Third Party & Independents: Archives

David—

You and I are in perfect agreement, the speech and press conference were meaningless, a shallow example of his ineptitude as a leader. Oh, and let us not forget that perfect smirk and perfect arrogance beaming from the man light a lighthouse beacon in the darkest night.

David,

President Bush also indicated that anyone who questions our commitment in Iraq, is aiding the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.

I didn’t get that impression from the press conference, but maybe it happened while I was letting the dog in. To what part of the press conference are you referring?

Here’s a link to the transcript.

David:

Bush did not do a good job in my opinion in the press conference. He stumbled on several questions. Of course there are reasons for that—and not necessarily the ones you toss out.

For instance, the question about Bush mistakes was a set up question with no really good answer. If Bush says he made no mistakes, then you claim him to think he is perfect, which is far from what he said. If he admits a mistake, Democrats pillory him for that in the headlines.

What I wish he had said was something to this effect: “You know, either way I answer your question, I’m gonna get slammed. But I’m gonna answer it anyway. In any situation, you can use hindsight to see how things might have been done differently. And there have been mistakes in estimates, in actions, in performance. The key thing, though, is that even if we chose a different approach, there would be problems with THAT approach also…..so you cant avoid making mistakes, but you do the best job you can with the information and situation at the time. It takes decision making, and the courage to take a stand in your beliefs. You know people are gonna take potshots whichever way you go, but you move forward resolutely anyway.”

David—Bush did say he knew he had made mistakes, but he was obviously hesitant to give fodder to his opponents. And that is really truly what is wrong with the 911 commission. Anyone who admits having made a mistake will be crucified, while those who simply obfuscate will soon be forgotten.

As an example, look at the respective Presidential campaigns of Clinton and Gore (his first time back in the 88, i think). Gore admitted smoking pot, and was pilloried for it. Clinton in 92 admitted to “not inhaling”, which was an obvious obfuscation, but it worked. He got away with it. That is a lesson to be learned for politicians, but its also a sad thing for the people of the nation.

Lawnboy, The President said in response to a question about critics comparing Iraq to Viet Nam, “I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy is — sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the wrong message to the enemy.”

Comparing Iraq to Viet Nam (an appropriate comparison on a number of points) is a criticism of the war in Iraq and how the President is conducting it. In other words, he thinks saying anything that might hurt morale of our troops or might be used by the enemy as propaganda, is aiding the enemy, and that of course would be unpatriotic and traitorous.

There is no question in my mind he is fueling the conservative attack against critics of the Iraq war or the President as unpatriotic or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I can’t believe an American President can get away with this. Yet, in all the articles written by the media I read this morning, 9 of them, only one, mentioned the President’s statement on this issue.

joebaggadonuts, I agree, had the President answered as you suggested it would have been far more appropriate and politically adroit.

As for being perfect, I think it is political BS during an election to say, I am sure I have made mistakes, but, you know, I just can’t think of single one at this time.

What a croc. He should have hired you as a consultant as your proposal would have been accepted pretty much without criticism. But, this President has made mistakes, and his more than his unwillingness to admit them, his unwillingness to change course and correct them is appalling.

He was wrong to make Iraq America’s war instead of a UN action. The only sound course now is to beg, borrow, or barter a deal with the U.N. to turn Security and nation building decision making and authority over to them. But, that would be admitting a mistake in the first place and he would rather kill hundreds more Americans than admit a mistake. LBJ and Nixon all over again.

David:
We obviously disagree on many things, but here’s a wish: I wish that in US politics, there was room for a President to alter his course without having to face the impending attacks from the opposition.

I dont think Bush wants to give up control to the UN, nor do I think he should do so. But I do want the UN more involved, if only for political purposes so that Iraqi’s would see that the goal is not occupation, but rather liberation. I think many do see that, but others with ulterior motives are able to use this issue for negative purposes.

I’d love to see a US political landscape where Bush could heavily involve the UN without the Democrats trying to claim that he flip flopped etc. Any kind of global foreign policy involves negotiation, and any negotiation involves a changable course of action. But, as we’ve seen with the China spy plan incident, with stem cell research etc, any time Bush changes course at all, he gets slammed for it. And Clinton probably did as well. For his part, he was wise to jump off the ideas of national health care and gays in the military—-they were not working, nor were they popular. To castigate him for changine would be silly—-i was simply glad he got rid of those bad ideas. (Not saying national health care is necessarily bad, but Hillary’s version of it was certainly bad).

Anyway, perhaps we can meet in Xanadu someday where politics is fun, and politicians are allowed to work for the betterment of their country, rather than having to watch their backs all the time.

joebagodonuts, that was a measured and reasonable reply. It would take Xanadu as you suggest for a political climate to not take advantage of competitors getting it wrong with foresight, or hindsight.

One of many things Bush misses from history, is that a President is easily forgiven for mistakes by the American people. He had an opportunity last night to reveal himself as a human being like the rest of us who could recount a dozen mistakes without hesitation if asked.

But, this President made a reference last night to desperate people being dangerous. This president is desperate, fighting for his political career and fighting future history of his role. His desperation is leading him to make dangerous decisions. His polls were dropping before 9/11. It was a big deal as was the economy. In defense, he took on Iraq instead of an all out effort against terrorists responsible for 9/11. That was a dangerous move.

A person incapable of recounting their mistakes is incapable of learning from them. This makes George W. Bush, a very dangerous man at the helm. Add desperation as he refers to, and an inability to admit or recount mistakes, and I have a President I do not want to remain in office one day longer than necessary for my own, but, more importantly, for my daughter’s sake. There was a time just two years ago when my daughter was talking about going into the military as an option. Not now. At 13, she feels sorry for the soldiers who are dying because of Bush’s mistake. A military career is not on her radar screen anymore, despite the fact that her Dad served.

Of course, she is young, and a lot can change in 5 to 10 years. But, not with Bush in office. I firmly believe that with all of my education, experience, intellect and gut response.

As for comparisons…

Viet Nam
48,000 Deaths, and in 1967 alone… 9,353 Deaths (almost 180 per week,)!

Viet Nam was a Civil War supported by US military action against the spread of communism. No threat to anyone but themselves.

Ending / 1973 US signs peace accord, 1975 Communist forces capture presidential palace in Saigon, all we worked for was lost…

Someone please help me see how Iraq compares with Viet Nam.

David:

I have a son—17—who is considering the Naval Academy, and thus potentially a military career. And while war always is a concern to me, for my own kids as well as the kids of others, I do think its necessary sometimes. There is a cost to inaction as well, though it sometimes isnt as recognizable. A truly recognizable instance, though, was 9-11, where almost 3000 American civilians died because we as a nation have not been able to stem the tide of terrorism.

I wish Bush had talked about mistakes. One particular mistake he could have discussed, without too much if any political damage, would have been his statement that the major military action was over. While not technically a mistake, the perception it gave can now be seen to be incorrect. Bush could have simply said that it was a mistake to leave that kind of perception—-that would not have given Democrats fodder for the election, but would have shown Bush to be a thoughtful and reflective person.

David, you implied that since Bush’s polls prior to 911 were low, that he made some dangerous decisions. He did do that, but I dont see Iraq in that manner. If anything, Bush would have fared much better had he NOT invaded Iraq. Consider that he had world approval, and Democratic approval to invade Afghanistan. So, from a political standpoint, the IRaq invasion was either A) a fool’s errand, or B) something he felt needed to be done regardless of the cost.

I know which of those you would choose, but my main point is that Iraq was NOT done out of political calculation. By all accounts, Rove and his group are very intelligent and calculating, and they would have seen that Iraq was not the politically safe or prudent thing to do.

Tell your daughter the military is a great place to be, and a great career to have. I have full respect for those who enter into it knowing the breadth of their decisions. I would expect her to be one who fulfills her duties, rather than of the ilk of those who wanted the benefits the military can offer, without having any sacrifice.

Joe, take yourself back a year and a half. Unlike now, fighting another gulf war was not exactly an unpopular idea. It is only after the collapse of the case against Iraq, after the circumvention of the UN, and after hundreds of American deaths that Iraq has taken on the negative force it has in Bush’s campaign.

All in all though, and I figure you’ll probably disagree, what Bush has lost over Iraq, he has only himself to blame for. Bush positioned this as part of the war on terror. This has any number of consequences, not the least of which was to make Iraq the measure of Bush’s sincerity and competence in prosecuting the war on terror.

Bush also took a massive gamble, pre-emptively attacking Iraq. By doing so, he took the burden of evidence, the burden of responsibility for the war off of Saddam Hussein, and put it on us.

His inaccuracies in his case for the war do more than simply make this an unnecessary war. Without the threat, our justification for a pre-emptive war, a war to answer an imminent threat before it strikes us first, falls apart, and we are either reckless fools, or heedless aggressors.

Needless to say, even with as many Americans who have taken solace in free Iraqis, there are plenty of Americans who see America crossing a line that they are ashamed to have seen America cross. These people do not wish America harm. Many of these people support a war against terror, and support, sympathize, and lionize the soldiers who are there giving them their all. We watch the daily death tolls rise with real worry, and great sorrow.

It could be said, that on top of the tragedy of 9/11, Bush has added another one: Iraq. Only Iraq isn’t a tragedy merely in the dark fate sense of that term, but is a tragedy in the dramatic sense of the term- it is a story of a person brought down by errors and weaknesses he is unwilling to face.

Bush could have turned onto a better course of action, to a more mature point of view on foreign policy long ago. Unfortunately he assumed the truth it in on groups set of foreign policy ideals, and took their interests as his own. And from there, everything unfolds.

Appreciate the reply joebadadonuts. It was thoughtful and obviously sincere. My daughter’s objection to the military is as she put it, “I don’t want to die because the President does not care what happens to the people in the Army”.

I am not about to contradict her, though, I recognize that her view of what is going on is not sophisticated or nuanced, and is no doubt influenced heavily by my discussions with her Mom about what is happening. But, she has a point and good one to make. It would be interesting to see how many troops in Iraq would reconsider their enlistment if they knew what Bush was about to decide and the reasons he says he decided it. Of course we will never know the answer to that.

But, as 75 year old Andy Rooney said, most soldiers are no heroes, they are just folks doing a job like anyone else. Rooney was a soldier in WWII flying in bombers over Germany so he knows a little something about what he is saying. He does not profess to being a hero just because he did his job. If that were the case, that every working person in America is a hero. His point is that being a victim of 9/11 does not make one a hero. Nor does being a fireman climbing into the tower to save lives make him/her a hero. What Rooney is talking about is a fireman who knows the tower is going to collapse and goes up to save lives anyway. A soldier who knows the war in Iraq is coming and the reasons for it are in dispute and enlists to go to Iraq anyway. That is a hero. One who knowingly puts one’s life in jeopardy for others.

I don’t know if my daughter will ever be a hero. I know she would want to be if the event arose. I do know my daughter has common sense, and when a President says we are going to war for reason A and then hundreds of troops die and we find out Reason A was not valid, my daughter has the common sense to say she would not want to serve in the armed forces under that President. It is a fool like Don Quixote who endangers his life for no valid reason. My daughter is no fool.

Stephen:

You say that a year and a half ago,” fighting another gulf war was not exactly an unpopular idea”. In what realm of the universe were you at that time? The idea of going into Iraq was never the most popular of ideas—just look at the flock of Democrats who now say they were against it, though they voted to allow it.

Did you miss the rallies around the world and in the US decrying the war? Now, the fact that it wasnt totally popular doesnt mean it wasnt right. In fact, there were many who were against US involvement in WWII, but I think most agree that was a war we had to be involved in.

I do think Bush overstated some issues (the WMD’s for example). But i also agree that Saddam was a gathering threat, as was the perception that the US could be tied in knots by simple subterfuge. By paying off terrorist’s families, by harboring known terrorists like Abu Nidal, and then by thumbing their nose at the US, Iraq was showign the world that the US was weak, and perhaps ripe for the taking. It’s entirely possible that 911 happened as a result of this kind of thinking.

David:
Of course many soldiers would not re-enlist if they knew what their service levels were going to be. We are not the same country we were back in WWII when 15 year old kids lied in order to get INTO the service, and when athletes like Ted Williams and Willie Mays served their country in the prime of their careers, rather than having Kobe Bryants who tremble at the thought of perhaps missing a game or two due to a pesky little trial. (I’m not going into the Kobe thing other than as an example of how our collective thinking has changed.)

We all know that soldiers are needed at all times, and at some times the service requirements are more severe than others. I think we are in Iraq for many of the right reasons, such as the primary one I mentioned above to Stephen. I think Bush went too far in his pushing for the war, because he went to a degree where he had to rely on evidence that hadnt been proven.

Bush would have been better off simply stating that since Saddam was continually out of compliance, the time had come to stop giving him second chances. But, as you and I both know, Bush tried that approach initially, and the war would never have taken place based on that alone, whether it needed to or not.

Enlistments skyrocketed after 9/11 because we had been attacked and recruits wanted to both defend America against the attackers and take retribution on the people who committed such a heinous act against us.

My point is, most of those same recruits would not have enlisted so willingly if they knew they were going to war with a country not responsible for 9/11 and for nation building a toppled regime which bore not imminent or direct threat against the U.S. homeland.

In psychology there is a concept called ‘cognitive dissonance’ which is proven to explain that when a person holds two conflicting ideas in their head, they will resolve that tension by siding with the idea that leaves their self-esteem intact, regardless of the facts. Applied to our troops, a great many have to justify in their mind being in Iraq which is not what they signed up for and which they cannot now get out of. They either made a bad decision or they rationalize that they are doing their duty and making a difference anyway.

However, if they were given the choice of leaving Iraq, now, they would in droves. It was not the fight they signed up for. Nor is the war Americans thought they were supporting - a war against the terrorists who posed a direct and imminent threat against us. We were all duped by this administration and the polls are showing that the American people don’t like being duped in this manner by their President.

David:

In looking for statistics to support your claim of “skyrocketing” enlistments after 9-11, I found only a couple articles that said that inquiries skyrocketed, but enlistments only slightly increased. Perhaps you are a more skillful searcher for evidence on that issue than I’ve proven to be.

I do, however, think you are putting your own thoughts into the thoughts of those soldiers. Perhaps if YOU were in Iraq, you would come home if given the opportunity. Perhaps you would feel deceived, or perhaps you would feel the sense of cognitive dissonance. But to claim that THEY do is simply an opinion on your part. Sure, you can point to the media stories about unhappy soldiers, but anecdotal evidence is just that….anecdotal. And I could provide just as many anecdotes from servicemen and women who feel this war is justified and necessary.

On a lighter note, I understand your point about cognitive dissonance. I’ve noticed hordes of Democrats with symptoms, that perhaps are stemming from the dissonant idea of wanting to vote Democrat, but finding John Kerry as the Democrat they are forced to vote for. Perhaps this dissonance is the one you should have referred to.

joebadonuts, that was a clever turn of the phrase in your last paragraph, and there is no doubt truth to it for Zell Miller followers and others.

As for projecting into the minds of some of the troops, since, I never said or implied all of the troops, my claim is a safe bet prima facie. If a person pays thier money for one item and they get shipped a completely different item which does not fulfill their choice, they are going to be disappointed, angry, and probably won’t shop through that vendor again.

There were troops that enlisted to fight OBL and the Taliban, they ended up instead fighting Iraqi’s, many of whom did not, and do not, want us there telling them how to live, govern, or manage their country. It is safe to bet that a significant number of them have regrets about their choice and would undo it if they could.

It is one thing to die or be maimed for a just cause, it is quite another to be duped into dying for an unnecessary choice which half the people in your country disagree with.

BTW, past polls show only a slightly increased bias toward an administration than the general public. Therefore, it is also reasonable to assume something approaching half of the troops don’t agree with our decision to invade Iraq without the U.N. spreading the risk.

I am confident in these assessments in light of the absence of any newer and more direct empirical evidence to the contrary, which of course, the administration would never permit. Any studies of troop opinions or feelings about being Iraq would never be sanctioned by the administration for public review, regardless of who is President. So, one can only rely upon indirect evidence as I have put forth which is better than anecdotal extrapolation from a biased viewpoint on either side.

David:

I do so enjoy our witty little ripostes. However…….. while you of course did not say or imply “all” the troops (since of course you are certainly clever enough to never use the word never or all), you most certainly did imply a majority of the troops, which is simply not something you could know to be correct. Here are your statements:

“most of those same recruits would not have enlisted so willingly”

“a great many have to justify in their mind being in Iraq which is not what they signed up”

“if they were given the choice of leaving Iraq, now, they would in droves.”

I’ll take you at your word that you dont intend to speak for the troops, nor do you know what is in their minds. You can take me at mine when I recognize that there certainly are SOME troops out there who would not have signed up had they known who or where they would be fighting.

In fact, there are even those who have come forward to say they would not have signed up had they known they actually might have to fight someone or anyone. They have said they just wanted the college benefits, but they didnt actually want to fight. Those are the people I have great disdain for.

In any event, we obviously disagree, but its nice to be able to disagree so agreeably.

I agree, enjoyable fencing with you.

Why would you have such disdain for those young people? I really don’t understand. They needed a job at the very least. That they all have in common.

Most of the recruits I drilled in the Army (73-74), chose what they thought would be safer MOS’s, like lab technician, or mechanics, or electricians, not just because they could, but, because, it is human nature by and large to avoid dying when possible. Given peer group pressure or societal or family pressure to join the armed forces, one tends to think about one’s safety as part of the equation. They joined to serve their country - THEY DID NOT JOIN WITH A SUICIDE DEATH WISH. Recruits tend to be pretty healthy psychologically, and therefore, in accordance with psychological health, they look to preserve their physical health.

Almost no soldiers join to die. They join for some other reason. When confronted with potentially lethal situations, the normal response is to get out of it, and if one cannot get out of it, one tries to force one’s way out of it.

Boot camp and AIT are designed to instill an interdependence among soldiers to the extent that if they are under fire, they will recognize that their safest choice is to back each other up and each do their job the very best they can. By and large, this is effective indoctrination, as only a very, very small percentage cut and run under fire or leave their buddies in a lurch.

However, it is understandable that none of them signed up to die or be maimed. If one recognizes that one is going into a letal situation, it is reasonable to curse one’s decision that put one there. As a drill instructor, listening from behind the cadre door, there were many discussions about why they put themselves, or how they got themselves into this W()U*(#( !

It is natural and human to think and feel that way. I don’t hold anything but respect for soldiers who once joined, do their job. But, I also know, almost all who wish they hadn’t, will do their job nonetheless.

To hold disdain for those who joined just to get an education or to have a job, is to fail to understand and support the troops. Because almost all of them will bitch and moan about being in the crap when their time comes. It is nothing to be ashamed of and in fact, such bitch sessions among the troops actually serves to strengthen the bond and mutual support among them, causing them to be reliable when the crap hits the fan.

I respect them all who do their job, whatever that is, and I don’t begrudge them one bit for having regrets or second thoughts about joining when danger presents itself. To do otherwise is to delude oneself that one would be John Wayne in their situation and the fact is, as Andy Rooney said, there aren’t all that many heroes to be found, not even in the military. The military is made up of folks who want to see another day with all their body parts just like any civilian.

And it is only human nature for soldiers to resent not being dealt the hand they signed up for. And a great many national guard and reserves out there are not being dealt the hand they thought they were signing up for. They agreed to do this job if circumstances required it (i.e. their commander in chief says so), but, most went in hoping that would not happen. And that does not take away one iota of respect from me. They are doing their job nonetheless.

David:

I hold disdain for those who are unwilling to accept the conditions that they signed up under. For a soldier to say that they went into the military in order to get an education, but had never planned on actually having to go into combat—-well, thats a bit like getting hired to work as a CPA and then getting irritated when you have to work with numbers.

I understand the desire to not go into a dangerous combat situation. But I’m not willing to allow someone to take their share of the military, and then pass along the negative portions to someone else. And yes, that is what some soldiers and parents have tried to get. They’ve tried to shirk their duties because they dont like them. I have yet to hear any of this crowd offer to pay back the government for the money and training they recieved.

Consider the medical situation of some creative small towns around the US: they offer to pay a bright young person’s medical school cost in return for that person settling in their community as a doctor for a specified time. Now, consider that bright young person graduating from Med School, and then saying to the town…..”Yknow, I dont really like small towns. I’m more of a big city person, so thanks for paying for my schooling. Much appreciated!”

Its called fulfilling the responsibilities that you freely take on. No one made these people join the military—-there was no coersion, no draft etc. They CHOSE of their own free will to join, and in my book, that means they take the good and the bad.

Fact is joe, 99.6% or so do in fact do the job they signed up for. But they don’t have to like it. And they don’t have to vote for a commander in chief who keeps stiffing them with conflicts not related to the terrorists who are attacking our nation, with extensions of duty they and their families never expected and were led to believe would not happen, and with deficits and debts that preempt their return to good benefits, excellent health care at the VA’s, and a decent living wage for their families.

And I presume the military absentee ballot box is not something President Bush will be able to count on in November like he did in 2000.

David:

Im no longer clear on what your point WAS. It seemed to be that most of those in the military would leave Iraq in droves due to their dissatisfaction. It now seems rather different.

here is the deal. People enlist or join the military of their own free accord. I couldnt care less whether they like the orders they are given or not. That’s not the way the military works. You are given orders—-you follow orders. Its not up to them the individual to decide whether to follow or not, or whether it matters if htey like the order or not.

I think Bush will get most of the military vote, but we can wait until November to find out. Having spoken to a number of military men in Iraq, either currently or previously, I can say that they believe in Bush. As for any others, I cant say. And neither can you. And THAT has been my point for some time now. You are conjuring up your own thoughts of how other people think feel and act. But it is still your opinion and yours alone.

joe, there are a fair number here in San Antonio at Ft. Sam Houston who don’t agree with Bush’s war and they freely discuss this at the Tavern on the Green off duty.

I can tell you one thing about statistics, if 10 are complaining aloud, 100 are feeling and thinking the same thing. If you have been in the military, you know what pressure and even threat there is to a soldier who complains about their Commander in Chief, or an American engagement. It takes a lot of courage and conviction for the soldiers who are speaking up to the press about their feelings.

But what is amazing is your belief that a soldier does what they are told, period. You apparently know very little about the Modern Volunteer Army where thinking and judgement are now expected by specialists in their fields of expertise. Something learned from Mi Lai - and the Nuremburg trials, following orders is no defense for violating the rules of engagement of international laws governing war (certain covert forces excepted, I am sure).

If you were in the service, would you have followed any order no matter how inhumane - would you kill a father’s baby to get him to talk? Would you rape his wife in front of him and his kids to get him to give information that might save your some of your people? If so, we have little to discuss or agree upon.

David:

You disappoint me. I have come to expect more from you than your last post.

I expected you NOT to go to the lowest level of discourse…that being the need to use such dramatic hyperbole to try to bolster your dying argument.

I’ve never once even come remotely close to suggesting that those in the military should follow inhumane or illegal orders. Yet, in apparently a last ditch effort, you resort to trying to reduce my comments to that level.

When I said that those in the military must follow orders, I know that you were well aware of my meaning, and that my intention was not to focus on illegal orders. If I have to clarify each and every word to negate the chance of you taking the remotest possible meaning from them, then I’d agree with you—-we have little to discuss or agree upon.

The bottom line point is this: You have continued to assume to know the mind of the US soldier—-I say you don’t have any means of knowing it. Are there those who are pissed off about being in Iraq—-certainly! Are there those who would prefer to be elsewhere—certainly. And are there those who feel they are doing exactly what they should be—certainly.

I have yet to see any great degree of dissatisfaction from soldiers, though I do see the media hyping the few stories that are out there. If the media find 10 who are angry, and ignores hundreds who are not, is that a story? Perhaps its one you might want to see, but its merely an example of a slanted story.

joebadodonuts, thank you for the concessions to my original points made. There are a significant number of soldiers who are not happy with the duty this President has assigned them.

Amazing what lengths it took to get you to make that concession. But, we are now in agreement.

David:

Please dont go down to chatroom levels to try to declare yourself a “winner”. You know as well as I do that your original statements were that “most of those recruits” would not have signed up, and that if they could leave Iraq, soldiers would be leaving in “droves”.

We do agree that there will always be soldiers who dont agree with the official policy, and there will always be those who question why they are fighting. For you to try to characterize it as “most” is what I took exception to. Its a typical example of what people do when they are trying to make a point look stronger—they simply escalate the numbers or percentages without regard to the veracity. I thought you were above that, and I’m disappointed that you arent.

I’ve found you to typically be rather intelligent and well thought out. While we come at things from a rather fundamentally different perspective, I hadnt seen the pure partisanship that you are showing of late. Perhaps i just missed it at first, or perhaps its something that you are just getting around to; either way, its unbecoming of someone with your intelligence.

When you try to make the claim that our soldiers are feeling misled and dont want to fight the fight, it would be wise to have actual facts at your disposal, since your opinions are plainly biased, as are mine. Which is why I havent made the type of claims that you have. I’ve merely said that to make those claims with no support leads me to believe that its just your opinion. You have the right to your opinion, of course, but that still doesnt make it a fact, as you have tried to portray it.

joe, my exact quote was:

“Enlistments skyrocketed after 9/11 because we had been attacked and recruits wanted to both defend America against the attackers and take retribution on the people who committed such a heinous act against us.

My point is, most of those same recruits would not have enlisted so willingly if they knew they were going to war with a country not responsible for 9/11 and for nation building a toppled regime which bore not imminent or direct threat against the U.S. homeland. “

Please note that when I said “most of those same recruits” refers to the recruits who enlisted above and beyond normal recruitment numbers in response to 9/11 and the impending invasion of Afghanistan to fight al-Queda and Taliban. I believe that is a fair statement, but, obviously you disagree, and that is fine.

Again, my exact quote was “However, if they were given the choice of leaving Iraq, now, they would in droves.”

Note that in referring to “they”, I am still referring to those who enlisted above and beyond normal enlistment numbers prior to 9/11. I am NOT referring to a majority of all troops in Iraq. But, I suspect even taken in context, we still disagree and that is fine.

As for hard numebers to support such opinions, I have already stated this administration, nor any other probably, would permit such hard numbers or research to be conducted, therefore, best application of indirect evidence, anecdotal evidence, and sparse reporting from those troops is all any of us have to support our opinion, and I have already stated that. So, it does not bother me that you claim that I have only opinion to back up what I contend, I have already freely admitted that before you tried to criticize my contention on that basis.

What is one to do? Guess we should just agree to disagree at this point. Thanks for joining in the discussion though. There would be no point in writing or commenting here if others did not engage, and I appreciate your participation, if not your positions.

David:

Excellent post! We can agree on that most definitely. It’s very easy to get caught up in these things and allow them to spiral down into vicious descent—or is it dissent. And thats something that is not a good thing. I hope you will not allow that to happen again….just kidding…I think we both spiraled a bit, or at least I did.

Once again, while I disagree with some of your assertions, and certainly with a lot of your political leanings, I enjoy the opportunity to learn more about what you think, how you think, and why you think what you think.

I agree also with your suggestion that we end this particular thread, but i look forward to seeing you in other threads.