Iraq, deep in your bones

POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 19:04
VIEWED: 5032
PAGE 1 of 1

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, September 16, 2007 5:55 PM

Found this, looking around. It's nice when someone puts in writing things that are for me too painful and too dispiriting at the moment to put down myself--complete with the long view conclusion that I've nearly lost track of amidst the mind-numbing inhumanity of this moment in American consciousness.

http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

Iraq, deep in your bones
A war that isn't really a war, the great humiliation that's ours forever. Is there any upside?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, September 14, 2007

We are, of course, mostly fighting against ourselves.

It must be repeated every so often, just as a painful, necessary, ego-tweaking reminder: Iraq was never a war. Not really, not in any sense that mattered or that we could actually define and understand or to which we could truly submit ourselves or our national identity.

It never mattered how many little American flags appeared on how many bloated Chevy Avalanches, how many right-wing radio shows found a new reason to pule, how many furiously blindered uber-patriots happily ignored all the harsh words from all those naysaying generals or even all the "turncoat" anti-war Republicans and insisted we're really over there to fight some sort of great Islamic demon no one can actually see or locate or define but that we must, somehow, attempt to destroy -- even though doing so only seems to make the situation far, far worse.

There was never any coherent, justifiable heroic cause. Indeed, the truth about Iraq, as evidenced by Gen. David Petreaus' muted, bleak testimony before Congress just this week, is much more simple, nefarious, pathetic. Iraq is, was, and forever will be our very own massive strategic blunder, a failed land grab for position and power in a tinderbox region defined by furious instability and corruption and death.

It's the great unspoken subtext. Iraq has always been a war between our dueling national identities, a battle over how we are to move and breathe and behave in the new millennium. Are we really this violently paranoid bully, this rogue pre-emptive screw-em-all ideological war machine defined by the dystopian Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld vision of permanent, ongoing global conflict?

Or do we try, instead, to move forward and reinvent ourselves over and over again as the world's most commited, forceful peacekeeper, ever striving for balance and cooperation and tact, even in the face of hardship and fundamentalist rage, refusing to be taunted and dragged down lest we take the bait and lose our minds and engage in torture and misprision and ultraviolence and become little better, ideologically speaking, than our taunters? Have we already made our choice?

Because the truth is, we are well past the point of salvaging anything noble or honest from Bush's massive, historic debacle. We have only this brutal reality: Iraq is, and forever will be, one of the most extraordinary wastes in all of American history.

A waste of money. A waste of time. A stunning, almost unspeakable waste of life. A waste of resources and intellectual capital and a massive waste of national spirit. A waste of energy and hope and a giant squandering of any goodwill or empathy our former allies might've had for America in its post-9/11 state. Heard it all before? Sure you have.

Some scenes remain almost comical in their absurdity. Perhaps you saw that money, those enormous, ridiculous piles of American cash, the photos floating around of American soldiers guarding giant, shrink-wrapped pallets of U.S. currency known as "cashpaks," each reportedly containing about $1.6 million in stacks of $100 bills, all airlifted by the ton straight from the Federal Reserve and set down in the Iraqi sun like rotting fruit, small mountains of your tax dollars earmarked to buy off various warlords and pay for covert, unauthorized operations all over the Middle East in an attempt to buy our way into some sort of impossible, forced stability. Right.

Or maybe it's the bodies, the sheer waste of American flesh, not merely the thousands of U.S. dead or even

SIGNYM

Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:24 PM

Oh no no no HK! America is proud and strong a good! We are the heroes, and we only kill villains and only in righteousness.

I would LIKE to think that we're on the verge of an awakening but I think the largest portion of our population is so deeply afraid of the future that questions about justice, compassion, democracy, hope.... it's all lost on them.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Sunday, September 16, 2007 7:38 PM

That's a tough read; a bit beyond my position, but not much. Some parts really speak to me... "A waste of money. A waste of time. A stunning, almost unspeakable waste of life. A waste of resources and intellectual capital and a massive waste of national spirit. A waste of energy and hope and a giant squandering of any goodwill or empathy our former allies might've had for America in its post-9/11 state. " rings very true.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:13 PM

That was great, HK.
I'd like to think the worst of this storm is passing. But I still conjure Bush will want to have a go at Iran before he leaves. I hope I'm wrong; we have enough of a mess to deal with as it is.

We can live in fear...or rise above it. Like Buffy said, "So here's the part where you make a choice... Are you ready to be strong?"

Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Sunday, September 16, 2007 9:20 PM

We watched as the world did nothing for 10 yrs. The U.N. did nothing but allow Saddam to make deals and skirt their own resolutions against him, while making a tidy profit.

We said enough is enough.

We are the good guys here. We are the heroes. For those who don't see it, I'll never understand their point of view.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, September 16, 2007 9:24 PM

Sort of says it all, ...

except maybe the garbage the US called foreign policy which contributed to 911, but that also falls under

"
We are, of course, mostly fighting against ourselves. "

Perhaps a " great humiliation " is what is needed, maybe that will start a cultural revolution in the United States that will put it back on course. Maybe things will have to get worse yet before they will begin to get better.

The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, September 16, 2007 9:26 PM

Anyone want to wager that Bush doesn't do a thing against Iran, militarily, for the next 16 months ?

I'll bet cashy money that says we don't fire a shot.

Any takers ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SERGEANTX

Sunday, September 16, 2007 9:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Anyone want to wager that Bush doesn't do a thing against Iran, militarily, for the next 16 months ?

I'll bet that you'll defend him with ever more ridiculous rationalizations regardless.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

LEADB

Sunday, September 16, 2007 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Anyone want to wager that Bush doesn't do a thing against Iran, militarily, for the next 16 months ?

I'll bet cashy money that says we don't fire a shot.

Any takers ?

Heh. He better not. He's already spread the military so thin it will break if he does. Which, ironically, may be the greatest shame if action -is- actually needed on another front, we won't be able to.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, September 16, 2007 10:50 PM

...and the Lemur Liberation Front of Madagasgar knows this...

Fear the Terrorist Lemurs Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Monday, September 17, 2007 12:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Anyone want to wager that Bush doesn't do a thing against Iran, militarily, for the next 16 months ?

I'll bet cashy money that says we don't fire a shot.

Any takers ?
Heh. He better not. He's already spread the military so thin it will break if he does. Which, ironically, may be the greatest shame if action -is- actually needed on another front, we won't be able to.

I'll take that as a solid 'no '. Thanks!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Monday, September 17, 2007 12:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Anyone want to wager that Bush doesn't do a thing against Iran, militarily, for the next 16 months ?

I'll bet that you'll defend him with ever more ridiculous rationalizations regardless.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Depends on what he does. The way you word it, he could do nothing and I'd praise him. He could do the right thing, and you'd ridicule him, regardless. The issue was that Bush might try to attack Iran. I'm saying he won't. No takers ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

LEADB

Monday, September 17, 2007 12:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Anyone want to wager that Bush doesn't do a thing against Iran, militarily, for the next 16 months ?

I'll bet cashy money that says we don't fire a shot.

Any takers ?
Heh. He better not. He's already spread the military so thin it will break if he does. Which, ironically, may be the greatest shame if action -is- actually needed on another front, we won't be able to.

I'll take that as a solid 'no '. Thanks!

The problem is, I think he may do it anyway. So, since you said 'a shot', I'll put down $10 that he will 'take a shot' before he goes.

AURAPTOR

Monday, September 17, 2007 12:19 AM

10 bucks it is. Ready, GO! The clock is tickin'.....

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

LEADB

Monday, September 17, 2007 12:57 AM

Tick tick! The sad part is, I'm really hoping to lose.

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, September 17, 2007 1:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Anyone want to wager that Bush doesn't do a thing against Iran, militarily, for the next 16 months ?

I'll bet cashy money that says we don't fire a shot.

Any takers ?
Heh. He better not. He's already spread the military so thin it will break if he does. Which, ironically, may be the greatest shame if action -is- actually needed on another front, we won't be able to.

I'll take that as a solid 'no '. Thanks!
The problem is, I think he may do it anyway. So, since you said 'a shot', I'll put down $10 that he will 'take a shot' before he goes.

Does the shooting off of his mouth count ?

Some of the rhetoric coming from him and Condi does almost as much to flame up the situation as military action would....

Any attack on Iran in the next year would cause Iraq to come apart completely, maybe Afghanistan too. Russia and China keep shipping in Sams and AAA to Iran, guessing they want to make the idea of a strictly airwar unattractive, especially since it wouldn't stay that way for long.

Mind you, many thought the idea of going into Iraq would be a stupid idea...

The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

AURAPTOR

Monday, September 17, 2007 1:26 AM

Quote:
Some of the rhetoric coming from him and Condi does almost as much to flame up the situation as military action would....

Because there's no rhetoric coming out of Iran, now is there ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Monday, September 17, 2007 1:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Because there's no rhetoric coming out of Iran, now is there ?

There sure is! And we'd better fight fire with fire, right? Go down to their level, right?
They threaten, we threaten!
They torture, we torture!

Where does this 'sinking down to their level' stop, Rap?

Wait.

You're right AURaptor. How could I have ever been so blind?

Serious Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Monday, September 17, 2007 2:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The way you word it, he could do nothing and I'd praise him...

Actually, what I'm saying is that he could do foolish things that get thousands of people killed (have you been paying any attention?), and you'd still defend him.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

GEEZER

Monday, September 17, 2007 2:03 AM

Just noting for the record that, in most of the world Mark Morford, the author of this piece, would have been either jailed or disappeared. The very fact that he can say what he has said, and still be running around free, contradicts a good bit of what he writes.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SERGEANTX

Monday, September 17, 2007 2:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The very fact that he can say what he has said, and still be running around free, contradicts a good bit of what he writes.

The fact that we still have our freedom of speech is indeed a very good sign. But if we fail to use that freedom to reign in our government, if we sit in silent fear of being labeled an 'Americ-Haters', we'll undercut the very principles our nation is founded on. The ability to simultaneously love our country, while defying leaders who would squander it, is about the most 'American' thing I can think of.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Monday, September 17, 2007 2:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The ability to simultaneously love our country, while defying leaders who would squander it, is about the most 'American' thing I can think of.

That was exceptionally well-put, Sarge!

You should tm that.

I'm lovin' it tm Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Monday, September 17, 2007 2:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The way you word it, he could do nothing and I'd praise him...

Actually, what I'm saying is that he could do foolish things that get thousands of people killed (have you been paying any attention?), and you'd still defend him.

Yes, and you're talking in circles. Bush did EXACTLY what so many Dems threatened to do when they were in power, and even said MUST be done after Bush was elected, and only changed their tune when they saw it could be used as a political tool against Bush. They , not Bush, are using this war for pure politics. Tnat Bush has stayed the course despite it not being a 'popular' war only shows he doesn't care about polling numbers, but doing what's right for thsi country.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Monday, September 17, 2007 2:41 AM

Chris - we don't torture. That's the big difference.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, September 17, 2007 2:43 AM

Quote:
Which is to say: The screeching of the Christian right, the shrill alarmism from cultural conservatives regarding everything from sex and drugs and music to gays and nipples and creationism, the rejection of science, the attacks on women's rights, the abuse of the environment, all the way up to the bleakest and ugliest manisfestation of all, a brutal and unwinnable war -- taken as a whole, these can, if you so choose, be seen as merely the embers of a hugely failed -- and yes, nearly extinct -- worldview.

Here is the hesitant optimism, the hint of the new, the tentative suggestion that all is not lost: By many measures, the worst of it is over. There really is light coming, a new awareness, a shift away from the bleakness and the rot and the wallowing in bland violence. Perhaps you can feel it. Or perhaps you need to be ready to feel it. Either way, it's there. You have but to do the most easy/difficult thing of all: you must look behind the veil, see the two dueling Americas, and make your choice.

You had me up until the point you started attacking religion. Get rid of the last two paragraphs and I enjoyed reading and agreed with pretty much everything in that article.

You think anything is going to change when Obama is president? Do you believe that Democrats and and a world without any Religion will be a better place? Listen man... I hated Bush many years before it became the cool thing to do and I have a track record of posts to prove it. But so long as we don't take power back from our ever more oppressive Government, this war is NEVER going to end. There will always be an imaginary bogey man for us to fight against, and meanwhile, the ebbing of our liberties will continue on for a 100 years even if we have nothing but Democratic administrations. So long as they maintain their central control, there is no silver lining.... There are no better days.

I don't know about you, but when the shit really hits the fan, and our economy goes down the shitter because we wasted our entire country's wealth on the war and taking care of every illegal citizen and giving our wealth away to countries most American's couldn't even point out on a globe.... when we can no longer afford our happy pills, and Playstation 3's, our cable TV, or possibly even enough food to make it through the week without our stomach's grumbling.... when we have NOTHING left.. NO destractions from just how shitty we've let it get.... that's the day that I believe a lot of people are going to find God again.

Our Forefather's believed. Maybe that's what it will take for us to finally stand against the evil of centralized Government. It worked for them, and we've had quite a long run since, though I do believe that our time as top dawg is almost at a close.

I'd just like to think that there is hope and that one day we will not all say I Love Big Brother. And I don't find that hope in a lack of faith and an unwavering devotion to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

GEEZER

Monday, September 17, 2007 2:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The very fact that he can say what he has said, and still be running around free, contradicts a good bit of what he writes.

The fact that we still have our freedom of speech is indeed a very good sign. But if we fail to use that freedom to reign in our government, if we sit in silent fear of being labeled an 'Americ-Haters', we'll undercut the very principles our nation is founded on. The ability to simultaneously love our country, while defying leaders who would squander it, is about the most 'American' thing I can think of.

Seen anybody in the USA failing to use their freedom of speech because they're afraid of being labeled pretty much anything? Not bloody likely!

And Bush will be gone in January 2009. He won't be able to do a Chavez or Mugabe and use his tame legislature to extend his term, or do a Putin and name a placeholder for his comeback.

Then, regardless of how you feel about whether we should have been in Iraq in the first place or not, we will have to decide if we want to give the folks trying to build a better government and life there a fighting chance, or run off and leave them twisting in the wind.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, September 17, 2007 3:30 AM

Quote:
Seen anybody in the USA failing to use their freedom of speech because they're afraid of being labeled pretty much anything? Not bloody likely!

Well, I WAS pretty spooked about being followed by the FBI (or whomever) for three days because I made a bang-on prediction about biowarfare right b4 the anthrax letters. I have to say, it creeped me out. I've become a lot more circumspect about what I say and how I say it, believe it or not.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Monday, September 17, 2007 3:37 AM

Quote:
Then, regardless of how you feel about whether we should have been in Iraq in the first place or not, we will have to decide if we want to give the folks trying to build a better government and life there a fighting chance,

So, who are these people? al Maliki, he of Shiite death squads? al Sadr? (ditto) Chalabi, the currently pro-Iranian embezzler? Sunni insurgents? al Qaida?

OH I KNOW! The Sunni tribal leader who visited Bush and who got assassinated!

I feel very sorry for ordinary Iraqis because it seems like every single person with aspirations to power is a swindler at best and a murderer at worst.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Monday, September 17, 2007 3:56 AM

Quote:
Chris - we don't torture.

We don't admit to it. The messy stuff we contract out to Saudi Arabia or Egypt. Or we hustle people off to secret CIA prisons in Poland or Afghanistan. Gosh, we have our own jet-set gulags!

Quote:
The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR20051101016
44.html

Do we brag about torture? No. But do we use it and teach it? www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6154

Quote:
The notorious Operation Phoenix, set up by the CIA to wipe out the Vietcong infrastructure, subjected suspects to torture such as:
electric shock to the genitals of both men and women
insertion into the ear of a six-inch dowel, which was tapped through the brain until the victim died
suspects were also thrown out of airborne helicopters to persuade the more important suspects to talk, although this should probably be categorized as murder of the ones thrown out, and a form of torture for those not.

I saw this last part in newsreel footage in the movie Hearts and Minds... also people being kicked to death, forced into very small cages with lye thrown on them etc etc.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

HKCAVALIER

Monday, September 17, 2007 4:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Just noting for the record that, in most of the world Mark Morford, the author of this piece, would have been either jailed or disappeared. The very fact that he can say what he has said, and still be running around free, contradicts a good bit of what he writes.

Non sequitur

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

AURAPTOR

Monday, September 17, 2007 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Seen anybody in the USA failing to use their freedom of speech because they're afraid of being labeled pretty much anything? Not bloody likely!
Well, I WAS pretty spooked about being followed by the FBI (or whomever) for three days because I made a bang-on prediction about biowarfare right b4 the anthrax letters. I have to say, it creeped me out. I've become a lot more circumspect about what I say and how I say it, believe it or not.

---------------------------------

Of COURSE you are.

Because your paranoia only plays into your tightly held pre-conceptions. One feeds right into the other.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Monday, September 17, 2007 11:39 AM

Umm... no Rap. Much as I would have liked it to be paranoia, it wasn't. I was on another board and some people were so incensed and then frightened about what I was saying that they asked the moderator to provide my personals to law enforcement. Shortly after that, while leaving home extra-early one AM I found a person in a white car with a blacked-out windshield waiting for me at the end of of driveway. This car followed me halfway to work, to be replaced by another white car with a blacked-out windshield, and for the next few days I led my own little two-car parade. What they found out is that my life is boring as shit: I work, I take care of my family.

This was at the time that the FBI was pursuing every conceivable lead, particularly scientists, bc the anthrax has been highly weaponized and it would have taken a highly skilled person to produce it. Fortunately, by the mere fact that they weren't too careful about tailing me I assumed that they figured I was a low-probability lead.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SERGEANTX

Monday, September 17, 2007 12:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Seen anybody in the USA failing to use their freedom of speech because they're afraid of being labeled pretty much anything? Not bloody likely!

It's a matter of fact. The entire Democratic party, not to mention most of the press, have been cowed into submission by just such fears since 9/11. It's why the few who are beginning to speak out (Olbermann, RP, etc...) are considered heroic for doing so.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Then, regardless of how you feel about whether we should have been in Iraq in the first place or not, we will have to decide if we want to give the folks trying to build a better government and life there a fighting chance, or run off and leave them twisting in the wind.

'Cutting and running' would be better than what we're doing now, but... I'd be content with abiding by the will of the Iraqi people. It is their home, after all, that we've decimated. Put it to a nationwide referendum.

But that will never let that happen as long as it's so obvious that they don't want us there. That's why it hasn't happened yet. The last thing Bush wants to see is a clear expression of the will of the Iraqi people.

[... and before any bushies try to make the point, requests from our duly installed stoolies don't count. Of course the 'leadership' wants us to stay, they'll be the first ones strung up after we leave.]

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Monday, September 17, 2007 2:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
... and before any bushies try to make the point, requests from our duly installed stoolies don't count. Of course the 'leadership' wants us to stay, they'll be the first ones strung up after we leave.

I thought 'our duly installed stoolies' were actually democratically elected by a majority of the Iraqi voters in their last election. How can you have a 'semi-democratic' election in Iraq without outside assistance? How can you have an elected government without saying there was outside involvement? Many people will quite passionately state what they DO NOT want to see in Iraq. Ask them what they DO want to see and their response becomes quite ethereal.

HERO

Monday, September 17, 2007 3:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
...and the Lemur Liberation Front of Madagasgar knows this...

They move very slow...

H

HERO

Monday, September 17, 2007 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The ability to simultaneously love our country, while defying leaders who would squander it, is about the most 'American' thing I can think of.

Without comment on your motives, by failing to support the government effort in Iraq you have de facto placed yourself in common cause with the terrorists. I don't place you there by calling you un-American, I don't support saying anyone exercising their rights as being not patriotic, but you have chosen where to stand. I'm merely noting those standing next to you happen to be the same folk who'd chop your head off on live TV if given the chance.

H

HERO

Monday, September 17, 2007 3:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Shortly after that, while leaving home extra-early one AM I found a person in a white car with a blacked-out windshield waiting for me at the end of of driveway. This car followed me halfway to work, to be replaced by another white car with a blacked-out windshield, and for the next few days I led my own little two-car parade.

I note for the record that the FBI uses black cars, your 'white car' was probably a UN vehicle or perhaps your neighbor down the street who happens to own a white car. If the latter call the police since most local jurisdictions have strict laws on window tint.

I also note that if this was the evil government, following you in no way infringes on your Constitutional rights, so whats the big deal?

I myself have delt with this problem. Back at the end of August I started noticing brightly colored yellow government vehicles following me to and from work. It would start with one, then it would disappear only to be replaced by another I'd spot further down the road. Sometimes they force me to stop and watch while they loaded or unloaded government undercover agents who would often disperse into the local neighborhoods. Its scary.

H

LEADB

Monday, September 17, 2007 4:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The ability to simultaneously love our country, while defying leaders who would squander it, is about the most 'American' thing I can think of.

Without comment on your motives, by failing to support the government effort in Iraq you have de facto placed yourself in common cause with the terrorists. I don't place you there by calling you un-American, I don't support saying anyone exercising their rights as being not patriotic, but you have chosen where to stand. I'm merely noting those standing next to you happen to be the same folk who'd chop your head off on live TV if given the chance.

Wow. Sarg's full quote "The fact that we still have our freedom of speech is indeed a very good sign. But if we fail to use that freedom to reign in our government, if we sit in silent fear of being labeled an 'Americ-Haters', we'll undercut the very principles our nation is founded on. The ability to simultaneously love our country, while defying leaders who would squander it, is about the most 'American' thing I can think of."
Hero, you on the flip side are what scare freedom loving folk to death. I do not believe Sarg's statement comes anywhere near it would take to classify someone as being on the side of the terrorists. Sorry to say; but the gov. sometimes needs reigning in. Now... if you want to point to some particulars about what Sarg is trying to reign in, I might not be so concerned with your comment.

SIGNYM

Monday, September 17, 2007 4:21 PM

Quote:
I note for the record that the FBI uses black cars, your 'white car'

Whoever it was had illegally tinted windshields. I couldn't see the driver using my rearview, and that was the first and last time I've never seen so many drivers. Following me. For three days.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Monday, September 17, 2007 4:25 PM

Quote:
Without comment on your motives, by failing to support the government effort in Iraq you have de facto placed yourself in common cause with the terrorists.

Without commenting on his motives, HERO is anti-American. He has placed himself in common cause with those who would seek to destroy our Constitution, and therefore in opposition to the military which is sworn to defend it. HERO is a traitor.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Monday, September 17, 2007 4:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I note for the record that the FBI uses black cars, your 'white car'
Whoever it was had illegally tinted windshields. I couldn't see the driver using my rearview, and that was the first and last time I've never seen so many drivers. Following me. For three days.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

White does seem an odd color, I thought the FBI always chose black, dark grey or tan vehicles to trailing purposes (boring colours have minimal subconscious recognition, brighter colours are easier for your subconscious to spot.)

GEEZER

Monday, September 17, 2007 4:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
OH I KNOW! The Sunni tribal leader who visited Bush and who got assassinated!

Actually, that's pretty much it. The plain old Joe Iraqis who make up the vast majority of folks and just want Al-Queda and the radical sectarians to leave them alone so they can get on with their lives.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, September 17, 2007 4:47 PM

Yeah- So how do we support the plain old Joes in light of the fact that the Iraqi government is working against us? Basically, we would have to be a revolutionary (or at least anti-government) force in Iraq. And what do we do with the al Sadr-types who really DO have the backing of their people (another plain old Joe) but who seek to create a tyranny under THEIR name?

I've said before, I say it again- the best we can do is effectively break Iraq up.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Monday, September 17, 2007 4:59 PM

Anyone who has ever watched Conspiracy Theory knows that the FBI uses black Crown Vics. But I can't explain that guy waiting near the end of my driveway who hurriedly put down his coffee and followed me (through four turns and onto a freeway) halfway to work... only to be replaced by a similar car for the other half. If he hadn't been there I would prolly never have noticed. And that pattern for three days, never to be seen again. The only thing I can figure is that the various agencies were following SO MANY leads at the time (especially in neighboring Orange County) they just ran out of black Crown Vics.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Monday, September 17, 2007 5:08 PM

It's possible that they wanted to you to know.

The question is, what was following you once the white cars stopped?

SIGNYM

Monday, September 17, 2007 5:17 PM

The black helicopters. And the sky-blue ones.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Monday, September 17, 2007 5:47 PM

Not sky blue "PR blue"

FLETCH2

Monday, September 17, 2007 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
It's possible that they wanted to you to know.

The question is, what was following you once the white cars stopped?

That was what I was wondering too. The whole point of following you is to see where you are going without you knowing, so you continue on to do what you would normally do. If you spot them then it's game over. In addition, why follow you and then do a swap out with an identical car? I mean if you missed the first car peeling off (or thought it was behind in traffic, then you could look back later, see the identical car and think you were still being followed.

If you swap out a vehicle then you do it with a different type, otherwise it's a pointless substitution.

More likely explanations.

1) The husband of one of your coworkers (or your wife) think you are having an affair.

2) Your employer thinks you are stealing trade secrets.

3) You're just paranoid.

If you ARE right then I'm appauled at the lack of basic tradecraft by US government agencies. Even the Iranians do a better job than this.

HERO

Monday, September 17, 2007 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I do not believe Sarg's statement comes anywhere near it would take to classify someone as being on the side of the terrorists. Sorry to say; but the gov. sometimes needs reigning in.

Its more then a mere statement. Its a desire of some folks, liberals mostly, to see the US withdraw from Iraq. They want to see the political failure of the President, they want to see the repudiation of his foriegn policy. They want to see a rollback of the anti-terror policies. There goals are the same as that of the terrorists and while terrorists shoot at our soldiers with bullets the liberals use words. Their goal is the same, they stand together, not because of their common cause, the defeat of the United States and its President.

I don't put them on the side of the terrorists, they put themselves there with their words, deeds, and goals.

The government always needs some reigning in. But you don't see a boxer taking the time to consider the alternatives to fighting his opponant in the middle of the fight. The time for alternatives is before or after the war is over. The only alternatives in the middle of the fight are win or lose, kill or be killed, and spam or chipped beef (MREs).

H

HERO

Monday, September 17, 2007 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Without comment on your motives, by failing to support the government effort in Iraq you have de facto placed yourself in common cause with the terrorists.
Without commenting on his motives, HERO is anti-American. He has placed himself in common cause with those who would seek to destroy our Constitution, and therefore in opposition to the military which is sworn to defend it. HERO is a traitor.

If this be treason, then lets make the most of it.

H

LEADB

Monday, September 17, 2007 6:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I do not believe Sarg's statement comes anywhere near it would take to classify someone as being on the side of the terrorists. Sorry to say; but the gov. sometimes needs reigning in.

Its more then a mere statement. Its a desire of some folks, liberals mostly, to see the US withdraw from Iraq. They want to see the political failure of the President, they want to see the repudiation of his foriegn policy. They want to see a rollback of the anti-terror policies. There goals are the same as that of the terrorists and while terrorists shoot at our soldiers with bullets the liberals use words. Their goal is the same, they stand together, not because of their common cause, the defeat of the United States and its President.

I don't put them on the side of the terrorists, they put themselves there with their words, deeds, and goals.

The government always needs some reigning in. But you don't see a boxer taking the time to consider the alternatives to fighting his opponant in the middle of the fight. The time for alternatives is before or after the war is over. The only alternatives in the middle of the fight are win or lose, kill or be killed, and spam or chipped beef (MREs).

H

Yes and no. Unless the next President does something radically opposed to what Bush has started, we could be 'in a state of war' for the next 30 to 40 years, the war on terror. That's a bit long between 'sanity checks.'

Actually, I don't think the terrorists particularly want to see the 'anti-terrorists' policies of the administration rolled back; the current environment is providing more grist for the mill than an effective anti-terrorist policy. I do not believe that in all cases this administration has pursued the most effective strategies.

However, I see you were aiming at a much bigger picture than Sarg's 'immediate' statement, and better understand your point.

SIGNYM

Monday, September 17, 2007 6:32 PM

Quote:
Its more then a mere statement. Its a desire of some folks, liberals mostly, to see the US withdraw from Iraq. They want to see the political failure of the President, they want to see the repudiation of his foreign policy.

And so...? HERO, you have an equation in your head:

The President, his policies and success = America, The Constitution.

That equation only exists in your head. The President and his foreign policy and political success is NOT America or the Constitution. And in some ways Bush seems antithetical to what this country is supposed to stand for.

Quote:

They want to see a rollback of the anti-terror policies.

No. Nobody here is "for terror". The Iraq war is at best a distraction from the REAL war on terror, and I happen to think that we can fight terrorists w/o resorting to un-Constitutional means.

Quote:
There (sic) goals are the same as that of the terrorists and while terrorists shoot at our soldiers with bullets the liberals use words. Their goal is the same, they stand together, not because of their common cause, the defeat of the United States and its President.

Are you saying that I want to see a jihad take over America? Turn America (or the world) into an Islamist theocracy? Whoa there, little feller!

Quote:
The government always needs some reigning in. But you don't see a boxer taking the time to consider the alternatives to fighting his opponant in the middle of the fight.

Of course you do! It's called "strategic thinking". People who don't engage in strategic thinking often wind up punch-drunk losers.

Quote:
If this be treason, then lets make the most of it.

Okey dokey. Care for that last smoke?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Monday, September 17, 2007 6:58 PM

Of course... if we start shooting each other, all the real terrorist have to do is lean back and chuckle.

HERO

Monday, September 17, 2007 7:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The President, his policies and success = America, The Constitution.

That equation only exists in your head. The President and his foreign policy and political success is NOT America or the Constitution.

Yes it is. Here's a contemporary example. President Clinton had bombing campaigns against Serbia and Iraq. He even deployed troops to Serbia.

I hate Clinton. Thought he was a crook and a sex offender.

I opposed the limited bombing of Iraq and everything about the Serbian mission. Yet once the bombs started falling I demanded success and victory. As it turns out my assessment of Serbia was wrong, I admitted it and gave the President credit for it when it was over. My assessment of Iraq was correct and I gave the President hell for his faiure...when it was over.

We should piss, moan, fight, elbow, tussle, and spit right up until the decision is made and then we need to present a united front. Afterwards we can blame, game, politic, spin, second guess, backseat drive, Monday morning quartback as much as we want.

Quote:

Are you saying that I want to see a jihad take over America? Turn America (or the world) into an Islamist theocracy?

Thats silly. Just because you and the terrorists are on the same bus does not mean your going to the same place. You would be satisfied with enough defeat to remove the President and his party from power. They want more defeat to remove the United States from power (and our heads from our necks). Your both invested in American defeat. Its just the degree you and your terrorist buddies disagree on. In that respect you are not unlike Russia or the former French President, but the distiction there is that foriegn political interests should be distinguishable from domestic partisanship.

I note for the record that during the fifty-year Cold War the two parties were united in opposition to the spread of international communism despite the domestic political differences. These days liberals are united with international terrorism against the current administration. Such a union is fleeting and leaves us much weaker in our ability to continue to confront the Jihadists should the Democrats somehow manage to make it into office.

H

SERGEANTX

Monday, September 17, 2007 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
There goals are the same as that of the terrorists and while terrorists shoot at our soldiers with bullets the liberals use words. Their goal is the same, they stand together, not because of their common cause, the defeat of the United States and its President.

I don't put them on the side of the terrorists, they put themselves there with their words, deeds, and goals.

Actually, the president has done more to further the goals of the terrorists than the 'liburls' ever could. (btw, Bush and his neo-cons are far too liberal for me, so your standard demagoguery kind of falls apart here). He's provided OBL with tailor-made fodder every time Al-qeuda's cause begins to wane. He's validated the terrorists' every screeching claim about US imperialism. And he's hell bent on pissing off every potential ally we might have had. He's done more for the cause of the terrorists than Osama himself.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RIGHTEOUS9

Monday, September 17, 2007 8:50 PM

Hero that's such pathetic rhetoric.

The reasons behind what liberals want are different than the reasons behind why Jihadists say what they say.

Frankly, I think the fanatics are tickled pink that we're in Iraq. It may burn them with a certain indignation and fury, but they get to kill americans. They get to recruit like crazy. they get an unstable region in which they can garner more power, and have.

Your disingenuine attempt at labeling us as defacto enemies of the state is just as unreasonable as me telling you that you are a fascist loving, goose stepping, Nazi enabler.

Hell, you're supporting the grandson of a Nazi sympathiser who was actually connected to a considered coup on our elected government.

And here's Bush sounding like Hitler...

"Our first priority must always be the security of our nation... We will win this war; we'll protect our homeland"

- George Bush, 1/29/2002

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our homeland. "

- Adolph Hitler, 1922

I might stretch, if I were being a total asshole, that they want the same things, and thus must you.

I mean, seriously, how far of a cry is it to suggest that there's been a melding of corporations and government in this country, particularly under Bush's watch? Can you say, Fascist?
.........................

To suggest that liberals want us to lose a war is stupid, and doesn't represent anything the vast majority of us is thinking. YOu can argue that the actions we want our government to take would cause us to lose the war. YOu could argue that we have given up on the possibility of there being such a thing as winning this war. But saying that we are hoping to fail, is pure slander.

LEADB

Monday, September 17, 2007 9:47 PM

<<< Piles up sandbags, waits for the shooting to stop.

CHRISISALL

Monday, September 17, 2007 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
But saying that we are hoping to fail, is pure slander.

Awww, Hero don't mean nuthin' by it. He just comes here to sharpen his skills for the courtroom- to see how far he can push before we call 'im on it. It's all theatrics for him. Winning is the point, not *laughs* Truth *snickers* or Justice ROTF!!!! It's all a game to him...y'know, as long as he doesn't have to actually physically fight anyone....

Snarky's Machineisall

RUE

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:06 AM

"I thought 'our duly installed stoolies' were actually democratically elected by a majority of the Iraqi voters in their last election."

Wow. I can see where YOU get your news from.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 2:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I thought 'our duly installed stoolies' were actually democratically elected by a majority of the Iraqi voters in their last election."

Wow. I can see where YOU get your news from.

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

SIGNYM

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 5:20 AM

Leadb don't worry none. I called Hero a traitor because he throws that word around so easily, I just wanted him to see how it felt coming in his direction.
--------------------

Quote:
Yes it is. Here's a contemporary example. President Clinton had bombing campaigns against Serbia and Iraq. He even deployed troops to Serbia. I hate Clinton. Thought he was a crook and a sex offender. I opposed the limited bombing of Iraq and everything about the Serbian mission. Yet once the bombs started falling I demanded success and victory. As it turns out my assessment of Serbia was wrong, I admitted it and gave the President credit for it when it was over. My assessment of Iraq was correct and I gave the President hell for his faiure...when it was over. We should piss, moan, fight, elbow, tussle, and spit right up until the decision is made and then we need to present a united front. Afterwards we can blame, game, politic, spin, second guess, backseat drive, Monday morning quartback as much as we want.

I think the problem is that we DIDN'T piss. moan, and tussle b4 the war started. Most of us were stampeded into thinking that Saddam had WMD, and about 30% of folks STILL think he was behind 9-11!

Hero, are you old enough to remember the Vietnam war? Now THERE was a tragic mistake. We should never have gotten involved in the first place, never set up several miserably corrupt, evil puppet governments... If people had engaged in strategic thinking at ANY point earlier we would have left having done far less damage to ourselves and to them- than we eventually did.

Quote:
Thats silly. Just because you and the terrorists are on the same bus does not mean your going to the same place. You would be satisfied with enough defeat to remove the President and his party from power. They want more defeat to remove the United States from power (and our heads from our necks). Your both invested in American defeat.

Hero, I COULD be calling you a traitor in every post because to my way of thinking you're out to destroy the Constitution. But I give you the benefit of wanting what's best for America, even if its in a misguided way. Why can't you acknowledge that liberals ALSO want what's best for America? Changing an initially bad decision is not a defeat, it's learning from mistakes. If I saw a kid hammering his thumb, I'd want to take the hammer out of his hand. Why do you think that persisting in an unsuccessful strategy/ behavior is a positive attribute?

------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 5:05 PM

There are a lot of things the Wiki entry and links left out.

Most of the votes were for a party, not a person. With the exception of a handful of people, there were no candidates per se on the ballot. Most people had no idea what the party they were voting for stood for. Because of the lack of electricity, and more important - security, no party wrote up position statements, and the little information there was, was virtually undistributed. Nearly all ballots were distributed at the last minute, creating voter confusion - with long lists of unrecognized and cryptic party names. Since the party names were unrecognized, the positions unstated, and the actual candidates not identified, the voting itself was fairly random, often based on whether the person handing out the ballots was known to the voter and what they recommended, or, more commonly, by any religious identification gleaned from rumor. Turnout was low, and the vote was boycotted by Sunnis b/c of a fatwah that was issued. And like the old computer acronym - GIGO. Iraq now has a broken government apparently answerable to and representative of no one, with Sunni's out of the process completely.

Yup, that worked out well.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There are a lot of things the Wiki entry and links left out.

Most of the votes were for a party, not a person. With the exception of a handful of people, there were no candidates per se on the ballot. Most people had no idea what the party they were voting for stood for. Because of the lack of electricity, and more important - security, no party wrote up position statements, and the little information there was, was virtually undistributed. Nearly all ballots were distributed at the last minute, creating voter confusion - with long lists of unrecognized and cryptic party names. Since the party names were unrecognized, the positions unstated, and the actual candidates not identified, the voting itself was fairly random, often based on whether the person handing out the ballots was known to the voter and what they recommended, or, more commonly, by any religious identification gleaned from rumor. Turnout was low, and the vote was boycotted by Sunnis b/c of a fatwah that was issued. And like the old computer acronym - GIGO. Iraq now has a broken government apparently answerable to and representative of no one, with Sunni's out of the process completely.

Yup, that worked out well.

Security / electrical concerns aside, you just described the last American election.

If the democratic elections had not happened when they did, would you be more or less incensed? (Damned if you do...)
Either way, try not to marginalize the brave souls who risked life and limb to vote, a vital step in the process IMHO.