« You Asked about compost | Main | Reversing vasectomies »

23 September 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cc8269e200d834585a3153ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Win Without War:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

OdaSilva

A few quick scrolls down the page would have revealed to the more industrious that this thread was "resurrected" by bobby_b on Feb 25, 2006, 11:59:56 PM. No need to apologize. The invective was expected.

Bill

"Given that it takes about 6-7 support people for every front line soldier, odd that one seldom hears from the grill cooks, truck mechanics or company clerks."

Thank you Alger for insulting our fine military folks. In a modern war, especially during an insurgency like in Iraq, pretty much everyone is on the front lines.

jennebach

Actually, I think he's just excited he gets another chance to regurgitate his previous posts and express his opinions on the topic yet one more time. He doesn't really need a reason to post here: in case you haven't noticed, he's the only one out here who really knows what's going on in this country, and what needs to be done to correct the few, if any problems we might currently have... really;)

A reader

There was a new PRO-war ad that used the families of dead soldiers as spokespersons. Perhaps Oda is objecting to the abuse of our dead soldiers in that way.

quser

I am with Bill; what resurrected this thread? It was from September 25 last year. Was there a new ad of some sort I missed?

Gary Mullen-Schultz

A few quotes back at you. I'll forego the "cute" name calling and just let the parties speak for themselves.

“It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to imagine.”
-- Paul Wolfowitz

“Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”
-- Donald Rumsfeld

“I had other priorities in the sixties than military service.”
-- Dick Cheney

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
-- George W. Bush

“I don’t know that there is much reconstruction to do.”
-- Donald Rumsfeld

“I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”
-- Dick Cheney

“We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
-- Condi Rice

“Trying to eliminate Saddam … would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable ‘exit strategy’ we could see…”
-- George H. W. Bush

“I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed ... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units ... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country.”
-- Colin Powell

“My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”
-- Dick Cheney

“My answer is: bring ‘em on!”
-- George Bush

OdaSilva

"Bush lied!"
-- French Senator John Kerry

"Bush lied!"
-- Über Terrorist Osama bin Laden

"Bush lied!"
--Chappaquiddick Senator Ted Kennedy

"Bush lied!"
-- Dead Man Walking Ayman al-Zawahiri

"Bush lied!"
-- Abramoff Democrat Harry Reid

"Bush lied!"
-- Poor Little Rich Kid George Soros

"Bush lied!"
-- Cindy Sheehan, Self-proclaimed Joan of Arc

"Bush lied!"
-- Crown Princess Hillary Clinton

"Bush lied!"
-- Has-been Dictator Saddam Hussein

"Bush lied!"
-- Two-bit megalomanical Venezuelan President and Fidel Castro wanna-be Hugo Chavez.

Well, it looks like they are all on the same page.

Steve

The 9/11 commission did not say "officially" when they cleared Iraq of involvement. It simply stated Iraq was NOT involved. We have further learned that Al Queda approached the Hussein regime for help and was denied. Simply because many of you distrust the mid-east does not make it okay to condemn all of a region's people. We have people all over the world who don't like us, it doesn't make them all terrorists.

This war will long term be a good thing. By exposing the mid-east to our culture and freedoms we will foster long term peace. Conservation and the environmentalist movements have won with the renewed emphasis on alternative fuels and a horrible dictator is gone. Shouldn't we admit a mistake (they happen, see "Bay of Pigs") but focus on the positives of this endeavor rather than play the tired refrains that got us there in the first place?
If nothing else, those of us who are fiscally conservative should be the ones publishing full page ads. This President has a budget deficit worse than any in history, not even including the grotesque financial cost of the war. He has not vetoed a single dollar of spending from the all GOP congress, where's the political advocacy group for our grandkids who's future we're selling out?

Alger_Hiss

Chad : "Being a vet myself..."

There has never been a shortage of those that wear their vet status on their sleeve. There has also never been a shortage of embellishment in this area. Given that it takes about 6-7 support people for every front line soldier, odd that one seldom hears from the grill cooks, truck mechanics or company clerks.

This old canard of military service equaling automatic bravery and honor reminds me of a certain leftist state senator that had a quite unremarkable Marine stint. When his supporters, with their wide smiles of pride, point out that he was a Marine, these smiles turn to goofy looks of soccer-mom confusion when you point out that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine too.

Bill

What ressurected this thread?

OdaSilva

Ryan said:

"I'm fully aware that Iraq didn't "officially" have anything to do with the aforementioned terror acts. There was no Saddam signature at the bottom of a document titled "fly planes into buildings and blow up ships and stuff." For that matter, Afghanistan didn't "officially" have anything to do with 9/11. Neither did Saudi Arabia. Or Iran. I guess the whole Middle East is innocent! Yet, strangely, 9/11 happened anyway. I guess we should have launched a couple cruise missiles into some empty tents and patiently waited for the next strike."

I remember liberals saying there was no "proof" Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 until a tape of the terror mastermind bragging about the attacks surfaced and shut them up.

OdaSilva

The American media won't republish the controversial Mohammed cartoons for free but dangle a bundle of cash in front of them and they will print and distribute a two-page anti-war/military screed put together by a coalition of known anti-American interest groups.

Go figure.

Steve

Ryan,

I am pro-war, and believe it was right for long term geo-political reasons. But you embarass yourself and the rest of us who support the President on this. The administration appointed the 9/11 commission who subsequently stated that Iraq did not play any role whatsoever in the 9/11 attacks. Only country music and Rush Limbaugh (one of which you assuredly got your info from, many of your lines sound canned but the goat one is still funny) still make the assertion of "have you forgotten Sept. 11?"

That having been said, we made a mistake going to Iraq but leaving now is not supported by either party. The vote in congress for immediate withdrawl was something like 98-1. Those paying for the ad are only trying to influence the Nov. elections without the public being offended by their campaigning in February.
God bless you for caring Ryan, but please don't just choose specific arguments to condemn on these blogs. In your responses you seem to choose the arguments you think you can beat by making ridiculous straw man examples. For instance, if you're so glad we're at war, have YOU (not FDR, he had a med. exemption as did I) put your life on the line for Haliburton/the war on terror? If not, you may want to temper the enthusiasm a touch.
Mr. Furst, excellent topic. Lots of people excited, it's fun reading.

bobby_b

--"I am not making excuses for Saddam. He was an evil man and will get what is coming to him, but that is not an excuse for invading the country."--

Our moral differences go this deep. As he was murdering his own people in the millions, I strongly believe that this was a strong and compelling reason to invade. We didn't invade to take Iraq away from the people, but to take the people of Iraq away from Saddam. I think you deny moral codes which you normally live by, just to justify a political fight. I lose respect for the left in the presence of this nonsensical position.

quser

The advertisement in question was clearly marked as an "ad". The "Win Without War" organization is another matter. This group is really just a pseudonym for a host of "far left" groups. Looking at www.winwithoutwarus.org one quickly sees that the groups supporting this organization (which in reality comprise it, since it is a shell) includes:

Rainbow/Push Coalition
National Organization of Women
NAACP
MoveOn.org (George Soros and crew)
Greenpeace
Sierra Club (Weren't these supposed to be environmental groups??)
Veterans for Peace
etc.

There is no question about the ideological leanings of any of these groups. MoveOn.org is the political voice of George Soros who has sponsored "ads" using his own name previously.

There was nothing inappropriate about accepting the ad. I presume the PB would accept ads by the Klu Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party in a similar vein to show its non-partisanship. Okay, maybe not. But what about the Minnesotans Concerned for Life, or the Family Research Council? I suspect ads from these groups would be viewed with a much more selective lens. Or have such groups never requested an ad? I agree that the politically motivated ads a paper chooses to print do reflect on their own internal biases. In the case of this ad, that would be the far, far left. Then again, that same ideology is displayed often in the PB editorial pages with the rabid rantings of Paul Krugman, etc. Maybe that is not such a coincidence.


Bill

> Hey, why did FDR attack Germany first after JAPAN
> attacked us again?

Making stuff up again I see. Japan declared war on the US on December 7th, 1941. The US declared war on Japan on the 8th. Germany and Italy declared war on the US on the 11th and in reply later that same day the US declared war on Germany and Italy. Didn't you study US history in school?

And you seem really confused about "nuts", too. Better read up on the Battle of the Bulge.

Chad

Comparing the war in Iraq to the European front makes as much sense as attempting to link Iraq to 9/11.

Unless you were going to compare the way our soldiers treat prisoners to the way the Germans did.

Terrorism was not rampant in Iraq until we destabalized the area. I am not making excuses for Saddam. He was an evil man and will get what is coming to him, but that is not an excuse for invading the country. There were no WMD's. The Sunni and Shia do not get along. Saddam was not working with Bin Laden. The human rights violations perpetrated by the Baathist party were bad, but if we are going to invade countries because of the way they treat their own people we may as well invade China.

The sad part in all of this is thousands of young American men and women have died for no reason.

I never said to shut the hell up. I said if the cause is just and right, join the fight.

Ryan

I find it humorous that so many of the pro-war people out there have never served. If they support the war so much, maybe it is time for them to sign on the dotted line and hang their asses out for war based on lies.

Yeah, Chad. FDR had no business having an opinion on WWII, or sending soldiers into battle. Just as people who support the war who have never served should just shut the hell up. Hey, why did FDR attack Germany first after JAPAN attacked us again? I appreciate your service, Chad, thank you, but to make the claim that those of us you protected have no claim to our opinion, and our freedom to that opinion, well, you know, "NUTS." I'm sure, you'll get the historical reference. You may even find it humorous. Although I think the literal translation from German was "balls." Whatever. It all still applies. Your service doesn't give you shield, just as non-service somehow denies us one.

Chad

Jay,

We ran someting similar last year for Veterans day. Of course, I placed the list over the background of an upside down American flag.

Were some people upset? Of course. I spent a great deal of time talking to veterans and asking their opinion before I did it. Being a vet myself, I want to applaud your running the ad.

The people that are complaining, ask them if they served. I find it humorous that so many of the pro-war people out there have never served. If they support the war so much, maybe it is time for them to sign on the dotted line and hang their asses out for war based on lies.

Show me the WMD's and I will change my tune. Until then, keep running the ad.

Ryan

big Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them

Careful, Frank. You're channelling your inner Al Franken. Next thing you know, you'll be filtering money from a Boys and Girls club to fund your struggling radio program, and that would be kind of sad.

Frank Hawthorne

Wow; what much ado about such modest (paid) exercise of free speech. Usually it's the other--pro-war/conservative--side who can afford such big, clearly labeled political statements; so it's surprising to me that they/you even care. And for some to call it "Tasteless?" or "Horrifying?!?" Is it more tasteless than the endless spinning of "facts" perpetrated by the officials cited? Is that quiet listing of names more horrifying than the grim reality (for Americans and many more Iraqis) which lays behind their ever-increasing ranks? Is it more shocking for some to see truth-in-labeling applied to less-than-honest officeholders, (many of whom cynically or selfishly chose not to fight their own generation's war; either for it or against it) or to try to grasp the human cost of a conflict prosecuted by such persons (who had a pre-911 history of wanting the initiate it)...Oh Hell--as one of Minnesota's own famous sons has written--why not just wallow in the plain-speak mud of contemporary Limbaughesque discourse and "out" these big Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them.

Ryan

But it still doesn't change the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

Bill, if you were any more obtuse, you'd be a triangle. Again, officially, the Afghan Taliban leadership didn't have anything to do with 9/11, either. And, although most of the hijackers were Saudis, Saudi Arabia, officially, had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq, officially, had nothing to do with 9/11. If that's the crux of your argument, congratulations, you win; you're myopic as heck, but you win. We're not in Iraq because of 9/11. We're in Iraq as a wider policy of engaging international terrorism and attempting to change the cultural environment that fosters it.

Why don't you just stop making stuff up and stick to the facts?

Point out where I did that, and we'll go from there.

And what do any of your other points have to do with the ad anyway?

Little, beyond the fact that the P-B running the ad leaves little doubt where their biases and preconceptions lie, and they lie pretty squarely along the same lines as yours', Bill. That, and arguing on the Internet amuses me, so sometimes I'll go off on tangents just to change the reverberations in this little echo chamber.

Bill

Nice attempt to change the subject, Ryan. But it still doesn't change the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 despite people like you who keep on making claims that it did. Why don't you just stop making stuff up and stick to the facts?

And what do any of your other points have to do with the ad anyway?

Ryan

And Stephan? I don't disagree that it's entirely up to the P-B what they decide to run. They could run a two page ad about the wonders and joys of man-on-goat fornication if they want (paid for by the North American Man Goat Love Association (NAMGLA)), but they shouldn't be surprised when people start calling wondering why the P-B is a pro-bestiality newspaper. The ads a publication chooses to run speak just as loudly to bias as any opinion commentary.

Ryan

That's funny, Bill, and here I thought it was a "War on Terrorism," so, you know, against terror-supporting regimes, of which Iraq's Ba'athist regime was clearly, and flagrantly, one. But, yup, all those martydom checks sent off to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers certainly didn't encourage a cult of death or anything. Harboring known terrorists on the run from international law? Well, they were just being neighborly. A terror training facility complete with its own mock airplane for simulating hi-jackings? Well, it was only ONE airplane. That Iraq was a propaganda engine for fomenting hatred of the West in general and the United States specifically and actively encouraged 9/11-type acts? (http://ramblingrhodes.mu.nu/archives/noconnection.jpg) Hey, art's subjective!

I'm fully aware that Iraq didn't "officially" have anything to do with the aforementioned terror acts. There was no Saddam signature at the bottom of a document titled "fly planes into buildings and blow up ships and stuff." For that matter, Afghanistan didn't "officially" have anything to do with 9/11. Neither did Saudi Arabia. Or Iran. I guess the whole Middle East is innocent! Yet, strangely, 9/11 happened anyway. I guess we should have launched a couple cruise missiles into some empty tents and patiently waited for the next strike.

The comments to this entry are closed.