http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ets_for_Freedom ROXRAN, if you stop embarrassing yourself now, this thread can drop from the first page by tomorrow.
Weighing in on this thread I have no idea of whether this group is mostly made up of Iraq and Afghanistan vets or whether they really are non-partisan what does matter is that this is a group formed around an issue rather than a group that has come to an issue. As its raison d'etre is a particular stand on an issue it already has a built in bias to it. It would be equivalent to saying that we should listen to NARAL as an unbiased opinion on abortion as they are a very large group of women. Leaving that aside I don't think most people deny that soldiers shouldn't be listened but at the same time our system is predicated on civillian control and while soldiers should definately be listened to in regard to tactical and short term strategic decisions overall strategy is a matter for elected civillain leaders to decide. As free citizens soldiers certainly have a say in whether we should stay in Iraq or not but it goes against the nature of our country to say that their's is the only voice that matters.
Well put. As an aside, I do agree it is important to consider vets and current military members points of view. Yes even more so than the average person who hasn't been there. But also recognize the bias. They volunteered for the military in the 1st place. Many of them know if they don't return maybe their buddy (perhaps who has kids) will. Many of them have been injured, or seen their buddy die, and surely have seen atrocities. Of course you want to derive positive meaning from this--that overall it is a good and salvageable cause. John McCain for example still believes the primary fault in Vietnam was that we held back from full throttle + let the media get out of control + too dovish politicians despite the fact our politicos sent nearly 50K Americans to their death there). Not so surprising given what he endured there in support of his fellow soldiers, but telling in its lack of seeing the big picture (pretty much everyone except the most biased hawks recognize we never should have been involved in Vietnam). I would say give the culture and camaraderie in the military, if anywhere near 50%, even 20%, of vets and soldiers who have been there say get out of this war--that is a terrible sign for the outlook there.
I don't see the positions as mutually exclusive. Given that we should not have been involved in Vietnam, it is still possible to believe that the loss of the war was due to any one or a combination of too many restrictions placed on our military, too dovish of politicians, too slanted media coverage, the failure of the people to get behind the war, etc. This is the same mistake the left is making now. They are still talking about the reasons for going to war, while the rest of us are talking about how best to go forward. You already lost the battle on whether or not to go to war (unless you are going to hop in the wayback machine and convince Bush not to go in the first place), now is the time to discuss what to do from now on, the reasons for going to war are now irrelevant.
they're relevant because we still don't know what victory is. victory was more easily definable in vietnam. if your argument is to continue to fight, or just be there you at least need a reason. that's why we keep hopping in the way back machine to assess the reasons we're still in this crapper.
So, you're saying if my kindergartner is jumping on the couch... even after being told not to and even after a disastrous fall when she was in pre-school... and she falls off and breaks a lamp, I should only concern myself with the broken lamp... I shouldn't discuss the jumping and teach her about cause and effect because her jumping is now irrelevant and I shouldn't think about whether she would do it again. I should just live in the now and only worry about replacing the lamp.
then there's that, to these guys history is irrelevant, its the only way they can latch on till their moral authority on this war, which is ridiculous that they even think they have any
Especially when they were WRONG! And I love how it's the "Left" that won't get behind the war. 70% of America is "Left"! nice!
I could rephrase, most reasonably people in retrospect believe we shouldn't have been in Vietnam, and the sooner we would have pulled out the better. McCain seems to hold or most major fault lies in that we didn't put more ammo and lives into the region. There are differences in Vietnam and Iraq of course. But I was using this to show how being in war (and suffering) with your buddies is going to color your perceptions, you would want to derive some meaning for the service and sacrifice (yours and your buddies). Even more so if you volunteered for it. Would you most trust the people who got you in a mess to get you out of it, or would you turn to someone who had a record of better judgement, or at least who didn't sign on board on the bad decision at the time? Don't mean to derail, but McCains view's about the Vietnam War, and this war, are the most troubling things about his candicy to me. They show a pretty big bias, and one not likely to be corrected (if nearly 40 years post Vietnam--enough time to get perspective and a more objective historical view--hasn't).
I am not thrilled with the analogy, but I will work with it. I guess it would be more like if you told your daughter not to jump on the couch, but she did it anyway. While jumping on the couch, the lamp breaks and the frayed cord from the lamp is being held off of the couch by your daughter and her cat quick reflexes. Now if she gets down from the couch, she will be forced to drop the cord, and you rick the whole couch erupting in flames. At that point, it is probably not appropriate to be focusing on her decision to jump on the couch, and demanding that she get off of the couch, consequences be damned. Instead, you need to worry about stabilizing the situation by going over to the wall and unplugging the cord. Once everything is safe and secure, then you can go back to worrying about the decision to jump on the couch, in order to prevent similar couch jumpings in the future.
. . .does this include given them better health care and more benefits when they come home? Rocket River
Yes,...regarding healthcare...that is my most "liberal" position on issues...pretty much elsewhere you know where I lean...But that's another story...
Except that the decision to maintain any course of action in a democracy is dependent upon the populace's support of it. War supporters are quick to point fingers at others for failing to get behind the war but miss that in a democracy it is absolutely neccessary for the leadership to give a reason why people should support it. Much of the argument for the support of the war often seems to boil down to "Well we are in so we might as well keep it until somepoint where everthing seems fine." That is an existential argument but one that doesn't necessarily justify a continued course of action. IN regard to maintaining public support the reasons for why we are in the war are also very important and if supporters can't convince the public to overlook the reasons then the war is unsustainable.
This thread is not about T_J or ROXRAN or anybody else on this board telling any of us what is going on over there. This thread is about a group of troops...you know, the guys who have actually been over there opining. Or did they lose their "right" too?
Equal IMO. Where I tend to listedn to them more is to the extent that they have been in Iraq. The members who have not been in Iraq know nothing more than anybody on this board.
Now the whole truth comes out. While I still believe that we should listen to the people who have been in Iraq, it would help if they weren't buddies of the administration using a blog, etc. I knew I should have finished the entire thread before posting.
Ref: Certainly their opinion should be respected. As Americans who chose a career in which they would put their lives on the line for little reward apart from that which comes from serving a country we all love, I believe all troops and veterans deserve to be heard and I listen to them more closely in most cases than I do non-vets. But... This thread is not about listening to the "largest group of non-partisan vets" or whatever ROXRAN keeps claiming -- this thread is about listening to a group of vets that was specifically organized around the idea of staying in Iraq. That was this group's founding principle. The idea that they have since endorsed a policy of staying in Iraq -- an endorsement that was the entire purpose of the organization's existence in the first place -- is not especially instructive. It would be easy for a veteran to start an equally large 'non-partisan' group of vets around the idea of leaving Iraq and that group's subsequent vote to endorse a policy of leaving Iraq would be equally unremarkable. I wish there was a current and comprehensive poll of the troops that currently serve in Iraq and that have served there. The most current one we have is the Zogby one from 06, cited in this thread, in which 72% favored withdrawal. That is remarkable data. I can't even imagine those numbers coming from active duty troops at the worst moments of Vietnam. But we have no current polls of the troops on this issue. (And groups of troops formed around and of either side of the argument are a worse than poor substitute.) The only semi-current data we do have, to reflect the feelings of soldiers in the field, is public records of which candidates they have supported with cash donations. Ron Paul and Barack Obama, each of whom supports the earliest possible withdrawal, are the clear favorites of active duty troops according to that measure. That is the only current "non-partisan" or otherwise unbiased measurement of military opinion we have today. It's not surprising to me that it reflects the opinions expressed in the outdated (but still most current) poll of the troops.
