Thread: Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?

Originally Posted by Feanor

The crime seems to be anything other then a registered Republican.

Let's see.

A traitor should fit the profile of John Walker Lindh.

However, since ones want to make the definition of traitor more broad in this discussion, give me that that broad paint brush, so I can show you the whole picture:

If you can be a traitor against your country, can your government be a traitor against his countrymen as well?

Take David Grimm as an example, getting shipped to Iraq, and for two months, and two dead soldiers later, getting body armor.
AlterNet: War on Iraq: A Soldier Speaks: A Soldier Speaks: David Grimm

Take Jordan Fox for example, getting a letter from the DoD demanding he pay back his signing bonus. Needless to say, the brave soldier was shocked when he read it.
Wounded Vet Told To Pay Back Bonus, Partially-Blinded In Iraq, GI Billed For Army Signing Bonus; Pentagon Admits Mistake - CBS News

And let's not forget the famous Walter Reed Army Hospital where many of our brave soldiers have faced neglect and frustraction from our Government.
Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility - washingtonpost.com

The Army lowered recruiting goals, and accepted waivers, and paid big bonuses to meet recruiting goals. Army lowers standards, tops recruit goal - Military - MSNBC.com

It has took our President 3 years, and thousands of dead soldiers later, to finally find an acceptable General to run this war. And during all of that time, Democrats gave him the money he requested, to allow for the unnecessity which I have just painted above.

Who is a traitor?

EDIT:

And you want to know Bush's "sudden" interest in the Palestine/Israel peace accord? Let me give you a hint:

U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan - Haaretz - Israel News

For one thing, how does the US Department of Energy have the authority to be negotiating Iraqi's oil pipelines?

Originally Posted by Feanor

The crime seems to be anything other then a registered Republican.

Then you obviously haven't been paying attention to the thread Feanor, I just stated one if the prime examples of "traitor" just 1 post before yours....

Originally Posted by Julie

And you want to know Bush's "sudden" interest in the Palestine/Israel peace accord? Let me give you a hint:

U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan - Haaretz - Israel News

For one thing, how does the US Department of Energy have the authority to be negotiating Iraqi's oil pipelines?

Well damn if 150 000 troops in the country doesn't give you that authority, I don't know what does.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Then you obviously haven't been paying attention to the thread Feanor, I just stated one if the prime examples of "traitor" just 1 post before yours....

If your country is doing something unjust, should you still support it?

Originally Posted by Feanor

If your country is doing something unjust, should you still support it?

And if you choose not to, does that make you a traitor?

This "traitor" rhetoric makes me uncomfortable.

To me it implies a deliberate act. I can betray my principles, for instance, by accident or in a moment of weakness - like that night when the pizza was late and I snapped and bedded Shannon - but that doesn't mean I'm a traitor to myself.

Anyway, I don't like the idea of casually labeling anyone who thinks differently than I do as a "traitor". That's pretty strong medicine.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

This "traitor" rhetoric makes me uncomfortable.

To me it implies a deliberate act. I can betray my principles, for instance, by accident or in a moment of weakness - like that night when the pizza was late and I snapped and bedded Shannon - but that doesn't mean I'm a traitor to myself.

Anyway, I don't like the idea of casually labeling anyone who thinks differently than I do as a "traitor". That's pretty strong medicine.

-dale

I thought you were behind Bluesman about the democrats.....

Wait. I just re-read it. Who's Shannon? Was it worth it?

And back to the original question if you don't have to support unjust actions of your country do you have the right to oppose them without being a traitor? Because if so then the democrats have perfectly sound moral ground for opposing the war in Iraq.

Oh geez...just say "grounds," leave out the word moral.

Originally Posted by Feanor

Well damn if 150 000 troops in the country doesn't give you that authority, I don't know what does.

That's capacity, not legitimate authority.

Originally Posted by Julie

Oh geez...just say "grounds," leave out the word moral.

I stand corrected. In any event I think you get the point I was making.

Originally Posted by Stan187

That's capacity, not legitimate authority.

Legitimate was added by you. I assumed authority meant just the ability to give the order and see it get done

Originally Posted by Feanor

If your country is doing something unjust, should you still support it?

If the alternative is hoping for the deaths of many of your fellow countrymen, Yes.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

If the alternative is hoping for the deaths of many of your fellow countrymen, Yes.

Republicans nor Democrats want that.

Originally Posted by dalem

I can betray my principles, for instance, by accident or in a moment of weakness - like that night when the pizza was late and I snapped and bedded Shannon - but that doesn't mean I'm a traitor to myself.

Doing something right for the wrong reasons? Or doing something wrong for the right reasons?

Originally Posted by Julie

Let's see.

A traitor should fit the profile of John Walker Lindh.

However, since ones want to make the definition of traitor more broad in this discussion, give me that that broad paint brush, so I can show you the whole picture:

If you can be a traitor against your country, can your government be a traitor against his countrymen as well?

Take David Grimm as an example, getting shipped to Iraq, and for two months, and two dead soldiers later, getting body armor.
AlterNet: War on Iraq: A Soldier Speaks: A Soldier Speaks: David Grimm

Take Jordan Fox for example, getting a letter from the DoD demanding he pay back his signing bonus. Needless to say, the brave soldier was shocked when he read it.
Wounded Vet Told To Pay Back Bonus, Partially-Blinded In Iraq, GI Billed For Army Signing Bonus; Pentagon Admits Mistake - CBS News

And let's not forget the famous Walter Reed Army Hospital where many of our brave soldiers have faced neglect and frustraction from our Government.
Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility - washingtonpost.com

The Army lowered recruiting goals, and accepted waivers, and paid big bonuses to meet recruiting goals. Army lowers standards, tops recruit goal - Military - MSNBC.com

Julie:

Why is it that opponents of the war and Bush haters stoop to trying to put square pegs in round holes? Don't they have any well thought out arguments to support their call for withdrawal from Iraq and substantive counter-arguments to Bush policies? Why do they feel compelled to dig down into the muck and come up with twisted logic for debating points. That's what calling US a traitor on a par with John Walker Lindh is.

The examples you give to prove your point are the kinds of things that go wrong from time to time in a large organization that deals with literally millions of active duty and separated members of the military, not to mention 2 million civilian employees and many more retirees. It's not Bush or the GOP or the dems at fault. It's a system staffed and run largely by civil servants who were there before Bush came into office and will be there when he leaves. Perhaps one could say, at most, that if those incidents had not been corrected when they came to light, the nation could be accused of callousness towards its military but in each of the incidents you cite the error was corrected, and in some cases heads rolled.

It has took our President 3 years, and thousands of dead soldiers later, to finally find an acceptable General to run this war. And during all of that time, Democrats gave him the money he requested, to allow for the unnecessity which I have just painted above.

Who is a traitor?

You're insinuating that Bush knew all along he had a general who could run the war and kept him hidden in the closet for 3 years, and that he was only waiting until there was a certain level of casualties and money spent to bring him out. I suppose the same could be said of Lincoln before he found his Grant.

The fact is, the early stages of a war are a relative haze; you are taking the measure of the enemy and trying various tactics to defeat him. With persistence, you gradually develop winning tactics, as you can see with what is happening in Iraq today. We have an excellent commander now, but he had the advantage of seeing what worked and didn't work before he took overall command.

And you want to know Bush's "sudden" interest in the Palestine/Israel peace accord? Let me give you a hint:

U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan - Haaretz - Israel News

For one thing, how does the US Department of Energy have the authority to be negotiating Iraqi's oil pipelines?

You're suggesting the peace summit is motivated by the possibility of an oil pipeline via Jordan. This is nonsense. Do you suppose Russia, Syria and all the other participants in the conference would attend if that was the case?
Perhaps you overlooked the part of the article about how oil is already going from Mosul to Isreal via a pipeline thru Turkey, and that talk of the Haifa line may be to put pressure on Turkey.

As for the involvement of the Department of Energy, where on earth did you get the idea it dictates to other countries what they can or cannot do about its oil? Part of its mission is to represent the US in discussions concerning international pipelines. Why? Because most oil pipelines are financed and owned by private interests, including US interests. The US government is needed to work out legal issues with foreign governments that host pipelines through their territory. How is this sinister?

Originally Posted by Feanor

I thought you were behind Bluesman about the democrats.....

Oh, I mostly am. But I don't want to paint with so wide AND strong a brush. Do I think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are traitors? I truly do because they are actively seeking to aid and abet an enemy of the U.S. But do I think that someone who voted for them is a traitor? Mmmm, no. Not quite. If they were to vote for them again after seeing what their true colors are, then yeah, I'd probably slap that label on too.

Then again, voting for a criminal isn't, in itself, a criminal act.

Wait. I just re-read it. Who's Shannon? Was it worth it?

She was a persistant little trollop back in the days when I could interest such womenfolk. And no, no it wasn't worth it.

And back to the original question if you don't have to support unjust actions of your country do you have the right to oppose them without being a traitor? Because if so then the democrats have perfectly sound moral ground for opposing the war in Iraq.

There is a difference between being opposed and working to get your own side defeated.

-dale

Originally Posted by Julie

Republicans nor Democrats want that.

Then why have Democrats bemoaned our success in Iraq? Less success in war carries with it more friendly casualties.

Doing something right for the wrong reasons? Or doing something wrong for the right reasons?

In that case it was doing something stupid for the wrong reasons.

-dale