Where's the good news on Iraq?
I believe some variation on this question was asked at yesterday's meeting. Let me suggest the following resources :
iraqthemodel
iraqnow : They did a nice partial Fisk of the NYT op-ed that IowaHerbman posted yesterday. I linked to it on the comments to that post.
The aptly named goodnewsfromthefront
There are dozens more. Just follow the links on these sites. If you do, you will notice that they do not shy away from talking about explosions, ethnic conflicts and day to day difficulties of living in Iraq. However, I think you will also find (at least based on my brief review) a generally optimistic tone.
posted by mkchicago at 9:39 AM
11 Comments:
MK, wow, great, we forced the people of Iraq to "vote" for a new lapdog to ensure our collective, gluttonous mouths have full access to the oil tittie. Yippee, God bless us. IMO, Still not worth the billions of dollars, thousands of lives, 10's of thousands of maimed soldiers. If this is such a worthy and certain cause to you all, why the hestiation and dodging when asked to sign up for this debacle?
I don't think there is any correlation between willingness to serve in the military and belief in what is correct for the country. This is a completely worthless question that does not have anything to do with policy debates.
Not that it matters, I seriously considered making the military a career when I was in high school. I grew up in a neighborhood that was about half air force families. I was in ROTC in high school. I got to know and respect the military culture a great deal. The main reason I ended up not going in was because it was not a good career choice at that time. I graduated high school in 1992 just as the 'peace dividend' was starting to be exacted. I saw the cutbacks and forced early retirements first hand.
I find your assumption that the war was waged just to get the oil out of Iraq. If we wanted oil we could have simply lifted the embargo and bought it from the Iraqis.
I have seen no evidence that oil was the overriding factor. Did I miss the part where the Iraqi oil industy was given to Exxon/Mobil. The last I saw the industy is still nationalized and all the money goes into the governments coffers. What am I missing?
Hurt Leg you wrote,
"This is a completely worthless question that does not have anything to do with policy debates."
I'm curious, why is it worthless? Please explain this disconnect.
I don't see the connection between what the proper policy for this country is and what my personal decision of how I live my life are related.
Are you trying to say that only people who have served in the military have valid opinions as too when the military can be used?
If I choose not to serve, does that make my views on the war any less reasonable as a citizen. Are your views less meaningful because you never served, or more meaningful because you did. I thought the country was still one person, one vote.
The chickenhawk argument is a device to change the subject that doesn't change the relative strengh or weakness of that persons point of view.
If you're 1) a cheerleader for the war, and 2) think it's a cause worthy of an undetermined number of American lives, 3) and able-bodied young man/woman, and 4) know that the armed forces are failing to meet recruitment goals because of it, then I think it's absolutley a justifiable question to ask you why you haven't signed up. Why wouldn't that be a valid question?
So, by your definition only males (women are not allowed in combat formations) between the age of 18 and 30 are allowed to be for ANY war? What kind of political system would that be?
"So, by your definition only males (women are not allowed in combat formations) between the age of 18 and 30 are allowed to be for ANY war?"
The ladyhawks aren't getting off that easy--they should be signing up so they free up all the pencil-neck pencil-pusher men for combat.
I obviously didn't say that only combat-ready males are allowed to have an opinion in favor of war. If you think this cause is worth dying/killing for, and you are physically able to do both but choose not to do either, you'd better be able to give a reason why it's only worth the lives of others, and not your own. You obviously don't think it's worth your life, otherwise you'd be there taking the fight to the islamofascists.
In case I've convinced you, here's a helpful link to an Army Times article entitled "Uncle Sam wants you – even if you’re 42 years old"
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-983408.php
Not that it matters but I would never qualify medically. I broke my leg and had some complications when I was in college. I still have a steel rod and several pins in my leg. The military wouldn't take me.
Huh-huh huh-huh huh-huh, he said "rod" huh-huh huh huh.
Sorry.
I'm with the hurt leg on this one.
The belief that we should be in Iraq or not is right or wrong completely independent of the person holding that belief.
The Nazis were very good at math. Their own moral turptitude was completely unrelated to whether or not they were right about math.
Similarly, Bush may be right about the war or he may not be, but whether he's seen combat does not affect whether he's right. Same for Cheney and same before for a certain man named Cohen.
Jeff,
I think your question is valid but not necessarily an accurate test of either logical or moral consistency.
Do remember that we have an all-volunteer army, and there are quite a few people who may be accepting this war who would not, if there were a draft. People did sign up to be SOLDIERS, after all, and we did not.
At the same time, I wholly acknowledge that the military has become the employer of small-town America, now that we don't make stuff here. That so many turn to the military for financial reasons is truly unfortunate.
Yet and still, they did choose to soldiers, and when soldiers go off to war, I don't think it logically follows that only people willing to join them ought to be approving of the action.
Post a Comment
<< Home