Kerry says our troops are "Terrorizing" Iraqi Children

so you're a veteran of iraq or any other war?

 

IIRC he was declined for being too much of a fat ass.

 

Of course he was. His comments are almost identical to a Red Cross report that states the following.

What exactly are you upset about? ARe you upset because our troops did this? Or Are you upset that Kerry mentioned that our troops did this?

I ask you which would strengthen insurgents resolve more, having troops come in to your house and beating on elderly and children with their rifles, or John Kerry talking about that on television thousands of miles away.

 

Just for kicks, I will defend him, even though he speaks very poorly.

Suggesting that John Kerry is calling our troops terrorists is a misunderstandong or distorion of what he is trying to communicate. Like Kerry, most of us objectors do not hate America, do not hate our troops, and do not want us to lose the war. To engage in thoughtful or sophisticated debate about the subject, it is important to resist the temptation to demonize opponents by grafting words and sentences into a different context.

When he says "terrorizing children" or whatever, I do not believe he is saying that they are maliciously chasing down kids and scaring them. The point I belive he is Kerry-ishly trying to communicate is this: our troops are in an extremely hazardous and unenviable situation - the plans for dealing with the internal, practicalities of Iraq are flawed on a fundamental level - we are protecting people who we do not understand. The people we are trying to protect do not understand us, to the point that our actions are scaring them, and possibly even turning them against us. By involving ourselves in a personal, urban battle of people who we do not understand - due to poor planning by our leadership - we are putting our men and women in an unenviable position - the people who were supposed to "greet us as liberators" do not trust us. They do not know what we are doing, and, in fighting an urban war, we end up in weird places doing weird things. And from there, we become increasingly in conflict that we are ill-prepared to fight. We are interfering with sensitive stuff that is not best handled by our military personnel. And that is a problem.

I mean, I think that is what he is getting at. And it is a valid point.

One other point: I would like to share something personal for a moment. I work at a VA Hospital in PTSD, and I interact professionally with a pretty broad cross section of returning vets on a regular basis - some fairly sensitive issues.

From this perspective, I always find it disturbing when people patronize active military personnel by implying the dissent - even harsh dissent - is in some way a "slap in the face". I will not suggest that I know exactly what our army personnel think, nor would I be so bold as to refer to "our troops" as having one outlook or groupthink. They are diverse.

But damn, they are not stupid, and I think that talking about Howard Dean damaging their morale or "John Kerry spitting in the faces of our men and women..." is really patronizing, as if our troops are so unsophisticated and brittle, and can not wrap their heads around the concept of a democratic debate. I mean, Kerry gives me the snoozes as much as the next guy, but our troops are not these mindless fundamentalist morons who can not see both sides of an issue, or get dispirited when people are arguing at home to what is right. Suggesting that we dont talk about the realities, good and bad, of this effort because "it sends the wrong message" implies that our service personnel understand precisely zilch about democracy. And I find that very misguided. Attempting to understand and articulate the truth is not spitting in anyone's face. But racing to label any sort of discussion as "treasonous" on behalf of the troops is really presumptuous, and to my ears exploitative. And incorrect. My exeprience with "troops" is that they are a little less weak-minded and quick-to-be-demoralized than that.

From my angle, they can take it, regardless of their political position. Personally, I'd be annoyed with all these civilian Chat-Room Commandos speaking for me, telling people what is "the right message to send to our troops." Easy to say from the comfort of a T1 line and a cozy chair.

 

excellent post CB, very well said...

 

Very well stated.

 

Actually I am the one who's own father fought in WWII, and has a nephew that leaves for Iraq in March. I do support troops. I especially support troops who do their duty in the face of great adversity. I've said before that the brave soldier who reported the abuses going on at Abu Ghraib should receive a medal. It is hard to report wrong doing by your own soldiers especially when you know them personally and work with them. That took a lot of courage, and that soldier did the right thing. I believe he deserves a medal.

I have talked about it before, but haven't seen any other war supporters back the idea. It was either TJ or texxx that actually criticized that soldier and demeaned his carrying out his duty.

If you want to see or hear more stories about successes in Iraq try listening to NPR.

Just the other day I heard about a story about one party that is so loving of democracy they elect their party leaders and try to run everything about their party by using democracy. He said that he believes that as discussions in parliament occur Iraqis will gain a better understanding of true democracy.

He also said he doesn't want the Americans to leave until the Iraqis can definitely protect their democracy.

There was also the NPR story about the commander of one prison in Iraq that was very differently run than Abu Graihb. Almost all of their stories contain at least some mention of successes.

 

where's Mr "I was enlisted in the army so I can call anyone who criticizes the war jack asses"???

 

***CAUTION*** DO NOT READ IF YOU HATE COMMON SENSE***


Has anyone ever watched a documentary ( by a reporter Nic Robertson who was embedded with the troops). There was this one part where the soldiers were frantically looking for a suspected insurgent hiding in a house and they had to take the family outside to search and they showed these two little children crying...completely scared out of their mind.

What Kerry was saying is that because of this Adminstration's lack of a post war plan, it left our soldiers fighting an urban war they werent prepared for. Because of the woeful planning and lack of understanding it has caused the soldiers to take these tactics to protect themselves, which has inadvertently terrified children and caused Iraqis to be even more suspect of our presence there. As Kerry goes on to say, having Iraqis search homes for hiding terrorists ( or more likely) Iraqi insurgents, it would lessen the hate for our soldiers and possibly help civilians there understand the purpose of those raids....

Kerry definitely has a convoluted way of speaking but what he said makes perfect sense if you are willing to look at an issue with a little nuance rather than just try to make everything into a black and white, right and wrong bull**** fest. Unfortunately, some of you cant get enough of the bull****. Sometimes I wish I could just fight you all in a queensbury ruled boxing match to literally knock that **** out of you... Though I guess the **** wouldnt be literal...the knocking would. Did anyone know that it was Sylvester Stallone's real son in Rocky 5 ? It was... the movie sucked though.

 

For the purpose of conversation, let's pretend for a moment that the troops are in fact terrorizing the Iraqis. Is this something that Kerry should come out and say, knowing full well that it will do the following:

1) Give aid and comfort to the enemy
2) Demoralize the troops by letting them think that Americans back home aren't valuing their efforts
3) Humiliate the families of the troops, by giving them the signal that Americans are scornful of their loved ones' actions
4) Spit on the graves of the Americans who have died for the war effort

How can anyone think that Kerry's words were anything less than reckless? (they were more likely treasonous)

 

'Tis the treason to be folly...

 

How many messengers have you shot?

1. How will it give aid and comfort to the enemy? Most of the enemy are Iraqis who don't want us there, and may think we make a routine of torture, and rounding up innocents. Someone coming out and saying that those aren't ideals and we should stop that, might actually feel less inclined to fight against us.

As for the rest of it, the problem isn't in factually stating that something there have been mistakes. The problem is in committing those mistakes in the first place. If nobody had done those things and there was no report about it, then Kerry nor anybody else would have said a word.

The problem isn't that Kerry said it happened, but that it happened. Inspiring fight out of the enemy is ten times as likely to happen because their parents, children, uncles, etc. are pulled out of their beds in the middle of the night, and beaten with rifles.

I brought this up before. Our British allies who are doing their duty had training on this. What happens when troops come into a home where women should not be seen without the proper attire including head covering is that the men will try and block the troops in order to allow the women to be dressed decently. The men who try to block the soldiers are seen by them as possibly hiding terrorists or bombs etc. Naturally they get on edge, and may handcuff or hit the men, etc.

It is sad and doesn't need to happen, because it is all from a lack of understanding. The British who have been trained in how to deal with that, have had far fewer problems than the American soldiers. If we want our soldiers to have fewer problems while serving over there, we should address the problem.

 

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

--Bertrand Russell

 

Feeling a little grumpy this morning?

 

Nic Robertson was one of group of CNN reporters under Eason Jordan who deliberately ignored Saddam Hussein's atrocities.

Meanwhile, some things are inevitable - death, taxes, and John Kerry supporting our troops.

April 22, 1971
"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

 

Clearly what is happening here is that support for Bush is down, support for the war is down, and Republicans are being investigated for corruption left and right, so any straws that can be grasped to make Democrats look bad are being choked until they fuse together.

 

Didn't Rumsfeld, Reagan, and Bush Sr deliberately ignored Saddam Hussein's atrocities as well?

 

if you're a liberal, not all child terrorizing is bad...

 

You make the assumption that it will "Give aid and comfort to the enemy," but I have seen no evidence whatsoever that words like Kerry's affect the insurgents in Iraq at all. How many of them are watching C-Span on a daily basis?

The idiots that actually believe this deserve to be demoralized. Anyone with a brain can see that the criticism is directed at the leadership, not the troops.

I have not seen a single family member who has claimed that they were humiliated by any criticism of the war, much less the criticism that is directed at the leadership, not the troops.

Is there any limit to the vile, vitriolic, poisonous language you will use to disparage anyone critical of the war? Not a single person that I have seen or heard speak about the war has come close to "Spit[ting] on the graves of the Americans who have died for the war" save people like you who constantly claim that war critics are doing it.

Not well chosen, to be sure, but when you are reading a report generated by someone else, it is best to quote that report as close to verbatim as possible.