Nice post, Turkana, and the way things are going, it looks like four more years of this shit. Maybe we do need to hit rock bottom to wake people up.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 18, 2008 10:39 AMAll this physical and mental carnage could have been avoided if the Congress hadn't supported Bush's diversionary mission to Iraq in the first point.
Posted by tfitznc at April 18, 2008 11:39 AMYes, coyote, 4 more years of this shit might be a good thing, indeed.
The swelled ranks of disgruntled vets, turned out homeowners, dem zombies, and poor folks might finally empty the Home Depot of pitchforks and TIKI torches and reenact Young Frankensteen with the White House as the castle, and McCain as the monster.
I'm looking forward to the scene where the new all conservative Supreme Court gets pushed off of Mt. Rushmore.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 18, 2008 11:40 AMTIKI, I was talking to my son last night and he said the same thing, that nothing will change until people feel the pain again. I said that he would feel the pain, too, and he said that if it makes people realize what they've squandered, it might be worth it.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 18, 2008 11:58 AMEventually, McCain's 100 year war will require a 100 year draft.
HBO got pressured into making Bill Maher apologize for his Nazi Pope rant on his show tonight. Freedom of speech? As long as it doesn't hurt the sponsors.
I still havn't heard an actual apology from the Pope for the sex abuse of children.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 18, 2008 12:35 PMTIKI, I was talking to my son last night and he said the same thing, that nothing will change until people feel the pain again. I said that he would feel the pain, too, and he said that if it makes people realize what they've squandered, it might be worth it.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 18, 2008 11:58 AM
Hillary rationalization leads to some serious psychological trauma. Wow. Victimology 101.
Posted by BMF at April 18, 2008 12:43 PMThey volunteered!! Right, peter? *sarcasm*
These numbers are what Stiglitz is talking about when he estimates the actual cost of the "war" at 3 trillion. These are young, supposedly healthy people, having been turned into long term casualties. This is what our shit militarism gets us.
As the shit MSM asks questions about "bitternes", lapel pins, handgun rights and taxes on dividends.
The problem with the "rock bottom" idea is that it assumes we can move "up" from the rock bottom. That "today is the first day of the rest of your life", which Americans are always quick to believe.
I'm coming to suspect that Bush has placed us in a hole that simply can't be gotten out of, given all the massive crisis that are now bearing down on us, which we ignored for 8 years.
And pouring an additional 4 trillion down the militarism rat hole (which is the increase in our national debt under Bush) means that's all money we now don't have to invest in the things that we really need.
Sorry kids, rock bottom may very well be your life after Bushco.
Posted by euzoius at April 18, 2008 12:46 PMWhere the hell is a good 'ol species extinction when you really need one?
Asteroid, where art thou?
Posted by TIKI AL at April 18, 2008 01:08 PM"300,000 military personnel suffering from PTSD?"
Big deal! There are twenty-some MILLION Iraqis suffering from PTSD and worse. There is an entire GENERATION of Iraqis who have suffered such trauma in their childhood that they will never in their entire lives have normal mental function, and they will pass the results of their problems to their children, who will pass them to their children and so on.
"320,000 personnel suffering traumatic brain injuries?"
How many Iraqis suffering from traumatic brain injuries? How many of those Iraqis are children?
"Is the human cost even calculable?"
The human cost on the part of the American troops who, bottom line, had choices all along the way from the choice to enlist to the choice to follow orders to go to Iraq to the choice to follow orders while in Iraq, to the choice to kill and destroy or not to kill and destroy, is NOTHING compared to the human cost on the part of Iraqis who HAVE NEVER HAD A CHOICE, and still do not have a choice, and will never be given a choice.
Too bad for the troops who chose to enlist, who chose to go to Iraq, and who chose to take part in the killing and destruction and forceful subjugation of the people of Iraq, but THEY HAD CHOICES, and they made their choices, and now they are paying the price for it. But the price they are paying is nothing compared to the price Iraqis will pay for generations.
Posted by Shirin at April 18, 2008 01:08 PMHillary rationalization leads to some serious psychological trauma. Wow. Victimology 101.
Uh, wtf? Someone started drinking a bit early. Like in 5th grade.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 18, 2008 01:09 PMTears at your heart....
Posted by allansfca at April 18, 2008 02:05 PMBig deal!
As someone who suffers from PTSD, it is indeed a big deal.
Shirin, you will not get a lot of sympathy for the Iraqi people if you cannot have some sympathy for American soldiers. How many have gone in and now regret what they have done, the decisions they have made? Will it make it right... no. Will it change anything... no.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 18, 2008 02:52 PMDear SOS,
How can you ask me to have sympathy for the people who are responsible for choosing to execute the atrocity of Iraq when they had choices to do otherwise? How can you ask me to have sympathy for people who chose to behave in the way they did toward other human beings? How can you ask me to have sympathy for the people who chose to commit the kinds of acts we have seen in videos and heard described? I am sick of hearing all the excuses for human beings behaving as they did. There IS no excuse for the choices they made.
So, a small handful of those war criminals have repented and as part of their repentance have chosen to speak out and expose the truth. Well, they deserve credit for that, and a measure of forgiveness, but sympathy?! Sorry, but no sympathy is going to come from me toward those who, by choice, have committed such atrocities against any living being.
Posted by Shirin at April 18, 2008 03:04 PMShirin, My story is probably like many in the military. I'll quote my friend Milo: Join the Army, lured in by the promise of jobs, decent pay, health care and money for college. Join for an ideal, for self-respect, to defend your country. Then, you realize it's mistake... things promised don't come true... you were lied to... you can protest, reject orders and be thrown in jail or worse.
I regret my actions in Central America. Call it cowardice... it becomes a risk to ones own survival.
I understand your point. However, the hate has to stop. I'm just saying the healing has to begin somewhere... everywhere.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 18, 2008 03:42 PMObama's war funding votes. And he doesn't think impeachment is necessary, since he said Bush didn't do anything wrong.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 18, 2008 06:02 PMI think we all know why the war continues; and McCain and our two democrats are not alone in believing in the America that needs to show force whenever force is required to sustain our standard of living. 5% of the world's population sucking up 25% of the planet's resources. "There's a hole in Daddy's arm where all the money goes."
Posted by Copeland at April 18, 2008 07:42 PMExcerpt: Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address
March 4, 1865
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. 'Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.' If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether'.
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.Posted by Copeland at April 18, 2008 08:40 PM
SOS:
"As someone who suffers from PTSD, it is indeed a big deal."
Let me explain my comment a bit. Of course PTSD is a big deal for those who suffer from it. What I meant was that 300,000 of cases of PTSD in people who voluntarily and knowingly went half way across the world in order to take part in a killing and destruction spree, many of whom clearly reveled in it (we have all seen the videos and heard the statements), is not remotely a big deal compared to an entire generation of Iraqi children who have been subjected to such overwhelming and continuous trauma that lifelong PTSD will be the very least of their troubles. It is not remotely a big deal compared to millions of Iraqis with PTSD and worse. It is not remotely a big deal compared to an entire nation destroyed. That is what I meant.
As for hatred, that is not what I feel. Being unable to feel sympathy is not the same thing as hating.
I am glad some - probably only a few - are able to regret what they have done. I am grateful that a small handful are willing to talk about the terrible acts they committed and witnessed. But maybe, just maybe, PTSD is simply the price one pays for voluntarily - and in many cases, pleasurably (if that is the right word) - taking part in inhuman actions toward one's fellow human beings.
Americans need to understand in the case of Iraq who the "bad guys" really are, and it is not the Iraqis who are fighting against those who have come from another continent to brutally subjugate them on behalf of a foreign country.
Posted by Shirin at April 18, 2008 10:58 PMshirin,
compassion works both ways. if you don't understand that a great many of our all-volunteer military personnel came from lower income strata, that a great many signed up having no idea they'd be used in such a manner, that the vast majority can't afford to risk going awol, and that the vast majority take no pleasure in what they're doing, then you're not paying attention. of course what's happening to the iraqis is horrible and unjust and a crime against humanity, but this is not a childish game of comparing who is suffering more. both our military personnel and the iraqi people are cannon fodder. recognizing the suffering of one group should not negate recognition of the suffering of the other.
Posted by Turkana at April 19, 2008 12:09 AMTurkana, I cannot accept the victimizers as victim scenario, nor could you if you were on the other end of things.
I can understand troops, in fear for their lives, shooting before asking questions. I can understand troops, brainwashed into believing they are killing badguys, blowing up a house without thinking about who might be inside. I can understand troops not understanding that when they invade a country THEY, not the citizens of that country who are resisting them, are the badguys. What excuse can you make for people urinating and defecating in food and water before they distribute it to children and others? What excuse can you make for someone responding to a prisoner's plea for food by wiping his ass with something and forcing into the person's mouth? What excuse can you make for the photos we saw from Abu Ghraib, including the obvious delight the Americans were taking in their escapades (and I hope no one makes the mistake of believing this was not happening in every single American prison in Iraq - Iraqis knew from the beginning that it was because those who were taken away by the Americans saw it and experienced it)? What excuse can you make for American troops whooping and hollering with delight as they torment and kill Iraqi human beings? Shall I conclude that they are the victims here?
Sorry, Turkana. You will never convince me of the victimhood of Americans who voluntarily do these things. And it is not childish to ask people to try to understand the vast difference between the unwilling victims of a monumental crime who have absolutely no choice, and those who choose to be its instruments. Shall I also then view as victims members of Saddam's mukhabarat, who followed orders to torture and kill thousands of Iraqis? Shall I cry for them if they, too, have PTSD?
There are people in this world who cannot be induced by any means or under any circumstances to commit the kinds of inhuman acts we have seen with our own eyes and heard described. Thousands of Americans have refused, including many who refused after they were in Iraq. There are others, including some of those Winter Soldiers who testified, who faced with a choice, chose to hold their fire in questionable situations. What is so different about them? Not their socio-economic status, not their training, not their indoctrination. So, what is it? And why should I not hold THEM up as the proper standard?
Posted by Shirin at April 19, 2008 12:35 AMah yes, generalize about all american service personnel because of the behavior of those at abu ghraib. hell, might as well generalize about all americans because of bush.
Posted by Turkana at April 19, 2008 12:42 AM"compassion works both ways."
Nice platitude.
Let me ask you something, Turkana. Would you ever even consider suggesting such a thing to a rape/torture victim, who then was forced to watch her rapist torture and murder her family and level her home? Would you lecture her that part of her healing must be to feel compassion for the fact that her rapist came from a poor family, lacked education, and was promised a college education if he did it?
Posted by Shirin at April 19, 2008 12:47 AManother false comparison. once again, you generalize based on the worst behavior of the worst. i suppose the vietnamese should hate all former u.s. military personnel who served in vietnam. i suppose jews should hate all germans who were alive during wwii. i suppose algerians should hate all the french. what a wonderful world that would be.
Posted by Turkana at April 19, 2008 12:59 AMTurkana,
Your last comment looks to me like a knee-jerk reaction and was not responsive in any specific or general way to my remarks.
1. I have not generalized in any way about "all American service personnel". I have spoken about those, who constitute a very significant number by all accounts, who committed certain kinds of acts. I have also, since you apparently overlooked this, expressed understanding for certain types of actions that are a result of fear.
2. We have a great deal more to go on than just Abu Ghraib, which, as I pointed out, is NOT by any means an exception. Abu Ghraib was, in fact, the tip of the iceberg.
3. Those at Abu Ghraib were typical, "normal" American troops whose behaviour was repeated all over Iraq, and who clearly enjoyed what they were doing, and apparently in most case to this day, unlike those Winter Soldiers who courageously testified, see nothing wrong with what they did.
4. You think George Bush is not a typical kind of American in many ways?
5. I do not believe it is possible to broadly generalize to an entire population based on any subgroup. I have been in this world for too long and seen too much of it to believe that ANY national or religious or ethnic or racial group is monolithic - something a lot of Americans would do well to learn about Arabs and Muslims and all those other "others" Americans are so fond of stereotyping.
then maybe you should figure out that of the hundreds of thousands of american service personnel who are suffering from ptsd, probably only a small percentage committed atrocities. if you're not stereotyping, prove otherwise. and if you think george bush is anything close to being a typical american, you don't know much about americans.
Posted by Turkana at April 19, 2008 01:15 AMTurkana, what is this obsession you have with hate. I have already said this is not about hate with me.
I refuse the view of American troops who voluntarily chose to go to Iraq and who chose to take part in certain activities as victims. I am unable to feel sympathy for the American troops knowing what they chose to cause to millions upon millions and generations upon generations of Iraqis. That is not the same as hating them, and I know very well that you are astute enough to understand that.
I respect those who, upon return, have understood that what they took part in and what they did was wrong. I am grateful and respectful toward those who chose, upon that realization, to take some action to make amends. Nevertheless, I refuse to accept the victim model.
And no, it is NOT a false comparison. It is as apt a comparison as there is - but from the point of view of the Iraqis.
Posted by Shirin at April 19, 2008 01:17 AMonce again, you make an absurd assertion. how many american service personnel volunteered to go to iraq? do you even understand how the military works? for someone who rightfully deplores american ignorance about the rest of the world, you certainly have simplistic and generalized ideas about americans, including those in uniform. furthermore, if you want to document how many american service personnel committed atrocities, and what percentage they constitute of all the service personnel who went to iraq, do so.
Posted by Turkana at April 19, 2008 01:23 AMTurkana, I see now that you apparently have the impression that I am making a generalization about American troops in Iraq regarding some undefined concept called "atrocities" - whatever that encompasses. I am not. I am not generalizing the behaviour of the Americans in Abu Ghraib to all American troops, although it is clear that these were NOT "a few bad apples", and that this behaviour was standard and very widespread throughout American prisons in Iraq (and elsewhere in the world). I am not generalizing the behaviour of those who deliberately contaminated food to distribute to Iraqi children. I am not generalizing anything.
I do not know what percentage of the "american service personnel" (my, what a nice, clean terminology!) who are suffering from PTSD committed what you call "atrocities" (whatever that includes, since you did not define it). You do not know either, and since the term is not defined, we don't even know what we mean by that, do we? What we DO know is that they chose, for whatever reasons/delusions/indoctrination to take part in an atrocity of monumental proportions, which is the violent invasion, subjugation, and forced takeover of a foreign country, and in so doing all of them were part of a massively murderous and destructive project.
I refuse the concept of victim for those who choose to travel to another country to participate in its violent subjugation. I also refuse the concept of hero for such people. I do not hate them, I just refuse the idea that they are victims on a par with the people whose country they invade. OK?
Posted by Shirin at April 19, 2008 01:33 AM"how many american service personnel volunteered to go to iraq?"
The American military are all volunteers, no? They volunteer to server as "american service personnel", and when they volunteer for that, they volunteer for whatever they are ordered to do, including going to Iraq. This is particularly the case for those who join the military after March, 2003.
And yes, I understand how the military works. I have paid attention to all these things. I also know that people who join the military have choices every step along the way - not always easy choices, but choices. And I know that thousands of "american service personnel" have made the most courageous choice of saying no thanks to going to Iraq. Even more courageously, an unknown number of "american service personnel" have make the choice of saying "no thanks" to killing and destroying AFTER they arrived in Iraq. And there are also those who made the choice, after arriving in Iraq, NOT to kill and destroy reflexively, but at the very least to hold fire until they understood the situation.
Turkana, it looks to me as if you have become emotional about this conversation, and are not really listening or taking in everything I am saying. Forgive me if I am wrong, but that is how it looks to me.
Posted by Shirin at April 19, 2008 01:51 AMand it appears to me that you have no idea how the military works. the vast majority of those sent to iraq volunteered for service before there was an invasion of iraq, before invading iraq was on anyone but pnac's radar screen. they did not volunteer to go to iraq. most of them volunteered because they thought the military would provide them with opportunities they would not have otherwise had. most of them volunteered before bush was put in power. and, no- thousands of military personnel have not made the choice to not go to iraq. you clearly don't understand what happens to people who do make such a choice. and you are continuing to make vast generalizations based on those who have committed atrocities.
i need to go to bed, so i'll just say this- i usually agree with you, and i sometimes learn from you, but you are showing a shocking lack of understanding about the people who volunteer for military service and how they are abused.
Posted by Turkana at April 19, 2008 02:07 AMTurkana, I have stopped to rest and check my e-mail at an internet cafe on the outskirts of Old Damascus (after a very stimulating and interesting conversation with the taxi driver who brought me here), and I see our rather heated dialogue has continued, so I will make a comment before continuing into the old city.
"...thousands of military personnel have not made the choice to not go to iraq."
We have been discussing a difference in point of view up until now, but here we area getting into demonstrable facts, and here you are factually wrong, and there are data to confirm that you are wrong. Even the U.S. military have admitted that thousands have deserted or gone AWOL in order to say no to going to Iraq. Yes, the number is in the thousands, and undoubtedly several times what the military has admitted to.
Some have been very open and public about their refusal, most have not. Some have paid the price, most have not, and who knows how many of those eventually will and what the price will be.
"...you clearly don't understand what happens to people who do make such a choice."
I do understand very well what happens, which is why I have labeled the choice to refuse as the most courageous choice. Having followed the cases of a number who have made that choice, I do understand quite specifically. I also understand that there is a wide range of consequences going from being granted conscientious objector status and released, to things that are far more unpleasant. I also understand that there can be lifelong negative as well as positive personal consequences to making such a choice. It is the courageous choice. Taking part in the killing does not require courage so much as an ability to numb one's own humanity and deny the humanity of others.
"you are continuing to make vast generalizations based on those who have committed atrocities."
No, I am not. I am simply refusing the "warrior as victim" model (my god, how I hate the use of that word "warrior"), and unable in my heart to feel sympathy over 300,000 PTSD cases when in this very city in which I am staying at least two million of their victims who have no homes, no reliable means of support, and little hope.
Last night I met with two Americans who have devoted their lives to living here and doing what they can to help a miniscule number of Iraqi students to get into and through college. They are not wealthy people - they live on the Social Security payments of one of them. Their lives are about doing something to compensate for the hell life has become for Iraqis.
I met one of those students last night also - a delightful young man named `Ali, a dental graduate who cannot work because the authorities will not give him his graduation certificate, and whose dream is to perform orthodontia for children who have had their faces blown away.
This year this couple have succeeded in getting twenty Iraqi students in Damascus into colleges and universities on tuition wavers. How many does that leave behind?
But now I am rambling, so I will move on.
Posted by Shirin at April 19, 2008 04:17 AMShirin, I must say, save your outrage for the soldiers, politicians and contractors who don't believe they have done anything wrong.
Be safe. I'll leave it at that.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 19, 2008 03:59 PM
SOS,
Hate, outrage - come on, I have expressed neither toward American troops in general. All I have done is refused the notion that they are victims on a par with the millions of Iraqis they have and continue to victimize.
Posted by Shirin at April 19, 2008 11:19 PMthat's straw, shirin. no one said they were victims on par with the iraqis. but they are victims, and they are deserving of compassion.
Posted by Turkana at April 20, 2008 01:45 AMShirin, These sick soldiers are victims of their own government. You can argue with me and say they had a choice, but in the end, they were used as tools to do the governments bidding.
Besides, protesting the role of the low ranking American soldier will never go over positive with the American people. We have a history of that.
The Vietnam War has shown that treating them with disrespect and spitting on them only makes the majority of Americans go in the other direction on policy decisions and voting. It's something that will never be tolerated again in American society and will be reflected in politics for years to come.
What is happening to the Iraqi people is criminal. No rational human being can justify the loss of Iraqi life or the destruction of Iraq.
That said, if you think that the American people will blame the soldier for doing his job, you are wrong. They never will.
You can, your people can, that is your choice... it is not how to win the hearts and minds of the American populace. I'm just trying to shine a light on how a majority of Americans will think.
Remember people on the left, Democrats trying to change America are sympathetic to removing American troops as soon as safely as possible.
We also want justice to come to those who have violated our constitution. Which in turn violated the rights of the Iraqi people.
We can talk about everyone in Iraq becoming involved in the political process as well. The Iraqi people have to move forward, al Maliki needs to start resolving some of his goverment's issues... and fast. Or get out of office. But this is another story, is it not?
SOS and Turkana,
1. I simply refuse the victim model for people whose profession is to kill and destroy, and that is the profession of the military, so this is something on which we must agree to disagree.
2. Who here has suggested anything remotely like treating American troops with disrespect or spitting on them? I have no idea where that is coming from because I have not only never suggested such a thing, I have said repeatedly that I do not hate them, I merely reject the victim model, and I do not have sympathy for 300,000 cases of PTSD when I can see more than a million cases of PTSD and much worse right here in this city of Damascus, and I could see at least a million more when I was in Amman less than two weeks ago.
3. Please try to understand the difference between hating, treating with disrespect, spitting on, and my position. It is very frustrating to explain the same thing over and over and over again and have people reply as if I have said something completely different.
Posted by Shirin at April 20, 2008 04:25 PM"We can talk about everyone in Iraq becoming involved in the political process as well."
While I genuinely appreciate the good intentions behind this comment, it really is none of any American's business. Furthermore, and I say this as gently as possible, knowing that it came from a positive intention, it is really quite patronizing and inappropriate. Iraq is gushing blood. The political process is irrelevant until the bleeding is at least slowed down. :o}
"The Iraqi people have to move forward..."
Again, and I say this quite gently, it is completely inappropriate to suggest something like this under the circumstances. When someone is gushing blood from every artery with every heartbeat you do not tell them that they must take control of their lives and "move forward".
"al Maliki needs to start resolving some of his goverment's issues..."
Please understand that Al Maliki and his so-called government are absolutely irrelevant except insofar as they serve their American masters' wishes. They have no relevance beyond that, and less than no relevance to the Iraqi people. They are not to be taken seriously as a government because they are not a government, never have been, never will be, and never were intended to be.
"Or get out of office."
You seem to be under the impression that Maliki and his "government" are some kind of normal, regular government. Please divest yourself of that idea. They are not and never will be. They are an occupation regime, operating at the pleasure of the occupier. That is not a government.
"But this is another story, is it not?"
Yes, it is, and quite a different one from what you seem to think. :o}
All the above has been said very gently and with kindness, so please do not take offense.
Posted by Shirin at April 20, 2008 04:39 PMWho here has suggested anything remotely like treating American troops with disrespect or spitting on them?
Shirin, My point was to explain the history of what American troops endured when they came home from Vietnam.
Not taking care of American troops who have PTSD is treating them with disrespect.
While I genuinely appreciate the good intentions behind this comment, it really is none of any American's business.
And yes, I will not refute Iraq is gushing with blood. If you don't want the American people to have a say, so be it.
And I agree with you on the Al Maliki puppet goevernment.
Sorry if offended anyone with the "move forward" comment.
"Not taking care of American troops who have PTSD is treating them with disrespect."
While that is not quite the terms in which I would put it, we are in agreement that the government of the United States has an unquestionable obligation to take care of troops who have mental or physical problems as a result of being sent to Iraq (or Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter). It is the absolute least the government is obligated to do.
"If you don't want the American people to have a say, so be it."
My point was that how Iraqis run their lives and their country is not something the American people should be involved in at all. That is purely up to the Iraqi people.
"Sorry if offended anyone with the "move forward" comment."
While the comment itself is, I admit, offensive, I understand that you meant well by it, and was not offended by you.
Posted by Shirin at April 20, 2008 11:50 PMHere is something I just saw from Tom Englehardt that is very pertinent to our comments on the allegedly Iraqi alleged "government":
"No, the Iraqi government is not a government: The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has next to no presence in Iraq beyond the Green Zone; it delivers next to no services; it has next to no ability to spend its own oil money, reconstruct the country, or do much of anything else, and it most certainly does not hold a monopoly on the instruments of violence. It has no control over the provinces of northern Iraq which operate as a near-independent Kurdish state. Non-Kurdish Iraqi troops are not even allowed on its territory. Maliki's government cannot control the largely Sunni provinces of the country, where its officials are regularly termed "the Iranians" (a reference to the heavily Shiite government's closeness to neighboring Iran) and are considered the equivalent of representatives of a foreign occupying power; and it does not control the Shiite south, where power is fragmented among the militias of ISCI (the Badr Organization), Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, and the armed adherents of the Fadila Party, a Sadrist offshoot, among others.
"In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai has been derisively nicknamed "the mayor of Kabul" for his government's lack of control over much territory outside the national capital. It would be a step forward for Maliki if he were nicknamed "the mayor of Baghdad." Right now, his troops, heavily backed by American forces, are fighting for some modest control over Shiite cities (or parts of cities) from Basra to Baghdad."
Posted by Shirin at April 21, 2008 01:50 AM