(Advertisement)

Keep the flag flying

Posted: March 7, 2012 at 4:22 a.m.

That’s what makes horse races—and different reactions to the same painting. Call it a difference of esthetic opinion. One of Little Rock’s city directors, Lance Hines of Ward 5, says his constituents’ sensibilities are offended by the sight of Occupy Little Rock’s tents on the old parking lot at Capitol and Ferry near the Interstate 30 overpass.

This story is only available from our archives.

Editorial, Pages 16 on 03/07/2012

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

Sure he’s sure

With all the bad stuff in the news, it’s wholly a pleasure to hear a good story now and then. No wrecks, no trials, no angry politics. Just something that makes a reader sm... Read »

Next Story »

This’ll be interesting

IF YOU’RE the parent of a teen, the talker of the week must have been the story about the muchacclaimed Technology Plan that Fayetteville’s school board just approved. If a... Read »

Comparing those "Occupy" people to the brave soldiers that fought as members in the Continental Army is romanticized horse dung at best.

-Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 7, 2012 at 11:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wherever there is a Paul Greenberg article, there is definitely going to be a considerable amount of "romanticized horse dung" involved.

At best.

Clinton leaving office with the highest approval in modern history. On standard measurements of presidential success and economic prosperity, Clinton coming in number one since Eisenhower (see below).

Yes, I am sure it chaps Mr. Greenberg's bottom every time he sees the Clinton museum and is reminded of that reality. And perhaps he also remembers what his conservatives did with their Bush disaster.

D.
---------------
http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_d...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 8, 2012 at 12:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

President Bush made sure that Americans were not attacked on American soil after 9/11. That being said, I like both the Clinton and Bush libraries. It has nothing to do with "conservatives" or otherwise. Addtionally, the Occupy movement is an instrument of class warfare that is being encouraged by the Left.

- Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 8, 2012 at 4:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "President Bush made sure that Americans were not attacked on American soil after 9/11.">>

Not true. And it's those from your far right that are doing most of the attacking and killing. As an author pointed out in an interview on NPR in August...

Since 9/11, 17 Americans in the US have been killed by Islamic radicals. Since 9/11, 75 Americans have been killed in the US by right-wing homegrown domestic terrorists.
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/02/1387836...

See also the current headline on Huff Po: "Hate Rising"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-l...

TNK: "the Occupy movement is an instrument of class warfare...">>

In contrast, I agree with Colin Powell's comments regarding Americans participating in protest for the purpose of addressing their grievances:

"Demonstrating like this is as American as apple pie. We’ve been marching up and down and demonstrating throughout our history,” the former secretary of state said on CNN Thursday night.
“So people are concerned now that there is not that source of an income. There isn’t that work source that I remember,” he said. “So what you’re seeing with Occupy Wall Street and others is people who are unhappy, and they’re directing their unhappiness right now toward Wall Street and toward others they think are doing too well in our society.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...

The wealth concentration and wealth inequality in this country is untenable. And republicans are only working diligently to make it worse.

How clueless and tone deaf is even your leading contender? Example: Romney, when asked how much money he had, didn't even know the answer to within $50 million (he said somewhere between $150-$200m).

On Monday his wife said: "...I don't even consider myself wealthy,..."
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/d...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 8, 2012 at 10:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

I would like to make it very clear. I do not support Gov. Romney. Also, I think protesting is an American right.... just like getting a job is. i understand there is anger over the unemployment rates, but marching up and down main street isn't going to bring in a paycheck. The fact is, some folks are just happy to collect an unemployment check.

RE-

"The wealth concentration and wealth inequality in this country is untenable."

So these folks need to go out make their own fortunes.

RE-

"Since 9/11, 17 Americans in the US have been killed by Islamic radicals. Since 9/11, 75 Americans have been killed in the US by right-wing homegrown domestic terrorists."

Where in America has al Qaeda killed Americans since 9/11?

Americans get killed by domestic criminals every day. To blame it on conservatives is quite the political spin. How many gangbanger products of the Left's welfare state shoot, stab, rob, rape, etc.? None of it is acceptable from anyone.

-Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 8, 2012 at 12:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "I think protesting is an American right.... just like getting a job is."
So the "job creators" are violating people's rights by not creating jobs?

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 8, 2012 at 1:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I've got nothing against Bill Clinton. I'd likely vote for him if he could run again. BUT, the Clinton Library is one ugly building.

Posted by: superdave10

March 8, 2012 at 1:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha,

I peaked into the classifieds this morning. There are jobs out there. Not all of them are the ones everyone wants and/or is qualified for.

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 8, 2012 at 1:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "I do not support Gov. Romney.">>

But you are going to vote for him, aren't you? That's support.

TMK: "marching up and down main street isn't going to bring in a paycheck.">>

They don't expect to be paid. I think they hope to influence their nation to trend away from the astonishing wealth inequality of the current system.

TNK: "some folks... happy to collect an unemployment check.">>

It could be that our present situation is caused by tens of millions of Americans contracting a case of the "lazy," but I don't think many sensible will think that is as likely as a small percentage contracting a case of the "greedy" and gaming the system, thus leading to this poisonous wealth inequality.

TNK: "these folks need to go out make their own fortunes.">>

I am reminded of how a Multi-level Marketing meeting goes (think Amway etc). For anyone who doesn't make "diamond" and become a millionaire quickly, it's their fault. Thing is, these pyramid type systems, in their purest form (ponzi, no actual products) are illegal and for a very good reason. Pyramids are by definition pointy on the top. The vast majority cannot, by definition, make "fortunes." It's not possible.
So the question is, are we going to have a society that makes for a thriving middle class where people can work hard and make a decent living and retire in dignity? More like in the past? A result our peer countries are much more successful at? Or are we going to look at our rampant poverty (especially poor states like Arkansas) and 47% of people living from paycheck to paycheck and note that we aren't doing this right.
With Congress at a 9% approval rating, we aren't doing this right.

TNK: "Where in America has al Qaeda killed Americans since 9/11?">>

You didn't say al Qaeda. You've changed your claim and moved the goal post. You said:
"President Bush made sure that Americans were not attacked on American soil after 9/11."

That's ludicrously false, and notice, I only referred to Americans actually being killed by terrorists, not just attacked.

TNK: "Americans get killed by domestic criminals every day.">>

Another slippery move of the goal post. We are talking about politically motivated terrorists, not generic "criminals!"

TNK: "To blame it on conservatives is quite the political spin.">>

Then show this. I gave you examples of Americans being killed by rightwing terrorists. That's not some criminal doing a purse snatch, it's right-wingers, committing acts of terrorism because of their political beliefs.

TNK: "How many... of the Left's welfare state shoot, stab, rob, rape, etc.?>

Aside from your unsupported assumption that "welfare state" causes these crimes, what does this have to do with your claim about terrorism? Nothing.

Here are five specific examples of terrorist attacks during Bush, post 9/11:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2010...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 8, 2012 at 9:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

You assume I will vote for Romney and you are wrong. I will not under any circumstance vote for him.

I appreciate your link concerning the attacks. It was a good read. I still think President Bush did a great job mitigating a huge threat during such a trying time in our history.

RE-

“…your unsupported assumption that "welfare state" causes these crimes”. Here you go. Read the CATO institute article at the link provided.

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67...

As far as my comments about domestic criminals goes, notice I mentioned violent crimes. Violent criminals, in my book, are the same or just as bad as "terrorists". A violent crime is a violent crime.

-Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 8, 2012 at 11:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "You assume I will vote for Romney...">>

Notice my comment had a question mark. He's not far enough to the right for you is he (try as he might)?

TNK: "As far as my comments about domestic criminals goes,">>

You've completely changed the subject from:
a) terrorism
b) terrorism caused by political motivations

This an entirely different matter than "domestic criminals" doing what they do. Focus.

TNK: "notice I mentioned violent crimes.">>

No, while trying to change the subject you said: " the Left's welfare state shoot, stab, rob, rape, etc." A "robbery" is not necessarily violent, and these crimes have nothing whatsoever to do with your original claim I was addressing:

"President Bush made sure that Americans were not attacked on American soil after 9/11."

Obviously you weren't talking about Bush protecting Americans from "shoot, stab, rob, rape, etc." You were talking about terrorism.

The uncomfortable truth I think you are trying to avoid (and I am trying to educate people about) is astonishing fact that terrorism in the US is currently, overwhelmingly, driven by and committed by the religious/political nuts on your right flank.

Dozens of examples in this list:
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campai...

See 18 specific referenced examples of domestic terrorism from the extremist American Right here:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwe...

TNK: "Violent criminals, in my book, are the same or just as bad as "terrorists".>>

You're just saying that now to cover up for changing the subject. We'll always have violence, and criminals, but terrorism (usually defined as attacking innocent bystanders, en mass, to cause terror for religious/political reasons) is a special category of "bad." That's why we go to such great lengths to address it (Dept. Homeland Security, 200,000 employees, 3rd largest cabinet department).

TNK: "A violent crime is a violent crime.">>

Of course, by definition, see tautology. A firecracker is an explosion, a Daisy Cutter is an explosion. But we don't lump them together and say: "an explosion is an explosion!"

9/11 was a "violent crime" but clearly it was a special category of bad.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 9, 2012 at 12:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

RE-

"The uncomfortable truth I think you are trying to avoid (and I am trying to educate people about) is astonishing fact that terrorism in the US is currently, overwhelmingly, driven by and committed by the religious/political nuts on your right flank."

That comment goes to show how much you know about my "right flank". Comments like yours are one of the reasons there is so much division in the country. You can't blame everything on religion and people that live by it.

By the way, you don't have to define terrorism for me. I have been fighting for the past decade+ to protect you from it.

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 9, 2012 at 4:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT said: "the astonishing fact that terrorism in the US is currently, overwhelmingly, driven by and committed by the religious/political nuts on your right flank.">>

TNK: "That comment goes to show how much you know about my "right flank".">>

If by that you mean, quite a bit, then you are right. Since the statement is true, as I referenced in my second comment in this thread, it isn't me who doesn't know enough about those on your political right, but it might be you.

TNK: "Comments like yours are one of the reasons there is so much division in the country.">>

I only pointed it out because it is true. If pointing out when people post erroneous information in public forums is causing "so much division," then perhaps people ought to correct their erroneous information, rather than complain about being corrected.

TNK: "You can't blame everything on religion and people that live by it.">>

I've never done that. But I don't hesitate to point out that it is religious/political nuts on your right that are responsible for the majority of terrorism in the US. That's just the way it is. I don't think covering it up or pretending it isn't the case is useful because I don't think avoiding the truth is useful.

TNK: "you don't have to define terrorism for me.">>

Normally I wouldn't think so, but when you tried to lump it in as just anything other kind of crime (even violent crime), in order to deflect from the subject, I thought best to include a definition. It's a special kind of bad and has known causes. Typically people being vastly and serially misinformed about, and by, their religion and politics.

TNK: "I have been fighting for the past decade+ to protect you from [terrorism].">>

Well you're in the wrong place. There weren't any terrorists in Iraq when Bush started that adventure.
You need to get back to Arkansas and protect me from the right-wing Christian haters that have caused 77% of American deaths from terrorism since 9/11.

We have about 18 of these right-wing religious hate organizations just here in Arkansas:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed...

Hurry. They aren't getting any smarter or any nicer.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 9, 2012 at 10:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Excellent discussion and links - thanks fft.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is fighting terrorism with the law and education, not with guns, and the point is well taken that arming oneself with firepower does not sanctify one's aspirations to defend America's core principles; firepower tends to accumulate with those whose core principles include a willingness to do violence against those they choose to hate.

In the case of military firepower, the hate and killing are sanctioned; in the case of domestic firepower, the hate and killing are unlawful, but one can find a representative religious/political ideology at the core of each.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

March 9, 2012 at 11:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Frank,

RE-

"In the case of military firepower, the hate and killing are sanctioned."

What an ignorant, stupid, and disrepectful comment. You should be thankful there are warriors out there "killing" and being killed to protect your right to express your opinion. It has nothing to do with "hate" but everything to do with love for America.

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 9, 2012 at 7:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FRANK said: "In the case of military firepower, the hate and killing are sanctioned.">>

TANK: "What an ignorant, stupid, and disrepectful comment.">>

Tank, your pristine indoctrination and brainwashing is really quite hard to ignore.

When Bush was asked in 2005 how many Iraqis were killed, just on the way in, he waved his hand and guessed it was about 30,000 people. Then he made a joke. If you lay 30,000 bodies end to end, they stretch for about 30 miles. So travelling at 60 miles per hour, it would take about half an hour to pass them all. How many of those people were "killed" to protect Frank's "right to express his opinion?" The answer is zero.

TNK: "You should be thankful there are warriors out there "killing" and being killed to protect your right to express your opinion.">>

Careful readers will note the quotation marks around "killing." As if killing when it's for "love of country" doesn't really count. As if there is some disagreement about whether it is "really" killing at all. Amazing.

Of all of the ridiculous, laughable, trumped up and utterly false excuses we were asked to believe for the necessity of smashing Iraq, surely there wasn't a chicken hawk republican peddling the tales who was silly enough to float the whopper that it was for the purpose of preventing Saddamn from stopping us from speaking freely. Of all the wars, (or military actions) the US has been engaged in in the last half century (some legitimate, most not), one would be hard pressed to think someone could really believe they were for the purpose defending civilian free speech. Stopping Hitler, okay. Soviets? Perhaps. The rest is largely feeding the Industrial Military Complex, keeping the oil flowing and being the cop on the block in exchange for fees and favors.

TANK: "It has nothing to do with "hate" but everything to do with love for America.">>

We are to believe that all of the countries like France, Germany, New Zealand, and Canada etc, that adamantly opposed Bush's illegal, immoral (and as these countries noted, bogus) attack on Iraq, just don't love their countries or free speech? Talk about a bunch of "romanticized horse dung." At best.

D.
-----------
“He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is no different than murder.” --Albert Einstein

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 9, 2012 at 9:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "It has nothing to do with "hate" but everything to do with love for America."
And... hate for the enemy? Or do our soldiers kill people they don't hate for representing ideologies they don't hate? Is it really just "all in a day's work"?

(FLL was not claiming that our soldiers hate America.)

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 9, 2012 at 9:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

You don't know squat about Iraq besides what you read on who knows what website. Trust me taking Saddam down protected Americans. I was in Iraq for the 2003 invasion and went back three more times. Everything I saw leads me to think what we did was in the interest of the free world .I'll be the first to admit, we should have handled the aftermath of the war with the "Iraq Army" better. Additionally, I have fought besides troops from "France, Germany, New Zealand, and Canada" and I have nothing but admiration and respect for them. Every time I read some post like the last one you wrote, I think of the clip that can be found below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4V...

Oh, and as far as your other comment about spending time in Arkansas, it just so happens I am home on leave.

“Only the dead have seen the end of war” -Plato

Alpha,

With regards to "a day's work", there are a lot of emotions on the battlefield. A professional warrior executes his/her duties as best as possible with little emotion, but everyone is human.

-Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 10, 2012 at 12:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank has directed us to a film clip of Jack Nicholson playing the part of an ethically compromised Marine Colonel finally admitting he authorized extralegal violence against a marine he viewed as needing a lesson in discipline. The marine was killed and low ranking marines were being tried for the crime, but they were only following orders.

This film makes the point that honor and dishonor can be difficult to differentiate, particularly in an authoritarian hierarchy wherein individuals are expected to obey without thinking, without allowing the intrusion of a personal conscience.

One can love one's nation and hold idealistic expectations, and yet be cautious and introspective when the drums of violence are pounding. It's the authoritarian personality, the individual who subscribes strongly to an unquestioned religious/political ideology, who most eagerly "marches to music rank and file."

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

March 10, 2012 at 5:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Frank,

You missed what I was trying to say about the flick. I don't expect you to understand. Have a nice Sunday.

-Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 11, 2012 at 9 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, the blunt, superficial message from that clip is "men with guns" are necessary to protect those of us who choose to serve differently. That's OK.

But, the clip also illustrates the point I'm making, and I do expect you to understand; associating oneself with violent purposes does not always lead to honorable action.

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, March 11 (Reuters) - A U.S. soldier went on a shooting rampage in southern Afghanistan on Sunday, bursting into the homes of civilians in villages near his base in the middle of the night and killing up to 16 people, an Afghan minister told Reuters.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

March 11, 2012 at 10:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "You don't know squat about Iraq besides what you read on who knows what website.">>

Few posts from you would be complete without the perfunctory hat tip to the genetic fallacy. This time a generic wave to a source of "who knows what." This from a fellow who leans on cliche's from Hollywood movies for information.

Regarding who "Can't handle the truth." This thread reveals your reluctance to accept the truth that 77% of fatalities caused by domestic terrorism in America comes from the religious/political nutbags on your right.

Your involvement on the ground does not lend itself to necessarily having a better grasp of the politics behind Bush's war which I have studied and debated extensively from the beginning and over that time have put together about 200 pages of notes.

TNK: "Trust me taking Saddam down protected Americans.">>

Again, moving the goal posts, but more importantly, misinformed. First of all, Bush's war directly killed more Americans that bin Laden's action. These Americans are dead and dead is not in any sense "safer." As to the rest...

***
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat
NYT
September 24, 2006

"WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks...

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,”..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/wor...

TNK: "...what we did was in the interest of the free world.">>

The free world and Bush found out the hard way that this adventure in nation building was based on piles of BS and false information.

D.
-----------------
"We're not going to have any casualties." --GW Bush, speaking to Pat Robertson about the Iraq war, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 11, 2012 at 5:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, thank you for your service to our country.

I have just four words of unsolicited advice for you, DON'T FEED The TROLLS. It's like wrasslin' with a pig. You get muddy, and the pig loves it.

These trolls aren't interested in the truth. They just want to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with their warped views.

Posted by: patrioteer

March 12, 2012 at 10:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Patrioteer, if you are going to bring your water pistol to a gun fight, do remember to put some water in it.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 12, 2012 at 11:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Here is a little thought exercise, not at all intended to feed any you-know-whats:

What does it say about the awareness or competence of an on-line forum user when a group of people can have a five-day discussion, and that user, not at all part of the discussion, pops in on the fifth day to deliver a drive-by insult, and is somehow so unaware of online parlance that he manages to make the actual participants in that discussion out to be trolls?

Those n00bs can be so touchy. Bless their hearts.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 13, 2012 at 12:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

RE-

"Patrioteer, if you are going to bring your water pistol to a gun fight, do remember to put some water in it."

Know a lot about gun fights do you? Laughable.

-Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 13, 2012 at 3:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "Know a lot about gun fights do you?">>

Tank, this isn't your government gig, it's an intellectual battlefield where wisdom and knowledge are bazooka and howitzer against falsehood and dogma.

If you want to do well here and have the appearance of being a "good shot," you will want to have the truth on your side, know what you are talking about and refrain from making claims you can't back up. Patrioteer isn't good at any of those things and this is why I mentioned the squeaky dry sound coming from their squirt gun.

And yes, I have been in countless gun fights. I have a PS3.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 13, 2012 at 10:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "Know a lot about gun fights do you? Laughable."

Proper use of metaphor does not necessarily require specific knowledge of the action or experience alluded to in the metaphor. It is laughable to attempt to insult a person based on whether they have some experience to accompany their proper use of a common metaphor.

Well, not really laughable. It's actually rather sad.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 13, 2012 at 10:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Excuse the diversion but what on Earth does that exceptionally stupid cartoon mean? (March 13)
The one where Obama has a heart-shaped Afro, that doesn't look anything like him, where he is talking on his phone to "Mahmoud"?
Who is Mahmoud supposed to be?
Who's the head of the NWAT editorial page now, and how could he or she think that this cartoon was relevant, funny, or anything but pointless anti-Obama garbage?

Posted by: Coralie

March 13, 2012 at 10:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ALPHA: "laughable to attempt to insult a person based on whether they have some experience to accompany their proper use of a common metaphor.">>

In this case I do. In 1984 (when Tank was yet a very young lad), I won a marksmanship award in high school for receiving the highest accuracy out of the entire school (rifle target practice in my Canadian high school was part of a required class). I had perfect bulls-eyes, no exceptions. Open sights, 22 cal., different gun each session. I remember the teacher, Mr. Al Bianco, remarking that he couldn't remember that ever being done before. And remarkably, he had been at that school for so long, he had also taught my dad (in 1958) who is 26 years older than me.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 13, 2012 at 7:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

I know what you meant when you used the metaphor, but if you insist on continuing I must say that there is a difference between shooting paper targets (or playing PS3) and being in a gun fight. Paper targets don't shoot back and PS3 has a reset button. I genuinely applaud your marksmanship long ago (when I was a "young lad"). I too wasn't too bad a shot early in life. In my case, I was learning the finer points of marksmanship from my grandpa when I was four years old, some of which probably increased my survivability in order to defend your rights.

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 13, 2012 at 11:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank,
I in no way wish to disparage your patriotism, dedication, or courage, but I fail to see how our country's invasion and occupation of Iraq defended the rights of American citizens.
It was initiated on false pretences. Iraq did not threaten us in any way.
Nor do I see how the majority of our wars have defended American rights.
The Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, and World War II may be said to have had a justified purpose, but not the 1848 War with Mexico, 1898 war with the Philippines, "Banana Wars" of the first half of the 20th century, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Gulf War, or Iraq.
You need to read "War Is a Racket" by Marine Major General Smedley R. Butler, one of the most decorated soldiers in our history.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/w...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_...

Posted by: Coralie

March 14, 2012 at 1:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

My comments were to Tank. Somehow, however, the trolls were able to self-identify...just sayin'.

Posted by: patrioteer

March 14, 2012 at 9:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

I appreciate your comments. I have read parts of MG Butler's book. However, I think some folks want to avoid a fight at all costs (i.e. Isolationism). Chamberlain made that mistake. Again, I appreciate your comments.

""In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 14, 2012 at 9:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Further context for your (October 2002) Hillary quote is provided by snopes (hint, she said she would prefer a diplomatic solution): http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wm...

What Secretary of State Colin Powell said before Bush employed the assets of the US gov. and a legion of talking heads to spin, cherry pick and distort the situation about Iraq and thus cause a war hysteria (examples upon request), is also useful:
"President Mubarak and I, had a good discussion about...the fact that the sanctions exist.... for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam's ambitions toward developing WMDs.
They have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to WMDs. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." -- Colin Powell, February 24, 2001
http://www.informationclearinghouse.i...

What kind of whoppers was Bush's misinformation campaign shoveling to congress? Example:

"Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had WMDs, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.
Nelson, D-FL, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last
October's congressional vote...
Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax,
and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles - drones." http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSEN...

How successful was his misinformation campaign with the public? Very.

***
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq

WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference... President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

[leaving...] an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11,..."

...the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war...

The numbers
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year [‘02], attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.

The answer is zero."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p0...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 14, 2012 at 10:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

“The only answer to aggression and outlaw behavior is firmness… He (Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, 1998.

-Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 15, 2012 at 8:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

President Bush must have went back in time and asked President Clinton's National Security Advisor to start that "misinformation campaign".

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 15, 2012 at 8:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"He (Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain...” – Sandy Berger, 1998>>

That's a prophecy. Otherwise known as a false prophecy. Making false prophecies is favorite pastime among humans but it's best to not pay too much attention to it.

Suggestion: Best to not start unnecessary wars and found your foreign nation building adventure policy on prophecies made by bureaucrats. People in the military didn't sign up for that kind of stupidity.

D.
------------
"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why." --GW Bush, Second Presidential Debate, St. Louis, Missouri, Oct. 8, 2004

"Saddam had no WMD for a decade," report says
Thursday, October 07, 2004
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html...

"U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 15, 2012 at 9:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who wouldfollow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by theknowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of aclear message from the United Nations Security Council and clearevidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send aclear message to every wouldbe tyrant and terrorist that theinternational community does have the wisdom and the will and theway to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the futureI ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies toimagine." --President Bill Clinton 1998

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 15, 2012 at 10:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"If we fail to respond today,... But if we act as one,..." --Clinton>>

Further context: "Speaking in stern and subdued tones, Clinton insisted that a diplomatic solution remains "by far our preference." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/...

There is no comparison whatsoever between a politician posturing and talking tough for purposes of diplomacy (and it was successful, see Colin Powell February 2001 quote above saying Iraq was contained and not a threat), and irrationally going to war under bogus trumped up pretenses, which is what Bush did and gets full credit for.

D.
------------
"I'm not the expert on how the Iraqi people think, because I live in America, where it's nice and safe and secure." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 23, 2004

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 16, 2012 at 9:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

Do you remember Operation Desert Fox? Would you call that posturing? Do you remember Saddam using chem weapons on the Kurds and the Shi'a? You just like to run down President Bush. You might want to read "Decision Points".

By the way, diplomacy is always the first choice of those of us that fight. Don't get confused.

-Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 16, 2012 at 2:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, do you remember this photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the 1980s?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/N...
U.S. happy to have Iraq taking down Iran a peg--also weakening both countries.
The Gulf War destroyed a lot of Iraqs capability along with a lot of civilian infrastructure. Then there were sanctions, remember?
So 15 years later you think Iraq was this great monster power. No air force, no navy.
Saddam was no fool, he had no reason to attack the West.
Some people think that the reason for the Iraq War was that Saddam was planning to sell Iraq's oil for euros instead of dollars.

Posted by: Coralie

March 16, 2012 at 4:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

I saw enough in Iraq to know it was not about oil. And yes, I know we created the monster that was Saddam. The Iran/Iraq War devasted both countries and Saddam took it out on the Shi'a by draining the wetlands and "ethnically cleansing" the people. When we went to war with Iraq in 2003 they had the 6th largest land force in the world. They were a "great monster power". Our Air Force has a way of mitigating things like that most other countries do not have the capabilities to do.

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 16, 2012 at 5 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "Would you call [Operation Desert Fox] that posturing?">>

I would call that smart. Sitting back or flying high and pushing buttons. Zero American causalities. "Mission accomplished," in four nights. Eight years and Clinton never sent a soldier into combat that didn't come back. What a guy.

TNK: "Do you remember Saddam using chem weapons on the Kurds...">>

Post hoc excuses. Bush was drooling about going to war two years before he was president, and it wasn't because of concern for something that happened to the Kurds in 1988. Note:

"This isn't an issue about intentions or what the hopes were or what the plans were or what the programs were. What took us to war were statements about Saddam's WMDs and the threat of their imminent use." --Sen. Carl Levin (D - Michigan)

TNK: "You just like to run down President Bush.">>

Indeed. I know of no one more worthy. When I am 83 in 2050 and the kiddies come around and ask... "was Bush really as bad as they say he was? I'll tell them: "you can't even imagine."

TNK: "...diplomacy is always the first choice of those of us that fight.">>

But the person who chose to make the rash decision was a chicken hawk who knew nothing about the realities of war (this is a fellow who predicted no causalities). And the fellow who did have a lot of experience, Colin Powell, was purposely marginalized until they could use him as a puppet to appear credible. And they gave him a script full of garbage.

Regarding my charge of chickenhawk, note:
"In fairness, Bush has been candid about why he enlisted in the Air National Guard. Like many young men of his generation, he wanted to avoid Vietnam. He told one reporter, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek...

TNK: "I saw enough in Iraq to know it was not about oil.>>

Suggesting that oil wasn't a large component of that war, is exceedingly naive.

TNK: "Iraq in 2003 they had the 6th largest land force in the world.">>

What an utter distortion. Iraq had the GDP of Kentucky and their military metal, abundant with quantity not quality, was sitting ripe for the plucking. As Thomas Friedman put it: “We defeated the Flintstones.”

TNK: "They were a "great monster power". Our Air Force has a way of mitigating things like...">>

Your second sentence mitigates your first.

D.
------
"On "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in the Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.
"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied." --Robert Burns, AP Military Writer (9/16/03)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 16, 2012 at 11:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

RE-

"Eight years and Clinton never sent a soldier into combat that didn't come back."

Incorrect. We lost five Americans in Battle of Mogadishu. Again, you just like to run down President Bush. Maybe you should spend a little more time on the History Channel and a little less on the Rachel Maddow Show.

You are missing the whole point. Saddam had weapons he should not have had and was developing ones that were more dangerous. Your opinion that taking him out has not protected Americans is "exceedingly naive". If the war was about oil, we could have easily taken all of it.

The fact that Iraq had the 6th largest land force in the world in 2003 is no way "an utter distortion". You just choose to deny the fact. Their Army was spearheaded by T-72 tanks. If you knew anything about force maneuver warfare, you would know those are no kittens. Additionally, Saddam’s deep fires included those infamous SCUDs. Again, another not low threat weapons system which can chem/bio/nuclear armed.

Happy St. Patrick's Day

-Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 17, 2012 at 8:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "I saw enough in Iraq to know it was not about oil."
Once the fuse is lit, war is pretty much war. The underlying reason for it it not always clear to the soldiers who do the actual work.

RE "Maybe you should spend a little more time on the History Channel"
You haven't seen the History Channel's evening and night line-ups lately. "Only in America with Larry the Cable Guy", "Pawn Stars" and "Ice Road Truckers"? Tonight, they're showing a "Swamp People" marathon.

RE "The fact that Iraq had the 6th largest land force in the world in 2003 is no way 'an utter distortion'."
I cannot find a statistic that gives a comparative "land force" figure. However, in terms of total military personnel (active duty military personnel, including paramilitary forces if the training, organization, equipment, and control suggest they may be used to support or replace regular military forces), Iraq went from #3 in 1990 to #17 in 1992. Between then and 2003, the highest they reached was #14 (1994). From 1998 through 2001, they were #15; in 2002 and 2003, they were #16.
See http://www.nationmaster.com/time.php?...

RE "If the war was about oil, we could have easily taken all of it."
That is not a necessary outcome of a war for oil, and would have been even more blatant than our subtle pretext was. Under the guise of avenging an attack on our soil-- which Iraq had nothing to do with-- we took steps to protect the stability of the region and keep oil prices lower. More importantly, we did not attack Saudi Arabia. Tell us how not attacking one of our major oil suppliers, despite its close involvement in 9/11, had little or nothing to do with oil.

RE "Their Army was spearheaded by T-72 tanks....Additionally, Saddam’s deep fires included those infamous SCUDs."
Good reasons to not send our troops over with inadequate supplies of body armor and armored vehicles. At least Bush was able to boost the bake-sale sector of the economy.
http://helenair.com/news/local/articl...

Enjoy your St. Patrick's Day. I'm going to have corned beef and kimchi.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 17, 2012 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT said: "Eight years and Clinton never sent a soldier into combat that didn't come back.">>

TNK: "Incorrect. We lost five Americans in Battle of Mogadishu.">>

That was another Bush adventure. Papa Bush put 28,000 US troops on the ground. Bush sent them in, Clinton got them out.

Note:
"President George H. Bush orders 28,000 U.S. troops to Somalia, a war-torn East African nation where rival warlords were preventing the distribution of humanitarian aid to thousands of starving Somalis... the controversial mission stretched on for 15 months before being abruptly called off by President Bill Clinton in 1993."

Nice try though.

TNK: "Again, you just like to run down President Bush.">>

But only for very good reasons.

TNK: "should spend... a little less on the Rachel Maddow Show.">>

I cancelled cable TV years ago. Gave away the TV too. What would you do without your genetic fallacy hobby horse?

TNK: "Saddam had weapons he should not have had...">>

David Kay, Bush's own hand picked head of inspections, says he didn't. Then the next guy, came along and reported the same. References already provided above. Perhaps you should read them.

TNK: "was developing ones that were more dangerous.">>

You are misinformed. Again:

"Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

cont...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 17, 2012 at 1:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "Your opinion that taking [Saddam] out has not protected Americans is "exceedingly naive".>>

Again, taking him out directly caused the deaths of more Americans than bin laden killed. Dead, is not "protected."

Again, I'll see your mere opinion and raise you the informed investigated and researched opinion of *sixteen* US spy agencies:

"Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat"
NYT, September 24, 2006

"...the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/wor...

TNK: "If the war was about oil,...">>

If the war wasn't to a great extent about oil we wouldn't have Cheney having secret meetings with oil companies carving up who was getting what oilfield. Would you like to see the map? I have it somewhere. That was all nixed by years gorilla warfare and instability.

D.
------------
"So Iraq Was About the Oil"

"Colin Powell’s former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson [gave] frank admissions about the importance of oil in justifying a long-term U.S. military intervention in Iraq...

“We had a discussion in (the State Department’s Office of) Policy Planning about actually mounting an operation to take the oilfields of the Middle East, internationalize them, put them under some sort of U.N. trusteeship and administer the revenues and the oil accordingly,” Wilkerson said. “That’s how serious we thought about it.”
The centrality of Iraq’s oil in Wilkerson’s blunt comments contrasted with three years of assurances from the Bush administration that the war had almost nothing to do with oil."
http://consortiumnews.com/2005/110705...

ALPHA: "Tell us how not attacking one of our major oil suppliers, despite its close involvement in 9/11, had little or nothing to do with oil.">>

*Excellent* point.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 17, 2012 at 1:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha,

Corned beef and kimchi? I love them both but have never considered the combination.

Síochána a bheith in éineacht leat. 우리는 하루에 동의하고 있습니다.

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 17, 2012 at 1:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

RE-

"That was another Bush adventure. Papa Bush put 28,000 US troops on the ground. Bush sent them in, Clinton got them out."

A little military knowledge for you...

All commander's take responsibilty for what happens to their troops no matter what; that includes Commanders in Chief.

If we would have used close air support (CAS) during the Battle of Mogadishu like we should have but was not authorized by the White House, every American probably would have come home.

Of course their was plans for the oil fields. The global economy spins on oil. Their had to be a plan on how to deal with it. The reason for going to war was not oil.

If Saddam wasn't developing more dangerous weapons, why did the Iraqis make such an effort to smuggle as much material into Syria as they could before the 3d Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne Division made it into northern Iraq? I was there. Were you?

Go maire an Tiarna tú a choinneáil agus tú bless.

-Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 17, 2012 at 2:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Of course [[their] [was] plans for the oil fields." Grammatical error. Correction: there were.

Doooo.

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 17, 2012 at 2:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, regarding the comment, "I was there."

I spend a lot of time with veterans, and the conversation frequently focuses on where they served and what they experienced; the reality of how their service affected them personally.

"Being there" gives one credibility within the range of one's experiences, but the fact of one's "being there," unless one was deployed in an administrative leadership position, does not necessarily convey any deep understanding of the overarching reasons for one's being there, ie, the geopolitical objectives for the military invasion.

One can respect a veteran's service, but argue against the implication that the fact of military service conveys to the veteran any particular insight into the reasons military options are chosen. After all, the commander in chief is a civilian.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

March 17, 2012 at 7:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "All commander's take responsibilty for what happens to their troops no matter what;">>

I'm sure that's right, as a matter of course. In fact:

"Two weeks after the Battle of Mogadishu, General Garrison officially accepted responsibility. In a handwritten letter to President Clinton, Garrison took full responsibility for the outcome of the battle."

After Obama was signed in, Jan 20, 2009 one could immediately assign the responsibility for the ongoing American deaths in Iraq to him (149 that year), but reasonable people also know that he was against that war, inherited conditions (and battles) set in place by the previous president, and if he (or another reasonable person) had been in position to make the choice, the war wouldn't have happened at all and there wouldn't have been 4,486 American casualties in Iraq.

TNK" "If we would have used close air support (CAS) during the Battle...">>

It's fun to play quarterback on Monday morning, but it doesn't mean much.

TNK: "The reason for going to war was not oil.">>

I didn't say it was "the" reason. I said it was a large component. Again: "Suggesting that oil wasn't a large component of that war, is exceedingly naive."
Note: "Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq" http://tinyurl.com/3j7odc4

They cite Tony Blair saying: "It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..." -ibid

In retrospect, since the weapons claims were rubbish, should have made it about the oil. At least the oil exists.

TNK: "If Saddam wasn't developing more dangerous weapons,... ">>

If you have evidence, of any kind, that Saddam was "developing more dangerous weapons," then stop what you are doing immediately and contact the authorities. Of course you won't be doing this, because, as multiple and very thorough investigations performed by those handpicked by Bush have already conclusively found, Saddam: "...had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years." -ibid (3/17)

TNK: "I was there. Were you?">>

It is possible that the very long and exhaustive investigations (referenced above) that were under immense pressure to find these WMD's completely forgot to think to talk to soldiers that "were there," but reasonable people (like me) aren't going to think that is very likely.

D.
-----------
“The latest CBS News poll found that 64 percent of Americans think the Bush administration was "mostly lying" about or "hiding important elements" of what they knew about weapons of mass destruction.” -- (11/05) http://mediamatters.org/columns/20051...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 19, 2012 at 8:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

RE-

"After Obama was signed in, Jan 20, 2009.."

I never said anything about President Obama. Why are you bringing him into this. More of the blame President Bush game.

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 19, 2012 at 7:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It was an example.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 19, 2012 at 9:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )