home

What Does Freedom Mean?

VoteVets will start running this ad on Friday.

< NBC Poll: Voters Focused On Obama | Drive 55? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Saturday, I talked to my nephew for a long time. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:04:52 PM EST
    He just got back last Tuesday from 13+ months. I talked to him on the phone from Iraq about 8 or 9 months ago and he told me not to believe anything I heard on the news about things getting better. He said it was a disaster.

    Now, he says things are better, at least as much as they can be with us still there. He says it is time for us to cut them loose and let them handle it themselves. He says they are as trained as we will ever get them to be.

    He calls himself "one of the soldiers who takes out the bad guys" (I don't like that but he is good at what he is trained to do.) He hates to admit it and isn't sure it was worth it, but he does think the surge worked enough that we can leave now.

    Just two cents from a career soldier who has been there four times.

    Thanks for the report (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:06:22 PM EST
    That sounds like exactly what I was reading between the lines of the news reports.

    I hope all is well with your Nephew.

    Parent

    Thanks andgarden. He is so happy to be home. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:23:21 PM EST
    They have five kids (!!) and he was calling himself "daddy, the computer screen". The youngest is 16 months old and he's just now getting used to his dad.

    He said he'd bet money he will have to go one more time. I hope he is wrong. He has a lot of affection for the Iraqi people who aren't "bad guys". He has videos from inside his Humvee while the big fighter helicopters are firing on some town and it is really weird watching them. He has hundreds of pictures and everything looks to be in ruins. It will be a long time before things are "nomal over there.

    Parent

    Was it worth it? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:18:00 PM EST
    A million dead Iraqis, untold numbers injured, five million displaced/refugees, no reliable water or electricity, Al Qeada where it didn't exists, ethnic cleansing...and on and on and on...

    Sadly, I think the hardest thing for any person to face is the realization that they have engaged in something that not only wasn't worth it, but that destroyed others and themselves in the process.  There is nothing good to say about the Iraq war.  Nothing.  Sorry.  If the old Soviet Union can collapse without an invasion, so could Saddam's Iraq.  We committed an unforgivable act and continue to rationalize it with delusions.  

    I wish your nephew well.  I hope a big part of him wasn't destroyed, as well, but war tends to do that.  BTW, my brother is there right now for his third tour.  His last tour was in Afghanistan, where he was in the mountains working with villagers, only to have the village he was working with torched by...the U.S. Army.  Much to his disgust.  

    Part of the reason wars are not a first resort option, as they have been for the bloodthirsty, thimble-d*cked f*cknuts who run this country -- and by that I mean the Bushies AND us, since we enabled this crap and allow it to continue.  

    Parent

    Personally, I agree with you. We never should (none / 0) (#9)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:28:36 PM EST
    have gone. I hope your brother comes home safely. My nephew is a soldier to his core and he seems to be mentally ok (at least for now). He says some of his young guys (18-20 years old) are having a rough time. It was hell for them and I'm sure some of them won't recover. A few have come home to find out that their young wives left them while they were gone. I don't see how they can deal with all of that.

    Parent
    I know not a soul that married at 18-20, (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:32:28 PM EST
    or even slightly older. Not in my peer group anyway.

    One of the many indications of class divide in America, I think, as I also don't know anyone who signed up to serve in the military (though I do know a couple in the academies).

    Parent

    Yeah, it seems that some of those who have (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:45:15 PM EST
    the least are the ones joining the military. I think some of them tend to marry young because they are leaving their girlfriend/boyfriend behind if they don't.

    That's what I did :). My ex-husband joined the Air Force when he ran out of school money and it put him through college. I can't tell you how many under 20 couples we knew who ended up getting divorced the first few years. (We made it 11 and were only in the AF 4 years.) It was worth it for him...he got his education and actually had a job that got him an excellent position that he has to this day.

    The military can be a great life when there isn't a war. I can't imagine letting someone I love join right now. But most of these kids have no way to go to college or to get a good job and that we send them over there so unprepared is just awful. I think my nephew worried more about those kids than he did some Iraqi coming after him.

    Parent

    Like everything, the opinion (none / 0) (#11)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:32:17 PM EST
    is based in what part of Iraq the person was in, and the mission.

    I've heard exactly what your nephew said, and I've heard other military vets of this "war" who say it's actually better than what we hear through the media.

    We don't hear of air raids, bombs dropping, ground fighting, etc., so I'd sure like to hear what is costing us 10-12 billion a month. I'm not liking what I'm hearing from Obama during his trip.

    And, as far as this ad is concerned, I don't think it's a smart tactic to keep pushing that stupid comment from McCain as a plan. Yes, he said 100 years, no, he doesn't have a good plan for withdrawing all the troops, and the latter fact is more problematic than the first. Any ad that makes me roll my eyes for latching onto something more lame than the many other choices that are really solid won't work on me or many others who are deciding who to vote for.


    Parent

    Freedom means one thing (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:20:05 PM EST
    And one thing only: the right to freely dissent, to say no to the powers that be without fear of reprisal.  Since we now arrest people for wearing dissenting t-shirts at political rallies, we're well on our way to completely covering our freedom in a steaming pile of patriotic sh*t.

    not sure how effective this ad is... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:29:04 PM EST
    it might be because I "watched" it, rather than "saw" it, but the way it was shot/edited strongly suggested that there would be a "kicker" at the end (e.g. that the soldier was in a wheelchair, and had missing limbs).  

    Even without the "kicker" the shots and editing distract from the message -- the best way to communicate a simple, straightforward message is a simple, straightforward visual style.  This was way too complicated visually for its message.

    Draft... (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jarober on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 03:40:23 PM EST
    I notice that TL has gone all silent on the draft now that the Democratic candidate favors one.  And no, I don't care that it's not all about military service - I oppose coercive service, period, on liberty grounds.  Sadly, Obama seems to favor such coercion.

    Draft? (none / 0) (#20)
    by TChris on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 04:43:39 PM EST
    Are you talking about a military draft, or compulsory community service, which (according to this) received some kind words from both of the leading Democratic candidates?  I haven't seen anything about Obama's support of a military draft.

    Parent
    Whoa..... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:48:47 PM EST


    You're (none / 0) (#4)
    by tek on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:08:49 PM EST
    asking people in the U. S. what freedom means?  We don't know anymore now that we live in a country where there is none.

    You're kidding, right? (none / 0) (#14)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:02:01 PM EST
    You're ability to critique the government is a huge freedom - as is you're ability to vote the person out of office - or read anything - or do something or nothing all day.

    So, without insulting your intelligence I can only assume you are kidding

    Parent

    Obviously.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:12:19 AM EST
    we are still more free tha most, but not nearly free enough, and less free than we have been in our past.

    Parent
    "We" can critique the (none / 0) (#17)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 11:01:26 AM EST
    government because, at least according to what I know, "we" are supposed to be the government, altho' you wouldn't know it by just looking!

    Parent
    The surge did not work. (none / 0) (#15)
    by wurman on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:22:53 PM EST
    Jason Linkins, Jun 25, 2008, HuffPo (link):
    According to a report, made public yesterday, by the Government Accountability Office, "The administration lacks an updated and comprehensive Iraq strategy to move beyond the "surge" of combat troops President Bush launched in January of 2007." It cited "little improvement" where the Iraqi security forces are concerned, noted the failure to implement "key legislation" by the Iraqi parliament, found that crucial ministries had fallen off in spending their budgeted monies, and that "oil and electricity production" continued to miss targets.
    Linkins goes on to list the rather well buried articles & one-line mentions of this major story.

    Karen DeYoung, June 24, 2008, WaPo (link):

    Bush's strategy of January 2007, the GAO said, "defined the original goals and objectives that the Administration believed were achievable by the end of this phase in July 2008." Not meeting many of them changed circumstances on the ground and the pending withdrawal of the last of the additional U.S. forces mean that strategy is now outdated, the report said. The GAO recommends that the State and Defense departments work together to fashion a new approach.

    LGen RT Odierno, Mar 13, 2008, Heritage Lecture #1068 (link):

    Explaining the reduction in violence and its stra­tegic significance has been the subject of much debate. It's tempting for those of us personally con­nected to the events to exaggerate the effects of the surge. By the same token, it's a gross oversimplifica­tion to say, as some commentators have, that the positive trends we're observing have come about because we paid off the Sunni insurgents or because Muqtada al-Sadr simply decided to announce a ceasefire. These assertions ignore the key variable in the equation--the Coalition's change in strategy and our employment of the surge forces.

    Suggesting that the reduction in violence result­ed merely from bribing our enemies to stop fighting us is uninformed and an oversimplification. It over­looks our significant offensive push in the last half of 2007 and our rise in casualties in May and June as we began to take back neighborhoods. It overlooks the salient point that many who reconciled with us did so from a position of weakness, rather than strength. The truth is that the improvement in secu­rity and stability is the result of a number of factors, and what Coalition forces did throughout 2007 ranks among the most significant.

    [My underlines]
    VetVoice, Jul 7,2008, (link)
    But now that the surge is over--and now that our ground forces are largely depleted--Iran is much stronger, the Taliban is resurgent, and we still haven't reached anything resembling success in Iraq.  This all occurring against the backdrop of a failing state in Afghanistan.  

    As Jon Soltz told the American Prospect last week, had those same forces been allocated to Afghanistan--the theater deemed most important by General David Petraeus--then we could have doubled our forces there.

    [snip]
    Not surprisingly, America's top military leader, Admiral Mike Mullen agrees:
    "I've made no secret of my desire to flow more forces, U.S. forces, to Afghanistan just as soon as I can, nor have I been shy about saying that those forces will not be available unless or until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so."
    That's straight from the horse's mouth: We can't send more troops to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan because they're all tied up in Iraq.

    So next time someone brings up how "successful" the surge has been in Iraq, just point to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.  Note how the disastrously ignorant policies pushed on us by Bush and McCain have done little for Iraq, and only served to benefit the Taliban and, by extension, al Qaeda.


    For my money only, I (none / 0) (#18)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 11:04:27 AM EST
    think this ad might be more effective if it used a black and a white former soldier. My impression was that it doesn't send the message it is intended for.