Skip to main content

View Diary: Marines block Internet sites (234 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Remember, 85% of Troops Think (4.00)
    they're in Iraq fighting Saddam's 9/11 attack.

    Also remember, all these troops are eventually coming home, which means there will be thousands of honored spokesmen who can give first-hand reminders of the gallant fight against Saddam's 9/11 attack.

    Granted there will be significant ire over the actual execution. But there will be a lot of grassroots support for advancing the empire.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 08:51:11 AM PST

    •  Reality check (4.00)
      72% of those there want the military to pull out.  Now.

      Hardly the picture of future goosesteppers.  No, the goosesteppers are mostly all still here, having not volunteered, being cowardly yellow elephants....

      "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

      by ogre on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 09:12:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (none)
        This is my assesment as well.  Those without military sevice, back here in the states take a much more hard-line position on this war than those serving in combat, IMHO.
      •  I agree with both positions actually (none)
        While 72% think the situation is FUBAR, I bet a large percentage of them are only too willing to attribute it to flaws in the Iraqi national character/psyche/moral fiber/religious upbringing which is all a way of saying "because they are hadji sand niggers". In other words, when rationalizing failure, racism is going to come to the fore.

        Then there will be a significant number who agreed with the mission but think Bushco fucked it up by not being genocidal, I mean aggressive, enough.

        I think job 1 needs to be to edumucate those 85-percenters with all due haste.

        Is Ed Schultz really heard over there? Can we get him on the case?

    •  Gooserock, we don't know that for sure (4.00)
      That poll question was lousy.  It simply asked something like, "did your leaders send all of you to Iraq to retaliate for Saddam's role in 9/11?".  What it didn't ask was, "Now, did Saddam actually HAVE any role in 9/11?"  

      I'd wager a lot of them feel like Bush and Congress sent them there to whup Saddam for 9/11, yet understand Saddam had no role in the attacks.  No proof of that, but I'd like to see better polling.

      •  that explains a lot (4.00)
        That's been bugging me. I didn't get it.

        Do you have a link? Because if that is the question, I'm suddenly feeling a lot better. That question is misleading and the report about the poll is also misleading.

        "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

        by Dunbar on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 10:06:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you asking Reed Richards (none)
          for a link to a poll you first referenced?

          I'm always wary of those who know what to say but not what to do.

          by NeoconSemanticist on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 10:36:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Here is the link to Zogby (4.00)
          Sorry, stepped away from DailyKos for a while there =)

          The Zogby press release/story can be found here

          Key excerpt is below.  Note that the poll questions do not ask our troops what they believe regarding Saddam and 9/11.  Simply, what are the reasons you are there?

          >> While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks," 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq."

          "Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there," said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. "Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein."

    •  I disagree (none)
      entirely.  I really get tired of knee-jerk anti-military posts among some on this site.

      I support ogre's comment 100%.  The troops are for coming home, and I bet that a majority of that 72% would support Murtha's plan for a strategic realignment.

      Do a majority of soldiers support military action in the War on Terror?  Sure, thats who they are.  However our veterans want real leadership and a logical battle plan.  Sen. Kerry sums up veterans feelings well in his recent diary and what their voices mean for future actions.

      But don't choose to define all soldiers as republicans and supporters of a radical federal realignment by this White House.  Try talking to one or two first.  Ask Paul Hackett or John Laesch.

      •  huh? (4.00)
        knee jerk anti-military? define all soldiers? I don't see that in the post you are replying to.

        Say no to hate, bigotry, and the author of the Fed. Marriage Amendment, Marilyn Musgrave. Please donate to Angie Paccione.

        by OLinda on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 10:00:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (none)
          "all these troops are eventually coming home, which means there will be thousands of honored spokesmen who can give first-hand reminders of the gallant fight against Saddam's 9/11 attack."

          "Granted there will be significant ire over the actual execution. But there will be a lot of grassroots support for advancing the empire."

          I read this as: the majority (85%) of US troops will return home to support this president and his lies about the War in Iraq.  The military is pro-empire-building and will link all foreign wars to 9-11.

      •  I get fed up (4.00)
        with the knee jerk pro military posts among some on this site.

        Being non-military is a little like being a second class citizen here.

        Anyone else see the whole 'Fighting Dem' concept as problematic?

        'Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it'. - GBS

        by stevej on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 10:08:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, in part (4.00)
          If, as John Kerry says, the presence of more vets in Congress will aid in assistance to vets in general, great.

          But if the "Fighting Dem" concept is simply to salvage our reputation in the face of Republicans who call us "weak", then no.  I'm tired of the militarization of the political realm.  Frankly, it was one of the things that turned me off Wesley Clark early on.  Now I'm more comfortable with him as a (possible future) candidate.

          "I'm not interested in that same liberal claptrap. That meow, meow, meow, ironic detachment." -- Stephen Colbert

          by SneakySnu on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 10:20:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  my hope for Clark (none)
            ...is that he is the one guy who could get the Military Industrial beast under control. Clinton, like Kennedy and Johnson before him, was cowed by "the generals," and this intimidation caused all three men to do stupid things. (The flip side is Eisenhower being outflanked by the likes of the Dulles brothers, but I think Clark is quite a bit sharper than Ike, and definitely more of a control freak.)

            Americans pay far too much in taxes - ALL of us do. And the main reasons for this is that (1) we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on military and (2) Republican debt. Clinton showed that we could get #2 under control but couldn't deal with #1. I think Clark could deal with #1.

            The question is: would he? Well, the man who proposed the 100 Year Vision and his progressive income tax scheme seems to have no problems with the Big Picture. I'm just not sure of his bias toward military spending.

            •  Not true (none)
              Kennedy was not cowed by the Generals. In fact he thought a lot of them were too gung-ho for nuclear war & he stood up to them. They didn't like it but he knew what they were capable of from being an officer in the Navy in WWII. Kennedy heeded Ike's warnings about the military-industrial complex. That's the whole reason he used diplomatic back channels to Kruschev in The Missile Crisis. They never forgave him for it either.

              I do happen to think you're right about Johnson & Clinton. It's just on the record now that a lot of the Cuban Missile papers have been declassified.

              Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought- John F. Kennedy

              by vcmvo2 on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 06:41:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, Me Too (4.00)
          It's all part of the patented Good Cop / Bad Cop political routine we're locked into.  Examples:

          Don't like the Iraq War?  Vote for Democrats who will do it right--with 400k boots on the ground, plenty of body armor, and expanded veterans' benefits!

          Sick of the tax giveaway to the rich?  Us, too!  Let's pour all that and more into infrastructure that benefits huge multinational corporations (ports, freeways, water projects, etc.)  All this rightwing social disinvestment is really starting to hurt their bottom lines!

          Pissed about environmental degradation?  Don't worry, we're on the case with itsy bitsy increases in efficiency requirements on consumer goods that require workers to spend more every time they upgrade for meager imporovements.  The perfect helping hand for corporate America!

          You get the picture.  I hate the GOP, whose supporters I regard as falling into two groups: a small cadre of sociopaths who know what they are doing, and a huge body of folks too traumatized by the tanatalus of the American Dream to think straight.  The Dems are a bit smarter, but they still don't quite see what they are up against and  can be bought off cheaply with half-measures that actually reinforce the pattern over the long term.  Third parties aren't viable.  We need something much more radical, outside of politics.

        •  What?!? (none)
          A problem with PAC's set up to support candidates? You're crazy if you think there's any problem with militarly organized, top/down heirarchal, loyal, obedient, programmed, Fox News Fed soldiers infused into the political structure of our democracy en masse. I bet next you're going to say some looney shit like "the military industrial complex is bad for our culture," or some such batshit loco insane B.S. like "our political structure hasn't seen a real coup by force because the military gets whatever they want as it is." I bet your against freedom and apple pie too? maybe you should go back to russia or Al-Queda or whatever your from if you're for free expression.

          Dude, you've gone to far. Take back your question. Remember, there's no problem with democrats setting up a fund for militarized politics. It's only bad if you're a republican. So there.

          I'm always wary of those who know what to say but not what to do.

          by NeoconSemanticist on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 10:44:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Stevej (none)
          My comment had nothing to do with the "fighting Dems."

          We could have a talk on whether I'm pro-military.  I personally have no background in the military.  But thats not the point of my post.

          I simply felt the need to respond to the original comment that chose to speak in absolutes about military Americans as pro-empire-building and locked in false presuppositions about the Iraq War.  I felt this statement was not based in fact based on recent polls and the opinions of prominant Iraq veterans who have returned home.

        •  I don't see it like that (none)
          I am not nor ever have, or god willing ever will be in the military. I don't trust our foreign policy decision makers enough to give them my life.

          However, I respect those that do. I also think that a proportion of the congress and executive should be veterans. I think it should be mixed. I don't think one's decision with what to do with their life designates them as better than the other.

          I do not feel like a second class citizen here or anywhere due to the presence and interest of military and former military personnel. I'm not sure why you get this feeling.

          Regarding the "Fighting Dems" concept going on here, I support that, but what SneakySnu says right above I agree with as well:

          But if the "Fighting Dem" concept is simply to salvage our reputation....

          Motivation really defines what we are doing. I hope SneakySnu is wrong, but it's a valid concern.

          ... we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888)

          by Tirge Caps on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 11:10:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The opposite is equally true. (none)
          I'm ex-Army.  When I post a pro-military point of view, say "Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer and we needed nothing more than the UN Convention on Genocide to remove him, and the ordinary Iraqi, especially the Kurds, who I soldiered with not so very long ago, are very pro-American"  I get some Rather Nasty Flames from non-military types, assuring me they understand these problems Oh So Much Better than me.

          People are usually more convinced by reasons they discovered themselves than by those found by others.

          by BlaiseP on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 11:18:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I am very much a Liberal and a (none)
          Vietnam vet. I think you are right in the sense that all voices should be heard. The Bill of Rights is one of the few things worth putting on that uniform. The repugs have always presented this macho bullshit meme out there. I think it is important that this nonsense be fought against. There are the Kerry types and the swiftboat types. My best friend from Vietnam found Jesus and when confronted with my views cut off our relationship many years ago. I have always been saddened by this for I know him to be a decent human being. He is just addicted to the kool aid. Veterans on my side of the street have been called traitors and the rest of it. The reality is that I believe we are in the majority. We saw the insanity up front. Most things are a matter of perception. This perception that Liberals are weak on national defense is wrong and one that has to be fought at every given opportunity. I will guarantee you that if an Iraq veteran comes back and want to run as a Republican he will get massive support from their side. It plays into their false meme. Does this mean that we should support any Iraq veteran? Of course not but when they are right on the issues we should back them to the hilt as the perception of Democrats being weak on national defense is one of the biggest misconceptions of all time. I happen to love two Vietnam vets for President, Clark and Gore, but is their any rational person who does not think that Howard Dean would not be better than any Republican on national defense? My point is that by playing up our veterans we fight this insidious crap about Liberals being weak on defense. It really drives me batshit for it would be hard to do a worse job than Bushco has done on protecting our country.

          Bu$hCo. has a pre-1776 view of the world.

          by Jlukes on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:38:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  My Background WRT Military (none)
      I have played military music in community concert bands for about 40 years since I was first taught by a WW1 veteran. While I never served myself, my father and brother and grandfathers, pastors and Boy Scout leaders and many of my school teachers have. Of course I was in numerous college activities with returned Vietnam vets, and had occasion to talk with young Ohio National Guardsmen patrolling my town during those anti-war unpleasantness.

      I've been around military, police and fire people periodically all this time. This includes hours of schmoozing with them in bars and back rooms after public events, charity events, funerals etc. where people feel comfortable to freely express their opinions.

      I find the 85% figure plausible given the attitudes I've experienced among service people, especially over the past 10 years or so.

      Maybe some of you need to experience standing at attention hearing a master of ceremonies lead a toast to, for example, the British sovereign--by name--but only to the "office" of the President of the United States, so as to avoid causing the Lord to bless the despicable President Bill Clinton.

      Now, I fully accept updates or clarifications about the polling question. And yes I'm well aware of the strong troop support for a reasonably prompt termination of the present misadventure. So I do take heart in the skepticsm we're able to see in the troops.

      But however wrong or uninformed I may be about a specific issue, my concern is anything but a knee jerk reaction to the military.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 11:33:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Did the 85% (none)
      believe that WAS the justification, or IS the justification?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site