A Long Unpopular War

[amicus]

A Long Unpopular War

It was an eight year long war. Only about a quarter of the population supported the war, there were tens of thousands of ‘coalition troops’ on foreign soil. Newspapers and journalists called for the impeachment of the President. Many anti war protestors demonstrated across the nation.

This was the War of Independence, 1776 -1783.

President Lincoln was excoriated by the public and almost impeached and finally assassinated for the Civil War involvement.

President Wilson in the 1st World War was driven from office by anti war protestors and threatened with impeachment.

President Roosevelt in World War Two was faced with, ‘America Firster’s’, anti war protestors and Media hatred of his administration.

President Truman was battered by the Press over his commitment of American troops in the Korean United Nations Police Action.

President Johnson was driven from office by the anti war protestors and heavy media criticism of the Vietnam War.

President Bush lost his bid for a second term because of the first Gulf War.

There is and always has been a rabid ten percent or so of the population that is of a ‘pacifist’, anti war mentality. That always reflects in the media, first in print and now broadcast outlets that reflect that same left wing anti war stance.

It should come as no surprise that a ten year study shows that 80% of the press in the United States is anti war and anti Bush concerning the second Gulf War.

I suppose we need these pussies as a persistent minority gadfly to keep intentions honest with a check and balance, advice and consent public forum, but at times, it is difficult to be tolerant of the licentious left.

Amicus…

 

[TheEarl]

Amicus - No-one likes war. Wars cost lives. Wars are expensive. Wars are devastating to the economy. In fact, the only way that any profit can be made from a war is by the acquisition of land, which is not in vogue anymore.

I hardly think it's lunatic for people to dislike it. It might be necessary, depending on which way you look at it, but it doesn't mean that people have to be happy.

Neville Chamberlain got booted out of office for not being warlike enough.

The Earl

 

[entitled]

There is and always has been a rabid ten percent or so of the population that is of a ‘pacifist’, anti war mentality. That always reflects in the media, first in print and now broadcast outlets that reflect that same left wing anti war stance.

I suppose we need these pussies as a persistent minority gadfly to keep intentions honest with a check and balance, advice and consent public forum, but at times, it is difficult to be tolerant of the licentious left.

Amicus…

(after snipping)

amicus,

After having an actual somewhat sensible conversation on the only other thread of yours i've posted on, i hope you don't take it personally that i have to disagree with you yet again on one little detail. Not all of us that don't like this war are either left wing or pussies.

While i agree that it was a good thing that we went over there, i must say that, in my opinion, it should have ended when Saddam was captured. When the soldiers no longer want to be there, and when the people of the countries no longer want the soldiers there, it's time to bring them home.

 

[TheEarl]

While i agree that it was a good thing that we went over there, i must say that, in my opinion, it should have ended when Saddam was captured. When the soldiers no longer want to be there, and when the people of the countries no longer want the soldiers there, it's time to bring them home.

Disagree completely. For a start, we went over there without being quite sure why we were there. First it was WMD, then it was to save Iraq from their nasty dictator. Both laudable, but confusion over aims should not be a fellow when starting on a war.

Secondly, now that we are there, we have to stick until there's something to take our place. Now that we have intervened and, in some ways, made things worse, we have to do the job properly.

The Earl

 

[amicus]

No, I don't mind. I appreciate both your comment and The Earl's. My posts are usually, not always, but usually contentious, expressing the extreme side of an issue.

I attribute it to my long career in talk radio, competitive talk radio where the biggest audience got the biggest bucks.

I too, happen to think that war is a terrible thing. But I am enough of a student of history to realize just what a major role conflict has played in all of human history.

Perhaps it can be attributed to male aggression, as seems to be the trend, or on the darkside of humanity, who knows.

But Knights in shining armor, brave and courageous warriors from all periods of time, fill our history books.

I tend to take a very simplistic approach to understanding aggressive behavior and those who defend against it.

I would kill to defend myself, my family and those I hold as close friends. I suggest most people would, parents defending children from wild beasts or bandits. I suggest that 'war' is just an extension of that, in my opinion, very human desire to protect life and property from those who would use force to take it away.

amicus...

 

[entitled]

Disagree completely. For a start, we went over there without being quite sure why we were there. First it was WMD, then it was to save Iraq from their nasty dictator. Both laudable, but confusion over aims should not be a fellow when starting on a war.

Secondly, now that we are there, we have to stick until there's something to take our place. Now that we have intervened and, in some ways, made things worse, we have to do the job properly.

The Earl

Yet the truth behind it all is the fact that oil is a precious commodity.

It was my understanding that we first went over because of the 9/11 attacks, though it was a little belated. Then again, i don't keep up with the news, so what do i know?

However, i DO know that they are more ready than most would have us believe. They have been for some time.

 

[entitled]

Don't get me wrong. i agree that conflicts of this type have shaped history, therefore shaping the present. They do have their place.

i simply believe that some were more important than others.

This one has just outlived it's usefulness, as far as i'm concerned.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Typical, either your for the war or a pussy.

The major problems with the Iraq war are the reason we went over there... there wasn't one.

The US started a war on the grounds of getting rid of all Saddam's 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' dispite the fact that the UN weapons inspectors had found pretty much 0% evidence of their existance.

So after 'Winning' the war over 2 years ago, the US went about it's search and found.... nothing. So much for our nobel crusade. Now the Government was left with having to justify the war on the grounds of spreading Democracy since the terrorist thinking was pretty much smoked.

The problem is, if anyone had stood up in front of Conress 5 years ago and said "I want us to spend thousands of American Soldiers lives and billions of dollars to bring Democracy to Iraq." they would have been laughed out of the Capitol building.

People need a reason to support a cause. And a war with no purpose isn't likely to maintain support for long, especially as the casualties mount.

But that being said, now that we are there, we have to stick it out till the bitter end. It's not a happy choice but it's the correct choice. Pulling out now will only leave a power vacuume that will undoubtably be filled by some extremist and leave the country even worse off than it was before we got there.

 

[Huckleman2000]

No, I don't mind. I appreciate both your comment and The Earl's. My posts are usually, not always, but usually contentious, expressing the extreme side of an issue...
I too, happen to think that war is a terrible thing. But I am enough of a student of history to realize just what a major role conflict has played in all of human history...
But Knights in shining armor, brave and courageous warriors from all periods of time, fill our history books.

I tend to take a very simplistic approach to understanding aggressive behavior and those who defend against it.

I would kill to defend myself, my family and those I hold as close friends. I suggest most people would, parents defending children from wild beasts or bandits. I suggest that 'war' is just an extension of that, in my opinion, very human desire to protect life and property from those who would use force to take it away.

amicus...

Amicus, it's a big leap from defending one's family to going to war as a nation. (Considering GWB, maybe I should re-think that last sentence )

Absolutely, there are times when going to war is an extension of the noble desires you stated above. Still, not every war deserves the romantic history you attribute to it. Too often, greedy leaders have sent armies to do their dirty work for them, while claiming some noble purpose that history will show to be perverse and corrupt.

The simple and indisputable fact that our leaders have had to re-sell this Iraq war several times, with changing justifications each time, has finally given a majority of the electorate the obvious perception that this war was (and is) a mistake.

It should come as no surprise that a ten year study shows that 80% of the press in the United States is anti war and anti Bush concerning the second Gulf War.

I suppose we need these pussies as a persistent minority gadfly to keep intentions honest with a check and balance, advice and consent public forum, but at times, it is difficult to be tolerant of the licentious left.

Apart from the fact that this Iraq conflict isn't yet ten years old, your "study's" characterization of the press as being anti-Bush is ludicrous. Pre-war, stories that supported the administration's viewpoint were given front-page treatment, with little or no explanation of dissenting opinions. Stories that disputed the administration's viewpoint were buried on A17.

I appreciate the difficulty you have with tolerance. However, given a free society, what would you suggest as an alternative?

 

[amicus]

Cheerful Deviant: "...Typical, either your for the war or a pussy.

The major problems with the Iraq war are the reason we went over there... there wasn't one. ..."

Yes, I deserve criticism for my use of the word, 'pussies.'

Not going to google this, but speak from memory...Following the Spanish American War, America gained possession of several territories and was faced with the dilemma of what to do with them.

One of the problem areas was the Philippine Islands, to which we sent a very young Lieutenant, at that time, I think, who later became General Pershing.

His task was to subdue Muslim tribal groups in the outlying areas. That's right, Muslim terrorists before the 19th Century got under way, precise dates escape me, but 1885 should be close.

My point is, in general, that there is more to the current Iraq war than usually is spoken about or meets the eye.

Islamic fundamentalism, quite like International Communism, (Yes Virginia, there really was such a movement), Muslim plans to dominate the world have caused unrest and conflict throughout Europe and Africa, throughout Asia and of course, is fed by the burning desire to drive Israel into oblivion.

Oil plays a great role in the Middle East, but not for the reasons you may think and the roots go back into the 20's and 30's. British, Dutch and German and then American oil interests put a great deal of money into what was a simple camel and date society.

That huge inflow of money, kept in the hands of Royal Families and Religious leaders, was not used, to any great extent, to improve the infrastructure of these countries, but rather to provide a luxurious lifestyle for the leaders and their flunkies.

The outcome of WW2 shuffled all those interests and stripped European Colonial powers of empire, possessions and trade agreements.

When crude oil was relatively inexpensive, refineries were built and then pipelines and huge ports and oil tankers and a global business took off. Middle Eastern oil became a valuable commodity, world wide, as more and more nations began to industrialize.

OPEC and other oil cartels, involving South American and African oil producers, began limiting production to manipulate prices.

The middle east, for those of you who have traveled there, is fond of, 'baksheesh', I think the term is, payoffs and bribes to government and religious officials. A sure fire ingredient for corruption and delay.

Well...this turned out a little different that what I intended and has gotten too long, so I will leave it there.

amicus...

 

[drksideofthemoon]

War---War is like the theatre, the best seats are up high, and in the back --- Douglas Reeman.

Talk Radio --- Living proof that there is no intelligent life on this planet---Me

 

[amicus]

Huckleman2000 "...I appreciate the difficulty you have with tolerance. However, given a free society, what would you suggest as an alternative?..."


I do respect and support a free press. Having been both a print and broadcast journalist for a major portion of my life, and being stiffed by government officials when I probed a little too deep, I really do understand the necessity of a free press.

However, I did send an email to several government agencies, asking for a formal hearing and investigation of major media outlets concerning the one sided bias against the war and the terrible reportage during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with what I considered dangerous anti government rhetoric.

I sounds as if you doubt my referencing the heavily biased reporting of the media, I thought I posted a series of links to those ten year studies that left no doubt of a liberal bias in the news. Perhaps you might care to search yourself to either confirm or deny my assertions.

I also think treason and sedition are useable terms when it comes to the press leaking classified information that damages national security. I know I could have been jailed had I released secret information given in confidence by government officials on such mundane issues as the letting of contracts for government work. They would have hung and quartered me had I written before the release date.

We have been through several threads concerning why artists, musicians and news people are more 'liberal' than they are conservative, I thought that was a rather settled matter.

amicus...

 

[TheEarl]

Not going to google this, but speak from memory...Following the Spanish American War, America gained possession of several territories and was faced with the dilemma of what to do with them.

How is Guam doing nowadays, anyhow?




Sorry amicus. Couldn't resist . Seriously speaking:

There've been far more Christian meglomaniacs than Islamic ones. We could talk about the Treaties of Demarcation, where the Pope formally divided up ownership of the New World between Portugal and Spain in return for converting those lands to Catholocism, as proof of Christian desire for world domination back in the 16C. We could talk of the Crusades too if we really felt the need.

People in positions of any real power are often venal, greedy and ambitious. The religions that they claim to represent are usually not. Contrary to popular belief, the Koran itself does not preach murder or terrorism. It preaches proselytising and spreading the word of Allah, but it also preaches peace.

To compare it to ComIntern doesn't really do you any favours per your debating position, as it does make you look rather silly.

The Earl

 

[entitled]

Earl, you put it better than i could have. Thank you.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Cheerful Deviant: "...Typical, either your for the war or a pussy.

The major problems with the Iraq war are the reason we went over there... there wasn't one. ..."

Yes, I deserve criticism for my use of the word, 'pussies.'

Not going to google this, but speak from memory...Following the Spanish American War, America gained possession of several territories and was faced with the dilemma of what to do with them.

One of the problem areas was the Philippine Islands, to which we sent a very young Lieutenant, at that time, I think, who later became General Pershing.

His task was to subdue Muslim tribal groups in the outlying areas. That's right, Muslim terrorists before the 19th Century got under way, precise dates escape me, but 1885 should be close.

My point is, in general, that there is more to the current Iraq war than usually is spoken about or meets the eye.

Islamic fundamentalism, quite like International Communism, (Yes Virginia, there really was such a movement), Muslim plans to dominate the world have caused unrest and conflict throughout Europe and Africa, throughout Asia and of course, is fed by the burning desire to drive Israel into oblivion.

Oil plays a great role in the Middle East, but not for the reasons you may think and the roots go back into the 20's and 30's. British, Dutch and German and then American oil interests put a great deal of money into what was a simple camel and date society.

That huge inflow of money, kept in the hands of Royal Families and Religious leaders, was not used, to any great extent, to improve the infrastructure of these countries, but rather to provide a luxurious lifestyle for the leaders and their flunkies.

The outcome of WW2 shuffled all those interests and stripped European Colonial powers of empire, possessions and trade agreements.

When crude oil was relatively inexpensive, refineries were built and then pipelines and huge ports and oil tankers and a global business took off. Middle Eastern oil became a valuable commodity, world wide, as more and more nations began to industrialize.

OPEC and other oil cartels, involving South American and African oil producers, began limiting production to manipulate prices.

The middle east, for those of you who have traveled there, is fond of, 'baksheesh', I think the term is, payoffs and bribes to government and religious officials. A sure fire ingredient for corruption and delay.

Well...this turned out a little different that what I intended and has gotten too long, so I will leave it there.

amicus...

I'm not even sure where to begin with this...

OK, so the war isn't as simple as Terrorism or WMD. I think most educated people can realize that. One of the driving factors behind the war is of course Oil. To be frank, oil is the only reason the US is interested in that reigon of the world at all. Americans are, by and large, complety self absorbed in their own SUVs, Fast Food and Plasma televisions. If it wasn't for the war, most American's couldn't find Iraq on a map if you gave them an hour. But the US needs Oil to fuel it's gas hogs and make plastics for comforts and Iraq sits on a couple trillion barrels of the stuff so it's off to war we go. Terrorism was just a covienient excuse. But then it wasn't, so bring in the other justifications, take your pick, there have been several.

As for the Muslims I don't think we made a whole lot of friends there either. The reason for 9/11 was basically because of a burning hatred of the US in the middle east largely because of our support of Israel, but there are numerous others. You can take your pick. But in out bid to 'Stop Terrorism' we have just created thousands of martyrs and given them one more reason, and a BIG one to hate us. And in the process we almost completly whiped out wat little infastructure there was in I that country. I'm sure the Muslim extreemists love us even more now.

 

[amicus]

Drksideofthemoon....


You know, I personally take that as a bit of an insult, although I basically agree with you.

My talk radio initiation began a long time ago, when I was doing a jazz music show on an independent radio station in Honolulu, Hawaii, KTRG, if memory serves.

I had just introduced and played a song by Thelonious Monk and in a casual moment asked for listener comments as to what they thought. Now Monk is a little out there in his piano chords, never took a lesson, played by ear.

Well, all my phone lines got busy, so in a wierd moment, I plugged the phone into the board and broadcast my conversation with listeners about the music I had just played.

Well, the owner of the station happened to be listening and called me into the office the next day. It seems as though he thought I had a flair for 'talk radio', which I had never listened before that time.

We were running the 'Joe Pine' talk show at the time and they gave me an hour slot right after that program.

On my talk show, we talked about local issues, I interviewed local dignitaries and other important people. I put a lot of research and background work into that show and it was expanded to three hours and eventually put in prime morning drive time, 6-9am.

At that time, talk radio was considered 'informational', today it has become maudlin entertainment, so, in a way, I agree with you.


amicus...

 

[zeb1094]

It preaches proselytising and spreading the word of Allah, but it also preaches peace.
The Earl

Define the way Muslims see Peace please?

 

[amicus]

TheEarl "...To compare it to ComIntern doesn't really do you any favours per your debating position, as it does make you look rather silly..."


Well, 'rather silly' ain't always bad, I always thought Ted Koppel on Nightline looked like that caricature on Mad magazine, and he did all right.

Guam? I dunno, I think they through us out of Okinawa though.

I have never defended the Christian conversion of the pagan's but I do acknowledge it existed. I think you overlook the world wide thrust of Islam. And I don't really care to know enough about the Bible or the Koran, to studiously determine if those who practice conversion tactics can back it up with religious dogma.

Comintern? I suppose you can explain Russian weapons that the Chinese and the North Koreans used against us in the Korean War? And the Migs over both Korea and Vietnam, sometimes flown by Russian Pilots. And the fact that the AK47, a Russian weapon, is the 'weapon of choice' used all over the world.

Forget the Russian missile launch pads in Cuba, Communist support of Egypt in the 6 day war against Israel, that Saddam had an air force that had Mig fighters, as do the Syrians and Iranians.

No such thing as international communism? Silly boy.

amicus...

 

[entitled]

Define the way Muslims see Peace please?

Muslims and Christians are more closely related that either seems to want to admit. They pretty much share the same views on peace.

 

[zeb1094]

Muslims and Christians are more closely related that either seems to want to admit. They pretty much share the same views on peace.

A muslims view on peace is determined by three things:
1. You are a muslim or will become muslim.
2. If you won't convert to islam then you will be heavily taxed.
3. If you won't convert nor pay the tax you must be killed.

Those are the laws of Islam and the gangster Mohamed.

 

[TheEarl]

Comintern? I suppose you can explain Russian weapons that the Chinese and the North Koreans used against us in the Korean War? And the Migs over both Korea and Vietnam, sometimes flown by Russian Pilots. And the fact that the AK47, a Russian weapon, is the 'weapon of choice' used all over the world.

Forget the Russian missile launch pads in Cuba, Communist support of Egypt in the 6 day war against Israel, that Saddam had an air force that had Mig fighters, as do the Syrians and Iranians.

No such thing as international communism? Silly boy.

amicus...

Errr, Amicus? If you can find one quote of mine where I've denied the existence of ComIntern, then I'll give you a biscuit.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Define the way Muslims see Peace please?

Thou shalt not kill?

The Earl

 

[amicus]

A muslims view on peace is determined by three things:
1. You are a muslim or will become muslim.
2. If you won't convert to islam then you will be heavily taxed.
3. If you won't convert nor pay the tax you must be killed.

Those are the laws of Islam and the gangster Mohamed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`


Oh my, that does sound just like Christianity...change the names a bit, add the Inquisition and burn a witch and you got it!

amicus...

 

[zeb1094]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`


Oh my, that does sound just like Christianity...change the names a bit, add the Inquisition and burn a witch and you got it!

amicus...

Sure back in history, but this is what they go by NOW!

 

[TheEarl]

Sure back in history, but this is what they go by NOW!

Define they.

The Earl