Anderson Cooper This is good news. I am glad it was reported this way. Hopefully this thing will be over soon. I will be out of a job, but it is best for the soliders...
Awesome story. This is what many conservatives here have been trying to impart on the liberals for so long. The people that say that the troops are doing nothing good in Iraq and that their morale is rock bottom are simply flat wrong, according to this piece. adeelsiddiqui, I hope you read this story.
Since when is praising the troops for their brave actions considered "mindless drivel"? free your mind, TMac640 - step out of your negative liberal confines
Though the troops are often good indivuduals and do individual acts of kindness to Iraqis at times, Still an illegal war. Not worth it. Has made our country less safe from terrorism. Has made us loathed throughout the world. Has weakened our country's miliatary. Has weakened our long term economic prospects. Bush and Cheney would be at Nuremburg if we weren't so powerful.
My brother-in-law is on his way as I type back to Iraq for his 2nd tour. I'll say old George is the greatest think since sliced bread if it will get the troops out of there. Problem is I don't think the troops are going anywhere, except maybe Syria or Iran.
We all agree that there are some positives to this war. No one is dissing those. No one is dissing the soldiers. Everyone WANTS iraq to be successful and to be an area with no terror. Everyone wants the soldiers to be safe. I dont see the big deal about this "article" there are many positives that the media doesnt portray, true. Thats because the news we get is more of an entertainment thing. We cant possibly get every good story, just like we cant get every bad story. But all things said, there is still more bad than good coming out of this war.
"Often good?" "At times?" Your wording there is quite sickening. Really. Those brilliantly fine individuals are there to protect you and your way of "life" whether you acknowledge their choices to serve you and the rest of nation in that capacity or not. And don't spout off that the soldiers "did not sign up for a war." No one does, yet the majority of soldiers now in action signed up, deliberatly, intentionally, after the fateful day in lower Manhattan. Remember that? That congress voted on and approved by a huge margin to go into. So is everyone who voted "yes" in the conspiracy? Have we elected so many criminals into office? On both sides of the aisle? Each with the same reports and intel in hand that the President had? Forgetful much? Yet congress funded, and re-funded it. So there again, our elected officials on both sides of the aisle are fiscally irresponsible. Or are they, were they before partisan bickering got involved, united in a decision to protect every American's freedom rather than continue to send the messages of former administrations that we will not retaliate? I'm sure the funding approved repeatedly proves that our nation's freedom is fully "worth it." By taking out a terrorist sympathetic dictatorship, or two. Remember that guy on trial right now? Remember they found him hiding in a spider hole? Remember that now the nation he once ran with fear is participating in a democratic election as we speak? Any advancement of democracy on the entire globe makes every democratic nation safer, including ours (the one that seems to have to take the lead in defending these freedoms for the whole world). The "less safe" in this time frame would be the terror cells, OBL, and those types. Not the willing defenders of liberty and democracy. Well actually, we already had that status in much of the Arab and socialist government run world. Forget the cold war? Do you realize that many former soviet nations are heading back to that system? Do you think it's because they loved our way of government and life all along? Do you remember being called the "great Satan" in the early '80's by the Ayatollah? Things have only remained the same, yet it seems worsened because we have exponentially increased our media's size, and we hear more of the same from several different outlets per day. We've been loathed since we signed the Declaration of Independence. Countries without an understanding of our systems and freedoms, that are ignorant of how we run will always loathe our differences. This is why we must work to prove that democracy and free enterprise such as we enjoy can help elevate miserable nations to the level of enjoyable existence we now experience. Ignorance is often the cause of fear. Fear is often a motivator to hatred. I on the other hand, am afraid of the ignorance of people that do not realize just how good America has it, and make snide remarks such as these from within it's borders. Kids in grade school loath the kid who has more than them, unless they get to know how, or why, or come into a place in their lives to also have as much... so why would it surprise you to see other ideologies and liberty-deprived nations loathe us... and try and say it is somehow worse than before? Realize this, in America ANY religion is free to practice it's belief. You cannot say that about most countries that loathe us. Combine this with America's ability to make a change in our personal economic status, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps if you will... which also many countries that loathe us cannot say on the individual citizen level, and it becomes even clearer. Ignorance is not bliss always. Many times it breeds hate. Nice typo, but I think our military is actually more battle-readied, and have more advanced weaponry as a result of this conflict. I could be wrong. But I highly doubt it. While you may be referring to casualties and death toll, you (meaning all anti-war types) are still failing to see that we did not start this war... and it would be the cowardly, un-American response to not finish the job. That would slap the memories of intial 3000 lost in the face. Furthermore, we have gained allies in this cause whether you admit it or not, and are helping with the training of an entire new military in the process. Could morale be low? Possibly. But I doubt it is as low as the picture often painted.. which is opposite of this thread's beginning - something which I am aware you do not want to admit is a positive report. It begins to seem that you truly deep down must want to see America fail and faulter, becoming weakened and turning over control to a global controlling panel of socialists, but it will not happen any time soon. The good guys are winning. You may not hate them, but you belittle them in your opening sentiment. By making Americans feel safe enough at home to send housing purchases to an all time high, spurring an economic upswing in which more jobs are created in every quarter of late... despite several major hurricanes during the same time frame, will NOT serve to weaken the economy in the long term. Supply and demand would be some terms to refamiliarize youreself with. The sheer numbers of new homes being built totally shuts down the idea that we were ever in a recession, depression or have a slump going on. Furthermore, our worldwide trade numbers will continue to be the numbers that dictate the world's markets as more and more of the world's people that still want a chance at the American dream come here in search of that dream. And as our indigenous citizens continue to raise families and reproduce, spreading into the vast amounts of untouched, undeveloped land to establish new communities and live as they choose, freely... they will still be the planet's largest consumers, solidifying our global market share for centuries to come. Which would further prove you don't know youre Geneva Convention 101. When have literal war crimes, the likes of Saddam and Hitler been committed? Please understand that Bush and Cheney have acted, once again, with full approval of the US Congress... an entity much bigger and more powerful than the sitting US President. Remember that the President may sign, or veto... but that Congress can still take the steps to reverse any presidential actions, including acts of war. And, again, if you speak of "torture" or "interrogation practices" that were isolated, and you are still of the mind to think the President is fully aware of every choice that officers and soldiers in the field make... you do not understand war, chain of command, micro vs. macro, ect. I cannot re-educate someone that chooses to remain unteachable on the intricacies of secrecy, protocol, need-to-know basis, black-ops, ect... most of which the common citizen would not know of anyhow unless that citizen has ties to the military, which in any case they should not know much of for the sake of national security. When, and after, a situation arises on an individual-choice-and-its-consequences level that the higher chain of command needs to be advised on, that is when it begins to be filtered up to the President. The POTUS is not notified of issues at that level, nor is he trained in interrogation prior to taking the position of Commander-in-Chief so that he may "make the call" to take such action. Anyone who believes the opposite, again, is beyond help. A principal at a local high school is not even the one who "calls shots" in every case where discipline is needed in a classroom. Sure there are administration policies in place, but that cannot foresee every heat-of-the-moment case, on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes school boards get into hot water over the actions of an individual educator, too... but it does not mean they are/were aware or by any means "called for" the behavior. Sorry I couldnt keep my repsonses as flippant and smug as the provocation. I just felt a need to prove that we are thinking when we support our President, Congress and just might like to hear good news reported from the front lines. What is so hard to agree with about good news from the front? Really? It must be a sad, lonely, depressed existence to not like good news. It would also serve every smug anti-Bush person here well to stop the smug "I hate Bush" rhetoric. We know you do. Know acknowledge what the thread is about for a change. Now smile about the good news. I dare you.
Wow. You're like the anti-MacBeth. While he used way too many words in this forum to make perfectly valid points, you use even more to parrot party lines. If MacBeth were still here it would make great sense to call you Duncan. He's not though. That weird German stalker ran him off. I guess we'll just have to call you dummy.
Seeing as how that really contributed to the discussion and addressed the points of the thread, I've reported your personal attack. I am no defender of other posters (in general) as I see it is usually not my business. But I have turned, turned, turned, and turned my other "cheeks" for quite some time with you now. I have yet to find any personal attack on my political choices, intellect, level of education, religious beliefs or the like funny or civil by any strecth of the imagination. I furthermore have grown quite tired of seeing every normal thread where civil discussion is on going be totally derailed and destroyed because of your attacks on others. Please advise as to why it is acceptable for you to behave in this manner and not for others?
ITATTLE it: Trust me. Nobody would like to clear this up more than me, but I can't discuss an ongoing investigation.
Always check the time on Beejster's posts....after 2am, he likes to get a little drunk, insult people and dish out hate.
For the record. I love good news. I think it is great. I wish it were more widespread. Soldiers in general are around to protect our way of life, and defend America. However, Iraq wasn't a threat to our way of life or our security. There are several things that are factually wrong with this paragraph. 1. Congress did not go to war. In fact our president stood before congress and told them that the vote was to keep the peace. 2. Congress did not have all the same intel that the President had, and more importantly congress did not get a chance to look at the reliability of the evidence that they did have. For instance evidence that said one piece of intel was unreliable, and the person who made the statement made it under torture, and had know way of knowing what he claimed he knew. Yet congress was told that the piece of evidence was reliable. Will understanding these facts instead of the misinformation you had before change your stance at all? Of course congress funded it. They aren't going to leave our troops high and dry. But once again fighting in Iraq isn't protecting America's freedom. Please show me where America's freedom was ever a threat from Iraq. Saddam was far from sympathetic to terrorists, Especially OBL and al Qaeda. We've been loathed since we signed the declaration of Independence? You can't be serious. America has been one of the most respected leaders in the world in the issue of human rights, freedom, and spreading democracy. Around the world we were respected if not liked or both. Obviously there were some nations that didn't like us, but even those generally had respect for us. The good guys are winning? Really? How much land to we have stabilized in Iraq? Which parts are we able to control? We can't even control a 10 mile strip from the airport to the greenzone. You spout a bunch of Patriotic rhetoric that might be fine if your support of torture didn't belie the sentiment. It is not American to endorse torture. Hearing good news is great. I have no problem with that. It is tasty fish in a polluted sea of bad news and ill deeds.
WE'RE LOOKING FOR A FEW GOOD REFUSENIKS Tue Dec 6, 8:11 PM ET NEW YORK--"Support the Troops, Oppose Their Actions," reads the oxymoronic headline of an April 2005 essay at antiwar.com. In a column titled "Support Our Troops, Not Our President," liberal columnist Richard Reeves worries about Iraq war vets: "They will come home to be called 'torturers,' as Vietnam vets were called 'baby killers.'" To avoid repeating the supposed excesses of the '60s peace movement, today's antiwar groups praise the soldiers fighting the wars they abhor. "What if they gave a war," a poster of the Vietnam era asked, "and nobody came?" If we are, as Jean-Paul Sartre posited, defined by our actions, most of the blame for the murder of more than 100,000 Iraqis belongs to our top government officials. But Bush's armchair warriors couldn't have invaded Iraq without a compliant and complicit United States military--one that, it should be noted, is all volunteer. These individuals, who enjoy free will, fire the guns and drop the bombs. If personal responsibility is to have any meaning, the men and women of our armed forces have to be held individually accountable for the carnage. "Supporting our troops while opposing their actions may seem contradictory," argues Joshua Frank in the antiwar.com article. "The duties of U.S. soldiers in Iraq are wrong and many may be committing horrible crimes against humanity. True. But soldiers are mostly not bad people (though, of course, some are)." How is a person who voluntarily commits "horrible crimes against humanity" not a "bad person"? Even if U.S. forces were not violating the rules of war in Iraq--torturing, maiming and murdering POWs, robbing and subjecting civilians to collective punishment, dropping white phosphorus and depleted uranium bombs on civilian targets--the war itself, based on false pretenses and opposed by the United Nations, would remain a gross violation of American and international law. Soldiers, they say, must obey orders. However, "just following orders" wasn't an acceptable excuse at the Nuremberg trials, where the charges included waging a war of aggression. Do our government's poorly paid contract killers deserve our "support" for blindly following orders? Not according to the military itself. The U.S. Army's "Law of Land Warfare," taught in basic training, says that U.S. troops must always refuse an unlawful order--one that violates the Constitution or other U.S. laws, is not reasonably linked to military necessity or is issued by someone without the proper authority. Even passivity in the face of wrongdoing breaks military law. "If you are responsible for what's going on around you, and it is going unlawfully, and you know that [and] do nothing about it, I'm going to prosecute you," says Bill Eckhardt, a retired army colonel and professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law who prosecuted most of the perpetrators of the My Lai massacre. "So basically, you've gotta be a whistleblower." Congress never declared war against Iraq. As an unelected imposter, George W. Bush did not enjoy authority under the War Powers Act to commit American forces abroad. Concentration camps at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere violate the Geneva Conventions, which as treaty obligations are binding under U.S. law. Iraq did not threaten the United States. Iraq is not the subject of a U.N.-led international police action. Thus, by several measures, the war is illegal. Every order to deploy a soldier, aviator or sailor to fight in Iraq is by definition an unlawful order, one that he or she is legally and morally bound to refuse. What are members of the military to do? They should certainly refuse to applaud when Bush uses them as backdrops to his logo-ridden pro-death pep rallies. Moreover, just as Muslim leaders were pressured to speak out against Islamist extremists after 9/11, soldiers ought to step forward to condemn the atrocities at Bagram, Fallujah and Guantánamo in letters to newspapers and other public venues. The military used to be an honorable calling. Not under Bush. Ethical Americans considering a military career should seek a civilian job until a lawful, elected government has been restored in Washington and we have withdrawn our forces from occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. Those who are already enlisted should refuse to reenlist. Soldiers trapped by "stop loss" orders should apply for conscientious objector status (which is difficult to obtain) or refuse deployment based on the unlawful order principle. And if all else fails, there's always desertion. "They set up a roadblock with a sign in Arabic that says 'Stop or you'll be shot,'" 22-year-old Darrell Anderson told PBS' "NewsHour" about his seven-month tour of duty in Iraq. "This is a third world country. How many people can read? And I was in that situation: The family didn't stop, stopped in front of me. I was ordered to fire. I refused and said, 'The window's rolled down.' And I said, 'Look, there's children in the back.' There's a family. I did the right thing. They said, 'No you didn't. Next time you will open fire or you'll be punished.' Should I go to prison because I can't kill women and children?" Anderson fled to Canada, which is considering extraditing him back to the United States. Even if he ends up in a military prison, Anderson will have made the correct choice. Rather than running around shouting that they "support the troops," opponents of the Iraq war ought to tell soldiers that fighting an illegal war is wrong. Rather than feeding their guilt for the supposed sins of the '60s antiwar movement by wallowing in phony jingoism, they ought to encourage members of the military to make the same difficult decision as the 5500 soldiers who have deserted or gone AWOL under Bush and the more than 250 who have applied for C.O. status. By the way, as Jerry Lembcke found in his book "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" (1998), there's no reason for antiwar types to feel guilty over the treatment of Vietnam vets--there's no evidence of any kind that anyone ever spat on a Vietnam veteran or called one a "baby killer." Those stories only began appearing after the 1982 release of "Rambo: First Blood:" "It wasn't my war--you asked me, I didn't ask you...and I did what I had to do to win," says Sylvester Stallone's character. "Then I came back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting on me, calling me a baby-killer." Pure fiction. Chris Clarke (full disclosure: Clarke served as editor for a defunct publication that ran my cartoons) recalls a different reality: "In the 1960s and '70s, antiwar activists opened coffeehouses near military bases to provide soldiers with troubled consciences places to spend a few off-duty hours in like-minded company. We harbored deserters and AWOLs. We wrote letters to GIs, sent them care packages, grieved over them when they joined the damnable body counts announced on the Five O'Clock Follies." OK, lefties? You can drop the "support the troops" shtick now. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/200512...HD9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
"Often good?" "At times?" Yep. At other times we torture and kill innocents. That congress voted on and approved by a huge margin to go into. Wars are illegal if not approved by the UN. This is generally accepted international law. I can understand how you, along with the Bush folks prefer to ignore international law. Yet congress funded, and re-funded it. ... I'm sure the funding approved repeatedly proves that our nation's freedom is fully "worth it." Many in Congress are starting to agree with the majority of the American people who say it "isn't worth it". Each day more and more admit that they made a mistake. Congress did not have the true info that the President's folks held back from them. By taking out a terrorist sympathetic dictatorship, or two. Remember that guy on trial right now? The CIA and other knowlegeable experts outside the Administration now say that Iraq has become a top training base for terrorists when it wasn't before. Well actually, we already had that status in much of the Arab and socialist government run world. Forget the cold war? We've been loathed since we signed the Declaration of Independence. Now you are being uninformed and paranoid. I am, however, surprised that you think that the whole world has always hated the Declaration of Independence. Actually the world hates our bullying foreign policy. They like us more when we don't act like such bullies. Polling shows a dramtic decrease in positive feelings toward Americans since we started the Iraq War. you (meaning all anti-war types) are still failing to see that we did not start this war... Are you now claiming that Sadam attacked us. BTW we are talking about the Iraq War. Sadam and Iraq did not order 9/11/ Even President has admitted that publicly, though he frequently deceives on this issue. I cannot re-educate someone that chooses to remain unteachable on the intricacies of secrecy, protocol, need-to-know basis, black-ops, ect... most of which the common citizen would not know of anyhow unless that citizen has ties to the military, which in any case they should not know much of for the sake of national security. Stop you might endanger national security. I might have to report you to Homeland Security. As far as you not being flip, I think your heartfelt, though IMHO misguided sentiments came through.
Once again bigtexxx refuses to remark on the substance but instead makes unsupported accusations against a poster. Would you consider yourself someone who has "style"?
Agreed. Are you going to be in NY for the holidays? I will be making a trip up there and wouldn't mind a clutch gettogether at some point, if NY folks aren't booked up or out of town sometime between dec. 26th and dec. 31st.
