namelesstavern.net

So what does everyone think of him? While I don't agree with his views on troop withdrawl, I'm inclined to believe that his strong stance is based not on politics but on what is truly in the mans heart.

While the frequency and sometimes questionable reasons with which bronze stars were awarded in Vietnam may have cheapened the stature of them, this is definetly not the case where purple hearts are concerned. It does piss me off that partisan comparisons between Murtha and John Kerry or even Michael Moore have been made.

The worst critisizim I've ever seen about him that I see as posssibly justifiable was based in concerns of pork barel spending through defense appropriations. In one case an accusation being made that this pork comprimised the needs of the miliary operations.

As I write this there is a measure before Congress calling for the immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq. It won't pass... it's a political manuver to force Democrats to take a stance on the issue, and quite honestly I hope the American public sees it as such.

Although I don't hold his views and stances, infact strongly disagree with them, I still have to respect him and I wish we had more in government like I percieve him to be, regardless if I agree or disagree with them.

CNN wrote:"Murtha, a longtime hawk on foreign and military affairs issues,"

With a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, Murtha retired from the Marine Corps reserves as a colonel in 1990 after 37 years as a Marine, only a few years longer than he's been in Congress. Elected in 1974, Murtha has become known as an authority on national security whose advice was sought out by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

I know almomst nothing about him besides the mini biopics that that one that have been posted in the news articles.

That said, even given how anti-war I am, I am not sure that immediate withdrawl is remotely a good idea. If they leave, Iraq collapses. I am quite sure, however, that much much better planning & implementation could be done at the use & deployment of those troops than is being done right now even if they do stay. So, I think I have to disagree with his proposal, even though I've been saying since day 1 that we never ever should have gone.

Nevertheless, I don't see our troops ever really coming home inside a decade, if then. Even when we do come back, regardless of when, I am 95% sure we'll see a repeat of what happened to Vietnam once we pull out.

-Arlos

arlos wrote:

CNN wrote:"Murtha, a longtime hawk on foreign and military affairs issues,"

With a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, Murtha retired from the Marine Corps reserves as a colonel in 1990

I know almomst nothing about him besides the mini biopics that that one that have been posted in the news articles.

That said, even given how anti-war I am, I am not sure that immediate withdrawl is remotely a good idea. If they leave, Iraq collapses.

Nevertheless, I don't see our troops ever really coming home inside a decade, if then. Even when we do come back, regardless of when, I am 95% sure we'll see a repeat of what happened to Vietnam once we pull out.

Even most democrats are against immediate withdrawal.

As long as the Middle East remains of strategic national importance, we really do not want to pull out. It would be bad strategy. We haven't pulled out of Korea and nobody seems to mind.

Now, what we might do in the next three years is to begin to drawdown to under 100,000 troops. I predict by 2008 you'll have less than 60,000 troops there with a longrange vision of perhaps 40,000 there fulltime which is fine. Korea currently has 37,000 troops.

i beleive in withdrawel but not before our partners are satisfied

dammuzis wrote:i beleive in withdrawel but not before our partners are satisfied

yeah if we leave now halliburton is gonna be pissed!

Hear that sound? That was dammuzis post going right over Brinstar's head.

halliburton, Oil companies, Defense contractors..... the list of disgruntleds goes on and on.....

The truth is that there is a civil wear in that country that we are simply mitigating right now, and the moment we leave it will get really ugly...

So, our soldiers die in the middle of a civil conflict that would be a war if we were gone.....

I wonder if we really CAN'T control the whole world and make everyone do what we want them to do????????

Martrae wrote:Hear that sound? That was dammuzis post going right over Brinstar's head.

lol.

The truth is that there is a civil wear in that country that we are simply mitigating right now, and the moment we leave it will get really ugly...

No. There are a small amount of mostly foreign terrorists who leave roadside bombs lying around in an attempt to create news. I agree it would get ugly if we left, but not for the reasons you are stating.

If we were to leave right now, one person would sieze power and our changes would be for naught. If we hold the course for a few more years and build a few small bases a la Korea we'll have a long term democratic ally and beacon for freedom in a region that desperately needs it.

ok, so political analysts that are a whole lot smarter than you and me are saying that the major conflict is a brewing civil war between Shi'ites and Sunni's but.... ya know... you must know something they don't

*sigh* Sources are good for your arguement. What you are posting is just your opinion unless you source.

My post was simply my opinion and I never said differently, but it's held not only by many people, but has been said by this Administration. I'd wager the Administration and the intel experts know more than most TV political analysts. Also, Most political analysts are not that intelligent. It's not like they're all on par with Dr Sanjay Gupta. Most are merely parroting views that have been fed them, versus truly understanding the situation.

The Middle East, sans Israel, has dictatorships as the norm. If our withdrawal goes ahead, then someone would seize power and take over. Not only is this a probability, but it's already happened in Iraq before.

There would be skirmishing, but no civil war. The Iraqi's are not built for it.

Several ethnic and religious factions thrown together by westerners for political reasons, one (minority) faction torturing and oppressing the other factions for decades. The islamo-fascist movement sending foreign insurgents into the country. Al-Qaeda has a huge presence in Iraq, their greatest 'field general' Zarqawi, is there.

Not built for civil war? Id say Iraq is actually the perfect civil war recipe.

yeah, and unless the "normal guys" who are political reporters for the Boston Globe and New York Times on the Lehrer News Hour, and a friend of mine who is a research fellow at Rice University in geopolitics are a little out of touch, then they might have at least some ideas to mull over.....

how is any middle eastern country not primed for civil war? these are western nations full of middle class pigeons....

but i am sure if we just killed a few more insurgents everyone would just get along, which is why the constitution of Iraq almost didn't happen....

Anywhere else in the World, and I'd completely agree with you, Mo.

Unfortunately, Arabs are notorious cowards and these are people who are easily knuckled under.

Take a look at how long the Mullahs have controlled Iran, despite the fact most people despise them. Iranians are not Arabs, but the analogy and culture is similar. Their government infrastructure is weak, but they hold totalitarian control.

I can see massacres in Iraq. I can see another dictator/Islamic regime rising. I cannot see the Iraqi's actually fighting an extended civil war, especially since the country is already evenly divided into North, Middle, and South and what we'd probably see is factional leaders seceding.

I see another Darfur if we pull out of Iraq.

But heck someone who spent 6 years there and speaks Arabic obviously doesn't know much compared to some guy at Rice who doesn't speak the language, has probably never been there, and probably couldn't differentiate Gulf or Med Arabs.

To simplify, civil war speaks to Iraqi fighting Iraqi. We are not seeing that now. We are seeing Foreign Insurgents fighting Americans and Iraqis. How is that at all a precursor to Civil War? The problem we have is Al Qaeda and foreigners. Not Iraqis.

Sadam is a bad man, he needs to be removed from power, I just wish it wasn't up to our country to do it. The political situation in Iraq is complex and twisted, so many different groups and factions each with thier own adjenda, not for the betterment of the people or the country but for thier own personal selfish goals. What I see happening is something similar to us opening up a sewer pipe and all the shit starting to well up and we won't be able to close it fast enough without it getting messy.

I would have quoted the above however it's not an exact quote, it is as best as I can remember it the response I got when I asked a former Iraqi citizen (now a US citizen) what he thought about the actions of the United States at the onset. He had only been here for at most a year, and still had relatives living in Iraq who he was in daily contact with.

Anyone who was "in the know" as this man was who thought that it was going to be easy or who is surprised that things are getting more difficult as we go, who thinks that the difficulties comming now with the efforts in stabilization are surprising, or think that we are getting "bogged down" when progress was bound to slow, wasn't nearly as intelligent as this average person who is not a student of geo politics, nor a political reporter.

Lyion wrote:Unfortunately, Arabs are notorious cowards and these are people who are easily knuckled under.

i fail to see how my pre-deleted response was out of line to racist drivel like that.

however, even if you'd said al-qaeda instead of arabs, hate them all you want, but anyone that's willing to strap a bomb 6 inches from their balls is anything but a coward.

Thon wrote:

Lyion wrote:Unfortunately, Arabs are notorious cowards and these are people who are easily knuckled under.

i fail to see how my pre-deleted response was out of line to racist drivel like that.

however, even if you'd said al-qaeda instead of arabs, hate them all you want, but anyone that's willing to strap a bomb 6 inches from their balls is anything but a coward.

My point was not racist, but merely my opinion based on many years of my life in the Gulf and East Med, and from input via many different foreign militaries I have worked with. Most Arab people are knuckled under by their regimes and cowed into submission. Thus, the notorious cowardice comment.

'Cowardice' is not inherent, it's a matter of learned social behavior. Most Arab nations are brutal and their citizens live in fear. It certainly was the case in Iraq.

You realize most Al Qaeda suicide bombers are bribed, betrayed, and forced into blowing themselves up via extortion and fear. That is cowardly, to me, also.

Also, I'd argue strapping a bomb on oneself and blowing it up in a civilian area is the height of cowardice. Extorting a religious brother to do so with no danger to oneself is even worse.

so the suicide bomber who knows he's going to die in furtherance of his cause, is more cowardly than one of our pilots who drops death from 30,000 feet? at that height it's hard to tell civilian from terrorist.

and it's not like anyone who 'forced' our troops to go oversees is going to see any danger themselves. please explain the difference.

being knuckled under by an oppressive regime is hardly unique to arabs. are germans notorious cowards as well for allowing the Nazi's to rule them? how bout them damn cowardly russians? they traded in the Tzar's for Stalin. there are too many peoples throughout history, even in the 20th century for me to name that have lived under such conditions. but it must somehow be their fault, right?

The suicide bomber is often only going through with it due to being threatened and lied to. Chances are he was taken from his home in the Gaza Strip or Khartoum and promised to fight in a Holy War.

When he reaches Israel or Iraq he finds out his fighting will be solely strapping a pack on and detonating it. When he refuses, as most do, then he is told his family will be charged for his trip and blackmailed in other ways. Not only is this cowardly, it is malicious and evil. These rings are financed by many leaders in the Arab League. It is indeed the utmost in cowardice and craven behavior.

Interestingly enough, Germany and Russia are free democratic states. Both have made some questionable decisions and done terrible things, but so have other nations. They also didn't surrender en masse and run from battle sending their children and women in as suicide bombers, like the arabs have done.

My point was not racist, but merely my opinion based on many years of my life in the Gulf and East Med, and from input via many different foreign militaries I have worked with. Most Arab people are knuckled under by their regimes and cowed into submission. Thus, the notorious cowardice comment.

All you need for proof of this is to read what occured in the Seven Day War as well as the Iraqi one.

Fortunately, that is now changing slowly with Iraq. Hopefully it'll continue to change and not revert back to a totalitarian craven regime, like the rest of the Arab league is.

so were Germans in the 40's and Russians prior to the 80's cowards?


Were we cowards before 1776, or the troops in the 1970's who were taken hostage by Iran?

Thon wrote:so the suicide bomber who knows he's going to die in furtherance of his cause, is more cowardly than one of our pilots who drops death from 30,000 feet? at that height it's hard to tell civilian from terrorist.

I guess my first initial thought as an answer to this question was "absolutely". But really that doesn't suffice. You see in this all-encompassing sort of statement I don't see our soldiers as cowardly. By asking if someone is more or less cowardly then a pilot dropping bombs insinuates at the very least that they (meaning the pilots) are doing a cowardly act. Shame on you, and keep in mind that those are about the most respectful words I could come up with, and quite frankly if you really meant that insinuation your not deserving of even that level of respect in my eyes.

There is a huge difference between a pilot and a suicide bomber. The pilot is attacking military targets. If the enemy places military targets near civilians, or civilians near military targets, they not the soldiers, not the US military command are the guilty ones, the enemy is the one exploiting innocents placing them in harms way. Where as the suicide bomber targets innocent people for a political statement, the soldier targets military targets to reduce the enemy’s military strength. One targets specifically innocent people, the other does not.

Now you might scream it's not fair, not chivalrous. Guess what, in war, the goal is not to play fair; the goal is to destroy the enemy while minimizing losses of your own. If the enemy chooses to use innocent civilians as human shields, it is they, not our soldiers who are the cowards. If by bombing such a target we accomplish our objectives while minimizing the loss of life of our soldiers then so be it, and if you have a problem with it... well then screw you.

Thon wrote:and it's not like anyone who 'forced' our troops to go oversees is going to see any danger themselves. please explain the difference.

As far as that little gem of stupidity goes: Look at the motives and goals. Terrorists seek to exert their influence through fear, to garner power and control. We have sought the removal of an oppressive brutal dictator, and we seek to give the people of Iraq a chance of freedom to rule themselves. If you need any further proof of intentions and the general disposition of both sides... what is currently keeping us there in the military sense? We are protecting a fledgling democracy from those who would choose to undermine it. If those who are trying to subvert this effort, radicals, insurgents, terrorists, whatever the hell you want to call those we are fighting, why? If their views, their ideals were in the best interest and the will of the majority of the people in Iraq, then it would be counter productive of them to be fighting us. If this were the case, they simply need to stop and use the power of the ballot box to make their statements, to further these goals. Their problem is their will is not that of the majority of the Iraqi people. Through a free people they cannot gain the power and be oppressive as they wish. Only through barbaric brutality, only through violence and subversion can they attain their goals. Where as our eventual goal is to remove ourselves from a position of control and turn it over to the people, their goals are to gain and keep that control for their own benefit in all aspects of life there.

in one breath you both claim suicide bombers are cowards who don't fight fair, and that war isn't fair. so is it: "there are no rules, as long as it's only us fighting dirty"? or is it just a contradiction?

now never once did i say our pilots are cowardly, so i won't be ashamed of anything. my point obviously flew higher over your head than the pilot flies over the battlefield, so i'll just spell it out:

the pilot is no more brave than the terrorist. the pilot/soldier fights for us, the terrorist against us. and the only difference between a terorist and a soldier is the soldier wears a uniform. Their goal is the same, to 'win'. and trying to defeat us by going after military targets is a no-win situation.

i'm sure if Al-Qaeda had wings of bombers that cost over a $billion each, multiple massive aircraft carriers, 70 ton tanks, cruise missles that can fly through an open window from 300 miles out, and satellites watching the battlefield from orbit, they wouldn't strap explosives to Joe Muhammad. but lo and behold, since we spend more on our military than the <b>rest of the planet combined</b>, they can't fight a 'conventional' war against us. So they'll hit at us any way they can.

as for forcing people into becoming suicide bombers, i'm sure it happens, but not on the massive scale you paint it out to be. there's no lack of wannabe martyr's out there in the Muslim world, who hate us for propping up israel for the last half century. and if it were the case, it's again not unique to muslims/arabs. wtf do you think the draft(s) were.

so it's ok for us to force people to fight in a war against their will, but when the arabs do it, it's evil?

Yes. Why? Because we are better than they are. That's what every fight/war has ever boiled down to.

Thon wrote:so it's ok for us to force people to fight in a war against their will, but when the arabs do it, it's evil?

That's funny. I thought our military was an all volunteer force. I wouldn't really compare that to sending 15 year old girls into a civilian marketplace to blow themselves up.

When you volunteer for the US military, you forfiet the right to say, "No, I don't agree with this war, I quit." I don't think the muslim cadre gives their constituents the same voluntary basis.

Although I agree that they're fighting the only way they can and for what they believe in, and demonizing them or calling them 'cowards' is laughable. Perhaps the 'leaders' like Zarqawi are cowards, hiding behind their questionably attained forces, but no more so than generals ordering our troops to take a hill, then leave, only to take it again.