Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (247289)	11/4/2007 4:25:47 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 281500

Just as for Nadine, it's ALWAYS about Israel and ONLY about Israel..

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (247289)	11/5/2007 1:16:19 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, re: "For ed, it's forever and always about Vietnam and his feelings about Vietnam. That's why only the soldiers who are quoted as saying that it's a shithole where they are are telling the truth; ever other set of soldiers who say anything different about their experiences in Iraq are lying for the brass." That's not a correct characterization of my stated views. I know that there are soldiers who say something "different" and who clearly believe what they're saying. Given what they have to do, soldiers, more than anyone else, have a vested interest in believing that what they're doing is necessary, just and successful. It is true, however, that the "we're getting the job done" public statements of officers and senior NCOs that they KNOW will reflect on their suitability for retention and promotion must be viewed with extreme skepticism. Or maybe you never noticed that those ranking officers who strayed from the party line on troop levels, the extent of the insurgency, or the "success" or our occupation, or those military lawyers who too vigorously represented some of those held without charges by the military have been riffed out of the service, retired prematurely or passed over for promotion? On the other hand, when you hear from 7 senior NCOs who are fighting the war, who know that they're risking their careers and who speak out saying that what we're doing isn't going to get us where we say we're going, then you ought to pay attention. (Two of those men are dead now, by the way.) So you might ask yourself why some soldiers might paint a pretty picture that will get them advanced and then ask why others would paint an ugly picture guaranteed to cost them in their careers? I know. I saw that happening over and over again first hand in Vietnam and I don't think human nature or the Army bureaucracy has changed in the last generation. But don't take my outdated word for that. If you read what's being said now and compare it to what was said at the beginning and mid years of the war in Iraq, nothing could be more clear. The remfs lie, the senior officers lie, their superiors lie and they all brown nose their way ahead. It's the treasure of the country and the lives of the combat soldiers that constitute the cost, but that never seems to stop the dog and pony show. That's what gives cover to Bush and people like you who just need to hear that inch to take that mile. Ed