Get us out...or CNN out
 

Had a nice interview with a new employee today, back fresh from Iraq where he was a 10 year Staff Sargent in the USMC. He said we would have this mess cleaned up in 90 days if CNN just went away and let 'em go to work on these dudes. We can't fight this and win with CNN filming every event, too much collateral damage necessary, the towel heads know our limitations, and use it against our kids. F this let's get it done. I am a patriot thru and thru, but this is Viet Nam without a jungle. I don't see how we can tell if we're winning this...so let's just GTF out. Let them solve it without anymor of our blood spilled.

That seems to advocate the idea that as long as there are no cameras to capture war crimes and violations of the Geneva convention and intentional murder of innocent citizens....that it makes it ok?

It's CNN's fault that our soldiers have rules they have to follow for engagement? :o

Yep, collateral damage has happened in every war ever fought, and to think it's no different here is folly. There has been plenty already. My point is we are handcuffed in this campaign and we cannot realistically win this if every troop is looking over his shoulder at CNN while he tries to defend himself and his fellow troops while he takes care of business. War is ugly, and winning one is ugly, there is nothing fair about it. I have seen it thru my own eyes, and defense does not win this, only offense stops their effort, and blood will be shed doing it. When we stop them cold, we can come home.

Rule of War #1....there are no rules in war....

He told me we quit the "shock & awe" methods we had used earlier, and he's right. We don't win when they're launching from the mosque and we just dodge bullets. Win ugly, or gtf out. Let's decide before any more kids are lost for no good reason. Never thought I would see it this way, but there is too much indecision for me to see it any other way, at least for now.

[quote=brianwspencer]That seems to advocate the idea that as long as there are no cameras to capture war crimes and violations of the Geneva convention and intentional murder of innocent citizens....that it makes it ok?

You think they're following rules?

Hoss you're right and that's my point. How can we ever tell we're winning this? I don't think we can! What is the definition of a win.............democracy of a country that can't handle it? If the media demands to be on the scene, "inserted" if you will, then let's just pack up and get out of this mess. We cannot finish this is every soldier is held accountable for actiosn the insurgents use against them daily.

I have my board out...riding that wave too.

They aren't soldiers, therefore they don't have rules to follow. I'm not naive about how it all works. I don't believe in the magical world where we can win a war without killing innocents -- but the statistics are damning, saying that we're doing a plenty job of killing innocents with the cameras there.

So we should get the cameras out, slaughter half the country, then wash our hands clean and call it a day?

No amount of offense is going to make this go away. Not with a surge, not with camera-less warfare, not with anything. The more people we kill, the more people will hate us and the more insurgents there will be to fight. If we escalate our tactics and our numbers, it just escalates the whole thing and we're right back where we are now with bigger numbers.

[quote=MinnSkinny]That doesn't justify our stooping to the level of the terrorists. If we want to claim the moral high ground, we actually have to walk on it. If we torture and maim and attack with no respect for Geneva, how are we any different from them? After all, we're the ones who went into Iraq in the first place, so we can't even claim they attacked us. This ain't Afghanistan.

[quote=GenuineRisk]I have no axes to grind here, but this isn't about high ground. This is about the lives of our kids. We cannot continue to spend the human capital of hundreds or thousands of young Americans over there, when we have no chance of changing the mindset of the general population. I do not see a viable solution now, and I don't see one on the horizon either, so my point is, let's either win ugly or withdraw.
What is your solution?

as well said as anyone could say it. i'm not trying to be confrontational -- i'm just sick of the whole thing.

those are the two best options, but since we know we won't do the first (and we shouldn't), and Bush refuses to do the latter...we are just going to keep spinning our wheels and getting people killed until someone steps up and brings them home.

My point............exactly. And let's hope we do it soon.

i e d....thats fair..

Real costs:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/46161/

when has ted turner ever done a POSITIVE story on his news channel....support the troops.

[quote=MinnSkinny]So the lives of the Iraqis lost in a "win dirty" mean less than dirt to you? We invaded, we underfunded and understaffed Bush's private folly and now that we did all of that, tough sh*t, Iraqi women and children, we're going to blow you up, torture and rape you, because better that we win dirty on your blood and limbs than one more American who voluntarily enlisted in the army die doing what he or she knew was a risk when he or she signed up? Do you even think these people are human, or do you think they're not?

Actually, your use of "towel-head" answers that question for me.

Hey, MinnSkinny, where do you stand-- rape is a tactic of war as old as war. Would you support American men raping Iraqi women to intimidate the men? Is that appropriate? How about raping children? What, exactly, do you think the soldiers should be doing that the presence of CNN is keeping them from doing? Tell me, would you support our soldiers raping women and children? That's a very effective win dirty tactic. Would you support it? Where is your line?

What I think we should or shouldn't do doesn't matter two sh*ts, because Bush is clearly continuing to ignore the advice of the biggest experts in the world, so why would what I think matter? Our boys and girls are going to continue to die until January of '09, and then most Americans will conveniently forget who put us in war, and only blame the poor sap who takes over the Oval Office. I'm sure, if it's a Dem, that Republicans will loooove the opportunity to paint the Dems as losing another war. Vietnam started under Eisenhower and ended under... Nixon? Or Ford? But somehow, it was only the Dems' fault.

Sigh. I hate this war, and I hate that 3000 young men and women will never go home and that tens of thousands more have gone home blind, missing limbs, deaf, attached to a plastic bag for the rest of their lives, etc. And that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead and hundreds of thousands more also blind, crippled, deaf, etc. And I don't mean to be yelling like it's your or anyone else's fault, MinnSkinny, (with the exception of Messrs Bush and Cheney, whom I hope will meet those souls who have died in the past 3 years when they themselves pass on, old men, safe in their beds, and they can tell them then if the "threat" of WMDs was worth it). But, for all the attacks I get about liberals being moral relativists, I can tell you torture is wrong. Winning at any cost is wrong if it is done with torture and rape and abuse. And no cause will ever make it right. And if CNN's presence is really stopping the soldiers from doing some things, then it's because they know, on some level, that those things are wrong.

I apologize for sounding harsh, MS- it's not you; it's this horrible mess Bush got us into. But torture wrong. Always wrong. Never right.

GR,

That was beautiful. As much as I sometimes fancy my own writing skills, I could not have said it better with three days to think about it.

Thanks, brian, but rereading it, I need to clarify something that was part of something I later cut out because I'm longwinded enough--

I'm not saying I think "tough noogies; you signed up for it" about our soldiers over there (looking at my comments about voluntary enlistment). I still think we were deliberately misled into war by this Administration because they really thought they could pull this off and win before their lies caught up with them. And I think our army works hard, and quite frankly, is not well-paid for what they do or well-supported when they return from war. And I think while enlisting is voluntary, that the men and women who enlist believe that our government would never send them into danger unless there were no other alternative. And I think this administratin willfully sent them into danger and death without reason, and I think that was a huge breach of faith with the military. And a huge breach of humanity and humility on the part of the President and Vice President.

Only I issue I take that rape is a tactic of modern war. I think it's an insult to the men and women that serve us. but I'll definitely check with my future father in law and brother in law. One was a linquist in Vietnam and one was a Marine. I'll ask them how rape class was in basic training.

Now am I naive that it hasn't happened in every war? No, however I don't believe that in modern war it's instructed or ordered. War is ugly....it changes people.

Also the adopt a soldier site, that you yourself posted on here, I saw several entries asking for candy for the children....a lot of men and women who do have compassion for the Iraqi people. But I guess if you saw the release on the real Iraq plan Shock, Awe, & Rape...I'll take your word on it.

GR,
Thanks for saying it again and again.
You are spot on!
Others use racist names, just like during Vietnam days the indigenous people were called "gooks".
When anyone dehumanizes his fellow human inhabitants on this planet, it only demonstrates the justification for abhorent policies and actions.
If any war monger reads this, please answer only one question so as to demonstrate your intelligence, define the word "victory".
Thank you. Also, facts, not personal attacks.

Sorry, GR, but I'm with Bill on this...

Who are you to assume that our soldiers are rapists? Please inform me as to where you're getting that information. My father served in Vietnam and he never ONCE touched a Vietnamese woman or child.

Let's not pretend it doesn't still happen, and let's not pretend that it doesn't happen at the hands of American troops.

Nobody here has ever said that American soldiers are inhumane or that they have no compassion for Iraqi women, children, or anyone else. Nobody here has said, or insinuated in any way, that American soldiers are generally rapists. By and large, American soldiers are heroes in every sense of the word.

But they aren't all perfect, and it's not wrong to point it out.

I didn't even have to scroll down the page at google.com to find this gem for you: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1789544.shtml

Brian, I clearly did say it occurs...however a tactic of war? It's an awful thing that definitely occurs....but I for one do think it's the minority and not the majority.

and you edit out the part of my post that says that?

Cajun,
I really like you as a person.
Have you heard about Haditha?
I also know much about Vietnam. Try Mei Li, Medina, Calley.
Google will do.
"Victory"? Anyone????
DTS

So does everyone else here, as far as I can tell -- so I'm not sure why everyone is getting all defensive and accusing people of insinuating that all American soldiers are rapists...:confused:

Of course it happens! It happens here all of the time, but guess what, it's not a tactic of war. While I'm at it, let me point out to you that Orlando has one of the highest murder and rape rates in the country. Is that a tactic of war too? I just think that to word it the way it was worded was inaccurate...

Sudan.

maybe I didn't comprehend correctly....I guess she was saying would it be ok if we won at that cost....but boy it's close, that first sentence got me. there is the insinuation that CNN is keeping the soldiers morality in check as regards to rape at the end.

Sorry GR...I guess that SAT's are better kicked a in the math, however didn't do so well in the English

Did you serve, Wayne?

Rather than using google.com, I have found that I've learned a lot more about it just by talking to the people in this country that have served. (My Dad being one of them.)

I wouldn't consider that modern war. Guess who is the peacekeeping force?


Peace is the only solution to the suffering of the Sudanese people. Recent efforts by the U.S. Special Envoy for Peace in Sudan,

What qualifies as "modern" war, if not a war occurring at this very moment?

I've got to get that clarified before i can comment any further, because if we don't even see the word "modern" in the same way, then it's pointless to further talk about Sudan even though it's the single best example out there.

No Cajun,
I didn't. I was in college (student deferment). Alas, I lost too many friends, and those that returned were either very badly crippled, or saw the folly of their actions and organized the local college branch of Vets Against the War.
I was in the Students Mobilization to End the War.
Sidenote, my son's girl friend is a psychology post grad doing counseling with returned vets from Iraq, her thesis is about post traumatic stress disorder.
Too many stories to tell.
There has to be a better way. There has to be.
If we are unable to find that way, we'll only continue to cause others to suffer, as we do ourselves.

I'm not talking that it occurs in the modern era....

War is ugly, I don't like it...so don't mistake me for a war monger. Modern...rules of engagement, ethical treatment of POW's...etc. Geneva convention.

and yes I'm aware some of these statutes have been broken by our own country.

that's where we're not connecting here, is that your definition of modern war renders this entire conversation moot. if, in order to be a modern war, people have to follow those rules -- then there is no such thing as modern war because that will never be entirely achieved by any army from any country in a full-fledged war. In your definition of modern war, rape does not exist because everyone is polite and follows the "rules" -- so because rape does still exist as a tactic of war, what then do we consider to be modern war?

I think we're closer than it appears, of course it can't be entirely achieved, but is the Sudan different as a civilized nation and does that civil war have anything in common with war in Iraq, other than it is ugly and sensless? I think it's clear it's ordered in Sudan. Are the minority of US soldiers that commit rape doing this to gain a tatical advantage on the enemy? Or is it a result of the stress and horror, maybe underlying character in some?

Brian,
Sometimes we get bogged down about splitting hairs.
Is it worse to rape someone or just kill them?
Maybe burning with napalm makes sense, or cluster bombs, or mines.
Do we really need to qualify the level of barbarism to make it saleable?
Does it make us feel more righteous?
Some people have numbed their consience to the tragedy.
They'll dig their heels in an try to continue to convince others of the validity of the actions they support.
Yet, they remain silent on the question of "victory".
Cemetaries are very quiet places.

you've got me all wrong DTS, you really do. But I've always liked you since ESPN....your compassion is relentless and that's admirable.

I'm really sorry you feel the way you do about me...I want them home too.

If someone could quote me on this, I'd appreciate it, I think he has me on ignore.