in Iraq is sending many young men to go and join these groups outside of Iraq.
The leadership, ideology, structure, strategies, and tactics of the most violent politico-religious organization the world has ever seen is my focus. Al Qaeda supported conflict zones in Central, South and Southeast Asia and the Middle East -- migrant communities in North America and Europe.
Founded in the late eighties -- Al Qaeda merged with and still works with several other extremist groups. Al Qaeda 'rank and file' draw on nearly three decades of terrorist expertise as you say.
Moreover, it inherited a full-fledged training and operational infrastructure funded by the United States, European, Saudi Arabian and other governments for use in the anti-Soviet Jihad.
.....their financial infrastructure and how they train combat soldiers and fighters for multiple guerrilla, terrorist campaigns in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, ect...... In addition, the the clandestine Al Qaeda operational network in the West..
I'm afraid the sights have to be adjusted, leaving Iraq with their due responsibility.. but still with active monitoring with greater intelligence efforts and mush better communication/co-operation between intelligence and military.. and some allies.
Mo
[ 05. December 2005, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
LymeOjai
Unregistered
posted
Mo and everyone else,
Thanks for your sentiments concerning my sister's illness. We are praying for her recovery and we appreciate all of the support we've gotten from everyone on this board.
I've had quite a bit of time to listen, read and watch a lot being said about the war on terrorism, in Iraq and elsewhere.
I've tried as best as I can to be open and broad-minded about all of the differing positions.
Having said that I believe even more than I did before my return, it all boils down to one word:
Resolve - Do we have the resolve as a nation to win this war??
We can point fingers at the Bush Admin or at Colonel Murtha or Captain (Senator) McCain or Bill Clinton or whomever, but, at least to me, the bottom-line is it's time for a gut-check.
Do we have the collective guts/stamina/sacrifice as a nation to see this thing through?
I happen to agree with Senator McCain concerning the war in Iraq, we need more troops, more equipment, more funding, more moral support from our people to win this war.
I've read the 9/11 Commission report concerning our vulnerability at home; however, bringing substantial numbers of combat troops out of Iraq will not erase our vulnerability.
The number of insurgents we have tied up in-theater cannot be sustained for long. The more that flood over the borders of Syria, Iran, etc., the fewer available to cause havoc elsewhere in the world, including our home.
Where is the head of the snake??
Who knows, maybe there isn't one head. Maybe this is a true snake without a head. I know we have the opportunity to kill lots of snakes, if we have the resolve to do so.
Finally, I respect your opinion and your right to voice it, I just don't agree with your position concerning "adjusting our sights".
(It's ironic that you have used that metaphor as has Col Murtha. What I do for a living has a lot to do with adjusting sights. Mine have been adjusted, the windage & elevation have been allowed for and there are multiple targets of opportunity).
I'm just a mid-level player in this thing, but from my perspective we have to do this one right at all costs. We cannot afford to allow any of the Islamic terrorists organizations to even perceive the smallest of victories.
Regardless of the current political rantings from both left and right, war has been declared upon the U.S. It's now time to see if we have the resolve to win it.
I read an interesting article in the December 5th edition of Time magazine. The article closes with the following comment, which I agree with:
Bruce Hoffman, terrorist expert Rand Corp;
"If the U.S. is seen as being stampeded out of the violence in Iraq, that will only be waving a red flag at the terrorists".
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
I worry about the resolve of the Democrats. This war will not end with Iraq but if we're successful those countries that might be coerced to give aid and comfort to the terrorist will be reduced. "Your either with us or against us", plays better if your a big time winner!
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do we have the collective guts/stamina/sacrifice as a nation to see this thing through?
I think absolutely.. from what I see across the spectrum, guts are not what we are lacking.
We cannot afford to allow any of the Islamic terrorists organizations to even perceive the smallest of victories.
We might be able to if we blind side them thereafter.
Ojai,
I have learned allot with you and I think about things differently now. I'm honored to have the chance to toss things around with you, and have allot of respect for what you are saying.. (I can't really put it into words...)
I also see (not from you, from what I read into your posts)..but overall, the administration in the US has made it political with the military.. they have done and staged many things in order to (crossing the line of what is appropriate) align the military with one polical party.. and alienate it from another.
This is a deleterious move in any government.. it makes things political that should not be. It is divisive.
My posts with you are merely in hopes of offering some insight into where those who do not vehemently support the whole of the admin's policies are coming from.
I hope you can see that there is valid and clear substance to some of the concerns I have conveyed above..
With lack of time to get into it deeper....ya, maybe we are talking about a 'Medusa' here.. but I still wonder if trimming shears would be more efficatious.
Bottom line, I don't think anyone has a clear answer at this time.
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
LymeOjai, Sorry you had to be exposed to that. She was apparently, mentally ill to start with then lyme struck followed by depression and alcoholism and then, the voices started, followed immediately by the vapors.
She is what she is and that's all she is, a product of the people that had a hand in her up bringing. She stands as a monument to ignorance and indifference (I don't know and I don't care!) with her finger in the air like a lightening rod!
There appeared to be some hope till Bush stole the election again, after that it was Donnal Ducksville. It sent her and her friends around the bloody bend!
Enjoy your leave and my best wishes for your sister's recovery.
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
LymeOjai
Unregistered
posted
the administration in the US has made it political with the military..they have done and staged many things in order to (crossing the line of what is appropriate) align the military with one polical party..and alienate it from another.
Wow, that's quite a statement.
To embrace that concept one would have to believe that the Bush administration was somehow able to control the thinking of the men and women who are active-duty military, the reserve and the guard forces.
Please give them more credit than that. These young people, don't even count us lifers, are bright, well educated folks. They are motivated by love for their country, not politics.
I have had the opportunity to serve with many people who express their political leanings and I have yet to meet anyone who agrees 100% with anyone in politics.
As a whole, we don't trust most politicians or a lot of civilians to be truthful, their motivations are usually not honorable.
Most people I know in the military are apolitical. We serve our country, not the people elected to office.
I personally have liberal political opinions in several areas, although I consider my self a social conservative.
I have served in-uniform during three separate administrations. My father was a career military man who served under five administrations.
I think I can speak for him when I say neither of us completely agreed with the politics of any one administration or one political party.
My posts with you are merely in hopes of offering some insight into where those who do not vehemently support the whole of the admin's policies are coming from.
Believe it or not, I do understand your points.
(If you promise not to tell anyone I'll tell you a secret: I didn't agree, politically, on our going to war in Bosnia or in Desert Storm. I felt the justification for both were invalid. I was asked to participate in the Desert Storm and did so, didn't like it much).
I do, however, believe that there is clear justification for our being in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't say that without a lot of soul-searching and thought. I think you can ask anyone who has been in combat (war is hell, combat is worse) (that's not exactly the expression used, but it'll do for here) we are the last who want to go to war.
Wars are usually fought in areas where it's either very hot or very cold, there are usually people who don't want you there and are trying to convince you to leave, there are never any good restaurants and the movies are always at least a month old. (sad attempt at humor)
I can find the justification for our being in Iraq and Afghanistan every time I see a picture of the Pentagon burning or World Trade Center collapsing. Neither of these pictures are political in my mind.
Bottom line, I don't think anyone has a clear answer at this time.
We each think we have the answer. I've only attempted to express my opinion from my perspective. I've said this before and I continue to believe that we'll not defeat this enemy without the complete and unwavering support of the American people, regardless of politics.
posted
Aw, now quit the sweet talk LabRat... ...people will say we're in love
Ojai,
This is just a quick reply for now, but I wanted to clear something up..
When I said this:
the administration in the US has made it political with the military..they have done and staged many things in order to (crossing the line of what is appropriate) align the military with one polical party..and alienate it from another.
I was not commenting at all on the capacity, intent, or views of our military men and women.. I was commenting on the highly innapropriate attempts by this administration to align and/or alienate these men and women one way or the other politically regarding this War.
If you want examples, I can list them..but moreover I wanted to make myself clear.
Also...
I did not state that my intent has been communication/understanding because I thought you didn't understand what I was saying.. I was letting you know where I was coming from.. in the discussion.
No offence was intended..
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
OK,
I'm officially jealous...Mo
Geez ow...if I made comments like the rat...you would have had me thrown off the board!
Yet you send him kisses.....
I see also a definite affection for Ojai!
Careful Ojai, she sounds like a westpac widow.
I guess I have'nt been mean enough...
Gonna have to work on my "Bad Boy Skills"...
Besides it sounds more like the Dems are turnning this war political. They have to make up for voting to go to war and we all know how they try to get votes for their political party by turnning tail and running when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Gee it takes too much money away from their porkbarrel charitable liberal constituents....Yet all the money that goes into these causes...gee somehow does'nt even get to the ones that need it most....
Don't get me wrong here...both political parties suck! I've mentioned this many times...we need to vote in a third party to send a REAL message to Washington.....
The kids over there have a stake in this now also... Their buddies in either of the branches have been killed needlessly because of these radical ragheads...and they would at least like to get those bad guys and now girls and teach them a good ole american lesson...I know I would.
If I were'nt a hinderance I would reup right now!
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only problem with this is that Iraq did not bomb us on 9/11. Where is Osama Bin Laden? I don't hear much about him.
Understand that I have always considered myself very right wing (in the old definition). I believe in protecting our country. But, I do not believe in invading other countries and telling them how to live. Iraq did nothing to us. What is this war about? Seems to me it has more to do with money and power than anything else.
What are we going to do, invade every country (that has oil), overthrow their government and instill one more to our own liking? Remember, that Sadaam was one of these.
As far as the war on terror goes, how about doing something in our own country to guard against terrorism. Have we done much to protect our borders? Have we done anything to stunt the influx of illegal aliens?
I don't know about you, but if a country was consistently predisposed to overthrowing governments and putting in "their guy", it would kind of irritate me. How would we feel if another country came over here to "save us". How would we feel if another country's tanks were in our neighborhoods "saving us", from ourselves? Oops.... we killed some of your family. Sorry, couldn't help it.
I for one, would not like it. It would make me rather angry at the *invading* country. Are we now creating more people that would like to kill us?
quote:Originally posted by LabRat: Help me out here. Not being the sharpest knife in the drawer, I confuse easily. Is the ``war'' over as soon as we ``bring the troops home''? The ragheads will leave us alone and let everyone live in peace? No more sneak attacks around the world? Well shoot, if that's the case, we should'a listen to the left along time ago. Bring the troops home and the war ends. Hell, we should have thought of that!
posted
Our troops are not fighting terrorism (the kind that threatens us here and our allied nations) in Iraq, by and large they are fighting the insurgency in Iraq.
There was great understimation of the insurgent forces, dirve and manpower, and allot of dismissal of history in the region.
We propped up not only Saddam when it served us (America), but also the Mujadeem (and Bin Laden) to fight the Soviet Union .. the same group that spawned Al Qaeda. (and in turn, the Taliban)
After propping them up, we left a vaccuum in Afganistan, pulling out without providing promised financial AID. Our govenmnet has a long history of ignoring haneous human rights violations by groups that we happen to need 'on our side' at one time or another.
911 hits......we attack Afghanistan (I believe we needed to) .. but why we pulled forces out of there to go to Iraq is unjustified. A great deal of Afghanistan has fallen back into Warlord control (in most of the region outside the areas with large military presence).. opium trade, and the people themselves are not much better off that before..in addition to the threat of re-grouped terrorism. The Taliban hiked over to pakistan, where they have regrouped.
There is plenty to document this.
This War in Iraq has been sold to the public as
A. fighting terrorism (the kind that threatens us).. which is is not, no connection..
and B. as 'liberating Iraq'..
these simplistic causes ignore a great deal of past and present complicatrions and obsticles.
We are building PERMANENT bases, not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan and many surrouinding regions, with initiation and/or plans not coincidentally covering both key oil-producing areas from the Gulf of Guinea across the Persian Gulf and into Central Asia and critical points that could be used to contain Russia and China from the Caucasus across to East Asia and the western Pacific. There is an imminent strugle for these reserves in the near future, with little doubt. China is fast surpasing the US economically and has strong and growing interests in oil sources.
Since 911, Washington has also established bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan that it used in attacking Afghanistan, bases that it shows no sign of leaving. Washington has made clear its interest in reacquiring access to bases in the Philippines and Australia. Renewed interest in Vietnam has ben shown with the first warship visit in 30 years rather recently , which borders both China and the (potentially oil rich) South China Sea.
As for the Middle East and the Gulf countries themselves, major shifts - most notably the abandonment of a major air force base in Saudi Arabia and the redeployment of US warplanes to Qatar .. We have bases in Kuwait.
..all within the oil reserve locations, and the bases in Afghanistan are all located right along the oil pipelines, other location will help insure a delivery route to Europe and the US..
How can we think this is not more a strategic stronhold on the remaining oil reserves...positioning against the imminent fight with China and Russia to have control of those resources.. how can we think this is more about terror and not at all about control of the oil? (from the administration's perspective)
I want the US troops to 'win'.. however do not believe they can or should do so by being involved is the aftermath of years of complications we have paid for dearly (in 911 and now this War).. loosing so many as a result of the insurgency (Holy War) supported by so many in the region.. troop presence spawns the violence.. and I certainly do not support troop loss for oil unless the country is informed of that intent and is behind it.
..and also because this ongoing conflict is motivating massive recruitment for the largely in tact AlQada groups still operating today.
Mo
[ 18. December 2005, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rehash after rehash. It repaeats over and over and over and over.....LOL. I'm going back to sleep.
Posts: 600 | From Las Vegas, NV | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems we've brought this one full circle now, the rhetoric is getting rather stale.
The very public division between right and left, liberal and conservative, democrat and republican does nothing more than give our enemy pleasure, hope and strength.
Watching the constant bickering on television between the "right" and "left" makes me want to puke. There's not a single subject that isn't made into a political football.
I think I'll make it 30 years instead of 20. At least the politics within the enlisted ranks of the military is honest and upfront.
IP: Logged |
posted
We define this as stale, and Mo defines it as fresh. LOL, that's par for the course.
Posts: 600 | From Las Vegas, NV | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[toilet]](graemlins/toilet.gif)
tsk,tsk![[bow]](graemlins/bow.gif)
![[group hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[kiss]](graemlins/kissing.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[cussing]](graemlins/cussing.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic