Quote Of The Day

Posted by on . 36 comments.

A city employee in Baquba, the capital of Diyala Province, in NYT:

the occupation forces … have double-crossed the Iraqis with dreams

Never thought of it like that before, but it really strikes home. We promised so much. We’ve delivered so little.

Comments

  1. JimC says:
    September 13, 2007 at 7:19 am

    Yes and let’s add capping it off with abandonment as well…or at least trying real hard to do so….

  2. sarabeth says:
    September 13, 2007 at 7:33 am

    Yes, let’s never abandon the double-cross. Let’s stick around, and get more and more Americans killed, without coming any closer to delivering on what we promised.

    That will surely be a big consolation to all concerned — the double-crossed Iraqis, the double-crossed families of the dead soldiers.

    As Boehner said, the cost in blood and treasure, is a small price to pay for successfully dragging it out into the next presidency.

  3. JimC says:
    September 13, 2007 at 8:07 am

    Yes, let’s never abandon the double-cross. Let’s stick around, and get more and more Americans killed, without coming any closer to delivering on what we promised.

    So let’s do what we promised! Let’s not abandon them and let’s fully get behind rebuilding Iraq like we did Europe….

  4. sarabeth says:
    September 13, 2007 at 8:37 am

    Can we please drop the intellectually dishonest comparisons?

    If we had as little to show for it after four and a half years in Europe as we do in Iraq today, and if we were paying a continuing cost in American lives back then, then it might be a fair comparison.

    Of course, in that case, what happened in Europe might have also been very different.

  5. sarabeth says:
    September 13, 2007 at 8:39 am

    You didn’t by any chance mean to imply, did you, that we have not succeeded in Iraq largely because we have not all been fully behind the rebuilding effort for the past four and a half years?

  6. matt says:
    September 13, 2007 at 9:07 am

    You didn’t by any chance mean to imply, did you, that we have not succeeded in Iraq largely because we have not all been fully behind the rebuilding effort for the past four and a half years?

    i think the key word is “we.” as in sarabeth, matt and our lefty ilk haven’t been behind iraq. nullus.

  7. JimC says:
    September 13, 2007 at 10:52 am

    if we were paying a continuing cost in American lives back then, then it might be a fair comparison.

    You’re kidding me right? The loss of American lives in Iraq is dwarfed by the loss we took in WWII and in a far shorter timespan. Our is the slowness of the casualties over longer time that is the problem? Is it better to get 100,000 soldiers deaths over quickly rather than a few thousand over a longer period of time?

    If we had as little to show for it after four and a half years in Europe as we do in Iraq today,

    I was comparing the level of commitment of the nation to back the effort whether you agreed with it or not, the troops still needed full material support until there were orders to bring them home (and I admit Bush Administration and a Republican congress didn’t live up to that material support as truly needed).

    Bill Maher has spoken to this point as well, that American corporations, people, etc. went on with business as usual while our nation went to war unlike in WWII were manufacturers converted over to making needed military vehicles, equipment, etc. People bought war bonds to pay for the effort.

    In this war, we still were consumed by our greedy little lives while our military was trying to wage war in a limited fashion so as to not inconvenience the average American.

    As stated in the interviews of WWII vets from Band of Brothers, one of the veterans recalled that there were men who committed suicide because they weren’t allowed to go to war…this veteran insightfully stated that it “was a different time”. yes indeed….

  8. sarabeth says:
    September 13, 2007 at 11:12 am

    don’t be deliberately dense; we’re talking about the rebuilding of Iraq and Europe, not the preceding battle.

  9. sarabeth says:
    September 13, 2007 at 11:15 am

    you have retreated into la la land, so I’m signing off from this discussion

  10. JimC says:
    September 13, 2007 at 11:34 am

    don’t be deliberately dense; we’re talking about the rebuilding of Iraq and Europe, not the preceding battle.

    I’m talking about both, commitment to win the war and commitment to stay until Iraq rebuilt….neither of which has had much support, unlike WWII…

  11. matt says:
    September 13, 2007 at 11:37 am

    Bill Maher has spoken to this point as well, that American corporations, people, etc. went on with business as usual while our nation went to war unlike in WWII were manufacturers converted over to making needed military vehicles, equipment, etc. People bought war bonds to pay for the effort.

    bush told everyone to go shopping. this is the man you have virulently defended past the point of absurdity for years now.

    In this war, we still were consumed by our greedy little lives while our military was trying to wage war in a limited fashion so as to not inconvenience the average American.

    could this have anything to do with how the war was sold? easy. short. self-funded.

    to continue this elective war, a draft was needed about 3.5 years ago. instead, while you ridiculed the left for not supporting the troops, their commander and his party extended tours, left them without enough reinforcements, and made horrible decisions.

    there was a way to win this war even if it should never have been fought. the political price was simply too high for bush and co, so they obscured these decisions.

    and seriously jim, you simply can’t follow this line of argument without recognizing your prior arguments. you just have to capitulate before you can go on about commitment, will, war bonds etc. don’t fuck around.

    and sarabeth is 100% right. don’t play games with obvious arguments.

    and oh yeah, don’t talk about any of these things until you have the will to be honest about why you aren’t re-enlisting.

  12. JimC says:
    September 13, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    I have stated that Bush made serious mistakes in conducting this war. I now believe a total war strategy would have been better than pussyfooting around. This war was Bush’s war to lose and he had been doing a good job losing it but it is not too late.

    and oh yeah, don’t talk about any of these things until you have the will to be honest about why you aren’t re-enlisting.

    I have been honest: Fat, out of shape, physical health problems….what more do you want? Do you want me to list my health problems for you? I will email you an itemized list of medical bills if that would suffice….I would love to re-enlist but it just isn’t going to happen. Like I’ve said before, I know I cannot re-enlist because I know what they expect (having been through once already 17 years ago) and I cannot pass, I am a no-go….whatever you are looking for as the correct answer, tell me and I will admit to it so you will be happy….

  13. matt says:
    September 13, 2007 at 12:33 pm

    i’m sure they need programmers too. or maybe you could learn farsi or arabic or pashto.

  14. JimC says:
    September 13, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    i’m sure they need programmers too. or maybe you could learn farsi or arabic or pashto.

    EVERYONE has to pass the same physical requirements, albeit on a sliding scale for age but you still have to be able to pass physically even for a programmer or translator…or cook.

    I’ll tell you what, you get a gig as an embedded photo journalist without regard to fear of censorship, then I will get the needed surgeries and physical therapy to see if I can back in…deal?

  15. matt says:
    September 13, 2007 at 12:56 pm

    sweet false equivalence there.

  16. JimC says:
    September 13, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    sweet false equivalence there.

    You doubt my reasoning for not re-enlisting, I will call into question your reasoning for not seeking to go to Iraq to shoot photos….that’s the equivalence….casting doubt.

  17. matt says:
    September 13, 2007 at 1:41 pm

    you’re fervently supporting a war, as you have for years. you are now taking a new tack by saying that we need to devote more resources that you know we don’t have.

    i’m not a war photographer, and am not calling for a surge in war photography. i don’t criticize current war photographers for not doing enough or their assignment editors for not sending enough over there. there is a lot of good work and a lot of good photographers over there.

    the money i make from photography comes mostly from shooting sports, and sometimes protests. equivalence would be if there was a critical shortage of football or cycling coverage and i refused to travel because i get bad jet lag.

  18. JimC says:
    September 13, 2007 at 2:27 pm

    This has nothing to do about the “what” but about the “why”.

    oh yeah, don’t talk about any of these things until you have the will to be honest about why you aren’t re-enlisting.

    You called in to question my reasons for not re-enlisting. You said I am not being honest. So, I can only assume you’re implying that I fear going to Iraq to fight, fear of the danger. Therefore, I made an equivalence to your reasoning for not going to Iraq to shoot photos, fear of the danger.

    Stop implying anything other than what I have stated as why I am not re-enlisting and I will accept your reasoning for not going to shoot photos.

  19. matt says:
    September 13, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    So, I can only assume you’re implying that I fear going to Iraq to fight, fear of the danger.

    no, just that it’s easy to support a war you have no skin in.

    Therefore, I made an equivalence to your reasoning for not going to Iraq to shoot photos, fear of the danger.

    look here asshole – i’ve been painfully clear about why i wasn’t going: unfettered access isn’t possible. you know this because we’ve debated it several times.

    stop playing word games. your grip on the language isn’t strong enough to get away with it.

  20. JimC says:
    September 13, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    no, just that it’s easy to support a war you have no skin in.

    How is this any different than saying I am afraid to re-enlist because of fear of danger? Your implications are that I am afraid to re-enlist because I would be risking my own life to continue to support the war. No difference….

    look here asshole – i’ve been painfully clear about why i wasn’t going: unfettered access isn’t possible. you know this because we’ve debated it several times.

    And I have been equally clear as to why I am not re-enlisting. Unless you are willing to with me to a physical, then don’t accuse me of being dishonest.

  21. matt says:
    September 13, 2007 at 3:35 pm

    How is this any different than saying I am afraid to re-enlist because of fear of danger?

    i’m saying you’re supporting the war out of political expediency. you can’t stand democrats, and love you some old timey religion, so you support virtually all republican positions, including the war.

    Unless you are willing to with me to a physical, then don’t accuse me of being dishonest.

    it’s not about a physical jackass. they’re letting morons, psychopaths, older men etc into the army to load the cannon fodder and meet enlistment goals. there is no way they’re turning down someone with computer skills because he can’t carry artillery shells.

  22. JimC says:
    September 14, 2007 at 6:53 am

    it’s not about a physical jackass. they’re letting morons, psychopaths, older men etc into the army to load the cannon fodder and meet enlistment goals. there is no way they’re turning down someone with computer skills because he can’t carry artillery shells.

    You still have to pass the physical. You know what, why am I arguing with someone who has never enlisted and has absolutely no clue as to what it takes to get into the Army…EVERYONE including a desk job has to pass the basic physical requirements, if you do not believe me, trot on down to the local recruiters station and ask, that is if they haven’t kicked them out of SF yet….

  23. jamiebeth says:
    September 14, 2007 at 8:39 am

    JimC – I think maybe the next step is actually stepping up. If you know you won’t get in, there’s nothing to lose, right? Personally, I think they’ve been making a lot of allowances these days with regard to who they let in, but I don’t have the time to back that up at the moment. However, if you go try to enlist and they let you in, then you can be my proof!

  24. matt says:
    September 14, 2007 at 8:57 am

    if they haven’t kicked them out of SF yet

    how would they do that?

  25. JimC says:
    September 14, 2007 at 10:29 am

    Just to be clear, I would be re-enlisting as I have already enlisted once in the past, went through MEPS (full physical examination including a very embarrassing one), range of motion tests, etc. I know what I am talking about because I have done it before. They have not relaxed their physical requirements.

    I’m telling you from experience, if neither of you believe me, then that’s your option. I actually lived it, did it, went through it.

    However, I went to goarmy.com and chatted with an online recruiter and explained my medical history and situation and the recruiter said….wait for it….I would not qualify for re-enlistment. If that’s not good enough…well I guess that’s tough.

  26. JimC says:
    September 14, 2007 at 10:38 am

    how would they do that?

    Something like this perhaps…

  27. matt says:
    September 14, 2007 at 10:57 am

    how again?

    RSID Station Name Phone Number Station Type
    6I7D OCEAN 415-6822348 ACTIVE
    6I7D OCEAN 415-6822348 USAR
    6I7M SAN FRANCISCO GOLDEN GATE 415-4334512 ACTIVE
    6I7M SAN FRANCISCO GOLDEN GATE 415-4334512 USAR
    6N7D OCEAN BEACH 415-6822348 N/A
    6N7M GOLDEN GATE 415-4334512 N/A
    6Z5F SAN FRANCISCO MRS 415-3917433 N/A

  28. matt says:
    September 14, 2007 at 10:57 am

    I’m telling you from experience, if neither of you believe me, then that’s your option. I actually lived it, did it, went through it.

    some wise man once told me that where there’s a will, there’s a way.

  29. jamiebeth says:
    September 14, 2007 at 11:28 am

    glad to hear you talked to an on-line recruiter – maybe they do have some standards. as far as kicking recruiters off of campuses, i think it’s really strange that everyone is up and arms about predatory credit giving (i’m not sure that’s a term, but you know what i mean….giving huge amounts of credit to college students or high school students without income) because the poor kids don’t know any better and yet somehow it’s a good idea to promote military service over college or as a means to pay for college and no one thinks some unsuspecting kid might get duped. whatever.

  30. jamiebeth says:
    September 14, 2007 at 11:33 am

    “poor” was not meant as an economic term, just as, you know, like “those sad kids.” sorry!

  31. JimC says:
    September 14, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    yet somehow it’s a good idea to promote military service over college or as a means to pay for college and no one thinks some unsuspecting kid might get duped. whatever.

    Are you saying that military service is not as good as going to college? I did both, paid for my university via the GI Bill. Military service is honorable profession and compared to what some universities output as grads, military service would have been better. I graduated with a BS in CS and nothing I learned in college is actually used today practically. Everything I do I have learned after college on the job. The degree just got me in the door of my first job…

    Jamiebeth, I hope you are not equating military service as a losers last chance….I’d have to say the best, most positive experience of my years at college, was when I skipped a semester to enlist. Basic training was a purifying experience, removing the dross.

  32. matt says:
    September 14, 2007 at 12:37 pm

    I graduated with a BS

    yes you did.

    Basic training was a purifying experience, removing the dross.

    good reason to try again.

  33. JimC says:
    September 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    yes you did.

    Haha…

    good reason to try again.

    That word “again” keeps popping up…weird…

  34. jamiebeth says:
    September 14, 2007 at 1:22 pm

    no – please follow the analogy…having credit is GREAT, being given credit when you don’t deserve it = NOT GREAT. going into the military = GREAT, if that’s what you want to do and you understand the choice you are making, going into the military when you’ve been duped into thinking it’s the only way to pay for your education and “it’ll only be one weekend a month anyway” = NOT GREAT. you have a BS and suspect analytical skills….where’s that degree from?

  35. JimC says:
    September 14, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    military when you’ve been duped into thinking it’s the only way

    When is a person old enough to be responsible for their own destiny? I was 17 when I started college, I completed a full year before realizing that my family wasn’t going to be able to support me any further financially so I enlisted to minimize the financial debt after college. I was 18 years old making that decision on my own.

    If some 18 year old gets “duped” it is the fault their friends/family/community not the military.

    I went through every step. They explain to you before you sign, what your getting into as far as commitment. I knew that I would have to serve one weekend a month and two weeks a year with the potential of being federalized, called into active duty. If I knew that as an 18 year old enlistee, why or how are kids getting duped today, if not by their own lack of responsibility to ask questions and read what they are signing? Maybe kids are just not ready for the real world at 18 these days….

    where’s that degree from?

    Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

  36. jamiebeth says:
    September 14, 2007 at 2:38 pm

    If some 18 year old gets “duped” it is the fault their friends/family/community not the military.

    um, again, look at the analogy. my point was only that you see Dateline specials (etc.) about how these same kids get duped into $100,000 credit limits that they don’t understand….merely drawing a comparison… i’m just looking for a little parity.

    i support the idea that the military should not be recruiting on campuses because the implication is that the military is sanctioned by the school. that adds credibility to their case in the same way allowing a creditor on campus attaches credibility to the creditor.

    i understand there is a regulation that ties federal funding for education to the requirement that the military be allowed to recruit. as long as it is unacceptable to be gay in the military they should be kept off campuses that have policies in place that do not allow organization with discriminatory policies to recruit on their campuses. period. end of story.

    to allow the US government (as the military) to recruit on campuses with policies that would knock any other organization off campus is a gross miscarriage of justice and education.

    off topic, i know. let this thread end here.