Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
scott_harpell

Iraq

Recommended Posts

I am sick of winning hearts and minds for now...

I am sick of our people dieing for the profits of a few stock holders.

I wish you good health and long life.

 

:tup: I respect that man. You were fun to climb with way back when. Oh, and thanks for the winston! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said the soldiers who died were special-ed

It's like the "troops" are in the Special Olympics or something. Jesus.

 

what? do they gain 30 IQ points before they are killed? be more carefull what you say.

 

You're misinterpreting. Prole isn't implying that soldiers are morons in special ed, but rather that one isn't to say anything critical, pointed, or in any way less than respectful about them anymore than, say, the participants in the special olympics. His rant is about the fetishization of the military, the notion that one's job choice somehow puts one into a special category that is beyond reproach. The myth that joining the military is ennobling is really just a swell recruitment tool.

 

If you take care to not take any of his jibes personally, the gist of his argument is valid and worth considering, especially since you're willing to take the time to consider anyone's points if they're arguing sincerely and with thought behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and I'll second Bug's succinct opinion.

 

Some people gripe about this thread, but I think you've started one of the more interesting threads on this topic in a long time. While you do throw in an "idiots" here and a "cum dumpster" there, I do think you're arguing at a pretty high standard and I find the things you're writing well worth reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said the soldiers who died were special-ed

It's like the "troops" are in the Special Olympics or something. Jesus.

 

what? do they gain 30 IQ points before they are killed? be more carefull what you say.

 

You're misinterpreting. Prole isn't implying that soldiers are morons in special ed, but rather that one isn't to say anything critical, pointed, or in any way less than respectful about them anymore than, say, the participants in the special olympics. His rant is about the fetishization of the military, the notion that one's job choice somehow puts one into a special category that is beyond reproach. The myth that joining the military is ennobling is really just a swell recruitment tool.

 

If you take care to not take any of his jibes personally, the gist of his argument is valid and worth considering, especially since you're willing to take the time to consider anyone's points if they're arguing sincerely and with thought behind it.

 

How do you figure I am beyond reproach? I probably have one of the most scrutinized jobs in the World. The decisions I make can only ruin me. If I make the correct snap decision, I am doing my job. If I make the wrong one, I am a murderer, and a blood lusting villian.

 

It is clear (especially after fear and greed's last post) that I am not in fact somehow protected or glorified. Rather, I am called an idiot, moron, robot, fascist ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I don't think he's talking about you personally (with regards to being protected or worshiped here), but rather the meta-conversation about soldiers and the whole "support the troops" mantra (in the US in general).

 

I don't really know what your specific job is or what exactly it entails, but from what I recall when you joined up, you're some sort of ranger/seal/elite unit sort, not a basic enlistee. I don't think you're all that scrutinized, at least from a public or media standpoint. I have no idea what your oversight from your service is like though, it'd be interesting to know more about that though. Are you subject to more review and scrutiny than a contractor working for a private security firm?

 

edited to try and make my first paragraph more clear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and I'll second Bug's succinct opinion.

 

Some people gripe about this thread, but I think you've started one of the more interesting threads on this topic in a long time. While you do throw in an "idiots" here and a "cum dumpster" there, I do think you're arguing at a pretty high standard and I find the things you're writing well worth reading.

 

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friedman's editorial in the NYT today has a similar point to the article cited by Scott. Check it out:

 

He writes of three "conflicting realities" and suggests McCain should not plan extended occupation at current levels while Obama should not plan precipitous withdrawal. The three realities:

 

The first is the mood of the American public, which has rendered a judgment that the price we have paid in Iraq over the last five years far, far exceeds what has been achieved there to date. Therefore, whoever wins the presidency — John McCain or Barack Obama — will take office knowing that the American people will not tolerate another four years dominated by an open-ended commitment to Iraq.

 

But the second is the reality on the ground in Iraq, which is no longer an unremitting horror story. Clearly, the surge has helped to dampen the internal conflict. Clearly, the Iraqi Army is performing better. Clearly, Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki, by cracking down on rogue Shiite groups from his own community, has established himself as more of a national leader. Clearly, the Sunnis have decided to take part in the coming parliamentary elections. Clearly, Kurdistan continues to operate as an island of decency and free markets. Clearly, Al Qaeda in Iraq has been hurt. Clearly, some Arab countries are coming to terms with the changes there by reopening embassies in Baghdad.

 

The third reality, though, is the fact that the reconciliation process inside Iraq — almost five years after our invasion — still has not reached a point where Iraq’s stability is self-sustaining. And Tuesday’s bombing in Baghdad, which killed more than 50 people at a bus stop in a Shiite neighborhood, only underscores that. The U.S. military is still needed as referee.

 

It still is not clear that Iraq is a country that can be held together by anything other than an iron fist. It’s still not clear that its government is anything more than a collection of sectarian fiefs.

 

NYT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

 

The last thing we want to do is to make permanent bases over there. In theory, having a force with QRF capacities would be great. But on the other hand, I feel that it would be so insigatory that any benefeit of a QRF would be lost by the increase in violence.

 

Pulling out prematurely would just ensure that we we back. Going back a second (er third ) time would almost guarantee permanent bases there to "ensure stability in the region."

 

As in everything else, moderation is the key here. Unfortunately, I don't think that we will find it in either candidates. Lesser of two evils, take 4,465,687.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think Obama's strategy in Iraq was the best for success: I believe I saw him in an interview several months ago state that withdrawing from Iraq would involve an initial troop increase, to stabilize things, and then a withdrawal. Not the precipitous withdrawal that Fox is portraying.

 

(Damn you all, I had gone up to now without clicking on this thread once. now I have read half of it and wasted 30 minutes of my life)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's Obama going to do when Bush takes out Iran's reactor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally think Obama's strategy in Iraq was the best for success: I believe I saw him in an interview several months ago state that withdrawing from Iraq would involve an initial troop increase, to stabilize things, and then a withdrawal.

 

without a timeline on that... how is it different than what is and has gone on? the surge to stabilize then withdrawal...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally think Obama's strategy in Iraq was the best for success: I believe I saw him in an interview several months ago state that withdrawing from Iraq would involve an initial troop increase, to stabilize things, and then a withdrawal. Not the precipitous withdrawal that Fox is portraying.

 

(Damn you all, I had gone up to now without clicking on this thread once. now I have read half of it and wasted 30 minutes of my life)

 

You mean the surge that is already in place and working?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really believe that Obama has no real idea what he is going to do to get out of Iraq. It isn't as simple as "yer all going home!"

 

It seems like a lot of his policies are like that. He is like the guy running for class president that states, "we will have one friday off every week and free soda from the ending machines!"

 

Nice ideas, but I would like to see how he plans to impliment them. If anyone can point me in the direction of some of his ideas, I would appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really believe that Obama has no real idea what he is going to do to get out of Iraq. It isn't as simple as "yer all going home!"

 

I'd rather take a chance on a newcomer than stay with the proven failures of the existing pres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really believe that Obama has no real idea what he is going to do to get out of Iraq. It isn't as simple as "yer all going home!"

 

I'd rather take a chance on a newcomer than stay with the proven failures of the existing pres.

 

That is not the question mouse. Such a tired diatribe to fall back upon the same tired monologue sang in unison by the members of the church of democrats. GWB is not McCain anymore than Obama is JFK.

 

I know it hurts, but it is hte truth. First step is acceptance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCain will be surrounded by the fools of W, the same ones that have created this political disaster in Iraq.

 

And as far as an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, well after so many years there, the Iraqis have not taken the ball and run with it. Our soldiers should not be kept in harms way trying to support the disasterous policies of lame duck W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×