Powerful
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Powerful
I received this today, and thought it had some points that would be great to bring up on this board. I'm sure it will provoke some stimulating discussion. Please read it and let me know what you think.
Walking Wounded: Old soldiers don't fade away
The observant will have noticed that we hear little from the troops in Iraq and see almost nothing of the wounded. Why, one might wonder, does not CNN put an enlisted Marine before a camera and, for 15 minutes without editing, let him say what he thinks? Is he not an adult and a citizen? Is he not engaged in important events on our behalf?
Sound political reasons exist. Soldiers are a risk PR-wise, the wounded a liability. No one can tell what they might say, and conspicuous dismemberment is bad for recruiting. An enlisted man in front of a camera is dangerous. He could wreck the governmental spin apparatus in five minutes. It is better to keep soldiers discreetly out of sight.
So we do not see much of the casualties, ours or theirs. Yet they are there, somewhere, with missing legs, blind, becoming accustomed to groping at things in their new darkness, learning to use the wheelchairs that will be theirs for 50 years. Some face worse fates than others. Quadriplegics will be warehoused in VA hospitals where nurses will turn them at intervals, like hamburgers, to prevent bedsores. Friends and relatives will soon forget them. Suicide will be a frequent thought. The less damaged will get around.
For a brief moment perhaps the casualties will believe, then try desperately to keep believing, that they did something brave and worthy and terribly important for that abstraction, country. Some will expect thanks. But there will be no thanks, or few, and those quickly forgotten. It will be worse. People will ask how they lost the leg. In Iraq, they will say, hoping for sympathy, or respect, or understanding. The response, often unvoiced but unmistakable, will be, What did you do that for? The wounded will realize that they are not only crippled, but freaks.
The years will go by. Iraq will fade into the mist. Wars always do. A generation will rise for whom it will be just history. The dismembered veterans will find first that almost nobody appreciates what they did, then that few even remember it. If when, many would say the United States is driven out of Iraq, the soldiers will look back and realize that the whole affair was a fraud. Wars are just wars. They seem important at the time. At any rate, we are told that they are important.
Yet the wounds will remain. Arms do not grow back. For the paralyzed there will never be girlfriends, dancing, rolling in the grass with children. The blind will adapt as best they can. Those with merely a missing leg will count themselves lucky. They will hobble about, managing to lead semi-normal lives, and people will say, How well he handles it. An admirable freak. For others it will be less good. A colostomy bag is a sorry companion on a wedding night.
These men will come to hate. It will not be the Iraqis they hate. This we do not talk about.
It is hard to admit that one has been used. Some of the crippled will forever insist that the war was needed, that they were protecting their sisters from an Islamic invasion, or Vietnamese, or Chinese. Others will keep quiet and drink too much. Still others will read, grow older and wiser and bitter. They will remember that their vice president, a man named Cheney, said that during his war, the one in Asia, he had other priorities. The veterans will remember this when everyone else has long since forgotten Cheney.
I once watched the first meeting between a young Marine from the South, blind, much of his face shot away, and his high-school sweetheart, who had come from Tennessee to Bethesda Naval Hospital to see him.
Hatred comes easily. There are wounds and there are wounds. A friend of mine spent two tours in Asia in that war now little remembered. He killed many people, not all of them soldiers. It is what happens in wars. The memory haunts him. Jack is a hard man from a tough neighborhood, quick with his fists, intelligent but uneducated not a liberal flower vain over his sensitivity. He lives in Mexican bars few would enter and has no politics beyond an anger toward government. He was not a joyous killer. He remembers what he did, knows now that he was had. It gnaws at him. One is wise to stay away from him when he is drinking.
People say that this war isn't like Vietnam. They are correct. Washington fights its war in Iraq with no better understanding of Iraq than it had of Vietnam, but with much better understanding of the United States. The Pentagon learned from Asia. This time around it has controlled the press well. Here is the great lesson of Southeast Asia: the press is dangerous, not because it is inaccurate, which it often is, but because it often isn't. So we don't much see the caskets for reasons of privacy, you understand.
The war in Iraq is fought by volunteers, which means people that no one in power cares about. No one in the mysteriously named elite gives a •••• about some kid from a town in Tennessee that has one gas station and a beer hall with a stuffed buck's head. Such a kid is a redneck at best, pretty much from another planet, and certainly not someone you would let your daughter date. If conscription came back, and college students with rich parents learned to live in fear of The Envelope, riots would blossom as before. Now Yale can rest easy. Thank God for throwaway people.
The nearly perfect separation between the military and the rest of the country, or at least the influential in the country, is wonderful for the war effort. It prevents concern. How many people with a college degree even know a soldier? Yes, some, and I will get e-mail from them, but they are a minority. How many Americans have been on a military base? Or, to be truly absurd, how many men in combat arms went to, say, Harvard? Ah, but they have other priorities.
In 15 years in Washington, I knew many, many reporters and intellectuals and educated people. Almost none had worn boots. So it is. Those who count do not have to go, and do not know anyone who has gone, and don't interest themselves. There is a price for this, though not one Washington cares about. Across America, in places where you might not expect it in Legion halls and VFW posts, among those who carry membership cards from the Disabled American Veterans there are men who hate. They don't hate America. They hate those who sent them. Talk to the wounded from Iraq in five years.
Okay, I couldn't make it through the whole thing because I got too sick and disgusted. I think it is garbage written by a fool who has no clue what is truly going on in the minds or hearts of our American military service-men and -women who either are serving, have served, or were wounded in Iraq. I have a friend whose brother was wounded, and he can't wait to get back in country and rejoin his team.
Not only is this NOT the Vietnam war, this is NOT the 1960's-70's. The military has come a long way in both its capabilities and its sense of duty. Why is this person still stuck back there?
The Pentagon controls the PRESS?????? What a crock. If it did, I would see more news about the schools and hospitals that are being built, the women who are taking part in their government, and the new found sense of independance felt by most Iraqi citizens with the promise of democracy.
But we'll see in 5 years who is right.
Gee, now that I'm in a bad mood, I guess I shouldn't go read any of the other threads on this board. I might say something I'll regret.
I think service people are individuals and free thinkers. Some will come back proud of their service, some will come back disgusted with what they were asked to do. If your experience hasn't fit with what Bea posted that certainly doesn't mean it was a crock, just that it may represent a POV your haven't been exposed to.
And it's not about who's right, it's about being able to hear the voice of service people who's experience doesn't square with what you expect of them.
A note though, in Iraq women DID participate in government under Saddam, they even fought in the army. I'm not saying that means anything good but I find there's a misconception about the role women played in Saddam's Iraq. It was a secular nation before the war where women had more freedoms (as much as any Iraqi had) then almost any other Arab nation. Liberating women had nothing to do with and was not a result of the Iraqi invasion. If anything, they'll suffer as religious parties grow in power.
Just for clarification, the opinion piece Bea posted was written by Fred Reed:
http://amconmag.com/2005_01_31/article1.html
and published in the January 31 issue of The American Conservative (certainly not a publication one would call "liberal" or "anti-war" or any other quick adjective to dismiss what it is saying):
http://amconmag.com/index.html
Please, people, cite your sources. I found this information by a very quick google search for "Walking Wounded". The piece is copyrighted, and I hope Bea (or whoever sent it to her in an e-mail) had permission to publish it.
I've read it, and am thinking about it. I don't quite know what I think yet. I do think the way we are treating our troops, our wounded, and our veterans is shameful.
Free thinkers? Perhaps. But as it has been stated in another thread, they volunteered for this job and they are doing it to the utmost of their ability for a profound purpose.
Here is what I found regarding women in Iraq, from a probably outdated web page, since there is no mention of the current US-led liberation status.
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/iraq/a/iraqi_women.htm
Pre-gulf war, you are correct. Iraqi women were much like American women. However, post-gulf war and throughout the 1990's, Saddam's Iraq changed for the worse.
The movement for women in Iraw[sic] has greatly suffered due to sanctions and anti-women legislation imposed by Hussein's regime since the mid-90s. Under Islamic law, the punishment for a women who commits adultery is death. But women in Iraq are also being murdered for fighting with their husbands, having a relationship with a man outside marriage, and for being raped, because this brings shame on the family. Women have been stoned to death in public, disabled, disfigured and/or kidnapped. Women have even been kept hostage in their own homes.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm
Under Saddam's power-hungry regime, women gradually became illiterate and powerless.
In the years following the 1991 Gulf War, many of the positive steps that had been taken to advance women's and girls' status in Iraqi society were reversed due to a combination of legal, economic, and political factors.22 The most significant political factor was Saddam Hussein's decision to embrace Islamic and tribal traditions as a political tool in order to consolidate power.
So I disagree- women's rights were in fact restored by the intervention and removal of Saddam from power. That's not something any US soldier can be proud of?
This article portrays the elitist attitude that American military members are uneducated hillbilly hicks with no hope for a future if it were not for the military. I find this appalling. The intelligence of Mr. Reed is in fact in question, not that of our service men and women who are in charge of high powered explosives and technological equipment that would make a college intern feel like a third grader. The level of training involved in defending freedom is beyond anything you will find in a college textbook.
Thanks for the info Lisa!
You're welcome!
As a military wife, and someone who has lost friends in this "war", I'm appalled by your statements, Lisa. Why are our reenlistment rates down? Why are our recruiting rates down? Many more soldiers than the media know about think this war is BS, and we're killing our innocent men and women who swore to PROTECT THE US, not to liberate countries. The swear in says "I, John doe, do solemnly swear to protect my country from all enemies, foriegn and domestic." That says nothing about being police for other countries, or invading countries whose leaders we disagree with. It is now a KNOW fact that Iraq WAS NOT A THREAT to us, and it's NOT OUR JOB to worry about how their citizens are treated. That's the job for groups like Amnesty International and the UN.
Now, for soldiers being "hilbillies with no other options", this is VERY often true. My husband re-enlisted after a break in service because the he COULD NOT make enough to care for our family with the same level of benefits in the civilian world. Our military is formed to protect OUR freedom, NOT the worlds. I'm sorry, but the sheep who eat up every word Bush says as gospel are brainwashed idiots. I'm sure my post will be removed, but I'll be happy to address it on my won blog if you'd like to further discuss it. Bush is running our whole country into the ground, and I'm sorry that people are too blind to see it.
Lisa, most soldiers I know respect their commander in chief, but DO NOT approve of, or support the actions he has ordered for our military. You may think you know from the experience of a friend's brother, but I live in the midst of it, so I can tell you from experience. Those who have come back seriously and permanently wounded hate the man who put them there, because this is NOT what they signed up to do.
We need to stop giving such a care about how Iraqis are treated, and focus on our own problems. Let's fix America, before we fix the world.I for one, don't give two @@@@s how "liberated" the Iraqis feel according to the news (which IS in fact controlled by the government (in case you missed the payoffs to journalists to promote Bush's plans)because the Iraqs are still cursing our men, throwing rocks and grenades at them, and setting up IEDS in staggaring numbers. Get a clue, people.
To the moderators,
I apologize, I know I'm breaking the rules, and you'll take this down, but I don't appreciate the know it all attitude some people take on with a subject they know nothing about. If you'd like me to state my sources, I'll do so later, and in a calmer manner.
Oh, and I challenge you with college educations to enlist as ENLISTED men, not officers. Experience it from our side, the side of the "throw-aways" How many of you are willing to ask your sons and daughters to enlist??? Why aren't the Bush daughters enlisting?? Because they are people of value to this country, the soldiers are only a step above trained monkeys in the government's eyes.
Crystal, I understand what you are saying, and I for one could NEVER be a military wife. NEVER.
However, the only thing I am going to make a statement about is the fact that it is a choice people make to enlist. No one is forced to. And by this point, we know what idiots a lot of our leaders are, and how gung ho they are about running in and fixing other countries. So it is no surprise that we are in another war. That's what the U.S. does. Am I saying I support that? Nope. Not in the least. I think we should stop spending all of our money on other countries period. Our country needs all the help it can get. Use the extra money for a free health plan for all the citizens. Send the excess money to each of the citizens to help get them back on their feet, or help relieve them of medical bills, or to help build a nest egg or send their children to college. Someone mentioned on another thread about getting a check from the government because of a surplus. This country would never do that. And that sucks.
But here is my point. My hubby and I are over our heads in debt due to medical bills that are never ending. We are a one income family because I am on disability. Don't even get me started on our Social Security plan!!! I worked from the time I was allowed and paid in taxes and social security and I get a measly $22 a month per kid, plus my check which is only three digits!!! We live in an area where there aren't a lot of choices about work. But it is great in terms of raising our children here. So my husband works in a factory and we barely make enough to pay the bills, and we are still behind and have people calling all the time about medical bills we owe.
We don't have the money to go out and do extra things with our kids. We go in debt just to take a small vacation (we only have done this once!) but I decided after having a run in with my health that we were going to make memories with our children, regardless.
My point is, we struggle. Every day. But we have chosen not to have my husband enlist because of what it entails. To us, the benefits do not outweigh the time away from family, the constant moving, the unknown. So we continue to struggle.
But it is still a choice. Everyone has that choice. My brother-in-law is in the Air Force and is currently in Korea, and has been for a year. My sil is able to deal with his absence. But they also enjoy a lot of perks that they have because of his serving in the military. To me, it's not worth the risk of losing his life. It's not worth spending even a couple of weeks away from him.
But after saying all of this, I still say Thank God for those of you who do serve, and who do choose this lifestyle because as long as there are people who choose to live this life, my husband is not forced to. Because I couldn't live this lifestyle. I'm too needy, too dependent. So I deeply appreciate those who choose to serve our country and I thank them from the depths of my heart. But thankfully, in our country, at this present time, it is still a choice that everyone is able to make on their own.
I guess I am one of the "sheep who eat up every word" so that would make me a "brainwashed idiot."
And my husband not only respects his Commander in Chief, but "approves of" and supports him fully.
Well, my husband is good at being a soldier, and believes in defending our country, but like I said, this thing in Iraq ("Winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people" is the official task) is NOT protecting America. We made that decision for him to re-up, because we are both able to handle the sacrifices. It does NOT, however, mean he believes every lie Bush has told us, or approves of lying to America and the world.
Once a soldier is wounded, he s no longer worth crap to the military. They cut him his check, and send him on his merry way. People suffer while waiting for their VA benefits because their husbands are in Walter Reed. Have you seen a VA hospital?? Those poor people get sub-standard care even though they paid a huge price for our country.
Now for the young men enlisting, have you seen the job market? Bush has driven us into the ground economically. The only jobs available have no benefits and pay an unlivable wage. There really AREN'T any options for some of our poor citizens. You would criticize them for being on welfare, but their non-welfare choice gets criticized as well. I STILL challenge any one of you who are eligible for service to go sign up. If you are unwilling to do so, you'd better give the upmost respect to all soldiers, wounded and healthy, whether their personal beliefs follow yours or not.
Joellse, I'm sorry if I offended you, but I think it's insane to follow a man who has publicly lied to the nation to coerce them into a war. He's driven us into an enormous national debt, had corruption in his staff, and cannot give the public an honest answer on ANYTHING. I don't put faith in someone like that. Before you go comparing him to Clinton, there is a bumper sticker I love "No one died when Clinton lied". He lied about his personal affairs, not national security, and did a hell of a better job running our national affairs.
Lisa, I can tell you that very many who served, and served for a lifetime, think that their sacrifices should have meant something to this country's leadership. Yes, it's no longer Viet Nam. Didn't we learn ANYTHING from that debacle? Will we continue to pour out the life blood of our country to protect our oil interests? Veterans who went to Viet Nam proudly, see this war as an atrocity. They taught the men and women fighting in Iraq today. They were their mentors. It kills them to see the devotion to duty they fostered in these young soldiers being exploited.
Well said, Bea. Your knowledge and level-headedness definitely trumped my emotionally charged post. This is the new Vietnam... we're never going to win this "war", and it's not even a WAR. We are on a "peace keeping mission", protecting other countries when we cannot even protect our own.
Just to let you all know, we are monitoring this thread, very closely..
If it comes up missing you all will know why..
Yes Crystal, it is NOW a know fact that Iraq was not a threat to us. But, we can't just pull out now. We went in and made a mess of things, so unfortunately, we have to fix it. It will do more harm then good to just leave things as they are. I personally am a Bush supporter. No, I am not blind and I do not agree with everything he does, just like I have never fully agreed with everything any president has done. I do not think, however, that Bush went into this war on his own agenda. Do I think he made a mistake going to war? I really don't know, I don't have all the real facts. I think very few people do. Would are coutry have been attacked again by now if he didn't go to war? We will never know. I honestly believe that when he made the decision, he felt it was the best thing for this country. I do think he has made mistakes on how he has handled the war. But, he is human and humans make mistakes. It is unfortunate that it was one of this magnitude. And yes, I have lost friends and a family member in this war.
I guess I am trying to see where you are coming from. Do you feel that the only ones able to have an opinion on the war are the military and their families? So, everyone else has no idea what they are talking about?
I get so angry when people blame all our problems on the current president. I think we as Americans are foolish if we think one president can fix everything. The problems with the military and the way our veterans are treated has been going on for years. It is not the fault of one president. I think it is very easy for everyone to blame the president for all our problems. How about we look at ourselves. How we act, how we treat people. What are we doing to make our lives better and this country better.
As far as the job market. Bush has not driven it into the ground. How about an act of terrorism driving it into the ground. When did all this start, with 9/11. The job market is actually improving, and I know this from experience. My dh is currently out there looking for a job, so we can relocate to where we want to live. He has several prospects now. My brother also just got a new job last month. It is just hard these days to find a good paying job without a college education or trained job skill. But, EVERYONE has opportunities in this country. My dh is a perfect example. He came from nothing. He got an entry level job and did without, so he could get his college degree. He worked his butt off and advanced in his job. He now makes a very comfortable living for us. I was lucky that I had parents that paid for my education. I didn't do without, but I was taught to live within my means and work hard for what I wanted. You stated that your dh reinlisted because you couldn't live at the same level as a civilian. Well, that is a choice that you and your dh made. And yes, I do appreciate it and have the highest regard for people that make that choice and sacrifice for our country. But, it is a choice.
Crystal, I think that anyone would be "offended" to be called a "brainwashed idiot" just because they don't have the same views as you. As for me "comparing him to Clinton", I don't even know where you got that from. I never said anything about Clinton, because there is no "comparing" the two anyway, as a man or as the President.
After a while we knew that Viet Nam was an unwinnable conflict, yet we continued to waste American lives there. Haven't we learned anything after all these years? Look back....France came to our rescue in defeating the despot King George and England...our oppressors. Did they hang around and influance the writing of our constitution, or tell us when to hold elections? Did they patrol our streets and rid us of loyalist? We are treating the Iraqi people as we did the Germans and Japanese after World War 2. We are acting like the conquerors. No wonder they hate us. It's time for us to go home.
Bea, again, you have said it better than I could.
No, I don't think we military families are the only ones entitled to an opinion, but it's a lot easier to make an opinion from the safety of your home, when I have to worry about my husband dying in this "conflict". Now, as for Bush not damaging the way our veterans are treated, he has repeatedly tried to cut benefits for vets, and make it harder for them to get care. I'll simply leave it at this, THIS IS THE NEW VIETNAM. We're not getting anywhere, we are occupying this country, with no real end in site. We've lost more soldiers since the declared end of war than we did during the entire war. Our men and women are dying because we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. (And YES that really is what the military mission is called at this point)
Debbie,
I'm glad your husband has had such luck. My husband enlisted at 17 to serve his country. He got out, put himself through EMT and Fire Academy, but because no one wants to pay taxes to keep proper staffing for our emergency services, there are shortages in jobs. The EMS jobs you CAN get pay a pittance, and often don't have any affordable health plan. Don't you think that's a problem?? If your house was burning down, and there weren't enough FFs to report in a timely fashion, you'd blame them for letting your house burn. However, when it comes time to vote on taxes (which pay their salaries) you don't want to pay. If you were having a heart attack, and needed a medic, it could be the same situation. Oh, and my police officer father, with a 4 year degree from Virginia Commonweallth University has been a cop for 18 years. He is going to retire before he's 50, rather than stay on a few more years, because they are trying to take his retirement pay, to cut costs. They want him to work 80 hour weeks on a pittance salary, and not pay overtime, because taxpayers want lower taxes. Our country needs HELP, but we're giving millions of dollars to everyone else in the world.
Do you REALLY think we didn't go into this for Bush's own agendas?? I guess his ties to the Saudi government, and Bin Laden family didn't influence him. I guess finishing up where his dad failed wasn't a factor. I guess his own ties to oil profits had no affect on his decision. Oh, and purple pigs fly...
Back to the original topic, injured soldiers. How would you feel if you lost a leg at 23, fighting in this war, and spent the rest of your life being treated like your sacrifice was worth nothing?? You fade into the distance, often in a depression, sometimes suicide, or addiction to deal with your emotional pain. I'm sick and tired of all those people who say we should remain in Iraq, risking OUR soldiers lives, like they are disposable bodies.
Oh, and Bobbie... I'm sure I'll be the reason this is removed, I'm surprised it hasn't already been. So to the mods, and anyone else I offend here, I'm sorry... this is a sore note with me.
Crystal, I don't think Bush has any ties of any significance to either the Bin Laden family, and I'd like to know your source for that. He does, as do many other people high in the present and prior administrations, have close ties to the Saudi government. And, from what I have read, significant monies go from Saudi Arabia to Al Quada (I never know how to spell that). I also doubt that oil profits had a lot to do with it.
My own opinion, based on extensive reading, is that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and a handful of others presently in power have a vision of bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East. Whether that vision is based on religious beliefs or political beliefs or a desire to go down in history as the people who changed the Middle East, I won't venture to guess. But it is a fact that the generals, in advance of this war, told Bush/Cheney/Rumsfled/et al that we would need a lot more troops, especially for the occupation. No one really thought we needed more troops to win the war, but to keep it won would require a lot more than we had ready at the time. That's why so many hospitals, schools, utility plants and other "public" facilities were vandalized, looted, and badly damaged. Heck, we didn't even have enough troops to guard identified weapons stockpiles, and a lot of the weapons that were there when the stockpile was first located by troops (but left unguarded) were missing the next time troops came around.
I do not believe that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/et al didn't know that there were no significant WMD, and didn't know that Iraq was not a threat to us. Every government investigating commmittee, and the 9/11 committe, have all said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Now Iran - that's another story. I thought then and I think now that Iran and North Korea pose much greater dangers to the United States. I do think the invasion of Afghanistan made sense, as did getting rid of the Taliban. No question they supported Al Quada. But what didn't make sense was pulling troops out of Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq.
Nor does it make sense that soldiers and their families had to buy appropriate armor and communcation devices, or that the vehicles weren't properly armored. IEDs are not a new thing, and it took an unconscionably long time to get vehicles anywhere near appropriately armored.
The frequent deployments of troops in Iraq, with only 6 to 9 months "home" in between deployments, is undoubtedly playing havoc with personal lives, family lives. But we don't have enough troops, and frankly, I don't believe the publicity that the recruitment goals are being met. At least one top general has said that we are understaffed.
Add to which that our troops are not trained to be nationbuilders. They are trained to be soldiers - to find an enemy and stop/kill him. It's reallly hard to change that training, and it can't be done overnight. Not to mention that while soldiers are out trying to change hearts and minds they have to be watching in every direction to try to discern whether the person approaching them (who looks just like everyone else around them) is a person who wants help or a person wearing an explosive vest.
I was totally against this war before it started, and was very public about that, here on the board and in demonstrations. But I am sorry to say that I believe we cannot just walk out now. I think we need to send a lot more tropps - at least 50% and maybe 100% more, and be prepared for a long haul, to weed out as many terrorists as we can and to rebuild what has been destroyed. I am very upset that the administration says that starting next year it is up to the Iraqi government and people to rebuild. First, they don't have the resources. Second, they didn't destroy it - we did. I'm very afraid that if we walk out now, Iraq will explode in civil war on at least three fronts (Shiite, Sunni and Kurds), with the help of visiting terrorists from Iran and other nations, and that the conflict will spread over a large portion of the Middle East. So I don't believe we can walk out. I also think it's going to cost a lot more money than anyone ever imagined, and I think it is time this war stopped being painless for those who are not fighting it and not related to someone who is fighting it. I think the tax cuts should be rescinded, and maybe even taxes have to go up to pay for this war. We have an incredibly high deficit, and income is nowhere near keeping up with what we are spending. The administration's answer is to cut services - welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, aid to states and cities (which is why state and city budgets are in trouble and services being cut or taxes increased), funding for health research, funding for science programs, and on and on and on.
Yes, there was terrible oppression under Suddein. There has been terrible oppression in the Sudan for at least a generation, and in other African nations. But no one ever gave a thought to sending in troops to clean up those governments and those countries.
For a President who campaigned on the idea that the U.S. is not a "nation builder", and critized other administrations for being nation builders, this President has gotten us into a extraordinarily expense piece of nation-building - in lives and in dollars and in international relations and prestige. Not to mention what the international community thinks of us for the allegations of torture and "rendition" (giving a captured person over for questioning to a government which we know has a reputation for torture, rather than question him ourselves), some of which are proven to be absolutely true, and the present wire-tapping mess.
I also agree that, based on my reading of various reports, wounded troops are not being treated well, especially those who have been permanently crippled by loss of a limb or for other reasons. Nor are we treating our long time vets particularly well. The rats' maze that vets have to go through (without the assistance of a lawyer until they reach the highest appeal level) means that it takes upwards of 5 years to get approved for disability, and if a vet is denied and appeals, often the appeal is denied because the vet didn't take a particular step right somewhere before the appeal process (which he wouldn't know, but a lawyer would).
I know, personally, a young man who has gotten nothing but the best of treatment from the government for an illness he contracted during his first 6 months of duty and which had nothing to do with his military service. And he is getting disability. But that is an exception, not the rule.
I guess I've hit most of the points raised above, and a lot that weren't raised, and gotten a lot off my chest. I do think it significant that President Bush's "approval rating" by all the polls, is at around 41%. I also find it interesting that even George Will and Charles Krauthammer are saying critical and negative things about the administration and the Republican-dominated Congress - I am absolutely amazed when I find myself agreeing with pieces they have written.
I don't know, Crystal, if you'll be the reason this thread is removed. I do urge everyone who posts here to put things in terms of I feel, I believe, and not say "if you believe you are ....
or any other pejorative terms. This discussion can only go on as long as people are respectful of other people's beliefs and feelings and refrain from characterizing any person or their words or beliefs in any negative way. Please try, everyone.
Bush was partners with a Bin laden brother at one point, and has entertained the Bin laden family members as recently as 2001.
Article One
Article Two
These are the first two I found, although I have read MANY sources about the relationship with the Bushes and the Bin ladens. They have oil ties, as well as other business ventures.
I have much more to say on your post, but I've got a bunch of stuff going on now, and can't concentrate. I do promise I will keep my further posts respectful and non-attacking.  I apologize for my earlier offensive words, I let my emotions get the better of me.
The Fahrenheit movie also mentions a relationship between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens.
I specifically didn't mention that since people think Moore is an evil liar, but there IS documented proof from multiple sources, the Bush family has a long standing history of business with the Bin Ladens.
I'm not sure I consider Michael Moore a reliable source, but thanks for the links, Amy. (In fact, I'm fairly sure I don't consider Michael Moore a reliable source.)
*Wink* I'm not Amy. However, you're welcome. And in Moore's defense, he can usually back his statements up with documented proof. Of course, I know you Ginny, and am confident you'll do your own research on this.
Yeah, I realize he's probably not totally reliable, but I didn't feel like searching for reliable links. yeah, I know. Too lazy! LOL!
Crystal, I am sorry that you are so bitter. I assure you that I did not want to offend anyone and I apologize if my tone early on was disrespectful towards anyone here on this board. My disrespect was meant solely towards the writer of the article that Bea posted in the OP (she DID ask us to give opinions on it.) I value your sacrifice as the wife of a soldier and I appreciate the efforts your dh has made in the war on terror regardless of your opinion.
Our reenlistment rates are not down. Our recruitment is not down.
In fact, re enlistment rates are what is keeping the military strong by allowing it to maintain the experience level needed to train new enlistments to go into battle. Recruitment rates have in fact remained steady. They set recruitment goals high last year, and did not achieve that goal, but they did in fact enlist as many recruits last year as they did the year before.
The media is trying to recruit as well. It is trying to recruit as many service personnel as it possibly can to talk to them about why they don't agree with the war in an effort to sway public opinion. They haven't found too many. The portion of those in the military who are in support of the mission is in the majority.
Terrorism can't thrive in a democracy state. That is why they are so prevalent in dictatorships or countries without an organized state, which is what Afghanistan was when the Taliban took it over. Yes, the military swore to protect us, and they are doing so by liberating countries that were under dictatorships that supported terrorism. By giving the government back to the citizens we are guaranteeing the spread of democracy which in and of itself will help combat terrorism. The more free countries in the world there are, the less opportunity for there to be terrorist Islamic states or thriving cells. Iraq was in fact a threat to us, albeit an indirect one. Even President Clinton recognized that fact, even though he did nothing about it. This is the overall objective of our military action, and it makes perfect sense to me.
You parallel this war with Viet Nam. I parallel it with WWII. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor/9-11, we are facing an insidious power-hungry enemy in the Nazis/terrorists, the threat of this enemy is present all over the world, and we are going to win now just as we did then. It literally means the difference between a world at the mercy of terrorists or a world governed by individual democracies.
Perhaps your dh did have trouble getting a decent job. But was he uneducated? This article suggests that there is no way that a military person has the intelligence to even get admitted to a college never mind get a degree. It also exudes an attitude of elitism, as though only those highly educated individuals in this country are worthy of wealth, power, and influence by referring to the "perfect separation" between the haves and the have nots. Between the elitist snobs and the throw aways. Between the educated intellectuals and the redneck soldiers. This was one thing that totally offended me.
Perhaps to some degree that separation exists. But it is not because military service men and women are uneducated hillbilly hicks. It is because our soldiers fight for the rights of others to be educated intellectual elitists. I am surprised that you were not offended by the article on behalf of your soldier husband. I know I was, and I do not have any current service members in my family.
As for me, I would be the proudest momma on the planet to have my son fight for freedom, for my country as well as any other. Why should I sit back and allow your son/daughter risk their lives fighting for my freedoms while I keep mine safe and sound at home?
Let's fix America, before we fix the world. That's just what some people said before WWII. Imagine what would have happened if we had listened.
I am saddened by your doom and gloom outlook on this war. You are so embittered by your own fears and experiences that you aren't looking at the bigger picture.
We've lost more soldiers since the declared end of war than we did during the entire war. And we also lost 2000 soldiers in one day in a training mission accident for D-Day. What if we had decided that that number was too many and we needed to quit?
Sign me "Brainwashed Idiot" (and proud of it)
Bea, I believe that if we had left Iraq as soon as we took Baghdad, or as soon as we found Saddam Hussein (the almighty powerful dictator hiding in a hole in the ground) then the people of Iraq would be left with the same sense of betrayal that they had when we left them the first time after the Gulf War. In addition, with no government in place, they would be ripe for terrorist take-over by al-Qeida or some other radical Islamic fascist terror group. These were a people who had NO CLUE what it felt like to have a say in their government or to have a leader that doesn't threaten them with death if they didn't re-elect him. They didn't even know enough to dream of it.
In our own Revolutionary War, our founders had that very dream, a dream of a country of free people. It was their goal. It fed their spirit and gave them a reason to fight. We didn't need France to help us set up our own government. We had all the necessary tools already at our disposal in the hearts and minds of our founding fathers.
And we are making progress. Slowly, but Iraqi troops are in fact becoming more capable of defending themselves using the expertise and training provided by our troops.
Ginny, it makes sense to me that we could be engaging Iran- but in Iraq. This may or may not be by design, in order to keep the battle off of our soil. And, it was also a known fact that Saddam Hussien was sympathetic to al-Qeida (sp?) and that his aides had been in contact with al-Queida operatives.
After 9-11, the administration and congress resolved to combat terrorism wherever it exists. Not just to go after the individuals responsible for 9-11. And that resolution gave the president full discretion. He didn't have to cow-tow to congress or to the UN to get their blessing to go into Iraq. He did, but he didn't have to, and he used up a lot of time in doing so. I do agree, tho, that we should have had more troops. It would have been nice to have given the terrorist insurgents the good ol' one-two punch early on.
While our troops are trained to be killers, they have in the past served as humanitarian aids under the Clinton administration. It isn't like they are flying blind and leading the blind.
I need to ask you, tho, why do you think that after all that we have been through, that Bush is ready to pull out and leave the rest up to the Iraqis? In his State of the Union speech, he said that those decisions are up to the military commanders, not the politicians. (A lesson that was learned from Viet Nam?) Perhaps we will BEGIN to reduce our presence there, but we will not abandon them to the surrounding enemy.
I believe that possibly the reason that no one ever sought to clean up the messes made in other countries ruled by ruthless dictators is that, until we became the target of terrorist strikes, mainly 9-11, none of them presented a direct or indirect threat to the US. In addition, throughout the 90's, the US became complacent and weak.
As far as the difficulty that vets have getting disability, the only thing I think of when it comes to getting anything from the government is beaurocracy beaurocracy beaurocracy. Get rid of beaurocracy and you might be able to get down to brass tacks a lot easier and with a lot less pain.
Now, has anyone ever heard of a soldier named Joshua Sparling? He is a wounded soldier at Walter Reed, and has received some media attention regarding a card that was sent to him there. The card said "DIE".
Here is where you can hear two mp3 interviews with Pfc. Sparling about his injury (almost lost his leg), his dedication (he wants to get back to his unit and he professed his belief in the mission and in our president), his extensive treatment at Walter Reed, and his card. Did anyone know that President Bush visits patients at Walter Reed personally?
http://thepoliticalteen.com/video/JoshuaSparlingOnHannityJan3.mp3
http://thepoliticalteen.com/video/JoshuaSparlingOnHannityJan10.mp3
If you all listen to this dedicated soldier's interview, I will research the article links posted above.
Sorry, but the claims that the Hussein regime had links with Al Quaida (thanks for the spelling help) have been debunked so many times and by so many authorities (i.e., the 9/11 commission), it's not worth repeating.
As for Bush "pulling out" of Iraq, I didn't say that. I said Bush has said, publicly, that rebuilding Iraq will be up to the Iraqis and the Iraqi government. And he is promoting a cut in the funding for rebuilding, though he is pushing for a large increase in military funding in his proposed budget. But militry funding is not "rebuilding".
I agree, one of the reasons the vets have so much trouble getting benefits is bureauracy, but another reason is that the Vet Administration is badly underfunded and understaffed. Still, there are so many, many hoops for the vets to go through, and these are in place by law and by regulation.
I have nothing but contempt for anyone who in any way offers disrespect or hostility to any soldier, whether the soldier has been in Iraq or not. To send such a message to a wounded soldier is so beneath contempt I can't find words, but it is terrible and unforgiveable.
Yes, the media is trying to get soldiers (sorry, I know they are not all Army, but it is easier to just type soldiers) to be interviewed. I wish they wouldn't. It is a violation of regulations for a soldier to say anything that is a criticism of his/her commanders, his mission, the Commander in Chief, or the events that put the soldier into combat. Which Mr. Reed, who wrote the piece at the top of this thread, either knows full well or should know, in his complaint that CNN, for example, isn't giving a soldier an uncensored 15 minutes. It is, in my opinion, unconscionable for the media to try to put soldiers at this risk. If one volunteers, knowing the risk, that's another story, but to seek them out - that's wrong.
By the way, the Pentagon controlling the press ... the media is barred from filming or attending the unloading of coffins of people killed in Iraq. And when someone slipped film of coffins on an airplane to the media, there were calls for an investigation of the "leak". No, the Pentagon doesn't control the press by making things be published (First Amendment, thank heaven), though it has paid for puff pieces about us in Iraqi media. But it does control where the media can and cannot go, both in Iraq and in the U.S., and does so. (Though, honestly, I doubt very many media people are clamoring to go anywhere without being with the troops, given the dangers. Even being with the troops is dangerous, as Woodward's wounding proved.)
We had all the necessary tools already at our disposal in the hearts and minds of our founding fathers.
Are you saying that the Iraqi people have no desire for freedom? If they didn't want democracy, why did we go there in the first place? If you aren't saying that, why do they need us to "HELP" them find that which they desire? Our infrastructure was in ruins after the revolutionary war. We had no experience in forming a democracy. What were the tools we had that the Iraqi people do not?
Bitter? No. I just hate seeing people who have no idea what they are talking about assuming they know what's really going on in our military.
Yes, our rates ARE down, when taking into factor the losses. We raised the rates to make up for the soldiers who are either dead or getting out because of the Iraq conflict. We have failed to meet our enlistment goals for the first time since 1999. Please verify your military facts, not just what Bush tells everyone. Also, even if we get in a bunch of new soldiers, they need the NCOs to train them, and reenlistment rates among well trained NCOS is down. We're basically shoving a bunch of unprepared kids into leadership positions, just so there is a warm body. I've shared this thread with a few other soldiers in my husbands unit, and believe me they agree that your statemets are misguided.
IRAQ HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE SEPTEMBER 11th ATTACKS!!!! It is not the same as Pearl Harbor. We butted our nose into Iraq the same whay we did with Nam, and got our butts handed to us.
As for your proof of injured soldiers saying they believe in our mission, they have to say that publicly. They are not allowed to talk poorly of their commander-in-chief, or the choices made by their superiors. For every "Oh, I believe in my mission story", I can provide you with 5 statements of soldiers who have done multiple deployments and know we're doing the wrong thing. Of course, I can't provide you with names, lest they be court martialed, but you can't believe everything you hear.
And no, my DH was not uneducated, thank you. He is an NREMT and TDH certified medic, as well as a Texas Commission on Fire Protection fireman. He also has mechanical college credits. However, the townships don't pay their EMTs and FFs a livable wage, and the med benefits cost more than their weekly salary.
To sum, I am the proudest •••• military wife you'll ever meet. However, I live on the inside of this world, and the things you civilians here are not always the truth. There are rules and regulations about what a soldier can say about military affairs, so you hear the hand-picked sugar-coated side that the goverment wants you to here. The United States Military DOES control every bit of media coming from DoD employees and soldiers, sailors, and marines. They don't have the free speech we do. I'm very happy for everyone who gets to sit on their couch and eat up every word the media spits out, but it's all a big fairy tale. Why don't you use your next vacation to go visit Iraq, and see what they really think of us being there. Of course, they might chop off your head, but they LOOOOOOVE us.
Bea, I didn't say that the Iraqis DIDN'T want democracy. I said that they didn't even know enough to dream of it. It had never occurred to them that they as citizens could have a say in their government because they had been living under evil dictator rule for so long. So the idea, while a good one to them, was a totally new one.
Our forefathers, on the other hand, had a clear vision of the kind of govenrment they wanted.
Crystal, I will have to call a truce for now. I am out of time and I understand how frustrated you must be, and I don't want to rattle your feathers any more. Best of luck to you and your family.
My olive branch is extended, we'll agree to disagree here. Thank you for your truce.
Crystal...I agree with you completely. With regard to your second to last post and how much they love us being there - my BIL is a Major in the Army and an SF guy. He has spent considerable time in Iraq and we get the "real" story from him, too. They DON'T want us there.
The whole thing is a "new vietnam" IMO as well. I think it's so sad - for the rep of the US, and the lives of the soldiers and their families.
they didn't even know enough to dream of it.
Lisa, where do you get these facts???
So essentially, you are saying that the Iraqis didn't want democracy because they knew nothing of democracy, but we came, and invaded their country to introduce democracy to them???
Well, no matter what I tell you, I didn't get my "facts" from a reliable source b/c I got them from the media. So I suppose I might as well call a truce with you, too.
Sorry, I'm all tuckered out.
In the spirit of debate with everyone, not an attack on Lisa, I must say I think it's pompous of us to think everyone WANTS a democracy. Many other forms of government work just fine for their countries. We need to butt OUT. How another country runs it's business is not our concern, unless they are threatening us, which Saddam had not done. Had the Iraqis wanted our help in overthrowing the dictatorship, they could have reached out to us, but instead we forced it on them. Let's face it, our OWN democracy isn't even picture perfect. Those in glass houses....
I agree. again.
Wow.
I don't think we should go around the world from country to country knocking over their governments and setting up democracies either.
So the debate is whether or not Iraq was a threat to the US. A debate which could go from now until, well, infinity.
Bea, I apologize. I was wrong. I was thinking about it later after my last post, and I believe I was mistaken. It has after all been 3 years since we went into Iraq and 4 since we went into Afghanistan.
I distinctly remember an American serviceman being interviewed and telling the story I told you, of how the people in that country were under evil dictator rule for so long that they had no idea that there was any better way to live.
It may very well have been a serviceman in Afghanistan. Not Iraq.
When I am wrong, and it happens a lot, I try to own up to it, as difficult as it may be.
I still think, tho, that we didn't need any help in drafting our own government b/c our founding fathers had a clear idea of what kind of country they wanted for us.
Now, I think I'll go to bed. |)
It may well be, Lisa, that the serviceman you remember was speaking about Hussein, who was a evil dictator in a basically secular society. Or, he could have been speaking of Afghanistan, with the tyranny of a far right Islamic dictatorship. Both countries were appalling places to live, both had dictatorships which acted on impulse, oppressed, beat, tortured and killed individuals and groups of people basically on whim.
I agree, most Iraqis probably had (and have) no idea of what a democracy is, nor had any dream of it. We tend to forget that our founding fathers mostly came from or were informed by what was at the time one of the most free, nearest to a democratic form of government. By which I mean England, which had rights for much of its population imbedded in its political mind from the time of Magna Carta. There had been a strong push for civil rights, individual rights in England since that time, and a strong belief that the "rights" of the citizenry were and should be a protection against capricious or overbearing government. It was by no means perfect, and there was a lot of official oppression of groups, and the rights of individuals, particularly the poor, were more often ignored than not, but the belief that these rights existed was there. I think what our founders were striving for was (1) the perfection of the "rights of man" that underlay a lot of thinking in England and (2) a prevention of specific forms of tyrrany (as listed in the Bill of Rights) that they had personally experienced. Don't forget, one of the early battlecries (before the Revolutionary War actually began) was "no taxation without representation", which means, in part, that they believed they were entitled to representation and that taxes (and laws) could not be imposed upon them without their participation in the laws that imposed those taxes and laws. And in the process of achieving our democratic government, a lot of mob/majority tyrranical acts took place, from tar and feathering (and even mob killing) of representatives of the British government, to the expulsion of the Loyalists and confiscation of much of their property.
We are so accustomed to what we think of as "democracy", with all of the protections of the Bill of Rights and being accustomed to living in a country where things are accomplished by laws and by voting, that we forget that what we mean by democracy is by no means what the Middle East and much of the "developing" or "third" world means when it thinks of democracy. For many people, democracy simply means legalized mob rule - we have the power so we can do what we want.
In the Middle East, democracy is something that some other nations do, and is at best (from our perspective) (and, imo) imperfectly understood. I suspect it *is* mostly understood in terms of "majority rule" - if I am part of the majority and my party wins the right to run the government, we can pass laws against the minority, we can do things against the minority, because this is a "democracy" and that's the way the vote went. The ideal of democracy is a whole lot more than voting, and one of the key factors in whether a nation is a democracy is not whether its citizens can have honest elections and choose the people that make up their government, but whether that government is required to follow certain basic rules no matter who won the election and whether the system of that nation requires protection for minorities and for peaceful dissenters. And building that kind of government takes years, decades. It doesn't come simply with voting. Look at Palestine, where people voted (at least partly on the basis of throwing out corrupt politicians and leaders) to make Hamas the ruling party. Hamas has a sufficiently large majority that it doesn't need to work at setting up a coalition government - and Hamas is the party that has supported the suicide bombers and other attacks on Israel and that has as a basic tenet that Israel should be overthrown and all the Jews thrown out of that region of the world. But heck, they had an election and its "democracy". Our government has said it won't deal with Hamas - but Hamas is the legitimately elected governing party of Palestine. So here we are, refusing to recognize a democratically elected government in Palestine (and in Venezuala, by the way), while forcing democracy on Iraq. Doesn't seem terribly consistent to me.
Someone, I don't remember who, said "Democracy imposed from without is the worst form of tyrrany". I think what this means is that until/unless a people work out for themselves (a) what self-government means (which is really what democracy is) and (b) work out how they want to achieve it, imposing democracy on them is forcing them to live with a form of government and in a system they didn't choose and don't want (which is hardly democracy).
We'll never know if, left to themselves, the Iraqis would have chosen a democratic, or quasi-democratic form of government after Hussein stopped ruling (which was inevitable, whether by natural death, assassination, or revolution), or whether they would have chosen (or been forced to choose) a theocracy, or even a monarchy. We have decided what their form of government should be, without the years and years of training and education (and physical protection for dissenters and minorities) it takes to participate in and run this form of government. And I'm afraid that they and we will pay a high price for this.
Wow Ginny! I am often moved by your "pieces" and could not agree more with this one! I lurk more than I post, especially in the debate board as I do not always trust myself not to get too emotional about certain topics!
This war is emotional to everyone and it is hard to swallow what we are doing over there. Thanks for stating it so well!
I'll say again, not everything the media prints of servicemember's opinions is their TRUE feelings. They are not permitted to express certain dissenting opinions, with risk of serious punishment.
|
Members
