Iraq & Afghanistan

10thFO

Re: Iraq?

Postby 10thFO » 2008 Aug 17 19:54

Goyathaly wrote:The U.S. invasion of Iraq has been an umitigated disaster for the common people of Iraq...... by ANY measure.


REALLY???? and you know this how? Yeah, much worse than when Saddam was doing some ethnic cleansing..... I don't agree with the invasion, but if one thinks that Iraq is worse off now than they were under Saddams brutal regime? Your just toking on the Democratic crack pipe.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1560
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Iraq?

Postby Coondog » 2008 Aug 18 12:05

Patrick Henry said, "Give me Liberty or give me Death!"

Would that the people of Iraq had the benefit of thousands of years of western philosophy and cultural development to have exercized that perrogative without having it administered introvenously by the political equivalent of a Quack.

Likely, there are tens of thousands of dead Iraqis who would argue with whether they're better off. But, we'll not be hearing from them. They'll not be conversing or debating over their preference for liberty or death......or whether their notions of liberty are the same as ours. (possibly, their notion of death and what constitutes an honerable or worthwhile one differs also?)

Dead Iraqis don't vote. If they did, they would be able to opt for one ruler or another by rougly the same system we have, with presumably the same ballot fraud, voter suppression, judicial interference, and intimidation we have failed to eliminate, ourselves. Likely they would have ended up voting for some stubborn, egotistical leader who would ultimately errode their freedoms, abuse their institutions and subjugate their legal system with impunity and with no accountability......under the auspices of National Security.

Who are we to say whether they're better off?

Coondog :joker:

OK! Financially, it seems, they're better off than we are!

10thFO

Re: Iraq?

Postby 10thFO » 2008 Aug 18 22:38

Coondog, just balancing crap out. As for those dead Iraqi's? Well they will be able to vote if they follow the American Democratic parties voting procedures. They just won't know it. :naughty: Funny play on words there though I like it.

Then again, they died not knowing the freedom that one has to bitch and moan about the people they did or didn't put into office. Something that we all love to do in this country. Give me liberty or give me death is exactly right. Oh and I didn't realize Western philosophy had been around for thousands of years. Only a few hundred at last check. :usa2:

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1560
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Iraq?

Postby Coondog » 2008 Aug 19 14:27

Western Philosophy traces it's roots back to Plato, Socrates and, more recently, the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. It's our current ideology, less than 8 years in the making, that confounds the sensibilities.

It will be interesting though, come November, to see which counties' voting roles in Florida the names of those dead Iraqis end up on.

Coondog :joker:

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty. -Plato-

User avatar
Goyathaly
Posts: 34
Joined: 2008 Apr 10 14:24

Re: Iraq?

Postby Goyathaly » 2008 Sep 09 23:45

10thFO ,

1) I am not a Democrat.
2) I do not smoke crack pipes.

resigned

Obama and Iraq

Postby resigned » 2008 Sep 15 07:46


User avatar
Amy Probenski
Posts: 445
Joined: 2007 Aug 28 17:06

Re: Iraq?

Postby Amy Probenski » 2008 Sep 15 10:19

The drivel you post amazes me. If only occasionally, can't you give us something that is sensible, verifiable and true?

Amir Taheri is a thoroughly discredited neocon propagandist, publishing of course in Rupert Murdoch's media lacking a truth standard. (Fox, NYPost, etc.)

Nothing in his account is credible, especially the idea that Obama's wants to "delay ... a draw-down of the American military presence." If he didn't quite say exactly that, that is the impression that uncritical readers will get.

On the other hand, Obama should be apprehensive about long-term agreements Bush is trying to make with Iraq, since they are likely contrary to the interests of the United States.

resigned

Re: Iraq?

Postby resigned » 2008 Sep 15 13:01

I don't know why I am amazed still but when a conservative disagrees with some of your more liberal folks we are either wrong, idiots for posting drivil. You know Amy I think that alot of what you post is drivil also among others, but I have been kind enough not to say so. It would be nice if we could disagree on a higher plane, but you choose to be insulting. As I have pointed out this election has gotten downright dirty and I find that most comes from the liberal side. If you folks don't like the term liberal then come up with another term. I will be glad to use that term even though it still means the same. Conservatives are allowed their opinion and choices just as liberals, why does that make us so terribly wrong, stupid etc than you folks. We just have different opionions and we are allowed are choices and opinions that is why we have a two party system. But it seems that most on this forum would do away with the two party system and opt for one party citing that they are always right. Well I have news for you, the liberals aren't always right nor are the conservatives. But we live in a democracy that allows us the opportunity to cite our differences and once in awhile agree. :hammer:



hummm I think your lipstick is showing

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1560
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Iraq?

Postby Coondog » 2008 Sep 15 16:58

What's wrong with Liberal?

Liberal is a derisive term only in the minds of conservatives who pronounce it with a sneer.....usually accompanied by a smear.

Denouncing election year propaganda and outright lies as drivil is not a direct insult to anyone who carelessly posts it. I would, however, submit that the posting as truth, of slanderous jibberish invented by those lacking any semblence of character, is a self debasement of the poster.

If you are of the belief that the 'liberals' are telling the most lies......you probably got that information from liars. The shameless distortions attributable to the republican campaign, and approved by John McCain, far exceed any rational level of exaggeration. Jeepers......even Carl Rove says they're off the deep end.

I think the party system, regardless of how many, in it's entirety should be scrapped. Along with the electoral college system. Since we live in a society with an "American Idol" mentality, that''s how we ought to choose a leader. On TV! It may take four years to complete the local, state, regional and national finals, but we could at least elect someone by popular consent who just might be able to sing and dance.

That opinion may be drivil......but it's my drivil and not some lying, malicious scumbag posting on the internet.

Coondog :laughing:

and.................................I approve this message!

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Iraq?

Postby Uji » 2008 Sep 15 17:09

Beckonwood, it's just that our words -- yours and mine -- cut both ways.

If you post a concern about biased media and then immediately post an example of biased media as evidence for some belief that you have, it's hard to know what to think. Is media balanced one way un-American and media balanced the other a "fact?" If biased media is unreliable, then it doesn't really matter which way it's biased, right? It's still unreliable.

There are standards of proof, standards of evidence that are useful to all of us. A claim must be verifiable, and if it isn't , then it need not be taken seriously. That's the way rational discourse works.

GOP adds claim that Palin opposed the "bridge to nowhere." That's a positive claim -- all that is required to disprove it is a counter-example. If there is a video of Palin supporting the bridge (and there are many on YouTube since she actively support it's construction while running for governor), then we know that the claim is at best a half-truth. She might have voted for it before voting against it, I suppose. That's not bias, that just the way rational inquiry works.

Your claim that the "nastiness" in the campaign comes mostly from liberals is unsupported by the evidence. That is not an opinion, that is a fact that can be verified simply by comparing Rep broadcast adds with Dom broadcast adds.

Whoa . . . coon dog. I was just previewing a response to Ms. Beckonwood when I saw your post. Well said. I'm not sure mine adds anything but it has the advantage of being overly long. :wink3:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

resigned

Re: Iraq?

Postby resigned » 2008 Sep 15 18:00

Ok I will put it as simply as I can so I can explain myself. When you folks of the opposite persuasion (since you all don’t like the word liberal) post articles, no one decries whether they are accurate, true etc. But it seems when I put an article on the forum, immediately its cited as being inaccurate, not true etc. It seems (in my humble opinion) that when you folks of the opposite persuasion don’t agree with my postings or articles you say I am posting lies etc.

I read Factcheck.com on a regular basis and have enough sense to know that both sides are not always accurate in their statements. I am aware that Sarah Palin was for the bridge before she decided not to go with it. But I am also aware that just as many untruths come from the Obama side as you all would say comes from the McCain side.

Oh well you kept true to your actions. I should have known.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1560
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Iraq?

Postby Coondog » 2008 Sep 15 18:46

One of the more interesting aspects of the negative campaigning I have noted concerning Sarah Palin is that the republicans are accusing the democrats of bringing up issues like teen pregnancy (an attack on Palin's family), her ability to raise kids and work (an attack on motherhood) and all those Gender Issues too numerous to contemplate.

What I haven't seen is the source, among the democratic leaders, of these assertions. Yep, the on-line blogs and common ilk like us toss that stuff around like candy, but I don't see the democratic talking heads addressing these non-issues. What I see is the republicans continually bringing thm up and attributing it to the democrats. It confirms my suspisions that this whole Palin thing is a sham of the shabbiest magnitude.

But, returning, as near as possible to the topic....... I'm sure the President of Georgia was thrilled over Palins' assurance of support. The fact that she presumes to converse on policy with foreign heads of state just goes to show that she, at least, thinks she's ready for service on a national level. Arrogancy and self assurance are the essence of the Bush Legacy (however one defines it). As I have said before.....she is very capable! Capable of what?.......I hope we never find out!

For the record.......I'm not sold on Obama. But, hes not a republican, and that's all that matters. Because this pack of ruthless thugs have no sense of accountability. Instead of abolishing the Department of Education, we might just as well dismantle the Department of Justice. Oh, yeah! They already did that!

and..........McCain, who has been in the Senate and a member of the republicans who made the mess we're in today still (as of this morning) thinks "the basic foundations of the economy are strong". This newly styled 'reformer' talks about congress as if he weren't in it, the current administration as if he wasn't in lock step with it and about being a "maverick" as if there was any truth in it.

How's that for a liberal rant?


Coondog :craz:
I may be crazy....but I ain't all that stoopid!

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1560
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Iraq?

Postby Coondog » 2008 Sep 24 14:44

Although Iraq has taken a back seat to the domestic economic cannabalism which has snagged our attention of late, I feel it germain to mention that McCain "....sees victory in Iraq" and, it is reportedly just around the corner.

Kudos to McCain for the ability to see around corners found by most of us to represent an impediment. Personally, I'd like for McCain to take time out from chasing his own tail on domestic issues, courting the Alaskan Ice Queen and approving scandalous distortions in campaign ads to enlighten us less prophetic folk as to what, exactly Victory in Iraq looks like.

Like most good Americans, I'd very much like to lay eyes on that Victory. Would that I knew what to look for. Victory in Iraq would, according to it's most ardent aspirers, allow America to walk off the field as "winners"; to "feel good" about the results and, presumably, forget about the horrendous calamity that has been the Iraq Invasion.

After all, a win is a win, even an ugly one. But, the conception of Victory must contain some understanding of how the score is kept. If, as has been said of the Surge, 0 American Casualties is the goal, then we are about 4,500 points behind. It has been infered that Victory relies on a number of Iraqi initiatives, both domestic, political and ideological. That our "feeling good" is tied to internal Iranian affairs outside the realm of military conflict. In that regard, it would seem that Victory is almost entirely in the hands of others. A safe America......that's too laughable to comment on.

So.....please, John, tell us what Victory looks like so that we of lesser vision can embrace the optomism we so desperately yearn for. But, if it involves 50 to 100 years........never mind!

Coondog :dontknow:

Coondog.....just around the corner.

User avatar
Juggler
Posts: 672
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:51

Re: Iraq?

Postby Juggler » 2008 Sep 24 15:18

Silly coondog.

Every Texan and Arizonan and Alaskan knows what Victory looks like. (By the way, Sarah Palin pronounces it "Eye-rack" and likes to spit out "nuke-you-lar" just like her lipstickless clone, so get with the Program, you mangy mutt.)

For starters, when we are halfway done with Iraq, cheerleaders with short skirts, big breasts and pop-poms will wiggle about. Bands will play off-key. We have not seen that yet, so we know we are not even half way.

When Victory comes, there will be a great cheer, scores will be posted on huge signs everywhere. Half the soldiers will give each other high fives and run off with the cheerleaders, some meeting with their agents to negotiate endorsements. Half will slink off in ignominy.

You'll know who won -- they get huge barrels of Gatorade dumped on their heads.

:toothy: Republicans cannot distinguish war from football.

User avatar
Goyathaly
Posts: 34
Joined: 2008 Apr 10 14:24

Re: Iraq?

Postby Goyathaly » 2008 Sep 27 20:36

Iraq will not "end" well for anyone....... watch. Surge, schmurge.

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Iraq?

Postby Uji » 2008 Sep 28 15:20

An interesting exchange on "The Surge", I thought -- at the debate, I mean.

Here's McCain who support the surge for the wrong reasons (more brute force will work) but turned out to have made the right call (brute force plus the Suni "awakening" etc. has worked); then there's Obama who opposed the Surge for the right reason (brute force won't work) and turned out to have made the wrong call (because he didn't for-see the effect of the Suni change of heart). One right for the wrong reasons and another wrong for the right ones.

Seem a wonderful metaphor for the whole mess we are in.

What do you think about the "chase the Taliban into Pakistan" thing? The Western provinces are ruled by war lords, not the Paki government; but not only is it a sovereign state but the Paki's pack nukes! On the other hand, we're giving them 100s of millions a year, so how seriously are they gonna bite that hand? McCain had a good point, I thought, about not being so naive as to telegraph your moves; but then, we've been going into Pakistan regularly -- at least for the last month or so -- so I don't imagine they are too surprised by Obama's threat.

Wonder why Obama didn't quote Patreus's comment of a few days ago that "victory" was not a word to apply to the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan while McCain was going on about "winning" and "not losing" -- which I guess is the same thing.

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Iraq?

Postby fangz1956 » 2009 Feb 09 07:06

I was reading an article in Salon's Coming Home series regarding death and suicide among troops returning from Iraq amd Afghanistan. This goes far beyond the atrocities and problems found in Walter Reed and other VA facilities. Among the problems in returning troops, things like this are the most bone-chilling and mind-boggling:
In the press for warm bodies in Iraq, Fort Carson sent a soldier, diagnosed with PTSD and a brain injury, back into combat, where he committed suicide by overdosing on some of his eight prescription drugs. Medical records show Fort Carson dispatched another soldier to Iraq despite a diagnosis of "schizotypal personality disorder," characterized by peculiar beliefs and paranoia. On his return to Colorado, prosecutors say he raped a 19-year-old woman and slit her throat.

The Army suspects that 24 soldiers killed themselves last month.......more than were killed in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. According to the article, the Army treated the families of these young men callously. Hmmm...wonder what's up with that attitude? At Fort Carson, Colorado (where the bulk of this investigative story focuses), soldiers with obvious mental disorders are treated with disciplinary action rather than with mental health resources. Soldiers then self-medicate with illicit drugs, prescription drugs, and alcohol.......can we see the outcome of this kind of scenario without even being there?

The most pressing question of the day is this:
President Obama says he wants to bring tens of thousands of troops home from Iraq. How will the government respond when they need help the most?

To the people here opposed to socialism in any form, what are your suggestions for aid to the wounded?

:hmm:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

10thFO

Re: Iraq?

Postby 10thFO » 2009 Feb 09 11:47

Fangz, I have a question for you. Since when is taking care of the war wounded part of a Socialist ideal?

Do you feel that the VA system is the same as welfare, and other so called "entitlement" programs? Because the last I knew, health benefits, for those who bear the scars of war, aren't considered, entitlements. And yes I do consider PTSD, a battle scar, it's just an invisible one, that really wreaks havoc on many families, and quite frankly, makes people look at those with it with a leary eye. It is not curable, it's treatable.

Part of the problem with PTSD, is the warrior mentality of troops. For a combat veteran it is often hard to admit to having PTSD, or even think that they could be suffering from it, because they are admitting a "weakness" in their mind. They feel taht if they come forward they will be shunned, because the mantra of the battlefield, is that "the quick and strong, won't be weak and dead". Supposed help chains in the military, where those who seek it are not supposed to be targeted for it, don't work so well, because they units are trying to keep their numbers up, so they don't really want to lose troops to PTSD. There is also a certain segment of troops, who will say that they have PTSD in order to avoid a return to combat, and veterans that say they suffer from it, in order to get compensation.

It's a tough line to read, and only trained Psyche's, should be allowed to test. However I don't know that they Armed Services have enough of those Doctor's available to do a proper job, so many of these Docs, or even Social Workers that see them, just send them back to the unit as "able to perform".

As for your question about suggestions for aid for the wounded? President Obama needs to take some of that money that is earmarked in this Stimulus bill, and put it in the VA system for hiring mental health workers. The VA system currently is not doing a bangup job with that. I know guys with severe PTSD, that only get seen once a quarter, because there is such a backlog of patients. We are talking about guys from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and any other conflict from there on up to current times, that people don't even remember. The numbers are staggering. But people should not forget, that the term "Going Postal" comes straight from guy that were suffering from PTSD.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1560
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Iraq?

Postby Coondog » 2009 Feb 09 14:54

It would be nice if the boneheads who start wars would think beforehand, not only of post combat conditions in the war zone, but of the extended consequences concerning both the physical and mental health of the participants.

PTSD is identified specifically in reference to a military context. There are others, no less deserving, who suffer similar trauma derived from non-military influences. Both are equally deserving of the society's attention. Neither receive it adequately. And....yes, these are social issues. If addressing social issues is socialism, well, then that's what it is.

I have no doubt that the individuals (doctors, nurses, therapists, etc.) involved in administering programs, both military and non-military, care in a humanitarian way. It is the system....the bureaucracy they operate under which doesn't care.

In a civilian system, a suicidal person hospitalized and diagnosed with a mental illness is released with an appointment with a doctor to acquire the necessary medication....in seven weeks. I can only imagine how much less proficient the system is in the military where individual concerns are too often limited to "the guy next to you".

Worse, the stigma attached to mental illness often prevents intervention unless rules are broken or violence ensues. Even then, the criminal justice system is more pragmatic than beneficent. Easier to slap someone in prison than deal with the complexity of electrical interaction of neurons in the cranium.

If the military expects the PTSD issue to be properly attended to, there must be a broader social recognition of mental illness, military and else wise. This means putting more booted feet on the ground, as it were. Jobs with salaries for health care personnel trained to deal with mental health issues. And...a system that operates proactively and consistently with more emphasis on the individual than on incomprehensible protocol.

Coondog :usa2:

10thFO

Re: Iraq?

Postby 10thFO » 2009 Feb 09 18:19

Coondog,

I will agree with you on one thing for sure, I see PTSD in friends of mine who are on the Fire Department, and those who serve on the Police Dept., Dept. of Corrections, and EMS. Up until the recent war, PTSD was mostly written about in conjunction with Rape Victims. There is also secondary PTSD if you will, for the families of those afflicted with it.

As for more boots on ground? Well, I think the only thing that does in this conflict is bring back more people with PTSD, since it seems to affect anywhere from 22-30% of returning service members.

If a suicidal person is admitted and is then released without Medication in the civilian world, then that is just wrong. Of course in the military system, they would just demand that you pay for the medication until they could prove you were actually suffering from PTSD, without somehow saying it was caused by your childhood, or maybe you were picked next to last on the playground for all sports. To the military, that would disqualify you as a sufferer, because of preexisting conditions. Sounds kind of like a regular insurance company doesn't it, except in this case, the insurance adjusters, and the Dr's are truly working for the same corporation, the US Gov't.

I liked your post. but until these suicides were brought to the present front, PTSD was more known in Rape cases for sure. It has been around since the Revolutionary, at least Civil War, it was called, "Soldier's Heart" back then, and then moved on through a slew of other terms like "Shell Shock" and "thousand yard stare", until someone in the gov't finally confessed and said, yes, it is PTSD.