**Patriotic Retirement**

[Gussie2000]

I've been reading this thread and while I don't usually like to get into the politics threads, I felt I had to put in my two cents with this one.

The way people in our government have twisted this to be a matter of democracy and humanitarianism after all the follies that have. taken place really pisses me off. I have two family members and one best friend in the middle east right now. As much as I have pride in them for their choice to serve, the idea that they could die in this farce we keep pimping as a benefit for us or the world in general really pisses me off to no end.

To point fingers and call people liberals or hippies based on agreement/disagreement over this war is complete herd mentality and quite absurd.

All of us LEGAL American people live, work, die, serve and pay a LOT of friggin taxes. We pay the salaries of all the people who led us into this on completely false and fabricated pretenses. Period. This war will wind up costing us trillions of dollars, thousands of loved ones, and much of our reputation as the defenders of liberty and freedom. This is about strategic motives, a personal quack vendetta, corporate greed (in the form of no-bid contracts and private military) and commerce.

You know what it's gotten us so far? About 5000 more dead loved ones on top of the nearly 3500 lost on 9/11 and a whole bunch more brainwashed extremists and recent converts chomping at the bit to kill Americans. Not to mention the disdain we've come to bear for essentially saying we don't give a rats *** what everyone else in the world thinks, we're doing it anyway.

If humanitarianism, democracy, liberty, human rights, love, peace, people, or tyrants had anything to do with this we would have been in the congo and Darfur WAY before this crap ever happened. The ironic thing about that are so many of those people DO love the United States and what it stands for, are Catholic/Christian, and would ALSO make a good base of operations for point jumps into the middle east. Why didn't we go there? There were no economic, political, or natural resource reasons to do so. Interesting how that works.

Let's see. That's just first in my mind. There's also, Tibet, North Korea, Iran and much of South America that would have been good places to start.

North Korea HAS weapons of mass destruction. Iran more than likely HAS biological weapons and is very close to either obtaining or creating their own nuclear weapon.

If we had gone to war in ANY one of those places with a truly thought out, through and through strategy, and been given one of the reasons (and proved beforehand) stated above as catalyst, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me.

Iraq was masterfully used and so well played on the feelings and rage of the American public over our loss that no one even questioned it at the time.

We went into Afghanistan for all of 30 friggin minutes before the last administration saw their window to do what they did. It was a perfect storm of public outrage at muslims, terrorism (parlayed onto saddam hussein) and fear of an even greater, more awful attack (with weapons of mass destruction, I mean, come on, who wouldn't fear that).

We for the most part abandoned Afghanistan AGAIN (which by the way is pretty much the entire reason that so many in the middle east hate us in the first place. Ever since we pumped up their hopes in the 80's, supplied them with weapons to fight a back-seat war with the Russians and then abandoned them all after the war and the warlords and taliban took over), took our "fight on terrorism" into Iraq, and conveniently, in so many sheep-*** people's minds somehow made Osama Bin Laden, Afghanistan and Iraq and Saddam all one and the same.

Look through the last administration's cabinet, partnerships and advisors and see how many you can find were somehow benefitting from this war. If it's not 60-70 percent of the closest and most powerful confidants to the president, you either aren't looking hard enough or you just don't want to see the truth.

You are completely blind and fooling yourself if you think for one second there was any single bit of the ideas that America was founded on behind this giant fleece of a war. We were all played, and every single one of us, from the most staunch republican to the most marxist liberal should be mad as hell. FURIOUS!

"I believe that as a society, we are beginning to lose touch on what it means to be an American, we were not founded by peace loving hippies, or people who believed life should be fair, that is called socialism. We were founded by people who buster their *** to build a life for themselves with no help from anyone else, and they were willing to die and/or kill for what they created."

You might want to go pick up a history book that wasn't written in the Land of Dixie.

This country WAS found many people who by your standards "hippies" Go look up Quaker religion, also, look up why the first pilgrims came here in the first place. You'll also find that many of our founding fathers were tradesmen and masons, many of them not religious at all. Quite a few of them were inventors and men of science. They founded this country on the belief that there should be peace and liberty for all people within her borders. That those who should find themselves persecuted (by the church ironically) should find the freedom and safety to practice their beliefs here without a cast eye. That we may not always agree, but that there would be a set of laws that would govern instead of religion. That when that peace or liberty should be threatened that we all have the right to bear arms and fight for it. Not to go out into the world and make war for out own agenda, but rather to protect others and offer them the means of democracy as we have found it.

That's not to say that so many of those founders weren't religious, just that having been persecuted themselves, they KNEW that religion is not always of a clear mind and should not enter into the equation in the governance of law.

Sounds an awful lot like "hippies" to me.

Course, Jesus, by modern standards would also be a tree-hugging, bum-***, liberal hippy. If most of us saw him on the street we'd probably tell him to get a job.

As far as I go, I think we went from the tenants of capitalism fueled by the idea of lifting anyone willing to do a hard days work to straight up greed and the willingness to sell out anyone and everything in the name of one more dollar in the corporate coffers. I think we too often don't stand up for what's right, but for what's comfortable, convenient and profitable. That we too often worry about what's going on outside our borders instead of what's going on inside them. That we have sold our morals, stopped walking in the other guys shoes, and have ditched all semblance of honor, dignity and respect for our fellow man and neighbors. Most of the most giving, hard working, trustworthy and dignified people I have known have been least well to do. I believe that as American's we owe it to the rest of the world and to ourselves to set examples of liberty, prosperity, compassion and respect. Even when in disagreement we should be able to take a view from the other side. we need to get out more and meet more people. Different people, and often times, people that don't have the same views as us. It only makes us richer as a people. I think anytime this ideal is challenged, we should meet with with strong disagreement and subtle, strong willed diplomacy. When this ideal is threatened, it should be met with methods of making clear that we will not be put into the position of compromising those beliefs. When it is attacked we meet it with swift, intelligent, strategic and unrelenting force.

Being reasonable, thoughtful and restrained is not the same as bending over and pulling down your pants.

As far as the topic of the post, I do wish there were a clear and easy path forward with regards to the economy and the recent troubles we see. Unfortunately that's not the case, if it were, we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place. I say give the man a fair shake, he's been in office all of three months. I don't want to see less rights, bigger government and more debt anymore than the next guy, but sometimes the gotta burn the brush to save the trees, and if you think that 600 dollar "refund" you got last year was somehow making the last 8 years any better, you might wanna take another look at the big picture.

We've tried it the other way, let's give these guys a chance too, and if that doesn't work, let's vote them ALL out next time around. I think the status quo has gone on far too long. I do feel that the man himself is trying to do things more to the middle but is essentially being screwed by not only his opponents but his own party. Like it or not. All those people on capitol hill are the same. They all have the perks, the cushy job and the power to make things happen the way THEY want them too. I mean, isn't it a giant wad of guey spit in you face that they manage to vote themselves a raise every single year including this year and the last three while we all struggle and the minimum hasn't been raised in eons?

Cheers,
technocoy

You make it very clear
Thank you !

[Bulldoggie]

You make it very clear
Thank you !

I found this post well thought out also. Thanks Technocoy

A comparison of choosing between Republican and Democratic Polticians,
is like choosing between Pepsi and Coke.
They both have their fair share of bad taste and health.

[circmand]

I found this post well thought out also. Thanks Technocoy

A comparison of choosing between Republican and Democratic Polticians,
is like choosing between Pepsi and Coke.
They both have their fair share of bad taste and health.

Though I would have said they both taste good initially but both are very bad for you.

[tomdietrying]

circmand,

Point 1 - I realize every country has got to where they are by destroying another country. I have seen what we have done to gain our our presence in the world. When I was younger, I didn't give a s2h3t. Now that I'm older, smarter, and wiser, I choose to look at it different. I just don't see it as being right.

Point 2/3- How did Saadam get to power? Who gave him the weapons? Who gave him permission? Answer to all three - We did. Don't pretend we did not know what he was doing.

A country, by the rules of war, cannot invade a soveriegn nation because it feels like it. That's a war crime.

Point 4 - I hold everyone responsible for us going to to Iraq, but Cheney/Bush get most of the credit for taking us there because they were the CEOs of the country. You seem to act they had nothing to do with it. They had everything to do with it.

Point 5 - I guess integrity is a value that doesn't sound very important to you. There are many people who never obtain it. I just hope more than half the world has it than doesn't have it.

Point 6 - Reading through your post, you didn't deny voting for Bush twice. If I made a wrong accusation about you voting for Bush both times, I'll be the first to apologize.

Peace.
Tom

[vt_maverick]

Not meant to be a reply to anyone in specific, just some thoughts based on my experience working with the military and intelligence communities as a government civilian and contractor over the past few years.

1. In retrospect, there was no good reason to invade Iraq. We didn't really know enough (or at least as much as we thought we did) to go invading another sovreign nation, and even what I would call the "humanitarian side-effect" that folks talk about now isn't enough. As my Dad likes to say, "it's bad everywhere", and as others have pointed out, it's not like Iraq was the worst place by any means. The truth is that no government will ever involve itself in a conflict of any size based purely on the right and wrong of the situation - there are always other factors, the primary of which are the significance of the situation to average Americans and the expected cost (dollars and lives) that an action will likely incur. This is reality, and like it or not it's the responsible way to run anything from a country to a small business. Even charity organizations know they can't fix everything. President Kennedy probably said it best when we he said this:

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, that we are only six percent of the world's population, that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."

2. This does not mean that good things aren't going on in Iraq anyway. Folks that have been on the ground over there (especially those that have done multiple tours) will tell you that there is a lot of pro-American sentiment amongst a majority of the population, and real progress has been made on infrastructure upgrades, stabilization of government, etc. Again, this is not an acceptable reason for justifying the invasion after the fact, but it's simultaneously undeniable that good things are now happening.

3. Nowhere near an exact figure of fatalities will ever be known, but the number of Americans who've died is only a tiny percentage of the overall casualties. I think we should be ashamed that we scream about 4-5K coalition casualties when the Iraqi people have suffered exponentially more. I believe the general American public has lost its stomach for war and our enemies know this, and as such their specific strategy is to scare us into leaving. I believe we owe it to those Iraqi citizens that have died, most of whom we killed with our own bombs, to help them stabilize their country before we leave. I think that means we need to be prepared to spend whatever dollar figure, and however many more American lives it takes. We made this mistake and it's our responsibility to fix it. Anything less only further weakens our credibility as a force of good on the world stage.

4. The Iraq conflict is really a tale of two struggles, and when you divide the US death count as such, you realize two truths which you may or may not see as positive. The first death count is from the actual war (up to the infamous "Mission Accomplished" point) and is a small percentage of the overall number. This is a credit to the training and professionalism of our armed forces, which managed to defeat a SYMMETRIC threat with a ridiculously small number of casualties. The second count really is from what would be better termed as an "occupation effort" and is much higher. I believe this is a credit to us as a nation; we know we really stepped into it when we went over there, but in the face of a mounting body count we have been determined to fix things before we leave. (I know plenty of Army guys that keep volunteering to go back because they feel such a conviction to make things better.) Again, that doesn't pardon our obvious lack of a front-end strategy or diminish the fact that going over there to begin with was a bad idea. But I believe is says something about us as a people that we should be proud of.

5. Unfortunately we may never know the exact reason why it happened, largely because EVERYONE, from the former administration, to Congressional leaders, to the director of the CIA, to individual civilian, military, and contractor analysts, probably all played some part. Bush may or may not have had a personal vendetta, he may or may not have been the puppet of Cheney and others, members of Congress may or may not have felt compelled to agree with the invasion to avoid appearing "soft" on terrorism, the director of the CIA may or may not have been pressured to have his guys/gals find something in Iraq to attack, and some junior analyst somewhere may or may not have just been trying to be a hero to his bosses to get promoted early and made the whole thing up. (Btw, there's a movie called "The Tailor of Panama" that explores this idea but from a totally different perspective.) The truth is that there's blood on the hands of individuals at all levels and in both parties, and pointing fingers after the fact is pointless and occasionally borders on childish. So get over it. Studying history to learn its lessons is critical, but I don't think calling each other and our leaders hippies, war mongerers, or just plain idiots qualifies as careful examination. People from all walks of life, belief systems, and IQ levels made this thing happen. Now how do we avoid it next time?

6. Contractors, including Halliburton, don't try to start wars just to make money. Lots of contractors have been killed in this conflict, and no company wants that to happen, regardless of how much profit there is to be made. That said, waste and abuse is beyond rampant in the DoD and intelligence community amongst both "govies" and contractors, and it was that way long before Iraq and even 9/11. Unfortunately swelling budgets coupled with decreasing oversight have made the problem dramatically worse. From other threads I expect some of you guys already know this, but for the uninitiated (say from ivory towers in California - give me a break btw) the DoD and IC has two funding black holes. One is called "end of year" funds, which is basically a system where money is miser-ed for the first 10 months of the fiscal year, and then blown on anything and everything in the last two months to prevent an organization's budget from shrinking. This situation has existed for awhile, and is an inevitable product of government budgeting policy. The other and far more dangerous and wasteful pot is called "GWOT (Global War on Terror)" funds, which from what I've seen is an endless stream of money that is considered supplemental to the existing budget. In principle it's a good idea; when fighting an asymmetric enemy an organization may be unable to adequately plan for every eventuality, so it's good to have a general pot of money in reserve that they can tap into for help. In practice there's very little careful examination of what's being spent and why. In my personal experience I've seen it wasted on anything from six 72" plasma displays for a 20' X 30' office to funding efforts that directly compete with other budgeted efforts. I even saw a request for $20 million to move a satellite dish from once side of a base to the other. Thank God our Director used to work in that area and knew it would only cost about $600K. The bottom line is shame on the government for simply encouraging capitalism to take its inevitable course. Budget policy, not oft-cited contractor greed, is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Moral of the story: there's a lot of complexity to this situation and politics in general, so don't buy into the oversimplified and trite soundbites and insults you hear on CNN, FoxNews, SNL, or on your favorite radio talk show. It's just not that simple.

Anywho, just some thoughts...

[technocoy]

Maverick,

These pretty much mirror my thoughts on the grey area that exists in situations like this...

So many people want to make things black and white and the complexity of life just doesn't allow that. Also, experience speaks a different language than perception.

The only point I may argue is whether or not contractors such as Haliburton, Blackwater, etc would actively push a war. I think you might give people too much credit on that one.

Other than that, I feel your post is pretty much spot on and a good show of the delicate balance that exists.

At the end of the day many of the republicans are eating dinner and having beers with many of the democrats. They're one in the same if you ask me minus a few ridiculous (in the big scheme of things) contention points they use to hold sway over a certain group of people and their ideologies. They put on an intricate play, but in the end, the power players want very similar things, otherwise I don't know that we'd ever have moved very far in any particular direction, what with all the filibusters and hold-outs and drama that we are privy to through our "news" outlets.

[tomdietrying]

Maverick,
You should run for office in 8 years, any office, and any political affiliation. I'd vote for you.
Peace.
Tom