Re: A “Test” of their Yellow Badge of Courage

by **Stephanie** Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:08 am

Sam,

The actions of our government has caused the displacement of massive numbers of Iraqi civilians. They need to be resettled, they need treatment for their injuries and diseases refugees are suffering from.

That is not the same thing as what has been done here in this country with entitlements. I don't want to create another welfare state in Iraq. We can't afford the one we have here in the US.

by Aaron Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:23 am

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

I'm sure people here remember what you said about the occupation of Iraq in the old forum. I won't shut up about it. You think it is perfectly acceptable to occupy that nation indefinitely, you said so yourself.

Should we have left Germany in 1945? I've ask you that twice but you've never answered. Why is that?

The fact is, you do the same thing here that BO is attempting to do to John McCain. You take what is said and distort it, change it around and call it 'endless occupation'. That was your statement last night ONE thread AFTER I said we should have never gone to Iraq. I'll trust that smart people knew exactly what I was saying on the old forum, which is the same thing I'm saying now, whether they agree with it or not.

I want our military out as soon as possible but not one minute TOO soon. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that but the way I see it, that's your problem, not mine.

Stephanie wrote:I am absolutely opposed to leveling Afghanistan or any other country. You said last night
Afghanistan should have been bombed flat
.

Those are your words, not mine. You find these tactics acceptable, I do not.

We just can't seem to learn from our mistakes. We have stirred the pot in that region of the world to the point it has become a bubbling cauldron of violence and untold misery. The turmoil in so many of those nations has been exacerbated by our interference yet we just can't cut the shit. Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, just to name a few have suffered so much unrest as a direct result of US intervention in their affairs.

We demand democracy and then fail to recognize the democratically elected leaders of Pakistan and Gaza. We prop up military dictators like Hussein and Musharef whenever it suits us for as long as it suits us.

So now you're saying Afghanistan is unwinnable. We can't possibly know that because our government has never committed the resources necessary to achieving victory there. We are there.......we certainly upset the apple cart there. Are you suggesting we "abandon" Afghanistan? Do you see it as an either/or situation? Level them or leave them?

We had a legitimate reason to go into Afghanistan and we have legitimate reasons for staying. I don't want to "abandon" Iraq. I want to give Iraq back to the Iraqis. I want our government to assist the victims of US aggression in that nation by providing necessities like food and medical supplies and money to reputable relief agencies with good track records of helping refugees and victims of war etc.

You demand we get out of Iraq NOW but you want to commit to a country troops that would require the draft and a committment that would surpass the one in Germany to 'win' the war as you want to.

The objective in Afghanistan was the same as it was in Iraq. The reasons for removal were different but the the goal was the same; remove the government. We achieved that in less then a month. The only other goal should have been to combat Al Qeada terrorist by removing training camps and compounds. The easiest way to do that with a minimal loss of American life is by using satellite images and bombing.

But you don't want that. You want to committ to an endless occupation in that Muslim country and for what? To chase a figure head from one cave to the next. Your logic makes no sense what so ever.

by ziggy Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:35 am

Aaron wrote:
Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

I'm sure people here remember what you said about the occupation of Iraq in the old forum. I won't shut up about it. You think it is perfectly acceptable to occupy that nation indefinitely, you said so yourself.

Should we have left Germany in 1945? I've ask you that twice but you've never answered. Why is that?

Should we have left Vietnam in 1975? Or should we have left sooner? Or should we have stayed longer?

by Aaron Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:54 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

I'm sure people here remember what you said about the occupation of Iraq in the old forum. I won't shut up about it. You think it is perfectly acceptable to occupy that nation indefinitely, you said so yourself.

Should we have left Germany in 1945? I've ask you that twice but you've never answered. Why is that?

Should we have left Vietnam in 1975? Or should we have left sooner? Or should we have stayed longer?

We should have left the day BEFORE government leaders started making military decisions.

Now answer my question.

by ziggy Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:01 am

Aaron wrote:
(Ziggy)- Should we have left Vietnam in 1975? Or should we have left sooner? Or should we have stayed longer?
We should have left the day BEFORE government leaders started making military decisions.

OK. That would have been about August, 1964- when Johnson and / or McNamara decided to trump up that bogus "Gulf of Tonkin incident" about the U.S. military being attacked.

So we agree again; if there was a good time to have left Vietnam, it would have been about 1964, or 1963, or 1962, or 1961 ................................

by Aaron Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:04 am

ziggy wrote:
OK. That would have been about August, 1964- when Johnson and / or McNamara decided to trump up that bogus "Gulf of Tonkin incident" about the U.S. military being attacked.

So we agree again; if there was a good time to have left Vietnam, it would have been about 1964, or 1963, or 1962, or 1961 ................................

Telling a lie is not the same thing as making military command decisions, is it!!!
You didn't answer my question. Should we have left Germany in 1945 after allied forces defeated Hitlers Army?

by ziggy Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:09 am

Aaron wrote:Telling a lie is not the same thing as making military command decisions, is it!!!

The lie was to turn benign military reports into something other than what they actually were. And why were we even in the Gulf of Tonkin at that time? Because of some "military" decision, or because the President sent the military there to try an provoke a fight?

by Aaron Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:15 am

The President has the authority to make command decisions. He's the C-I-C. Good ones listen to their advisors before making decisions. I have a different view of the role of Vietnam so my opinions of Johnson's decisions are probably a tad different then yours.

Why are you so scared to answer my question.

Should we have vacated Germany after defeating Hitler in 1945?

by **Stephanie** Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:20 am

We're not talking about Germany. We're talking about Iraq and they are two entirely different scenarios.

We were justfied in battling the Germans. We are unjustified in invading and occupying Iraq.

by Aaron Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:27 am

Stephanie wrote:We're not talking about Germany. We're talking about Iraq and they are two entirely different scenarios.

We were justfied in battling the Germans. We are unjustified in invading and occupying Iraq.

No, you and I were discussing Afghanistan and you stated we are justified in going into Afghanistan and 'winning', ie occupation, Germany is very relevent to this conversation.

So should we have vacated Germany after defeating Hitler's army in 1945 or was Truman justified in staying?

It's not a difficult question. Why can't either of you answer it?

by ziggy Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:31 am

Aaron wrote:The President has the authority to make command decisions. He's the C-I-C. Good ones listen to their advisors before making decisions. I have a different view of the role of Vietnam so my opinions of Johnson's decisions are probably a tad different then yours.

So you believe that using the infamous "Gulf of Tonkin incident" as a political and public relations basis for vastly ramping up the war in Vietnam was OK?

As for occupying Germany after 1945, Stephanie's answer just above is spot on.

by Aaron Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:34 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:The President has the authority to make command decisions. He's the C-I-C. Good ones listen to their advisors before making decisions. I have a different view of the role of Vietnam so my opinions of Johnson's decisions are probably a tad different then yours.

So you believe that using the infamous "Gulf of Tonkin incident" as a political and public relations basis for vastly ramping up the war in Vietnam was OK?

As for occupying Germany after 1945, Stephanie's answer just above is spot on.

No, her answer is not spot on. Not in context with the ongoing conversation. It's anything but. The only thing out of context is your insertation of Vietnam into the conversation.

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

by **Stephanie** Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:42 am

Aaron wrote:
Stephanie wrote:We're not talking about Germany. We're talking about Iraq and they are two entirely different scenarios.

We were justfied in battling the Germans. We are unjustified in invading and occupying Iraq.

No, you and I were discussing Afghanistan and you stated we are justified in going into Afghanistan and 'winning', ie occupation, Germany is very relevent to this conversation.

So should we have vacated Germany after defeating Hitler's army in 1945 or was Truman justified in staying?

It's not a difficult question. Why can't either of you answer it?

I'd say Truman was justified in staying. However, that was 60 years ago and we certainly don't need to be there today. I thought you were bringing up Germany in comparison to Iraq.

by Aaron Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:03 am

Stephanie wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Stephanie wrote:We're not talking about Germany. We're talking about Iraq and they are two entirely different scenarios.

We were justfied in battling the Germans. We are unjustified in invading and occupying Iraq.

No, you and I were discussing Afghanistan and you stated we are justified in going into Afghanistan and 'winning', ie occupation, Germany is very relevent to this conversation.

So should we have vacated Germany after defeating Hitler's army in 1945 or was Truman justified in staying?

It's not a difficult question. Why can't either of you answer it?

I'd say Truman was justified in staying. However, that was 60 years ago and we certainly don't need to be there today. I thought you were bringing up Germany in comparison to Iraq.

I bring it up as it relates to occupation. There are times that it is justified. Germany was one. And there are those that not only opposed our intervention into WW2 in the 30;'s and during the early part of the war, they called for us to leave the war and after victory , they called for us to get out of Germany. But to leave too early would have be disastrous to America. Those that called for the end of the occupation too early are wrong.

And I agree, we no longer need to be there with the forces we currently have.

by ziggy Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:10 am

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:The President has the authority to make command decisions. He's the C-I-C. Good ones listen to their advisors before making decisions. I have a different view of the role of Vietnam so my opinions of Johnson's decisions are probably a tad different then yours.

So you believe that using the infamous "Gulf of Tonkin incident" as a political and public relations basis for vastly ramping up the war in Vietnam was OK?

As for occupying Germany after 1945, Stephanie's answer just above is spot on.

No, her answer is not spot on. Not in context with the ongoing conversation. It's anything but. The only thing out of context is your insertation of Vietnam into the conversation.

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

Vietnam is just as comparable to Iraq as WW II Germany is- far more so, actually- as uncomfortable for you as that obviously is.

I answered your question. If you don't like my answer, or you don't like my analogies to Vietnam and Iraq, that's tough. If Goerge W Bush doesn't want to be compared to Lyndon Johnson, he shoudn't act like Lyndon Johnson.

by Aaron Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:21 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:The President has the authority to make command decisions. He's the C-I-C. Good ones listen to their advisors before making decisions. I have a different view of the role of Vietnam so my opinions of Johnson's decisions are probably a tad different then yours.

So you believe that using the infamous "Gulf of Tonkin incident" as a political and public relations basis for vastly ramping up the war in Vietnam was OK?

As for occupying Germany after 1945, Stephanie's answer just above is spot on.

No, her answer is not spot on. Not in context with the ongoing conversation. It's anything but. The only thing out of context is your insertation of Vietnam into the conversation.

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

Vietnam is just as comparable to Iraq as WW II Germany is- far more so, actually- as uncomfortable for you as that obviously is.

I answered your question. If you don't like my answer, or you don't like my analogies to Vietnam and Iraq, that's tough. If Goerge W Bush doesn't want to be compared to Lyndon Johnson, he shoudn't act like Lyndon Johnson.

No, you didn't. You referenced Stephanies first response. As for your 'analogies', maybe if you actually understood Vietnam, you might have a point. As you don't, you don't.

by SamCogar Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:53 am

Stephanie wrote:
We were justfied in battling the Germans. We are unjustified in invading and occupying Iraq.

NO, we were not ...... according to your reasoning on Iraq. We should have stayed out of England and Germany's quarrel ...... and let them duke it out.

.

by Aaron Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:59 am

Sam is right. It took FDR 5+ years to get us into WW2 and long before we got there, he was doing everything he could short of committing troops to aid England and Europe. By your reasoning Stephanie, we should have never interfered thus we weren't justified in fighting Germany.

by shermangeneral Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:09 pm

Well Aaron didnt Germany declare war on us after the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor?

by ziggy Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:08 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:Vietnam is just as comparable to Iraq as WW II Germany is- far more so, actually- as uncomfortable for you as that obviously is.

I answered your question. If you don't like my answer, or you don't like my analogies to Vietnam and Iraq, that's tough. If Goerge W Bush doesn't want to be compared to Lyndon Johnson, he shoudn't act like Lyndon Johnson.

No, you didn't. You referenced Stephanies first response.

I referenced Stephanie's response because I agreed with it- just as you often do Sam's.

As for your 'analogies', maybe if you actually understood Vietnam, you might have a point. As you don't, you don't.

Gulf of Tonkin re: Vietnam was a lie. WMDs re: Iraq were a pack of lies. What more do you want us to understand?

by Aaron Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:40 pm

shermangeneral wrote:Well Aaron didnt Germany declare war on us after the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor?

Yep.

But did they attack us? If you're going by declarations alone, why aren't we fighting Iran and Syria. Both have declard Jihad against America.

by Aaron Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:43 pm

ziggy wrote:
As for your 'analogies', maybe if you actually understood Vietnam, you might have a point. As you don't, you don't.

Gulf of Tonkin re: Vietnam was a lie. WMDs re: Iraq were a pack of lies. What more do you want us to understand?

You've proven my point. Thank you.

by **Stephanie** Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:22 pm

SamCogar wrote:
Stephanie wrote:
We were justfied in battling the Germans. We are unjustified in invading and occupying Iraq.

NO, we were not ...... according to your reasoning on Iraq. We should have stayed out of England and Germany's quarrel ...... and let them duke it out.

.

What on Earth are you talking about? For crying out loud, Sam, in addition to everything else, the Germans declared war on us after we declared war on Japan!

Give me a break!

by **Stephanie** Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:46 pm

Aaron wrote:Sam is right. It took FDR 5+ years to get us into WW2 and long before we got there, he was doing everything he could short of committing troops to aid England and Europe. By your reasoning Stephanie, we should have never interfered thus we weren't justified in fighting Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Pratt#Steamship_tanker_S.S._Charles_Pratt

Charles Pratt was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat in the Indian Ocean 220 miles off the coast of Africa while en route from Aruba to Freetown, Sierra Leone. Of the American crew of 42, only 2 lives were lost.

Ah, here is something for you:

http://www.usmm.org/casualty.html

U.S. Owned or Chartered Ships Attacked Before Pearl Harbor
At least 243 mariners were killed in action before Pearl Harbor

.

There's a nice handy-dandy little chart of those ships including details such as date, type of attack, how many dead etc. dating back to October of '39.

by Aaron Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:50 pm

Stephanie wrote:
What on Earth are you talking about? For crying out loud, Sam, in addition to everything else, the Germans declared war on us after we declared war on Japan!

Give me a break!

But Germany did not attak the United States. We attacked them first, on November 8, 1942 (almost a year after Pearl) in North Africa. Had we not sent troops to Europe and 'intervened' in another countries internal business, they very well may have never attacked the United States.

And for the record, we declared war on Germany the same day they declared war on us, December 11, 1941, 4 days after Pearl.

You said we were justified in attacking Germany. Why?

by Sponsored content