onegoodmove

Because he could?

Think about it.

The white House doctored the video check the youtube link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tdvWuMu8nQ

The "Mission Accomplished Banner" was on the orignal video. The white house cropped the video to make it less obvious.

What makes the 4000 who died "our best?"

How can anyone who claims to be a rationalist think that people who signed up to kill and be killed and participate in this illegal and immoral war were OUR BEST?

No, Norm. The felons, superpatriots, and gore-loving gun nuts who sign up to kill the Brownies are not our best. I'm just sorry that America's suffering has not been proportional to the suffering and death we've inflicted on others.

What makes the 4000 who died "our best?"

Do you really not understand what I mean by that statement? I do like your proportional suffering sense of justice though, it's so old testament.

How can anyone who claims to be a rationalist think that people who signed up to kill and be killed and participate in this illegal and immoral war were OUR BEST? No, Norm. The felons, superpatriots, and gore-loving gun nuts who sign up to kill the Brownies are not our best. I'm just sorry that America's suffering has not been proportional to the suffering and death we've inflicted on others.

I'm not sure you understand how the U.S. military works. You see, they have this thing, it's called 'enlistment', which for most people in the military, is something undertaken before wars break out. When you enlist, the military offers 'benefits', like funding for school, and a steady job. If you're coming from a poorer family, and don't have many options in life, the military can seem a way out, some way of finding a purpose in life and giving yourself advantages, such as education and the possibility of advancement, you might not otherwise have.

And then there are those who enlist out of a sense of duty, regardless of whether you or I would, in this instance, see that as misguided. Typically the military screens for psychological health, intelligence, and other factors, to keep out the more violent types. This war was so ill-planned that when enlistments dropped, the military had no other option than to drop these requirements.

troops just follow orders... they dont decide which war to start. and that is what the military is for, to kill.

Well said Norm-couldn't have said it better myself.

A link for Brian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremburg_defense

That is to say, each person alive is responsible for their own decisions. "Just following orders" has been an established fallacy for 60 years now.

Adam:

I would like to agree with you, but after watching a Marine chuck a puppy off a cliff a few days ago, I am beginning to think that the majority of "troops" are nothing more than glorified, unemployable sociopaths.

Hillary Camp:

Does anyone know Hillary's current position on the war? Does she intend to start redeployment within her first 100 days?

Obama Camp:

Does anyone know Obama's current position on the war? Does he intend to start redeployment within his first 100 days?

McCain Camp:

Is this guy senile, insane, or a combination of both?

Obama Camp: Does anyone know Obama's current position on the war? Does he intend to start redeployment within his first 100 days?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYBaiXQoI5Q 30-minute speech. 9 minutes in: "We can responsibly begin to remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month." He would leave some troops there to guard embassies and diplomats and to be able to combat a resurgence of al Qaeda should it occur.

Elliot, I was with you until you said

I'm just sorry that America's suffering has not been proportional to the suffering and death we've inflicted on others.

I'm sorry for the lives lost, but I see no need to write hagiography over their lives. Calling any group of people our "best" is a nice sentiment, but I'm reluctant to assume that these men and women, as a group, are our best. We know that some of those in American uniform have tortured and killed innocents and captives in Iraq. That fact alone would make it impossible for me to call a random 4000 soldiers our best. But I don't want us to reap the whirlwind, thanks. Norm is right: that's real Old Testament thinking there.

"A link for Brian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremburg_defense

That is to say, each person alive is responsible for their own decisions. "Just following orders" has been an established fallacy for 60 years now. "

Yeah, but when you are in the situation you are gonna follow orders, usually regardless, I'm not saying it's a good defense, but when you are in a foreign country with people trying to kill you all the time, and your friends dying you will probably do things you never thought you would. And you sure as hell dont want to tell your superiors, Im not doing X. That is just the reality. But think about it after ww2 they didnt go around hanging all the german privates did they? No they hung the officers who make the plans.

Wish I could forget.

Those who simply follow orders, especially when it comes to torturing captives or killing the innocent, are among the worst among us. They're the little Dutch boy, standing next to the leaking dike, who waits for someone to tell him what to do before putting his finger to the leak.

But hten, I've never seen combat, and it's easy for me to talk. Allowances must be made, and superiors (using the term loosely) must be held accountable.

"I would like to agree with you, but after watching a Marine chuck a puppy off a cliff a few days ago, I am beginning to think that the majority of "troops" are nothing more than glorified, unemployable sociopaths."

Many people in the military have a kind of harsh edge to them that civilians probably haven't developed. But I still think that most people in the U.S. military are not remorseless, cruel people. It does take no little amount of discipline and restraint to serve in the U.S. armed forces. The opposite was true of the armies of Saddam Hussein or the Red Army under Stalin, which were encouraged to loot and pillage. Most of the civilian deaths in Iraq due to U.S. action are a result of the massive firepower we've applied to the conflict, not a result of the fact that our soldiers are running wild.

The military people I know are on the whole more sophisticated about the morality of the U.S. in war than your average right-wing jingo, which is saying something.

I think Norm is right that the people who died are some of our best, because they were doing a hard, dangerous job in a senseless war, whereas they could have been using their courage and skill in a very different way.

the "harsh edge" that you describe, dende blogger, may be the psychopathic personality we are warned about by the Good Kurt Vonnegut (and Harvey Kleckley). Some authors like David Grossman (On Killing) have mentioned these sadists comprise 1% of the military, but recent evnts make me wonder if its not higher.

War making is a waste of money and skills. Can you imagine how much good could be done if the trillions of dollars WE misspent on the war or the Trillions of dollars of damage suffered by the Iraqis (which will never be undone), were spent in constructing hospitals, roads, schools?

Those above who have mentioned the Nuremberg defense are right on.

and Adam, everyone knows how enlistment works. Yes, it's tragic that people are in financial/social situations that make them vulnerable to the promises made by duplicitous recruitment officers. I'd love to prosecute those fuckers for their lies. And yes, most Americans are too fucking dumb about culture and history (America's and that of other countries) as well as military history. This makes them vulnerable to the propaganda peddled by the Warmongers. HATE THE ARABS. HATE THE MUSLIMS they are told, and they follow. THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM, KILL THEM!!! and our clean shaven young men and women can't put their Halo video games fast enough and get into uniform.

But not knowing facts like... "Saddam and Osama were enemies BEFORE 9/11 and therefore the claim that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 is prepreposterous" is not an excuse for any American who fought and died or was crippled in Iraq. Serves those fuckers right for being so nationalistic.

And what does the excuse of "simply following orders" say about our view of human freedom? Are we automatons? Maybe you are. Each of us has a choice. People like Ehren Watada, who signed up, educated himself about the illegality and immorality of war, CHOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE. He was threatened with court martial. That was the choice he made. The fuckers still in uniform who claim that they're doing good, or that their perceived "sacrifice" is for our sake, are delusional, and deserve any punishment mete out by the IEDs.

I dont think anybody is arguing the iraq war has been a good thing or a good way to spend resources, just that when you declare war, and send in the military, they are gonna go, not question whether it is right or wrong. Most young troops probably think war is some glorious thing, and are atleast a little brainwashed. They train all the time for war, I'm sure after practicing all that time they want to use what they have learned. So use your anger on the people who sent them into the wrong war, not the people who fight it.

I even agree with you that if another country was occupying ours it would be our duty to set IED's and ambush them, but again the people who die dont make the call to go there, the people who are safe back in the us do.

I think it would be better if every troop refused to go, but again that is not reality, and it wont happen.

Tell me again why we needed a surge?

To quell violence. And it worked.

Tell me again why 4000 have died in vain.

They haven't died in vain. They died for a purpose. The fact that you disagree with that purpose does not make it vain.

Tell me again George Bush why you continue to squander our best.

Pretending to believe our troops are 'our best' (which they are, but we all know you don't believe that) is incredibly transparent manipulation. And look, it already put you at odds with a few of your followers who are at least honest enough to wear their open hatred for America and our soldiers right on their sleeves.

Tell me again how it was that you were 'elected' president.

Well, we had an election, and he won.

Tell me George, why don't you Dick go fuck yourselves.

And finally we see the point: it was all a 'dramatic ramp up' of questions to lead to this stunner of a punchline. I think Olbermann has used that a few times himself.

The fuckers still in uniform who claim that they're doing good, or that their perceived "sacrifice" is for our sake, are delusional, and deserve any punishment mete out by the IEDs.

So you are alive, Osama!

To quell violence. And it worked

"it worked" eh? What worked? Military force quells violence in one region of Iraq, all the while increasing violence in other areas and all the while increasing violence overall because the majority of people that American troops are killing are Iraqis, and the people that they are killing are not part of the "Al Quaeda" that were part of 9/11, they're so called "insurgents".. that is Iraqis. Therefore, the military shock and awe and killings have pissed off a lot of Arabs and Iraqis.

They haven't died in vain. They died for a purpose

They died because the Bush Administration claimed that they were going to subject the Iraquis to shock and awe and that we were going to overthrow Saddam Hussein because of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and then it was maybe because he had a connection with Al Qaeda, or because we were so concerned with Democracy in Iraq. We all now know that none of those lies were the reason that we subjected the Iraqis to "shock and awe". Yes, the lives of these soldiers were sacrificed.

Well, we had an election, and he won.

We had a failed election, just as we are now having failed primaries, where superdelegates, delegates and the Supreme Court, determine who is the president instead of who wins the popular election determines who is our president.

So President Calligraph, you agree with the U.S.A. waging a war with Iraq? What other countries would President Calligraph wage war with?

"it worked" eh? What worked? Military force quells violence in one region of Iraq, all the while increasing violence in other areas

The rise in violence in other areas is not equal to or greater to the amount of violence reduced in the area on which the surge focused.

And do you realize that your position is arguing for more surges? If the surge works in one area, and another area sees greater violence due to lack of troops, surely more troops should be sent to that area.

they're so called "insurgents"

'Insurgent' is the PC term used to describe the group, because it is considered unwise to call them what they are - thugs and terrorists.

There is not, and never has been, a unified Iraqi resistance movement. It has never been about 'the people of Iraq' resisting the 'occupation forces'. It has always been about sects killing other sects and outright terrorism. Our soldiers have been secondary and tertiary targets for years.

We all now know that none of those lies were the reason that we subjected the Iraqis to "shock and awe"

We can go back-and-forth on the whole 'lies' issue (we did find WMD (not surprising since the UN sanctioned Iraq for 10+ years over this issue), Saddam did meet with members of Al Qaeda, etc). But the point still stands: they went there for a reason, and even with the flaws in the original intelligence their sacrifice does still have a purpose. If the police come to your house on a burglary call and find a rapist, should they let him go?

We had a failed election, just as we are now having failed primaries, where superdelegates, delegates and the Supreme Court, determine who is the president instead of who wins the popular election determines who is our president.

Free tinfoil hats!

So President Calligraph, you agree with the U.S.A. waging a war with Iraq?

I agreed with it based on the justification given at the time we went to war, much like the vast majority of our government and populace.

But that's a moot point. If I had a time machine, that would be a great question. But I seem to have misplaced mine. My - or your, or anybody's - agreeing with the cause of the war has no bearing on the necessity of our continued presence in the region.

What other countries would President Calligraph wage war with?

I thought this was your purview? Isn't that one of the famed left-wing talking points - "Why did we go to Iraq when there's North Korea and Somalia and ..."

I have a much more isolationist world view. I recognize the UN as an entirely useless and bankrupt organization, and think we've pretty clearly learned that there is no use in attempting to get involved in the affairs of foreign nations, no matter how lofty the goals. Thus, I feel we should only go to war to directly protect our national interests.

This explains my position on Iraq: losing only harms us and winning only benefits us. Anybody who openly states their position to be for the failure of the US in this mission or openly states a desire for the harm of any of our soldiers is declaring themselves an enemy of the United States and should be treated accordingly.

and winning only benefits us.

What is your defintion of "winning"?

Free tinfoil hats

Are you not aware that our president is elected by electoral college votes and not by the popular vote. Are you aware that the candidates for the Republican and Democratic primaries are not elected by the popular vote, but by assigned delegates, causcuses, and/or winner-takes-all primairies?

I agreed with it based on the justification given at the time we went to war, much like the vast majority of our government and populace.

There were also many people who argued against it, such as Robert Byrd and Russ Feingold. Using the "based on the justification give" excuse is just lame. There was more reasonable justification for not going to war, but no one paid attention to it.

I thought this was your purview?

Nope, not my purview. I believe in diplomacy, not war.

Also, terms such as "tinfoil hat" and "wingnut" are overused expressions used by people on the internet who are unable to think for themselves.

What is your defintion of "winning"?

Leaving Iraq a stable democracy.

Are you not aware that our president is elected by electoral college votes and not by the popular vote. Are you aware that the candidates for the Republican and Democratic primaries are not elected by the popular vote, but by assigned delegates, causcuses, and/or winner-takes-all primairies?

All are covered in even the most basic Civics class. But stating such facts is entirely different from your original nonsense about 'failed elections' and your incorrect assertion that we do not choose the president. We choose the president indirectly, just as we are represented indirectly. The presence or influence of the Electoral College was no more injurious in Bush's elections than at any other time - or do you contend that we didn't elect Clinton twice?

Using the "based on the justification give" excuse is just lame.

No, it's a factual point that you cannot refute, so you mock it. It is a point I have made time and again in many such discussions with you, and one which you have always dodged.

We went to war based on the information we had. Second-guessing that information is relevant for determining if we are to go to war again. It is not relevant to the current situation.

Nope, not my purview. I believe in diplomacy, not war.

War is the other half of diplomacy.

Also, terms such as "tinfoil hat" and "wingnut" are overused expressions used by people on the internet who are unable to think for themselves.

Actually, they're blanket statements of contempt for patently ridiculous notions put forth as reasonable argumentation by people who seemingly lack the mental faculty to determine such matters for themselves.

sigh OK I'll bite...

I agreed with it based on the justification given at the time we went to war, much like the vast majority of our government and populace.

... and a tiny minority of academia, the world populace, and foreign governments. Every major ally could only disprove, not corroborate, our intelligence. High-ranking US intelligence officials criticized the assessment; even Powell had trouble presenting the case to the UN. We knew then that the Bush administration was insular and actively maintained a culture of like-mindness. The hypothesis was that Iraq was a threat, and we went looking only for supporting evidence. Intelligence supporting the build-up was accepted, and the rest was discarded. A bit like playing the lottery and only recalling instances when you win.

We went to war based on the information we had. Second-guessing that information is relevant for determining if we are to go to war again. It is not relevant to the current situation.

Unfortunately, it is. Many of those that presented the case for invasion now present the case for continuing operations. Any assessment of the current situation in Iraq (and the cost-benefit analysis we need to be making) must be evaluated against the credibility of the source.

And suddenly the record of flawed, misleading, or fabricated intelligence (likely shaped to meet a preconceived agenda -- for which there would otherwise be no mandate from the public -- followed by 5 years of overwhelmingly failed optimistic predictions) becomes remarkably relevant.

And now we go into a recession (poised to hit middle and lower classes hardest) with the supply-side economic models we have....