Will He Ever Get the Hint?

[av8torntn]

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/ap_army_blogger_070513/ Here is an article that explains the updated regulation for military bloggers. This also makes it sound like you can still post what was legal to post before, but they have just revised the way that they are trying to catch the rule breakers.

 

[Sammie]

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/ap_army_blogger_070513/ Here is an article that explains the updated regulation for military bloggers. This also makes it sound like you can still post what was legal to post before, but they have just revised the way that they are trying to catch the rule breakers.

I was wondering when this would happen; just a matter of time. A former 31 year old U.S. machine gunner's memoir about his year in Iraq won a $10,000 prize for this year's best book based on a blog.

This guy blogged for 8 weeks until the Army stopped him, but
not before book agents began e mailing him. His book has since been published and already translated into seven languages.

Here is his info:

http://cbftw.blogspot.com/

 

[over9five]

"Did I get that right?"

No, you did not. It has nothing to do with "PC". It is just wrong to say you support the troops, and then say things that get them killed.

Believe whatever you want. If you want to believe you can support the troops, but not the war, FINE! Enjoy your warped values. But don't go on national television; don't get picked up by Al Jazeera to be broadcast all over the Middle East saying how unjust this war is. Because that emboldens our enemies. That gives YOU a hand in killing our troops.

Tell ya what. I'll concede that you can support the troops, but not the war...

IF....

You concede that by not supporting the war, you're helping the enemy kill our boys.

 

[westsideworma]

oh boy another discussion on this

my friends are there so I support them and hope they get home safe

however, there is such a mess over there that we have NO idea how to fix it. many people's hatred of the US in that area has to do with the first time we were there. Bush doesn't have an effective plan to finish what he's started as there isn't one. We have no idea how to end what we've started. As much as I love my country (which I'm sure conservatives will beg to disagree with me on, and no offense but its not your place to decide whether I do or not) policing other nations shouldn't be our job if we have no plan on how to fix the problems our involvement will create.

Do I think Bush lied when saying why he went to war with Iraq (without congress declaring war)? no, I do believe he was misinformed and should have acted accordingly...but didn't. I believe that the people that resigned or were asked to step down were just to make it seem like Bush was doing something (because in essence he was) about the problem. After all that have left and such, what has changed? NOTHING.

We've learned that Iraq did NOT have WMDs which was one of the chief reasons for going there. The claim to put down the genocide that is happening is baseless in my mind because it has been happening there for a while...why now all of the sudden did it become an issue? I'm not saying it should be allowed, but using that as a reason for this instance of invading was stupid, what about all the other years it has been going on? it didn't matter then?

The al qaeda (or however you spell it) ties that saddam allegedly had could have been a reason...if there was concrete proof, however allegedly is hardly factual.

You can call me a liberal I don't care. However, I want undeniable proof of something before I do something that will have dire repercussions and potentially cost many Americans their lives if we decide to go through with it. Clearly the intelligence agencies didn't cross all their T's and dot the i's. Personally I was more concerned that we stopped searching for Bin Laden, someone who has widely believed to be the culprit of what this war is tied to.

For all that blame the liberal media, did it ever occur to you the conservative administration feeds the same off balanced views albeit in the other direction? of course not because you see eye to eye with them. There will never be who's right and who's wrong on this issue, we're getting to whats left. All the points have been argued INCESSANTLY and neither side is more right than the other, both have their points but neither would garner a majority I don't think.

As long as there are uncompromising extremes (liberal democrats and conservative republicans) we will never see eye to eye on anything, we're each have our own views and they will both be askew. Somewhere in between what we both believe is the right course.

 

[westsideworma]

"Did I get that right?"

No, you did not. It has nothing to do with "PC". It is just wrong to say you support the troops, and then say things that get them killed.

Believe whatever you want. If you want to believe you can support the troops, but not the war, FINE! Enjoy your warped values. But don't go on national television; don't get picked up by Al Jazeera to be broadcast all over the Middle East saying how unjust this war is. Because that emboldens our enemies. That gives YOU a hand in killing our troops.

Tell ya what. I'll concede that you can support the troops, but not the war...

IF....

You concede that by not supporting the war, you're helping the enemy kill our boys.

no offense over95 but how is his lack of support for the war killing people?

I'm curious is all.

 

[SeniorGeek]

"Did I get that right?"

No, you did not. It has nothing to do with "PC". It is just wrong to say you support the troops, and then say things that get them killed.

When I see things called "PC", all of them appear to be cases where someone is attempting to suppress speech by claiming it is harmful. George H.W. Bush said, "It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits." However, there appears to be no consensus about the meaning of PC. How can anyone know which suppression of speech is PC and which suppression of speech is not PC?

Believe whatever you want. If you want to believe you can support the troops, but not the war, FINE! Enjoy your warped values. But don't go on national television; don't get picked up by Al Jazeera to be broadcast all over the Middle East saying how unjust this war is. Because that emboldens our enemies. That gives YOU a hand in killing our troops.

I am not enjoying this dilemma. Nobody has a plan that stops our losses in Iraq while also saving face. I think that is what it comes down to: we are fighting to save face.

I hope that Al Jazeera is not picking up and broadcasting those opinions that we should kill, torture or jail Muslims/Islamofacists/Middle-Eastern Men, or those who characterize al Queda as mainstream Islam. Those make the perfect propaganda for anti-American groups. That sort of talk angers and emboldens our enemies, creates more enemies, increases unrest, recruits suicide bombers and endangers our troops and us civilians.

Tell ya what. I'll concede that you can support the troops, but not the war...

IF....

You concede that by not supporting the war, you're helping the enemy kill our boys.

Bringing them home will help the enemy kill them? Sorry, I can not concede that.

(Does the lack of pizza delivery make them safer in Iraq than in the U.S.?)

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

"I hope that Al Jazeera is not picking up and broadcasting those opinions that we should kill, torture or jail Muslims/Islamofacists/Middle-Eastern Men, or those who characterize al Queda as mainstream Islam. Those make the perfect propaganda for anti-American groups. That sort of talk angers and emboldens our enemies, creates more enemies, increases unrest, recruits suicide bombers and endangers our troops and us civilians."

It doesn't matter what we say about them now. They were already taught to hate us and to recruit suicide bombers.

 

[SeniorGeek]

It doesn't matter what we say about them now. They were already taught to hate us and to recruit suicide bombers.

I hope that over9five and big_arrow_up can just agree to disagree about the effect of al Jazeera's coverage. I'll get out of the middle of that argument.

 

[moreluck]

Did you see the Mickey Mouse look alike on their TV used to spread their hatred & propaganda? Disgusting! The only way it could be even more disgusting is if they'd used Barney.

 

[tieguy]

I am hoping you can explain this a little. The job of the military is to enforce foreign policy and provide national security. The president seems like he is trying to not repeat the mistakes of vietnam by giving the military the tools they need to fight the war without to much micro management. He allows the theater commanders to set the rules of engagement. Re enlistment in the army has been at all time highs so that would lead me to believe that morale is high. If the troops felt let down I would think the opposite would be true. Maybe you have more insight than I do. I only get calls from soldiers in Iraq a few times a week. (and yes I served with all of them) quote]

thanks for your service to our country. In your avatar it looks like you have a purple heart and bronze star?

 

[tieguy]

Reading through this thread I have mixed emotions. You folks who know me know I've been here in this part of the board arguing in defense of the war and supporting our troops with passion. I do believe we went for the right reasons. I believe the first Persian gulf war was a wasted effort if we did not thoroughly enforce the peace accords that hussiens army agreed to. I believe the discovery or not of WMD's irrelevent because I firmly believe saddaam would have developed them the second we looked the other way. I believe Saddaam killed over a million innocent people in his time and was one of the most brutal dictators this world has ever seen. With that said I am weary of this war and wondering just what direction we are going. in Public support can only last so long before it wanes. We have to show some positive momentum to continue to get the public support. Too many liberal medias working against our continuing this effort endlessly.

I was leaving a baseball game a couple of weeks ago and I ended up walking behind three young veterans of this war walking on mechanical feet that replace the real ones they lost. I felt so sad for these three brave warriors who had lost parts of their bodies as well as the innocence of youth. I found myself wishing I could somehow undo the damage these three young men had suffered. I found myself getting weary of this war that appears to have no end. I found myself getting very weary of the concept that we somehow keep getting saddled with as the beast of burden when it comes to righting the wrongs of the world. Why us. Why can't we isolate our kids from this type of brutality. Is world leadership really so important when most of this world seems to hate us for it? I want to support our troops and will never stop doing so but I am getting so weary of being the one that has to explain to our kids why their walking on mechanical feet made this world a safer place to live.

Our strategy is failing because we can't do what needs to be done to win this war. We had the fourth mech sitting on syrias border in 2003. The first sign of insurgents sneaking across the border should have caused us to mobolize that heavy division across the border. Want us to stop assad then control your border. Have a problem with Tikrit. No problem flatten the damn town and shoot anything that moves when you are done. Then napalm whats left so no one will ever know the town existed. Suicide bomber blows up 30 innocents. Take the celebrating family he left behind and demolish their house and make them slaves in Israel. Or Kill them one by one on AL jazeera. Don't fight a war where we make our kids a target. Fight a war to win. Fight a war where we are the meanest nastiest kid on the block. Make that jihadist afraid to pull his cord on his dynamite back pack. If we want to win this war then we should be prepared to brag about the sick stuff that went on inside that prison. Instead we have tried to turn this into a "civilized war" and continue to pay with our kids lives. Theres no honor in being a good loser when it comes to war. The devil and all his mineons should look like a girl scout compared to one of our armies on a rampage. The enemy does not fear us. Its no loss for them to die fighting us because they believe there is a reward in heaven if they die fighting us. But brutalize their friends and families for their sins and they will think twice. Take out a whole neighborhood because one guy in that hood tried to sniper us and you will quickly see neighborhoods turn on the hidden fighters. What happens if some arab squeals on an insurgent he and his family will end up dead. Nothing the US does to them compares. And thus we continue to lose a war because we keep putting our kids in the barrel. Here you go three shots for a dollar. Kill one of our troops and be a hero in your town tonight. No pain no consequence for them. We are following the queens rules of boxing while the enemy street fights us. Everytime we try to sit down inbetween rounds and take a breather they suicide bomb us.

So in the end we don't have the guts to fight this war in a brutal way that would actually cause the enemy to wane in fear. Its beneath us to crawl into that gutter and win this the way the war needs to be fought. Its beneath our character because we are the "good guys" in the white hats. We despise such thoughts of brutality. We don't have the stomach. We worry about the psyche of anyone who would think much less act in such a way. And that probably is why in the end when its all said and done we should not be in Iraq. We are not willing to do what needs to be done to win this type of war. What a terrific irony we have here. To win this war we would probably need to emulate the example and style of the leader we deposed.

 

[Sammie]

Tie,

Couldn't agree with you more. Exactly the same conversation we've had here at home. Brutality meets brutality head on. But you're right. We'll never stoop to that brutality and we certainly should.

I thought Sen. Joseph Biden had a great idea; split Iraq into three regions: the Kurds in the north, the Shias in the south, and the Sunnis in between, just to keep these hotheads away from each other.

And we can't just up and leave Iraq because Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia would have a hey day, not to mention the murder, torture, repression and intimidation that would start up again the minute we took off.

Why isn't the world demanding the removal of the tyrants and murderers over there, instead of the soldiers who are fighting for freedom? I wish more people would understand that Iraq's enemies and also our enemies and stop demanding a pull out.

How many years did it take us to liberate Europe? Fifty or so?
And we didn't leave until the job was done.

You know as well as I do that we will be liberating the entire Middle East before we're through, which means that we will be over there for a very, very long time.....

 

[local804]

I am hoping you can explain this a little. The job of the military is to enforce foreign policy and provide national security. The president seems like he is trying to not repeat the mistakes of vietnam by giving the military the tools they need to fight the war without to much micro management. He allows the theater commanders to set the rules of engagement. Re enlistment in the army has been at all time highs so that would lead me to believe that morale is high. If the troops felt let down I would think the opposite would be true. Maybe you have more insight than I do. I only get calls from soldiers in Iraq a few times a week. (and yes I served with all of them) Or maybe you just think it sounds good to imply that our soldiers cannot get the job done. Anyway thanks in advance for your insight I hate to take you away from your starbucks coffee and have a great day knowing that we have men on the front lines fighting the global war on terrorism for you so you can complain about their commander in chief.

very good post

 

[av8torntn]

tieguy,
That was a very well thought out post. I would probably have some of the same feelings if all of my knowledge came from the news or the politicians. My two main concerns are 1. the enemy does fear our military(my opinion based only on my experiance and observation) 2. we have a military full of professional soldiers and I feel that this is not a liability but something that we as americans can all be proud of. Sure people can point to some things that have gone wrong but for the most part the people involved were caught and punished very severly. Anyway I do agree that it will be very hard to continue the war on terrorism with public opinion going against the war because without beans and bullets even the most powerful military can be ground to a halt. yes tie those are mine not trying to brag or anything put them on my avatar because i am proud of that small piece of my life.

 

[tieguy]

tieguy,
Sure people can point to some things that have gone wrong but for the most part the people involved were caught and punished very severly. Anyway I do agree that it will be very hard to continue the war on terrorism with public opinion going against the war because without beans and bullets even the most powerful military can be ground to a halt. yes tie those are mine not trying to brag or anything put them on my avatar because i am proud of that small piece of my life.

You should be proud of them. And if your modesty allows I would love to hear how you earned them. I have nothing but respect for those who have tackled this difficult mission with honor and professionalism.

 

[av8torntn]

You should be proud of them. And if your modesty allows I would love to hear how you earned them. I have nothing but respect for those who have tackled this difficult mission with honor and professionalism.

One I was in the right place at the right time and the other I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Sammie]

One I was in the right place at the right time and the other I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nice try, Tie. I was also hoping to hear the stories behind his medals but from Nam to Desert Storm to now, military people I have known, including two husbands, do not discuss war experiences. And probably for good reason. I cannot begin to imagine the strain of war, or the daily chores of it, let alone the larger benchmarks.

Thank you for your time serving your country, Av.

 

[av8torntn]

hey senior geek I found a few more military people for you who do not want to surrender to the terrorists
http://www.appealforcourage.org/ no generals on this list but six o-6's I came across this and remembered you were looking for someone in the military who supported the mission but you were really looking for generals or something

 

[SeniorGeek]

hey senior geek I found a few more military people for you who do not want to surrender to the terrorists
http://www.appealforcourage.org/ no generals on this list but six o-6's I came across this and remembered you were looking for someone in the military who supported the mission but you were really looking for generals or something

You probably refer to this question:

Can somebody tell me how many Generals have retired after serving under W's reign (so far)? Can somebody tell me how many of those have been outspoken supporters of W's administration? That will help me get an idea of whether four is a significant number of Generals to retire and subsequently speak out against the Administration they served.

...and the reason I was looking for Generals:

... The president seems like he is trying to not repeat the mistakes of vietnam by giving the military the tools they need to fight the war without to much micro management. He allows the theater commanders to set the rules of engagement....

...and the Generals I found to have left during W's administration were outspoken against that administration's managment of the war:

Does it seem odd to anyone other than me that Army General (ret.) Eric Shinseki, ...Army Major General (ret.) John Batiste, Army Major General (ret.) Paul Eton or Marine Lieutenant General (ret.) Gregory Newbold would disagree with that statement?

BTW, I found one retired General (ret.) who has served under W and is supportive. He does still work for the DoD, and is now a paid adviser to W (about Iraq). He is supposed to have written the plan for a 30,000-troop escalation in Iraq, which led to Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops. (Is that "... giving the military the tools they need to fight the war without to much micro management"?)

I find the General's units went to Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo - but I do not find trips to Kuwait or Iraq in his military career.

So I found one (with financial interests) supportive General (ret.) to counter the four outspokenly-opposed Generals (ret.). I have not looked too hard, so there may be more.

 

[SeniorGeek]

hey senior geek I found a few more military people for you who do not want to surrender to the terrorists
http://www.appealforcourage.org/ no generals on this list but six o-6's I came across this and remembered you were looking for someone in the military who supported the mission but you were really looking for generals or something

From appealforcourage.org's appeal:

As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home....

Are they asking Congress to eliminate dissenting speech? Are they jealous of Russia?
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-russian-censorship-50-good-news-and.html

One thing I find funny is the desire to eliminate a freedom in the US in an attempt to bring freedom to Iraq.

Or maybe the idea is to reduce freedoms in the US until we can finally say that Iraq is just like us?

Another thing I find funny is that any law that might come from this extreme-right front group's appeal would be likely to stifle the speech of right-wingers, too.

For example, the use of the word "Islamofacist" implies a hatred for Islam, and its use could cause increased hatred of the US while simultaneously leading American troops to believe that no Muslim is worthy of freedom. I suppose that word would have to be specifically banned.

Talk of bombing would have to stop. If someone calls for bombing that does not occur, the enemy will see us as weak-willed and our troops will feel unsupported. If the bombing does occur, that talk served to warn the enemy - so they can leave only civilians in the places to be bombed, and further demoralize our troops by labeling them as murderers of innocents.

Those are just a couple of immediate, obvious examples that come to mind. Shall we see what else our Congress can come up with?