On CBS News tonight, one story was about returning veterans from the war who are going to run for office. Paul Hackett, who just 10 months ago was Major Paul Hackett stationed in Iraq, is running for the senate in the state of Ohio. Last fall he ran as a Democrat in a race for U.S. representative in a strictly Republican district and almost won.
Hackett is in the first wave of post Sept. 11 veterans running for congress, and of a dozen signed up so far, 10 of them are Democrats running against the war. It is one of America's oldest political traditions. Veterans come home from war and run for office, but never, never — say the people who study these things — have so many vets come home so soon to run against the war they were just fighting, not even after Vietnam.
"I think probably what we all share is, we share the belief that the military's being misused in Iraq," Hackett says.
Here's the story ************************************************************* 01-23-06, 07:59 PM Rakuchild Oh hell yeah! I saw this story too. Hackett has my support. He seems to be the only one running for anything here in Ohio that has any kind of sense.
01-24-06, 07:23 AM Kelleygirl I like Hackett also but I think that its important to note that these veterans coming back have a message for us -- that things are not what this administration has tried to color as -- and they have been there and seen it and have the knowledge that we ourselves have yearned for. Let's listen to them.
quote: I like Hackett also but I think that its important to note that these veterans coming back have a message for us
What about the majority of the veterans returning that have a different tale to tell? It seems that the majority support the President and the war,but you always want to refer to the minority that come back against the war.
01-24-06, 04:15 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by Scotty:
quote: I like Hackett also but I think that its important to note that these veterans coming back have a message for us
What about the majority of the veterans returning that have a different tale to tell? It seems that the majority support the President and the war,but you always want to refer to the minority that come back against the war.
Somehow, Scotty, I have a feeling that if a veteran came to Mrs FP, a literary agent, and said he had a book to sell saying how good everything had been out there, she'd show him the door ! However, were it a bitter complaint, she'd be thinking of the movie rights ! Wink
01-24-06, 07:10 PM Kelleygirl Scotty, I don't know about the "majority of veterans returning home" or how they feel. This particular thread was about veterans returning home who are running for public office and how there are 12 of them so far and how 10 of these 12 are Democrats who do not support this war. Those are the facts, sir.
01-24-06, 08:55 PM newnickname Surely the "majority of veterans returning home" don't speak out in public about the situation in Iraq one way or the other.
Those who say it's going fine tend to be echoing the official line, which we have good reason to suspect is not accurate - given the lies (or mistakes) that the war was based on to start with, and now looking at daily deaths, oil and electricity output, the drying up of funds for reconstruction, the increase in air-strikes and decrease in face-to-face policing, the deteriorating post-election political situation, along with the descent of Afghanistan back into anarchy, the growing belligerence of Iran (and worrying loopiness of its leader) and alienation of Pakistan, not to mention the continued freedom of Bin Laden and activities of Al Qaeda.
Of course those few veterans who break ranks, pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, will get more attention.
01-25-06, 01:59 PM dangergurly9 I know that some of them do not support the war,but my question is why did these people sign up for the Military in the first place? When you sign those papers...they say that you will stand behind your government and do as asked of you for your enlistment time.My husband spent time in Kuwait when the war started.I know how him and the people he works with feel about it.No one wants to go to war..but as my husband and many others say..."Thats my job".If these people come back and run as Democrats, the people that will be thier followers will for sure be the people who protested the war from the get go.As I have said before and I will say again..all of these men and women made a choice when they went into the service and no...things are FAR from great over there! If that is thier new choice for a profession then more power to them.Just dont let them forget how they got and kept thier rights to run for those offices.
01-25-06, 06:30 PM newnickname But they didn't get and keep those rights by invading other countries for no good reason.
01-25-06, 09:42 PM Rakuchild One thing I like about Hackett, and I've heard him say it a couple of times is that when he's in uniform he keeps his opinions to himself and does his job. When he's not on active duty, he uses his right to exercise free speech. He knows how to be a soldier and a citizen too.
01-26-06, 02:46 PM Scotty
quote: But they didn't get and keep those rights by invading other countries for no good reason.
Thats right! They did it for a"good reason".
01-26-06, 06:23 PM newnickname Which was....?
01-27-06, 05:47 AM Scotty
quote: Which was....?
How many times have you been given this answer? Let me count the times........................
01-27-06, 09:42 AM newnickname We haven't been given it yet. On various other threads, inadequate reasons have been given, that haven't been defended against criticism.
In the real world, the official line seems to be something like, "Well, we're there now, so let's not talk about the past, which was all the fault of poor intelligence from the CIA, anyway, and at least Hussein's been toppled..." That doesn't add up to a good reason for invading another country.
But rather than get into a discussion about previous discussions, why don't you take a couple of minutes here and simply tell us the good reason for the invasion of Iraq?
01-27-06, 07:42 PM Scotty
quote: But rather than get into a discussion about previous discussions, why don't you take a couple of minutes here and simply tell us the good reason for the invasion of Iraq?
Like I said before,you have been given several good reasons many times before,but you refuse to accept them. I will no longer waste my time trying to tell you something that you will refuse to accept. It is absolutely impossible to give you any reason that you will agree with.
01-28-06, 12:30 PM newnickname Yet again, rather than simply tell us the reason (and if it was a genuinely good reason, it would make me look pretty silly and shut me up, wouldn't it? Smile) you explain how I think, and what I will do. (And I have not 'refused to accept' what others have said - I have disagreed and explained why.) The obvious inference is that you can't think of a reason good enough to stand scrutiny.
The reasons you and others have given before, are not good reasons. For example...
'Hussein was a murderous tyrant who had to go.' This is not a good reason because:
a) Hussein's mass murders happened ten and twenty years ago (and were ignored by the rest of the world then). If the invasion was an answer to them, it was too late. There was absolutely no evidence that another genocidal act was being planned. The invasion itself has killed tens of thousands.
b) It is against international law to invade another country to change a government. This kind of action doesn't make the world safer, but more unstable and unpredictable. It has encouraged the proliferation of nuclear weapons, for example as the government of Iran seeks to secure nuclear weapons. It has fueled anti-American feeling - the Palestinians voting in Hamas. Further, there were a number of other options for ending Hussein's rule (including simply waiting him out - he was no threat); bombing Iraq to pieces and occupying it was not necessary if the reason for the invasion was a coup d'etat. Other dictators have been overthrown by much less bloody means. The Whitehouse itself has been careful not to put 'regime change' forward as a reason for the invasion, usually suggesting that it was more of a beneficial side-effect.
c) If toppling Hussein had been the reason, there should have been a plan in place to replace him - a plan that had a reasonable chance of working. There was no workable plan, and, through criminal negligence, Iraq has become a 'failed state' with little law and order, and liable to break up into three parts. If a viable government does emerge, it will be an Iranian-style theocracy. Here is my old buddy Bunkboy's list of reasons , followed by an explanation of why they are not good reasons, followed by a couple of posts from you in which you hardly even attempt to defend any of those reasons, or to refute the criticisms of them.
But maybe the 'good reason' you have in mind is not the ousting of Hussein, maybe it's none of the reasons on Bunkboy's list, or maybe you have something in mind, not yet mentioned, that demonstrates how at least one of those is a good reason. Maybe you can identify why my criticisms of those 'good reasons' are wrong. If so, it would be nice of you to share with us. We could have a reasonable discussion.
01-28-06, 03:03 PM Scotty
quote: The reasons you and others have given before, are not good reasons. For example...
Of course not! Didn't I say that before? You will not accept any reason as good,because you are unwilling to see. I rest my case here,and will not respond to this thread again.
01-28-06, 03:19 PM newnickname What case? You haven't made a case. You still haven't been able to bring yourself to type out, link to or even hint at the 'good reason' for invading Iraq.
I picture this reason as a weak, shivering little thing that would curl up and expire in the light of day. Why is it such a secret?
I've explained why I think the reasons previously given on this board are not good reasons - your response has only been empty assertion. It's not very convincing, and it's not a 'case'.
01-28-06, 04:03 PM Scotty
quote: I've explained why I think the reasons previously given on this board are not good reasons
This is of course your opinion. What makes your opinion any better than anyone Else's? Again I repeat that I will not continue to waste my time arguing with you about this issue. It is a total waste of my time.
01-28-06, 04:35 PM newnickname
quote:
This is of course your opinion. What makes your opinion any better than anyone Else's?
I'm not saying my opinion is better, but I tried to explain things, and gave examples. You've only said that there is a good reason for the invasion of Iraq, but you haven't given us a clue about what it might be. Why so coy?
You've made several posts complaining that I won't listen, and will refuse to see and so on - you could instead have simply told us what the reason that you have in mind is. Your opinion may or may not be better than anyone else's; how can we tell if you won't give it? The obvious conclusion to be drawn from your "there is a good reason but I refuse to reveal it" stance is that you're bluffing. It's not a effective way to try to persuade someone.
Screw your courage to the sticking point and tell us what the good reason for the invasion of Iraq is...
01-28-06, 06:56 PM frankvan #1. "I will no longer waste my time trying to tell you something that you will refuse to accept."
#2. "I rest my case here,and will not respond to this thread again."
#3. "Again I repeat that I will not continue to waste my time arguing with you about this issue"
This page intentionally left blank!
01-28-06, 11:04 PM newnickname It's Bush and Rumsfeld I feel sorry for. Every morning they log on to Answerpool, hoping to read about a good reason they can use to justify their war... and every morning they're disappointed. They have to keep falling back on nonsense about The War On Terror and How Dare You Not Support Our Boys, which they obviously don't themselves buy.
01-29-06, 08:45 AM Scotty
quote: #1. "I will no longer waste my time trying to tell you something that you will refuse to accept."
#2. "I rest my case here,and will not respond to this thread again."
#3. "Again I repeat that I will not continue to waste my time arguing with you about this issue"
This page intentionally left blank!
quote: It's Bush and Rumsfeld I feel sorry for. Every morning they log on to Answerpool, hoping to read about a good reason they can use to justify their war... and every morning they're disappointed. They have to keep falling back on nonsense about The War On Terror and How Dare You Not Support Our Boys, which they obviously don't themselves buy.
LMAO. Roll Eyes Been talking to Howard Dean lately?
01-29-06, 09:01 AM Karrow
quote: It's Bush and Rumsfeld I feel sorry for. Every morning they log on to Answerpool......
LOL! Big Grin I don't think they do as DG and I haven't been hauled off to Guantanamo Bay yet! (I expect those whose posts have caused this to rescue us if it ever happens.) Big Grin
01-29-06, 10:51 AM DorianGreyed Don't be too sure, K. That would explain the funny clicks I hear when I call in my order to the local Lebanese carry-out.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 5569 | Location: south of Cincy | Registered: 07-12-02
