Military Families Urge Censure for Bush as Congress Marks Iraq Anniversary - Page 2

Blue Monk · 18th March 2004, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by blackpriester
You said it exactly right.
By the same token, by the way, people make the Germans of the 40s RIGHTFULLY resoponsible fr being Nazis: Loyalty goes far, but even as a soldier you should not obey orders that take you in a completely different direction from what is RIGHT.

SOME questions have to be asked.

That’s a poor analogy.

No reasonable person would hold the average soldier, acting only out of loyalty for their homeland, accountable for policy and in practice only individuals who willfully participated in war crimes were held accountable. The average German soldier was not held accountable and allowed to simply return home.

A soldier should have the right to refuse to participate in any criminal act but he should be allowed to pick and choose which conflicts he chooses to fight in. One joins the military with the understanding that others make policy and their job is to obey orders. If you don’t like the terms then don’t join the military.

corplinx · 18th March 2004, 08:30 AM

On the WMD issue, Hans Blix believes the Iraqis may have destroyed them after the inspectors pulled out in 1998.

This baffles everyone who hears it since without witnesses from the UN, any sort of video, any third party observer, the event could not be confirmed and thus the UN sanctions to enforce the cease-fire could not be lifted and the cease-fire terms could not be proven to be met.

The most baffling thing is that Saddam would destroy these agents voluntarily when he wouldn't do it under close scrutiny in the first place. It just doesn't fit the modus operandi. It doesn't add up.

In any case, Saddam was in violation of the cease-fire and thus signed his own resignation. The idea that somehow the US is the guilty party because of some poorly chosen words and a snafu in a state of the union speech is just ludicrous.

MoveOn needs to MoveOn, preferably to France where they can enjoy the style of government they prefer.

DavidJames · 18th March 2004, 08:32 AM

Quote:

So, when did we first become jaded? With Nixon or did we figure that he was and aberration and it took Clinton to clinch the deal?
Yeah, depends on who you talk to. Some would say it was with Reagan and Iran Contra. Still, no one could parse like Willie.

This comparison always fascinates me.

Nixon - break in and cover up of criminal activity
Reagan - illegally sending arms to Iran
Clinton* - caught having sex with an intern.

yup, pretty much equivalent

Sorry, please return to the main topic

*I did not include unsubstantiated allegations, or Clinton's list would clog up the servers.

Blue Monk · 18th March 2004, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.

Another quote you cited: "Families of soldiers serving, as well as of those who have been casualties, in the occupation of Iraq came to Capitol Hill today with other volunteers, urging Congress to censure PresidentGeorge W. Bush."

I wonder who those other volunteers might be?

And the fact "the call" is on moveon is exploitive.

I disagree.

First of all the issues being raised by moveon are most certainly not their own invention. Many intelligent and well-informed citizens from both sides of the spectrum have expressed legitimate concern over the candidness of the Bush administration in the weeks preceding the war. These are valid questions that all of us as Americans have a right to ask and have answered.

Secondly, moveon is well with it’s right to seek out like-minded people who agree with their views to lobby Congress. That’s as American as apple pie. Is playing up the families of service men both tacky and irrelevant? Yes. Don’t be too surprised when they start popping up in the Bush re-election campaign.

Thirdly, is the use of volunteers somehow indicative of manipulation or exploitation? Of course not. How else do you plan, organize and execute of movement? To me the use of volunteers as opposed to aids paid for by fund raising is a far purer form of legitimate political discourse.

I also do not like to see the bodies of servicemen used as a political football and the Administration’s claim of ‘concern over the families’ may be partially true but one would have to be very naïve to believe that men with the political experience these fellows have could be totally ignorant to the effect of seeing flag draped coffins daily returning from Iraq would have on the general population. Justified or not, it was the Bush Administration’s decision to ban these images that put that ball into play.

Blue Monk · 18th March 2004, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidJames
This comparison always fascinates me.

Nixon - break in and cover up of criminal activity
Reagan - illegally sending arms to Iran
Clinton* - caught having sex with an intern.

yup, pretty much equivalent

Sorry, please return to the main topic

*I did not include unsubstantiated allegations, or Clinton's list would clog up the servers.

still chuckling.

I feel you pain

For the record though, it wasn’t because he had sex with an Intern per se but rather because he lied about it under oath, something he really shouldn’t have done.

But boy, talk about your concerted efforts to ‘get’ a President, that one takes the case.

18th March 2004, 08:22 AM	#41
Blue Monk Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,772	Re: Thank you Tmy Quote: Originally posted by blackpriester You said it exactly right. By the same token, by the way, people make the Germans of the 40s RIGHTFULLY resoponsible fr being Nazis: Loyalty goes far, but even as a soldier you should not obey orders that take you in a completely different direction from what is RIGHT. SOME questions have to be asked. That’s a poor analogy. No reasonable person would hold the average soldier, acting only out of loyalty for their homeland, accountable for policy and in practice only individuals who willfully participated in war crimes were held accountable. The average German soldier was not held accountable and allowed to simply return home. A soldier should have the right to refuse to participate in any criminal act but he should be allowed to pick and choose which conflicts he chooses to fight in. One joins the military with the understanding that others make policy and their job is to obey orders. If you don’t like the terms then don’t join the military.
	__________________ Veni, Vidi, Velcro I came, I saw, I stuck around

18th March 2004, 08:30 AM	#42
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	On the WMD issue, Hans Blix believes the Iraqis may have destroyed them after the inspectors pulled out in 1998. This baffles everyone who hears it since without witnesses from the UN, any sort of video, any third party observer, the event could not be confirmed and thus the UN sanctions to enforce the cease-fire could not be lifted and the cease-fire terms could not be proven to be met. The most baffling thing is that Saddam would destroy these agents voluntarily when he wouldn't do it under close scrutiny in the first place. It just doesn't fit the modus operandi. It doesn't add up. In any case, Saddam was in violation of the cease-fire and thus signed his own resignation. The idea that somehow the US is the guilty party because of some poorly chosen words and a snafu in a state of the union speech is just ludicrous. MoveOn needs to MoveOn, preferably to France where they can enjoy the style of government they prefer.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

18th March 2004, 09:03 AM	#44
Blue Monk Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,772	Quote: Originally posted by Luke T. Another quote you cited: "Families of soldiers serving, as well as of those who have been casualties, in the occupation of Iraq came to Capitol Hill today with other volunteers, urging Congress to censure PresidentGeorge W. Bush." I wonder who those other volunteers might be? And the fact "the call" is on moveon is exploitive. I disagree. First of all the issues being raised by moveon are most certainly not their own invention. Many intelligent and well-informed citizens from both sides of the spectrum have expressed legitimate concern over the candidness of the Bush administration in the weeks preceding the war. These are valid questions that all of us as Americans have a right to ask and have answered. Secondly, moveon is well with it’s right to seek out like-minded people who agree with their views to lobby Congress. That’s as American as apple pie. Is playing up the families of service men both tacky and irrelevant? Yes. Don’t be too surprised when they start popping up in the Bush re-election campaign. Thirdly, is the use of volunteers somehow indicative of manipulation or exploitation? Of course not. How else do you plan, organize and execute of movement? To me the use of volunteers as opposed to aids paid for by fund raising is a far purer form of legitimate political discourse. I also do not like to see the bodies of servicemen used as a political football and the Administration’s claim of ‘concern over the families’ may be partially true but one would have to be very naïve to believe that men with the political experience these fellows have could be totally ignorant to the effect of seeing flag draped coffins daily returning from Iraq would have on the general population. Justified or not, it was the Bush Administration’s decision to ban these images that put that ball into play.
	__________________ Veni, Vidi, Velcro I came, I saw, I stuck around

18th March 2004, 09:09 AM	#45
Blue Monk Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,772	Quote: Originally posted by DavidJames This comparison always fascinates me. Nixon - break in and cover up of criminal activity Reagan - illegally sending arms to Iran Clinton* - caught having sex with an intern. yup, pretty much equivalent Sorry, please return to the main topic I did not include unsubstantiated allegations, or Clinton's list would clog up the servers. still chuckling.* I feel you pain For the record though, it wasn’t because he had sex with an Intern per se but rather because he lied about it under oath, something he really shouldn’t have done. But boy, talk about your concerted efforts to ‘get’ a President, that one takes the case.
	__________________ Veni, Vidi, Velcro I came, I saw, I stuck around

18th March 2004, 08:32 AM	#43
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,084	Quote: So, when did we first become jaded? With Nixon or did we figure that he was and aberration and it took Clinton to clinch the deal? Yeah, depends on who you talk to. Some would say it was with Reagan and Iran Contra. Still, no one could parse like Willie. This comparison always fascinates me. Nixon - break in and cover up of criminal activity Reagan - illegally sending arms to Iran Clinton* - caught having sex with an intern. yup, pretty much equivalent Sorry, please return to the main topic *I did not include unsubstantiated allegations, or Clinton's list would clog up the servers.