I'd urge anyone against the war to contact your Senators and Congresspersons and tell them how you feel.
Support our troops. Bring them home.
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16021
Location: Wish You Were Here
paxPosted:
Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:29 pm
We currently have 160,000 troops deployed in Iraq.
How is that in the national interest of the United States?
It's time we bring our brave men and women home.
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16021
Location: Wish You Were Here
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:17 am
pax wrote:
We currently have 160,000 troops deployed in Iraq.
How is that in the national interest of the United States?
It's time we bring our brave men and women home.
Right on, Pax.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6560
Location: France
paxPosted:
Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:39 pm
Why are we in Iraq?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16021
Location: Wish You Were Here
dithersPosted:
Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:57 pm
pax wrote:
Why are we in Iraq?
Do you mean originally or now? It makes a big difference.
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
Need2KnowPosted:
Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:34 pm
pax wrote:
Why are we in Iraq?
Depends on who's spin you want to believe. There is much you don't know. I have had contact with some friends still serving and they were privy to some early conversations. Things are quite frequently not what they seem and what they tell you is not what is really going on behind closed doors.
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8815
paxPosted:
Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:14 pm
Need2Know wrote:
pax wrote:
Why are we in Iraq?
Depends on who's spin you want to believe. There is much you don't know. I have had contact with some friends still serving and they were privy to some early conversations. Things are quite frequently not what they seem and what they tell you is not what is really going on behind closed doors.
Definitely. The official explanations change frequently.
First, to remove weapons of mass destruction, then to overthrow Saddam Hussein, then to build democracy in Iraq, then to stabilize the middle east, then to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, then to install a safe government, then to stop the insurgency.
Are we accomplishing these goals? If so, at what cost? If the goals are not clear to the public, how do we decide whether we want to continue?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16021
Location: Wish You Were Here
Need2KnowPosted:
Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:28 pm
I think that we, as a country and as "WE THE PEOPLE", should make our feelings known because the government works for us, not the other way around. "Of The People, By The People and For The People". Our foundations dictate that we must question our leaders when we feel our country's standing and ideals are not being upheld by those who govern us. Let nobody ever forget how we were founded and that the law of the land is clear that we are the ones who call the shots.
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8815
dithersPosted:
Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:39 pm
pax wrote:
Need2Know wrote:
pax wrote:
Why are we in Iraq?
Depends on who's spin you want to believe. There is much you don't know. I have had contact with some friends still serving and they were privy to some early conversations. Things are quite frequently not what they seem and what they tell you is not what is really going on behind closed doors.
Definitely. The official explanations change frequently.
First, to remove weapons of mass destruction, then to overthrow Saddam Hussein, then to build democracy in Iraq, then to stabilize the middle east, then to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, then to install a safe government, then to stop the insurgency.
Are we accomplishing these goals? If so, at what cost? If the goals are not clear to the public, how do we decide whether we want to continue?
For one thing you have to be open to hearing the argument from both sides before forming an opinion for or against what is the truth. Some of the Senators failed pretty abysmally in that regard the past day or so.
Seems to me your mind is pretty much made up, as well, as to what's the truth or not.
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
AbarthPosted:
Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:18 pm
pax wrote:
Why are we in Iraq?
oil
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 1679
Location: Utreg
paxPosted:
Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:02 pm
yankee-in-france wrote:
pax wrote:
We currently have 160,000 troops deployed in Iraq.
How is that in the national interest of the United States?
It's time we bring our brave men and women home.
Right on, Pax.
Power to the people, YIF.
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16021
Location: Wish You Were Here
paxPosted:
Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:09 pm
Need2Know wrote:
I think that we, as a country and as "WE THE PEOPLE", should make our feelings known because the government works for us, not the other way around. "Of The People, By The People and For The People". Our foundations dictate that we must question our leaders when we feel our country's standing and ideals are not being upheld by those who govern us. Let nobody ever forget how we were founded and that the law of the land is clear that we are the ones who call the shots.
Very well-said Need2Know. In our country the people hold inalienable rights. Government flows from them, so it's everyone's duty to make their voices heard.
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16021
Location: Wish You Were Here
paxPosted:
Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:09 pm
"Diving for dear life when we could be diving for pearls." I love that line from the Elvis Costello song, Shipbuilding.
Why support costly wars? Does it make us safer or improve our standard of living? Is this the best way to spend $500 billion?
A half trillion dollars would give every adult American health care for life. Or significantly improve our infrastructure. Or ramp up alternative energy such as solar panels and hybrid cars that decrease dependency on oil. Or returned as tax breaks so people can spend or invest or save money on their own.
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16021
Location: Wish You Were Here
Fu-Gee-LaPosted:
Fri Sep 28, 2007 8:53 pm
hey pax,
by any chance have you been watching the series on THE WAR on PBS?
Oh my goodness. I think I can honestly say that I now understand why people didn't like talking about it.
edit to add- I kept hearing 'it had to be done'. I have heard that myself when asking about it talking to people who were there. I am not sure I understand that as a statement consuming the entire war. Yeah, _______ had to be done, and ______ had to be done, but not ________ is what I keep wanting to shout.
***Deactivated: Pending Review***
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 7247
Fu-Gee-LaPosted:
Fri Sep 28, 2007 8:59 pm
The War, Ken Burns’ series about the American experience in World War II, will invade PBS stations nationwide in fall 2007. But instead of ponderous interviews with generals and diagrams of troop movements typical of earlier WWII docs, the seven-part, 14-hour series will focus on the grunts on the ground and the gals (and others) they left behind in four quintessential American localities — Mobile, Ala.; Sacramento, Calif.; Waterbury, Conn.; and Luverne, Minn.
The producers chose towns to provide both variety and a cross-section of American types akin to the G.I. platoons of old World War II flicks.
Mobile was the hometown of Eugene Sledge, author of a powerful war memoir (With the Old Breed: At Okinawa and Peleliu). The major shipbuilding center in the segregated South was also a good place to examine home-front race relations during the war boom. Sacramento had a large Japanese-American population—many of whom were locked up for the duration—plus military bases and weapons factories.
Waterbury, then the brass capital of the world, boasted a hard-working immigrant population, mostly Italian- and Irish-Americans, who kept plants running 24/7. And Luverne was the rural hometown of Quentin C. Aanenson, whose exploits inspired the 1993 PBS documentary A Fighter Pilot’s Story.
Portions of the series were screened this month at the American Film Institute Silverdocs Festival in Silver Spring, Md., as well as at the PBS Showcase Conference in May.
A production of Burns’ Florentine Films and Washington’s WETA and co-directed/produced by Burns and Lynn Novick, The War mingles familiar Burns elements with some deliberate departures. Geoffrey C. Ward, the writer on most Burns productions, wrote the script. Wynton Marsalis, senior creative consultant for Burns’ Jazz, composed, arranged and performed the music. Keith David’s memorable narration is augmented by celebrity voices, such as Tom Hanks, who reads moving accounts of home-front life from Luverne newspaper columns.
This time around, however, talking heads will be limited to eyewitness testimony, even though the eyewitnesses are thinning rapidly (the Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that 1,000 World War II veterans die every day).
"We didn’t interview any historians, only people who lived through that period,” says Sarah Botstein, a producer with the series. “And we didn’t interview generals. We wanted it to be about the guys who were on the ground fighting the war—particularly people who saw serious combat.”
The War will also be markedly noisier than previous Burns films. “We’re using surround sound, we’re mixing in a digital environment, and on top of that we’re adding explosion upon explosion,” says Novick. “The sound will make the film much more nuanced, much more detailed, very intense both emotionally and neurologically.”
With funding from General Motors, Anheuser Busch, CPB and the Lilly and Arthur Vining Davis foundations, among others, production of The War has lasted somewhat longer than U.S. involvement in the war.
“We’ve been working on this film for a little over five years,” says Botstein. “The first year or so we did basic research—meeting people who spent their lives studying the subject, putting together a board of advisors, and figuring out our narrative. We spent 2½ years meeting veterans from all over the country—we spoke with probably 550 to get the 40 or 50 we interviewed—and deciding on the four towns and who in those towns we would interview.”
The crew spent the next two years combing archives, submissions by historical societies and material unearthed by a newspaper outreach campaign. “We asked people to go into their attics—literally—and find 8mm or sometimes 16mm home movies,” says Botstein. “That’s what makes this film unlike any film we’ve ever done. This is the richest archival event in history.”
Their quest was footage that, according to Novick, looked beyond “the World War II’s Greatest Hits you see on the History Channel every night,” says Novick. “For example, a lot of the footage you’ve seen of D-Day was actually taken at rehearsals. It’s incredibly dramatic ... but it’s a rehearsal. We use only footage taken at the event.”
The film itself juxtaposes home movies and other archival material with war news. In one poignant sequence, the voiceover accompanying clips—in color—of a young soldier’s wedding contrasts with battles taking place that day in what seems like an alternate universe. “Whenever we found color, we tried to work it in,” says Novick.
The long lead time also lets Burns’ team juggle multiple projects. “Different teams of producers are working on different projects, and part of Ken’s genius is that he’s really able to understand more than one subject,” says Botstein. “The films are always in a different stage of production, so one film is in pre-production while another is editing.” Next up is the five-part, 10-hour America’s Best Idea: Our National Parks, followed by Forbidden Fruit: America During Prohibition.
And that will be followed by? “Nothing yet,” says Botstein. “Parks and Prohibition will take us through 2010, so we’ve got a way to go.” http://www.current.org/hi/hi0612thewar.shtml
Precisely appy, and that is why I would NEVER vote for a puby, there would be *no end in sight*. Don't ask me If I would vote for Hillary or O'Bama, that isn't what matters to me, I will vote for who wants to END THE WAR. Period.
***Deactivated: Pending Review***
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 7247
paxPosted:
Sat Sep 29, 2007 12:11 am
Fu-Gee-La wrote:
hey pax,
by any chance have you been watching the series on THE WAR on PBS?
Oh my goodness. I think I can honestly say that I now understand why people didn't like talking about it.
edit to add- I kept hearing 'it had to be done'. I have heard that myself when asking about it talking to people who were there. I am not sure I understand that as a statement consuming the entire war. Yeah, _______ had to be done, and ______ had to be done, but not ________ is what I keep wanting to shout.
Hi Fugee. Haven't seen it but plan to rent it; Ken Burns is a great filmmaker.
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16021
Location: Wish You Were Here
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16021
Location: Wish You Were Here
yankee-in-francePosted:
Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:53 am
The Iranian issue shouldn't be connected to the Iraqi war IMO. Iran cannot have nuclear weaponry fullstop. Sorry, it cannot be allowed, and I do not believe that it will be allowed. I think that the only question is who will bomb them first. Germany and France have emphatically stated that Iran cannot be allowed to have that capability. Therefore, I do not think that the Congress is wise in tacking onto to the Iraqi bills anything to do with Iran unless it is so limited to their collusion with the Shites which is IMO unnecessary.
I think that the Bush administration has found itself cornered because they know that most Americans have had it with the Iraqi war. While I still believe that we should make love not war, Iran needs to be dealt with straight forward and cannot acquire nuclear capabilities. They should by all means continue with diplomacy, but with the present Iranian rulers, the efforts may be futile. Could I accept a strike in Iran to eradicate their nuclear potential? Yes, I could.
I think that it will either be the US or Israel who will have to do the dreaded here.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6560
Location: France
yankee-in-francePosted:
Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:54 am
The Iranian issue shouldn't be connected to the Iraqi war IMO. Iran cannot have nuclear weaponry fullstop. Sorry, it cannot be allowed, and I do not believe that it will be allowed. I think that the only question is who will bomb them first. Germany and France have emphatically stated that Iran cannot be allowed to have that capability. Therefore, I do not think that the Congress is wise in tacking onto to the Iraqi bills anything to do with Iran unless it is so limited to their collusion with the Shites which is IMO unnecessary.
I think that the Bush administration has found itself cornered because they know that most Americans have had it with the Iraqi war. While I still believe that we should make love not war, Iran needs to be dealt with straight forward and cannot acquire nuclear capabilities. They should by all means continue with diplomacy, but with the present Iranian rulers, the efforts may be futile. Could I accept a strike in Iran to eradicate their nuclear potential? Yes, I could.
I think that it will either be the US or Israel who will have to do the dreaded here.
PS -- Yes, please let someone be elected who will get us out of Iraq and bring our soldiers home.
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.
The attempt to gin up a U.S. conflict with Iran, was stripped of paragraphs 3 and 4 after protests warned that the amendment’s origional language amounted to a declaration of war.
Although the bill was a non-binding sense of the Senate measure, it was based on the same type of false threat reports that got the U.S. into the Iraq war. See “Debunking the Neocons' Iran War Measure” http://www.alternet.org/audits/63740/
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3196
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
apodixisPosted:
Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:11 am
The Congressional pro-war resolutions above leading to.....U.S. reportedly planning to expand Iraq war to attacks on Iran – airstrikes on Iranian troops, not on nuclear facilities – Israelis unhappy.
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3196
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
paxPosted:
Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:26 pm
Elvis Costello, Shipbuilding:
Is it worth it?
A new winter coat and shoes for the wife
And a bicycle on the boy's birthday
It's just a rumour that was spread around town
By the women and children
Soon we'll be shipbuilding
Well I ask you
The boy said "Dad they're going to take me to task, but I'll be back by Christmas"
It's just a rumour that was spread around town
Somebody said that someone got filled in
For saying that people get killed in
The result of this shipbuilding
With all the will in the world
Diving for dear life
When we could be diving for pearls
It's just a rumour that was spread around town
A telegram or a picture postcard
Within weeks they'll be re-opening the shipyards
And notifying the next of kin
Once again
It's all we're skilled in
We will be shipbuilding
With all the will in the world
Diving for dear life
When we could be diving for pearls
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16021
Location: Wish You Were Here
paxPosted:
Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:31 am
Five hundred billion dollars for what?
U.S. taxpayers are funding it.
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16021
Location: Wish You Were Here
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Next
Page 1 of 7
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
There is much you don't know. I have had contact with some friends still serving and they were privy to some early conversations. Things are quite frequently not what they seem and what they tell you is not what is really going on behind closed doors.
