[Seed] The Magnificent Seven: Soldiers pen a jaw-dropping NYT op-ed about the war in Iraq

1) This war will never be won on a single front. We need a multi-faceted attack (not just military or even military and economics).

This conflict is unwinnable. At a strategic level, it will always result in a stalemate as long as both side have the resolve to fight. Terrorists can merge with the civilian population making them all but invisible and opposing military forces have the financial resources to supply additional troops and weapons over the long term.

Then, you are also assuming that either side truely wants to win, or even end the conflict. For example:

1. From Al-qeada's point of view:

Al-qeada's aim is an Islamic super-state, to achieve this goal a critical mass must be generated across numerous Islamic countries and they require the assistance of the allied countries to achieve that. America and the allied forces are the recruitment poster-child for such organsations. The conflict supplies both financial aid and troops. Local communities have watched neighbours, friends and family die and they will naturally want revenge. In addition, they have watched the exploitation of their country and communities by the same countries for centuries. Combine this with economic hardship that is not likely to end anytime soon and it becomes clear that a long term plan of destabilisation is being executed.

2. From America's point of view:

Throughout the 1990's, after the fall of communism in Russia, the military was scaled back, along with intelligence services. Billions of dollars were cut from the defense budget, jobs were lost and both the weapons and various technologies were out-of-date. With no major global enemy, budget increases could not be justified. Since 9/11, there has been a boom time in the defense sector. This has seen the creation of new jobs, new pensions, new technology, etc. Deployment to active combat zones is providing troops with continous training.

It has justified to the American people, the expenditure of billions on protection, even though you're more likely to die in a car crash, than a terrorist incident. Thus, there is no real will to end this conflict, but rather to create a perpetual conflict in which the money keeps rolling to particular groups.

Sad, but true.

2) no single country, no matter how powerful, can do that alone. We need the world! We need all points of view! We need them to be hit morally, spiritually, intellectually, politically, financially, physically, emotionally, in every way possible. And we can't do this without the experience and understanding of the world's governments, religions, philosophies, vantage points, people, policies, and every other aspect of viability.

You're a dreamer...there is no profit nor political gain in this.

Mitt Romney is the only candidate on either side that I've heard acknowledge these two facts and incorporate them into a plan to push forward with this movement.

Mitt Romney is a business man and a Republican. As such, he's a rather shallow character and no different than his peers. More troops deployed means more money to private companies from the defense budget, which means more money being pumped into presidential campaigns and certain families.

Romney supported the invasion of Iraq,[104] and supports the "troop surge."[105] Upon hearing the testimony of David Petraeus, Romney reemphasized his agreement with current policy in Iraq and has called for a "Surge of Support" for the military. Romney has called for increased military spending to at least 4 percent of the United States GDP and wishes to increase the size of the military by at least 100,000 troops.[106]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but its all a scam when you look at it closely. There is a reason why these guys are in Washington and not on the front lines.

There is no cash on the front lines.

I'm curious:

Do you think it is immoral to be rich?

Do you think that anyone in Washington is there for any reason other than personal gain?

I do... Ron Paul and a few others. But I have to agree with Deep Thought here. This war is unwinable, and I'm beginning to doubt the administration's desire to win.

I don't think it's immoral to be rich... it is immoral to use hijack the government as a mechanism for obtaining wealth. This is a practice that must be stopped... and war is probably one of the easiest ways to profit off of the taxpayers. People will give up their personal and economic rights and freedoms when they are scared and at war.

This war is unwinable, and I'm beginning to doubt the administration's desire to win.

The war will never be won - it's just an occupation for the colonial interests of global oil corporations. They'll chew up American men and women for as long as it takes to suck Iraq dry. After that, who knows, and from their perspective, who cares.

At least they could be honest about it.

It has justified to the American people, the expenditure of billions on protection

Try Trillions (and counting)

There is no cash on the front lines.

Unless you privatize it..

Do you think that anyone in Washington is there for any reason other than personal gain?

I really and truly hope that at least half of the people working in our government have some sort of sense of duty to the country and what it stands for and aren't only there for personal gain, if not we are all truly lost.

Thanks to the Americans oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia where the Brits failed. Americans brought the technology and the willing process of teaching, then they helped to kick out Saddam when he invades. We were guests. If there is discontent in the ME check the way that in Afghanistan for example, the Taliban wanted to give more value to a donkey than a woman. They think that we were instruments. Oil is $100 now but there is demand in China and India where more people are getting a better quality life. Compare with Europe gas is cheaper in the USA, the same value than a gallon of gas.

We helpe people but they have to help themselves. Saddam did not have a substitute ready to go.

Who is blowing people up? The ball is in their court because it's easier to destroy than to build.

Atticus @ 1.6:

Great response!! I'm sorry: After blathering on myself yesterday, I just read your remark this morning.

Thank you for your valiant, informed, eloquent and respectful efforts at educating those still in the dark about global realities and America's role.

Ok, I'm reading back through trying to understand better.

First, let me explaing the HIV cocktail comment. I'm gonna go real basic so don't be offended if you already know all of this stuff.

HIV is a retrovirus. A virus inserts itself into the cells of the body (i.e. populations) and uses the cells own DNA replication and transcription mechanisms and materials to propogate itself, creating more virus, which in turn infect more cells. HIV could be able to be eradicated except that this virus mutates at such a fast rate that as soon as a drug is developed to attack the RNA of the virus, the virus has in effect disguised itself and can no longer be targeted.

There are many drugs being used to treat the virus that attack the proteins used in replication and transcription. However, because the virus changes so quickly, patients with HIV have to take several different kinds of drugs at once - called a cocktail - in order to attack the virus in several different ways in order to beat it down. Although the virus can never be fully eradicated from the body, HIV patients are usually put on one cocktail of drugs after another in an attempt to keep the virus at bay.

When I say that terrorists are like HIV, I mean that they are hiding within populations, reaking havoc here and there, and that they can never be fully eradicated. But maybe just held at bay.

When I say 'hit 'em with a cocktail', I mean that any solution (and again, by solution, I mean keeping them at bay) will require an attack from a variety of different angles, not just military.

You are right about my comments addressing the symptoms and not the disease.

After going back through this, I'm seeing that the war in Iraq and the war on terror are two separate issues. I don't know if they always were, I don't know enough about how and why it all began (outside of the WMD stuff and the vastly differing views I've seen on blogs and on newsvine) but we seem to have reached a point where they are now.

So that leads me to two conclusions.

1) The 'war on terror' would be analogous to HIV - terrorists infiltrating various populations, we can't attack those populations (because attacking the cells that propogate the virus kills the person), all we can do is try to attack the terrorists in a 'cocktail' of ways such as financial, psychological, spiritual, etc.

Furthermore, the attacking of a country is like attacking an organ in the body. Again, it endangers the whole. So military attacks should be held back and intelligence heavily relied upon to provide opportunities for specific strikes upon terrorists cells. And that intelligence should have world wide participation and cooperation.

And there's got to be more of a 'solution' than this as well. Maybe becoming energy independent is key.

Atticus, you described the problem well (although I'm sure you know much more than you were able to summarize in such a short time). What would you suggest we, as in the US and the incoming President, could do to minimize the 'environment in which it thrives'. Don't feel constrained by things like 'very unlikely' or 'unrealistic' ideas. Instead, pretend you were President and that you could find people who would do what needed to be done.

2) The war in Iraq and how to get out of there without making the situation worse. Again, Atticus, I'd be interested in what you would do.

The fact of the matter (BTW great analogy and explanation 1.9 Megan to Pagan) is it is time for Iraq to police it's own. There is nothing more we can do to stem the growth of these groups that want chaos or their own desired form of government in their country.

The situation as it is requires that the will of the Iraqi people be carried out. (Whatever that will is)

Our presence there (going forward) is about as effective as using a dirty needle to inject the cure for the HIV. We may kill one but we are creating more in the process from shear resentment and collateral damage.

I do not however oppose that we remain the 'eye in the sky' so to speak, to keep any would be foreign invaders from taking advantage of their weakened state. This is our duty as I see it for our part in this.

Growing?

These groups have long since ceased to "grow". It takes time to rebuild a shattered nation. It took us a decade to really cut down the occupation troops in Germany and Japan.

This is not Germany. Iraq cannot be equally compared to Japan either. The very presence of our troops in Baghdad makes the fundamentalists (not unlike the Evangelicals and Baptists in the US) crazy.

Can you imagine what it would be like in the US if a Muslim nation was occupying DC, or better yet Dallas? It wouldn't matter if they were there with our best interests in mind, people here would commit Hari-Kari too, and in the name of god and all that is holy to boot.

We are the only nation in history to conquor Japan. You have no idea what it did to their entire culture when we walked into Tokyo. The only difference is that the emperor worship caused them to stand down when they surrendered.

There is a great chapter in the book "Gods, Graves, & Scholars" about the one eyed Pasha of Mosul and how chaotic it was there a hundred & fifty years ago.

Their surrender (due to Emperor worship?) is not the only difference. The country has been (to some degree) divided tribally for centuries.

So what does this have to do with anything?

Pearl Harbor?

very good, also a difference... Iraq never bombed the US, and couldn't if they wanted too and we knew it.

Except that many terrorists called Iraq home, including that Abbas guy that killed the sailors after a hijacking and the killing of the wheelchair bound jews on the Achillie Laro.

Saddamn was writing $25k checks to terrorists in Israel and other places.

Saddamn also invaded Kuwait and the only thing stopping him, which were the no fly zones, were about to be removed by a U.N. vote. Do you think for one second that with Iran building a nuke that Saddamn would not follow in that path?

You don't think the Nazi's had sympathizers right here in the US funding them? Try our current presidents grandfather for one, look into it.

Plus, with us keeping as close of tabs on him as we were he would not have been capable of doing something like that. And don't give me that UN crap either, they opposed the US and UK No-fly zones all along, did that stop us? the opposed our invasion of Iraq, did that stop us? No, everything we do is unilateral.

It took us a decade to really cut down the occupation troops in Germany and Japan.

a) we still have troops in Germany and Japan, b) by and large they're welcomed there and c) this was all after (minor detail) cessation of hostilities.

There is no meaningful parallel between restoring industrialized nations with relatively high levels of education and social structure to the morass that is Iraq. The only reason to stay there is that the oil companies want us to keep an eye on the wellheads - and the oil deals - until they wrangle the last drop out of the ground.

Atticus-

alright buddy. now you have gone and done it.

check your mail for a friend request.

:-)

Thanks for your reply. Had to think on it spell. Still thinking (in between diaper changes). Looking forward to your articles and to checking out the links further.

I saw most of the Mormon doc and feel that, although mostly factual (didn't see the whole thing so can't say for sure) it had a bit of a negative slant in parts. Maybe I'm just sensitive. But for a great article, see my page and the seed "What is it about Mormons?". Very clear and unbiased. I found it very interesting.

Thanks for responding. I know I posted this on an article about Iraq, but my ideas aren't actually about Iraq but are referring to the war on terror. I don't think we as a world can ignore the terrorists, do you?

The term "terrorist" is an ambiguous term and George Bush uses it every chance he gets. Furthermore, the terrorists whom George Bush claims to want to eradicate are, in large part, responding to U.S. intervention in the Middle East.

If America were occupied against its collective will by a foreign power, I wonder how many of us would be considered terrorists because we objected to the occupation.

We have nuclear capabilities. The terrorists have suicide bombers.

The tragedy of 9/11 resulted in George Bush, ultimately, targeting Iraq. The men who flew the planes into the Twin Towers were Saudis. But the Saudis are Dubya's friends! GW, after allowing the bin Laden family to flee the country several days after 9/11, eventually gave up on bin Laden:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with that terrible day in September. Hussein was a tyrant, yes. But he was our favorite tyrant for many years. In an article from The New York Times, Frank Rich recalls:

the December 1983 photograph of Rumsfeld himself in Baghdad, warmly shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in full fascist regalia. Is the defense secretary so self-deluded that he thought no one would remember a picture so easily Googled on the Web? Or worse, is he just too shameless to care?

...Well before Rumsfeld's trip, Amnesty International had reported the dictator's use of torture -- "beating, burning, sexual abuse and the infliction of electric shocks" -- on hundreds of political prisoners. Dozens more had been summarily executed or had "disappeared." American intelligence agencies knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons to gas both Iraqi Kurds and Iranians.

And these days? Over one million Iraqi civilians have died in a war that Bush et al launched illegally.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,1207545.story

If you're worried about terrorists, you can thank George Bush and Co. for "creating more enemies faster than we can kill them" (as the bumper sticker says) with their warmongering, their refusal to be held accountable under international law and their criminality.

There are many people in the world who consider the United States to be the perpetrators of terrorism.

Under George Bush, we have become a terror-stricken nation. He and his cronies WANT us to be afraid. It makes their jobs so much easier.

As Benjamin Franklin said:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

The term "terrorist" is an ambiguous term and George Bush uses it every chance he gets. Furthermore, the terrorists whom George Bush claims to want to eradicate are, in large part, responding to U.S. intervention in the Middle East.

The tragically unappreciated part of the U.S. "intervention" in the middle east is cultural. Our friends on the left speak of the U.S. military intervention while ignoring efforts at liberating women, ending clitoral circumcision, and other cultural "assaults". While the vast majority of us in the West think that the cultural intervention is justified, our opponents on the conservative Islam world are just as vocal, if not more so related to this cultural war.

You cannot separate the military and cultural aspects of this as they must assuredly do not and use the cultural attacks as their justification. Oil and war are just business and power, attacking their culture attacks the fundamental basis of their civilization.

It does not matter if the left sees only through their own filters, the conservative and radical Islamic world sees otherwise.

For the left to deny its guilt in the goings on in the middle east is simply not tenable.

The tragically unappreciated part of the U.S. "intervention" in the middle east is cultural. Our friends on the left speak of the U.S. military intervention while ignoring efforts at liberating women, ending clitoral circumcision, and other cultural "assaults".

Space Guy?

I agree with you that religious extremists (of any stripe) treat women in an abominable fashion. However--that being said (and thank you for speaking out on my gender's behalf)--I fail to understand how the administration is actively working to discourage those practices. As I mentioned above, Bush supports the Saudi regime--one of the most brutal and unabashedly patriarchal in the world.

The war in Iraq (and, God forbid, the possible war with Iran) is not about improving the lives of women. You're smart enough to realize that. If it were, why would so many women and children be the victims of this bloody fiasco? Why would bombs fall on innocents? Why would our soldiers participate in the rape and murder of female civilians? Wouldn't a peaceful, global conference send a much more affirmative message?

If you have time to read this (and I admit, I'm still reading), this PDF represents a relatively current assessment of the condition of Iraqi women following the occupation.

http://www.codepink4peace.org/downloads/IraqiWomenReport.pdf

Yes, it's authored, in part, by Code Pink. I admire the organization. They are, after all, a group of women and are dedicated to ensuring our rights. I think you have an open mind. Why not give it a look-over?

I simply can't accept your premise that--someway, somehow--this war is being fought for the betterment of my sisters. It doesn't make any sense.

Rebecca

Thanks for a very thoughtful reply. I want to frame this so that convey's what the issue is.

We in the United States look at the world through the lens of our own history, which is short and filled with progress (sometimes steps back) in the march of freedom for all. There has never been a deep seated resistance to change here, and indeed change has been the hallmark of how our society has improved, building upon the genius of our founding fathers.

In the Middle east, stasis is considered to be a virtue and history is measured in the long thousands of year long struggle between the Middle east and Europe. This is why the islamoradicals love to talk about the crusades and governments protest when a battle found 2300 years ago (The spartans vs the Persians) shows them in a bad light.

They have evolved a culture that has been overlain by islam that is thousands of years old and attitudes in many things have remained as they were when the fires of Moloch burned in Ninevah. The treatment of women, children, and fundamental cultural values have been static for much of this time.

Now this great western nation of the U.S.A., along with its European cousins comes along trumpeting the value of change and improvement. Now the arabic nations are no stranger to war or technology as they preserved much of the technical heritage of Rome and Greece during our dark ages. However, in culture, most in the middle east see McDonalds, gay rights, and emerging freedom for women as an attack at the most fundamental level. This is where the entire movement of fundamentalist Islam originates. They want to retain the fundamentals of their culture and religion in the face of what they see as a materialistic and debased culture that gives freedom to classes (women, gays,).

Go and read their literature, listen to the long winded diatribes of their imans. While they rage against the military, they rage more against our cultural imperialism that seeks to bring our values into their culture. Now in our eyes this is nothing more than fundamental progress in providing freedom to more and more segments of society but they see this as described.

How do they counter this cry for freedom? It is the tactic of the weak to do extreme things. Thus the origin of the suicide bomber and airplanes flying into buildings. They don't as of yet have the industrial and military might to take us on directly so this is a way to weaken us as they grow stronger as we continue to send them money for oil.

You cannot disentangle oil from the cultural warfare underway. Therefore most of the things that we as a society see as good things in promoting change and greater freedom are exactly the things that they most decry. The freedoms promoted are broad based, with both left and right signing on to a gradual increase in freedom but their efforts is to blunt and turn that aside, to the point of doing what they have been doing.

The left bears just as much responsibility for the cultural warfare as the right in this regard as it is a deeply western outlook that they are most dead set against and are willing to die to stop. They see no difference between Bush bringing representative government to Iraq and Ted Turner supporting abortion rights or the ending of clitoral circumcision. They are both manifestations of the same evil to them.

spaceguy.. great comment.. I believe it is a heartfelt reply, and that you are sincere.. unfortunately, it has been my experience, at least in the middle east that one just cannot export, or vaccinate freedom, and democracy. they just are not hardwired for it. Surely there are progressives( i love that word) who do want democratic processes and who year to escape the oppressive tribal patrilineal culture that keeps women supressed, and that keep culture so static. To that end.. it has been reported in the media.. that as of late, the situation for women in Iraq, has actually not gotten better. The prevalence of shia/Sunni fundamentalism/tribalism has in fact made it harder for women. I have stated before in other threads, the big mistake we made.. is we assume that people think like we do. The world is NOT America.

Megan.. reguarding terrorists, or ignoring terror. I think the way to attack terror is by looking into the mirror..darkly. I abhor terrorism. What I abhor even more is sensless war, and propoganda carried out in the guise of the war on terror. Iraq is not the war on terror. Afghanistan is more.. but it is also about natural gas pipelines. If we want to fight terror.. we must look at ourselves, and the enemy.. and really honestly analyse the events that caused the situation.. Is it solvable? Is it justified.. ? Do we attack.. and what is the outcome?.. Not this idiotic no plan..50 yrs war that is being waged now.

Rebecca, Rebecca, GWB did not bring the terrorists in 2001, during 9 years they were attacking American soil overseas. Check the data. No security was placed like now and only after 911. You don't like GWB, it's obvious but so far so good that all the nations are cooperating with us, why they did not do it before?

but so far so good that all the nations are cooperating with us

Det, dear:

The coalition of the willing has become the coalition of the piddling. See this article:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13236.html

From above (dated October 15, 2007):

About a month ago, during a nationally-televised address, the president touted a broad, multi-national force in Iraq. "To the international community: The success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation," Bush said. "We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy."

Now, as it turns out, that number was a little shakier than the president let on, but even if we put that aside, the point of the comment was clear — Bush wants Americans to believe there is a shared international burden in this crisis. The United States is paying an enormous price, but, the argument goes, we aren't alone.

It's getting harder and harder to make the transparently dubious claim. England, for example, is cutting its deployment in half next year, meaning that by the time of the next U.S. election, the country with the second largest fighting force in Iraq will have less than 3% of our deployment. For that matter, some of Bush's 36 countries don't have standing armies, and one member of the coalition, Iceland, brought home its one troop two weeks ago.

Also quoted is Roger Cohen of The New York Times who writes:

The United States is as isolated in Iraq as a great power can be. A first term spent riding roughshod over friends and vaunting "coalitions of the willing" over alliances has not been righted by a second term of diplomacy rehabilitation. Wounds linger.

We don't have international support. Nor should we. Unless you think that Moldova's 11 bomb disposal experts and Macedonia's 40 soldiers comprise a sizeable alliance.

Don't forget that, unlike the White House, the rest of the world considers itself bound by international law. Because the Iraq war in all its grisly aspects (that preemptive strike, torture, etc.) is criminal, a trip to The Hague isn't any nation's idea of a vacation . . . :-O

I wrote a big ol' post above and asked Atticus to answer some questions. I'd love to hear your responses and those of Space Guy as well. You two seem to be well informed and have interesting opinions. And since I'm writing this before having re-read the entire thread, anyone else who has a take on this would be great!

Maybe we could start a new thread under some related group to get the input of the vine. If anyone knows how to do that (I'm still figuring things out), then post the link here. Otherwise, I'll look into it.

Thanks all, I'm just learning a ton!

bluecollarbytes #3

I've seen it all now. Someone seeds a piece written six months ago as if it's still newsworthy and it's a "top seed" on Newsvine. ROTFLOL. To make it even more laughable one of the severest critics of the Rumsfeld DOD, Gen. John Batisite, former commander of the 1st ID, has now changed his tune as well. Too bad others are still insisting on trying to snatch defeat from victory's jaws.

Bill-

Gen. John Batisite, former commander of the 1st ID, has now changed his tune as well.

does that make him a flip-flopper?

I've seen it all now. Someone seeds a piece written six months ago as if it's still newsworthy and it's a "top seed" on Newsvine. ROTFLOL. To make it even more laughable one of the severest critics of the Rumsfeld DOD, Gen. John Batisite, former commander of the 1st ID, has now changed his tune as well. Too bad others are still insisting on trying to snatch defeat from victory's jaws.

Hell, Bill:

We all know this happened in August. Big deal. It's still relevant and discussion-worthy. Why oh why must you rain on everyone's parade? By the way, I never see your seeds or articles getting play. Are you contributing anything? Or are you only Vine-mired in order to insult and disparage? Might you be just a tad bitter? Hmmmm?

You'll note that I added a postscript to the story below. By the way, it dates from September. Another oldie but goodie. There! I've saved you a brief bout of venom. (I said it myself!)

:-/

You can be assured that I shall in future. One would have thought you might have wanted to edit it in light of such recent events as Gen. Batiste's endorsement of the "surge" and the tactics and strategy of General Petraeus.

Rebecca

Clearly you need to get out some more. ;>0

Thanks, Bill. Ill put you on my Watchlist. NOW, if you'd only exercise some restraint in belittling others in order to make your point? I'd consider the move a step toward progress.
Cheers.

If you just keep your seeds and articles relevant to contemporary events you would have no problems from my end. Emptying out your blog into Newsvine is not cool imho and a borderline case of infraction of the following from the COH:

Newsvine is for collaborative discovery and discussion of the news, not self-promotion. Posting full articles which also appear on your blog is acceptable but seeding your own stuff is not.

Huh?

Atticus-

mr harrison is one of the first the scream censorship from the left so (as im sure you are already considering) it's best just to ignore his hypocrisy..

i happen to think it looks good on him.

cause ya know, washington insiders have an image to uphold....

:-)

That take on mormons is way off! If you want to 'educate' people on mormons, please learn about them and don't just read anti-mormon propoganda.

If you've been burned by a mormon, I'm truly sorry. There are good people and bad people in every faith and belief structure.

If you're really interested in mormons, read my seed on Mormonism, business, and politics.

The reason mormons are relatively prominent in business and, frankly, in every professional field is because of their emphasis on personal and familial responsibility and accountability. Also, there is a great emphasis on education for men and for women.

And we don't just take care of our own. See http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-602-2,00.html I used to work for the office in Salt Lake City that brought in and dispersed many of the stores that go all over the world to aid during crises. I promise you I know first hand that this is a small example of how the mormon church is trying to help all people in need.

Megan-

i'm sure there are nice mormons who truly believe.. i'm sorry to inform you that the vast majority that i have encountered have not been truly good people.

i am convinced that mitt is also not one of these "good people"

it can be summed up with a little joke a mormon acquaintance often told..

why is itthat you always should take two mormons fishing?

because if you only bring one along, he'll drink all your beer.

please don't get me wrong, i'm all for people believing whatever set of tales they feel so inclined to believe, but as soon as you mix them with a government that is intended to govern me, i get a little put off to say the least.

i don't trust mitt to keep his faith out of my government and knowing about the incestuous nature of mormon business practices, the possibility of religious nepotism and corruption seem to me far too likely.

So only atheists are fit to govern?

That negates all of our past Presidents, doesn't it?

not at all Megan-

a president should have the ability to separate their own faith from their actions as the representative of all levels and types of belief. that make up the american people.

i'm not saying it is easy, and i AM saying that mitt does not appear to me to have it.

:-)

First, I really appreciate your comments.

Now, as a mormon myself, believe me, if Mitt was ever soft on pro-life, he has it in spades. The church's official stance on abortion is that it only be considered in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is threatened.

Being pro-war is NOT pro-life, Megan.

Different issues as you know. You're just using symantics for a kind of sound bite. Clever but not helpful to me.

Yes, Romney wants to send more troops. Yes he wants to beef up the military. No, he is not in favor of withdrawing right now. But he IS the only candidate to see beyond what is happening on the ground and who is willing to try to get the US involved with other countries and to fight this on multiple levels - not just military.

No matter what the initial causes, we have created a responsibility. Romney has an incredibly high IQ. He may be even more intelligent than Bill Clinton. He gathers the facts before he makes a move. He gets people behind him. He has incredible intelligence and phenomenal leadership abilities. He made a journey from pro-choice to pro-life. He says that once he realized what it was really about, he knew he had made a mistake and he changed his stance.

He has said that if you want someone who's never been wrong then he's not your guy. He's also said that if you want someone who will never learn from their mistakes than he isn't your guy. I personally WANT someone who will admit when they are wrong and work to turn it around. I WANT someone who will learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others. I really believe that he is the most qualified candidate running and has the best chance of figuring this out (as far as it can be comprehended) and the best chance of leading us toward improving our place in the world as well as working together with other nations to help heal Islam (at least as much as the world could help at this point).

Let me help you with your response:

I'm a dreamer. I'm an idealist. I'm blinded by Mitt's great hair. I'm a fool to believe him.

Well, who should I believe? Huck? Rudy? Ron? Hillary? Obama? Or maybe I should just accept that we're all screwed and we should just pull out and let the insurgencies that we have armed and the huge mess we have created collapse in on itself?

I'd rather have hope that things can, maybe not be prettily solved, but can be improved and that I can believe in myself enough to trust my research, my slowly forming opionions, and my intelligence enough to help by making a good choice in this upcoming election.

And I do appreciate everyone's comments and help in forming my opionions and in being a sounding board for me to incorporate what I am learning.

sir-

you are correct.. i misread the first comment on the thread as coming from you..

for that i apologize to you.

:-)

Really? How do you call the "incident" in Fiumicino Airport where among the travelers in the Pan American was a little girl going back home from Italy to spend Christmas and was blown to pieces?

Check "incidents" accross the world since 1947

I totally agree with you about what victory would look like.

I don't know that going into Iraq the right choice but we're there now and I'm not convinced that pulling out, especially after reading the op-ed written by the soldiers, is the right thing to do. But I do believe that the goal should no longer be a military war against terrorists, but a world-wide (and not by ourselves) offensive - not just military, it makes more sense to me to strengthen intelligence - but on all possible fronts.

BTW, I'm not arguing here, just clarifying my thoughts so that responses and other comments will be more applicable to informing my views. Yes, I'm totally using newsvine and this thread (sorry Atticus) to inform my personal views. Hope I'm not being too selfish or egotistic. I'm just really obsessed recently with figuring out the world beyond my front door.

I'm just really obsessed recently with figuring out the world beyond my front door.

That's a very good place to start, Megan. But you have to shed that "us versus them" mentality. We're all one on this planet. Global unity is the solution. Start studying other cultures. We share the most critically important traits. Go overseas. Take a trip. Talk to people who may not look like you do but, I can assure you, share your concerns.

The leaders of state would have us believe that we need to wage war in order to survive. You see, they're protecting THEIR interests. Not ours. Peace is the answer. Otherwise, we're doomed to oblivion.

As a very wise man (Carl Sagan) once said: It's time that we considered ourselves earthlings.

FYI, This whole thread I have been talking of the importance of approaching this from a global standpoint, not just seeing it through the eyes and interests of the US. Maybe you didn't read my other comments, or maybe I wasn't clear enough.

I'll probably regret this but it's late and I'm feeling a bit touchy, so let me clear up a few things regarding myself for your benefit:

I was born in the US, but I lived in England for over a year in my early twenties. I have studied many other cultures. One of my favorite subjects to study, before this obsession with politics kicked in, is religions from around the world. Some of the people in my life who have been most influential are from India, China, and of course good old England that feels like a second home to me. I spent one month out of last year in Russia adopting my two boys from a Russian orphanage. I learned much of the language and culture and history in order to preserve my children's heritage. We are adopting this year from the Ukraine. My husband is in the Airforce and we have lived in 5 different states in the past 9 years. I have a BS in Biology and have 7 years of experience as a research scientist, including 2 years working for NIOSH - a division of the CDC - managing a research lab and assisting with cancer research. I am a fanatical reader (love Tolstoy and Rumi) and will always consider myself something of a scientist. I have definitely been trained to think like one. In short, I have traveled, visited, studied, or in general come to know more countries and cultures than many Americans will ever have the opportunity to see and I plan on traveling and seeing and learning much more. I talk to people from other countries every chance I get. One of the reasons I sought out Atticus is because of his unique situation and the views that only he could share with me.

Still, the majority of my concerns over these past 7 years have been the immediate ones -processing the adoption, taking care of my boys, balancing the checkbook, cleaning my house, moving, organizing and reorganizing our lives, spending time with friends and families reading books and seeing movies. This is what I mean by figuring out the world beyond my front door. Not that I am sheltered or ignorant or live in a bubble. But that I haven't taken a proper interest (defined by me as really finding out what is going on instead of just listening to the news) in world events and politics before now.

Hopefully that will help you to be less patronizing when addressing me. If I took it in the wrong spirit than I apologize. Please credit that to the late hour, my kids refusing to go to bed (they just very quietly tore their room apart, ugh), and my frustration with being misjudged.

Now, if you can tell me how ignoring the situation we've created will bring peace, then I'd love to hear it.

We all agree: There is a problem.

We all agree: We helped create it.

Where we seem to disagree is on our moral responsibilities from here on out.

You seem to be arguing that we have a moral obligation to withdraw our troops and 'end' the war, at least our participation in the war.

I am arguing that we have a moral responsibility to be part of the solution and I'm not convinced that abandoning them at this point will accomplish that or is the moral thing to do.

You'll have to excuse me but "peace is the answer" is sort of like saying "May all your dreams come true". It sounds great on a greeting card, but the 'answer' will never be so simple. Backing out of war does not necessarily equal creating peace. (Notice I didn't say 'ending' war - WE can never 'end' what is going on there and we certainly won't bring peace by walking out on our commitments, ignoring the situation, and hoping it will go away.)

I concede I still have much to learn and that my views will likely continue to evolve. I would hope that all of you would concede the same.

Newsvine rocks!

Man! This is a long post!

Thanks, Megan, for clearing things up. Yes, you are international!

But I still think you've overblown the terrorist threat. There's a chart somewhere on the Web that compares the death and destruction wreaked by terrorists with the death and destruction that the United States has caused in its pursuit of terrorists.

Believe me, our damage looks like Mt. Everest compared to the terrorists' anthill. . .

The American approach to terrorism is somewhat akin to pulling out an Uzi at the kid with the peashooter.

I do come off as patronizing sometimes. You're absolutely right. I apologize. Maybe it's because I'm getting older and I've grown damned tired of watching people in power ignore what's best for our country, our citizens, our children, our childrens' children and the rest of the global community only because they want to die with the most oil, the most money and the most toys.

There's too much at stake! And the principles of democracy--true democracy--seem to have been relegated to a trashbin that even our Founding Fathers couldn't find--or wouldn't be allowed to find . . .

Never claimed to be international. I know realisitically where I am on the spectrum. :)

And thanks for your comments.

I asked the same question in comment #3.1 above. Somebody needs to wake up Atticus and tell him that Don Rumsfeld's been gone from Ft. Fumble for a year now and certain formerly critical commanders like Gen. Batiste are now backing Petraeus's plan foursquare. I remember the early days of the war and singing Petraeus's praises when he was in command of the 101st in Mosul. If only Bush had dumped Rumsfeld and Sanchez earlier and promoted officers like Petraeus and Col. H.R. McMaster of the 3rd Armored Cav we might not have lost so much ground.

I think this seed is very informative given the elections. I'm learning a ton. And yay for your link. Can't wait to read it and learn more.

It's SPC, but if you must know I am male.

Specialist... I'm in the Army currently deployed to Iraq. My username is me trying to say exactly who I am, I Surgical Technician (ST) currently at (at) war (war).

I am lucky to work in a hospital near Tikrit in Iraq. We have a tent with computers and phones available for patient use, but we are allowed to use it as well so I can normally get an hour or two to read the news and talk with family.

I do need to post a little more often though.

Well, the Media don't help to finish with Iraq. Only the bad is promoted and the good goes to the page 60 on Sundays.

fechancellor

New Poster slinging old news.

you have been here for two months and you accuse someone else of being a newbie?

funny.

Fech, bad news sells in the front page of the NYT, and our enemies love to read and listen our cries but the hands of our army are crossed by the politicians. Therefore, this must be the last war, we don't have the stomach.

Apparently it was never seeded. I had a talk about this with the seeder already up there.