I thought Iraq didn't have any WMD

I wore my countries uniform for seven years of honorable Army service. Did you?

How irrelevant can you get?
You are not special, wearing a uniform doesn't make it suddenly OK to peddle lines that are well established as totally false
In fact it makes it worse as you are showing utter contempt for the soldiers by still supporting a pile of lies that killed and maimed lots of them

I have friends and family who served in that war. Do you?

What have you got against them?
If you liked them you wouldn't have been in favour of the sillyness in Iraq.

[Catfish]

DID the Iraq have weapons of mass destruction ?
WAS the destroyer torpedoed by north-vietnamese PT boats in the gulf of Tonking, back then ?

Make up your mind yourself. This is not bashing the US, indeed i do not like the old Soviet Union or North Corea any more than August, but it very well shows how propaganda works, and how the Media never really questions anything the government says. Indeed you could compare this to the "polish attack at Germany" in 1939 - it is all the same, propaganda repeats itself, and "Lest we forget" should ESPECIALLY address those lies :



And now they are trying to kill and arrest those who say the truth. No democracy, no free speech.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by vienna

Right, a cost of war as long as it isn't your life, right?

Folks like August, Sailor Steve, myself and many others here understand one thing you don't seem to get - when you sign up you don't get a guarantee of sitting somewhere safe. You go where you are needed and you do the job you are given - sometimes the mission seems like a boneheaded reach, others it looks like a milk run. When you sign up - you know it could cost your life - and yet your willing to do it. To claim that "as long as it isn't your life" totally ignores that point and just goes to show that you have either no understanding of the sacrifices of a soldier (and thus take those sacrifices for granted) or you choose to dishonor the sacrifices.

Originally Posted by Catfish

Quoting youtube starring a washed up actor that supports a socialist dictator as a relevant and accurate source of US government propaganda is more than just a stretch you know....

This is not bashing the US

Its not like he (or those he supports) are hostile to the US, huh?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Quoting youtube starring a washed up actor that supports a socialist dictator as a relevant and accurate source of US government propaganda is more than just a stretch you know....
Its not like he (or those he supports) are hostile to the US, huh?

"Source of government propaganda" lol this government is the source itself. Indeed Penn is more or less neutral, the IPA (institute of public accuracy) is indeed different than the phased media, and Hollywood military advertising films.
You obviously haven't even seen it. The propaganda is just like it has always been, and you, like millions before you, just do not want to know about it and what is really happening. The government cannot lie, unless it is Obama lol.
And a socialist dictator ? What do you mean - Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, unfortunately a socialist who died 9/11, 1973, during the putsch of this other dictator Pinochet ?

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

And a socialist dictator ? What do you mean - Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, unfortunately a socialist who died 9/11, 1973, during the putsch of this other dictator Pinochet ? You don't know your own history.

If it's Sean Penn you're talking about then i'm sure the socialist dictator is Chavez. I understand they're quite cozy with each other.

[Bilge_Rat]

You know, I wonder how long it will be before we can discuss the Iraq War rationally without all this endless childish, moralising posturing from either side. The war is over and the troops have gone home.

The war may have been a mistake, history will be the judge, but then what war is not a mistake. I'm sure the Germans also regret starting WW2.

I have read a number of books on the war, although the historical research is still embryonic. One interesting book which I read recently is the U.S. Army's official history on OIF which is available on line:


http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/OnPointI.pdf

It only deals with the first phase to the fall of Baghdad, but it really shows you the competence and professionalism of U.S. troops. This is in sharp contrast to the performance of the Russian Army in the 2008 Georgian War which was much more amateurish:

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/p.../mcdermott.pdf

...anyway, I will let you kids go back to your playpen...

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

You know, I wonder how long it will be before we can discuss the Iraq War rationally without all this endless childish, moralising posturing from either side. The war is over and the troops have gone home.

Good luck. WW2 ended in 1945 and it's still a hot-topic in my country. If you gave us all guns a 55 faction civil war would begin because of that damn war.

[Oberon]

To be fair, there is a grain of truth in that Sean Penn film in that it's very rare that a politician will give the full true reason for going to war with a nation, with a few exceptions. War is rarely a popular thing, so politically you have to dress it up to make it look acceptable to the people who voted you in to office. Thus satisfying them, whilst solidifying the strategic agenda that you have for this war.
In regards to the invasion of Iraq, one can only presume that the initial goals were to disrupt the flow of weapons to Al'Qaeda, create a pro-American state in order to counter Iran, and to shake things up in the Middle East enough that it disrupts any co-ordinated plans against America that had been formulating. Oil may have factored into the equation as well, because let's face it, it's an important strategic resource, just about everything we use runs on it, and every nation which is a strong importer of it is doing their best to secure supplies, China in Africa for example and their quiet support of Iran.
Wars are rarely about bettering society, or preserving lives, if that was the case then we'd be seeing F-18s over Damascus right now.

So where does that leave the average GI Joe? Stuck in the middle of course, they do their job for President and Country, and they do it damn well. They don't question why they're doing it because if you start doing that then the whole structure of the military breaks down, it's been like this since organised military forces came about...as Tennyson put it in the Charge of the Light Brigade "Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die."
Was the war in Iraq just? Perhaps, perhaps not. There are many examples of just and in-just wars depending upon the viewpoint of the nations involved, in the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941 who was truly the bad guy? Hitler who murdered millions or Stalin who murdered millions?

[Catfish]

Hello August,

Originally Posted by August

If it's Sean Penn you're talking about then i'm sure the socialist dictator is Chavez. I understand they're quite cozy with each other.

So you or Captain Haplo say Penn has an agenda - ok
I do not know much of Sean Penn's personal preferences, however i think in this clip he just speaks out the obvious. Most is being said by the politicians who were in charge, at the time.

Maybe there is a connection that the hawks see true reason = treason

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Hello August,


So you or Captain Haplo say Penn has an agenda - ok
I do not know much of Sean Penn's personal preferences, however i think in this clip he just speaks out the obvious. Most is being said by the politicians who were in charge, at the time.

Maybe there is a connection that the hawks see true reason = treason

You might want to do some research on this guy before you start championing him Catfish.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Catfish

I do not know much of Sean Penn's personal preferences, however i think in this clip he just speaks out the obvious. Most is being said by the politicians who were in charge, at the time.

Indeed. One would be foolish to disregard a message just because it came from an unfavorable messenger. Or, at least that is what the Bible says.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

How irrelevant can you get?

Not irrelevant at all. August's statement was a direct reaction to Vienna's seeming claim that August was willing to sacrifice other's lives but not his own.

You are not special, wearing a uniform doesn't make it suddenly OK to peddle lines that are well established as totally false
In fact it makes it worse as you are showing utter contempt for the soldiers by still supporting a pile of lies that killed and maimed lots of them

While I disagree with August on this, as long as he believes that he has the truth he is showing contempt for no one.

What have you got against them?
If you liked them you wouldn't have been in favour of the sillyness in Iraq.

His point was that he was one of them. You seem to be going back and forth on that.

Not irrelevant at all.

Did he go to Iraq in that episode of sillyness?
If not then any previous service is entirely irrelevant.

While I disagree with August on this, as long as he believes that he has the truth he is showing contempt for no one.

Do you really think anyone can honestly still believe that nonsense long after the authors of the rubbish have said it was bull?
Is it more likely that they are clutching at sttaws because it chokes them up that they were played as suckers and supported the waste of the troops.

His point was that he was one of them.

Not there, his point was that he had friends a family who were in Iraq.
That puts him on par with Cindy Sheehan and simply means that his views must be taken on their merit alone so if it is a crap view he holds then he holds a crap view.
Sheehans views are not suddenly right just because her son was in Iraq are they, some of her views hold water, some are rubbish and some are just very confused.
So on an equal measure Augusts views on this topic are just pure rubbish as they don't stand.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Did he go to Iraq in that episode of sillyness?
If not then any previous service is entirely irrelevant.

Not at all. I wasn't in Iraq, but I was in Vietnam. If you've never served you have no idea what it feels like to be accused of not being willing to risk your own life when you have done exactly that. I have friends who weren't in Iraq this time around, but were in Kuwait for the Gulf War. August signed up, and he would have gone wherever they sent him. His service is no less valid than anyone else's. It's not irrelevant at all.

Do you really think anyone can honestly still believe that nonsense long after the authors of the rubbish have said it was bull?
Is it more likely that they are clutching at sttaws because it chokes them up that they were played as suckers and supported the waste of the troops.

I tend to agree with you. Even if he is clutching at straws, his self-defense in the face of "as long as it's not your own life" is still relevant.

Sheehans views are not suddenly right just because her son was in Iraq are they, some of her views hold water, some are rubbish and some are just very confused.

No, nor would they have been right if she herself had served. That said, no one accused her of being willing to risk someone else's life but not her own. That accusation is the same as accusing someone of cowardice. Whatever I may think of August's arguing skills or tactics, I am certain that he is not coward, and that he would have willingly served in Iraq had circumstances dictated.

So on an equal measure Augusts views on this topic are just pure rubbish as they don't stand.

I agree, but that's not what his defence was about, or your charge of irrelevance. If you think his service is irrelevant to his argument, fine. I agree. But that's not why he brought it up. He brought it up because he was accused of what amounts to cowardice, and that grates on anyone who has served, whether he saw actual combat or not.

Not at all. I wasn't in Iraq, but I was in Vietnam.

But this isn't about Vietnam or Lebanon or Grenada or anywhere else, this is specificly about the bullexcrement used to justify the war in Iraq so it only counts for that conflict.

That accusation is the same as accusing someone of cowardice.

No it isn't.
Take a serviceman/ex serviceman who opposed the 2nd Boer war and supported the Great war or viceversa, which stand is he the coward for?
Take a serviceman who opposed both wars, which then.
Each must be dealt with on its merits and cowardice doesn't even rate on the meter of a decent arguement.
The only possible angle approaching "cowardice" here is a abject fear of facing the reality about the politicians lies.
That happens to be a common thing throughout history where people have to face the question of "what the hell was that all about?" after the conflict.
All too often some people slide into some myth as a comfort as they can't face the reality of it.