I don’t like doing this. It’s not something I want to do,” says Aidan Delgado of his public presentations. “I feel like I have to do it.” A veteran of the Iraq war, Delgado, 23, has spoken to students, churches and peace groups across the country. “The media’s not giving the full picture,” he says. “Nobody’s seeing the ugly side, the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (47)Page 1 of 1 pagesI so totally agree that the military is so completely like high school, seriously for real the only difference is like “your toughest teacher lives with you and has a gun” because that is so completely like, dude, I’m going to shoot you if you don’t pay attention!
Delgado knows the scene, and he knows, just like high school with gun teachers, that the military will totally just shoot yo butt. This is so not reported. Military = teachers with guns in High School. Try getting that info in the Economist!
Posted by fake name on Jul 18, 2005 at 2:43 PM ” “I felt like they were trapped in the war as much as I was and we were all victims of it, so I felt that fighting them would be wrong,” he says. “
Same could be said for our prison system here. Still someone has to impose order somehow.
I would like to think order can be established in Iraq better than how it was done under Saddam, but only time will tell. . . For better of worse, the Iraqis are going to decide what type of country Iraq is going to be - a decision that will affect it for perhaps decades.
Posted by Thomas on Jul 18, 2005 at 2:45 PM “‘When I came face to face with the people who were supposed to be my enemies, I thought that I had no reason to fight them,’ he says.”
He’s damn right they’re not his enemies. It’s not his war or anyone else’s but Bush’s and Cheney’s. It’s a war for oil, no-bid contracts, and kick-backs (to Bush and Cheney), in exchange for no bid contracts, and, oh yes, the execution of a vendetta against Hussain and his sons.
I sure would have liked Ms. Souza to flesh out in more detail exactly what Mr. Delgado thought the purpose of the war was from his perspective.
If Bush and Cheney don’t spend eternity in hell (with the rest of Bush’s family and ancestors), there is no God.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 18, 2005 at 2:47 PM Thomas,
Order has to be imposed somehow? Have you ever cared to consider that most of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are there not because they committed a crime but because they were arbitrarily rounded up in one of those infamous search and seizure missions by the military? The International Red Cross has estimated that up to 90% of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are not criminals or terrorists at all. They have every right to protest!! Don’t even get me started on our own prison system. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world! It is even worse in G.W.‘s Texas, where black men disproportionately constitute the prison population even though they do not commit the majority of crimes in that state.
Posted by Bud on Jul 18, 2005 at 3:10 PM Its good to know that the leathal force is so easily authorized in Iraq. I get a warm tingly feeling when I realize that we can beat them, humilate them, and when they stand up for basic human rights we get to kill them. Smiles all around, hail the new Democracy!
Posted by Vanella on Jul 18, 2005 at 4:11 PM Bud - Do you have a theory for why we are putting all the innocent Iraqis in prison in Iraq? While i am sure that some innocents will be imprisoned due to the anarchy there, it seems 90% is a bit high (you could probably just go into a “bad” neighbourhood and arbitrarily round up people and get a better percentage than that!).
Anyway, until order can be established in Iraq, all the innocents there will suffer. I am still hopeful it can be done with a gentler hand than Saddams. . .
Posted by Thomas on Jul 18, 2005 at 5:04 PM “...where black men disproportionately constitute the prison population even though they do not commit the majority of crimes in that state.”
What’s your point? Is it unfair for a group to be jailed disproportionately to its population unless members of that group commit a majority of the crime? Do the math, Bud.
Posted by Randolph on Jul 18, 2005 at 6:25 PM Thomas said: “Anyway, until order can be established in Iraq, all the innocents there will suffer. I am still hopeful it can be done with a gentler hand than Saddams. . . .”
Well, so far it seems we (meaning Bush and his military, I take no responsibility for their conduct whatsoever) haven’t. But even if “we” have, is that the standard you demand - gentler than Saddam Hussain?
The Iraqi prisoners deserve to be treated with the same humanity you would hope a U.S. prisoner of war should be treated, if not with dignity or respect. Even those who would do us harm are helpless prisoners, they’re not on the battlefield. Murdering a prisoner of war is still murder.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 18, 2005 at 6:51 PM Randolph,
What’s your point? Once again, you are the epitome of a conservative. You cannot make an arguement without the use of a false premise.
What do you know about the criminal justice system? Are you a prosecutor or public defender? There’s are several reasons, other than disporportionate criminal activity, that a disproportionate number of black men, compared to white men, are in prison. They include, but are not limited to, racism on the part of the police, the criminal law bar and bench, and the general population from which the jury is produced, as well as the economic reality that a disproportionate number of blacks cannot afford a competent defense.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 18, 2005 at 6:53 PM I second Lefty’s response to Randolph. It is nice that the conservative troll has not yet hijacked this thread as well. Someone on the “Immoral Majority” thread has been using the name Lefty to post satanic and disturbing messages. I suggest the real Lefty go check it out.
Posted by Bud on Jul 18, 2005 at 6:57 PM Okay Lefty and Bud, I’ll explain. The fact that a group is disproportionately imprisoned without committing a majority of the crime means nothing by itself. Once again, do the math. Think about it before you reel off your time-worn line about using a false premise.
Posted by Randolph on Jul 18, 2005 at 7:33 PM Implicit in my comments about black incarceration is that there are societal factors influencing their incarceration rate. If you doubt my thesis, dress up as a black man and drive around Los Angeles, Houston, or any other major city and then do the same thing as a white man. See how the cops treat you in both instances. Try to get an apartment using a black accent and then using an upper class white accent and see who gets called back. Racism is a structural dilemma in American society and manifests itself in different ways, not the least of which is reflected in the incarceration rate.
Posted by Bud on Jul 18, 2005 at 7:49 PM Bud, I’m only talking about your first post. You point out that black men are imprisoned disproportionately without committing a majority of the crime and leave it at that, as if that figure by itself indicates something. It doesn’t. Standing alone, a comparison between the PERCENTAGE of incarcerated blacks the NUMBER of crimes committed means nothing. Implying that it does is something Lefty might recognize as a false premise if he understood that phrase.
Posted by Randolph on Jul 18, 2005 at 8:09 PM Just why did Aidan Delgado sign up for the reserves? There is no draft. Bad luck to have the 9/11 attacks before the ink was dry on his enlistment, but was he completely unaware of what war is about?
“They were the same as the guys in my unit.”
Yes, in many ways except their religious leaders want them to kill anyone who disagrees with their beliefs, especially Americans.“The captured men were mostly young and uneducated, and did not have many choices in life.”
Is Aidan uneducated? Was he without choices in life? Didn’t he freely choose the military? Did the Iraqis he refuses to fight?
He has been allowed a discharge due to his consciensious objector views — how many Iraqis will be given that freedom?
We may not always be right, but more people want our lifestyle than want theirs. As Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government…except for all the rest.”
Posted by Dean Munson on Jul 18, 2005 at 8:13 PM Clearly Randolph goes from what he knows in his heart to be true. If a person is in jail, then they must belong there. The same must be true with Iraqis. After all *our* government doesn’t support collective punishment, do they?
Suppose we decided to level an entire city because security was becoming a problem. That would be bad, right? How, exactly did we find ourselves in the same intimidation business Saddam used to be in?
Mr. Munson: your point is comical. Do you think a typical 19 year old American has any idea what war is about? Certainly not. He still believes his country stands only for good and would never engage in war unless its security was directly threatened. Not only that, but a key premise of our national charter is that *all* men are created equal and entitled to certain protections under the law.
I used to think the same thing when I was 19.
Posted by GrayArea on Jul 18, 2005 at 8:43 PM Aidan Delgado is a very brave young man. But more than that, I suspect that he, too, is among the chosen ones. That he happened to enlist on “the day” and then later assigned to Abu Ghraib, are significant clues, I think, pointing to his interconnectedness, his purposeful fate.
It’s the same kind of interconnectedness Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. experienced as a survivor of the Allied bombings of Dresden during WWII. Or the interconnectedness portrayed in the obsessions of those characters (played by Richard Dreyfuss and Melinda Dillion) in Spielberg’s, ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’.
So much emphasis is given to singular entities of God or Savior that the true nature of the universe, revealed to us through the interconnectedness applied to specific (chosen) human beings, that it’s face becomes invisible; unable to see the forest for the trees, as it were.
“Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment.” - R. Buckminster Fuller
Today, you see a defiant Eric Rudolf sentenced to life for his ideology (albeit, psychopathic). And one of his victims proclaims to him: “You want to see a monster, all you have to do is look in the mirror.”
Clearly, there are gods and there are monsters. So all that no child left behind must do then, is look into the mirror and decide if they see themselves becoming a god or a monster; only, before they can do that, they must first understand the forest and it’s trees—a tall order for one so young.
Posted by Tim Christopher on Jul 18, 2005 at 8:50 PM Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all the other horrors of war? I wonder, would it have been better for the US to act “honorably” and have lost the war?
When sucker punched, should an individual continue to attempt to reason or fight fair? How should one apply rules in a complex world? Especially when under attack?
I personally am quite happy about the nuking of Japanese cities. My father was on deck for an invasion that he very well might not have survived. Worse, it would have ended his life before mine began. Making me a “choosen” one, or so I suppose. . .
Posted by wonderingAloud on Jul 18, 2005 at 9:02 PM Wondering Aloud,
Like so many others, you mistakenly draw comparisons between Iraq 2003 and WWII. In the former we are an agressor state, having attacked without provocation with the foremost reason for doing so to “liberate” that nation. Therefore, our behavior must be held to a higher standard of conduct. In the latter case, our foremost aims were to defeat the militaries of the aggressor nations, Germany and Japan, with the concept of post-war government in the back of our collective minds.
You must not be familiar with the concept of “propotionality,” which in wartime refers to the activities undertaken to achieve an end result of similar magnitude. From this concept arises questions of whether or not the U.S. exceeded its objectives by means of burning down half of Tokyo and killing 100,000 civilians in a single night. Did the activities undertaken to force an unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan exceed what was necessary to achieve those ends? It is a legitimate question to raise. Was it necessary to kill 350,000 innocent Japanese with two bombs to force the government to surrender? You may be glad we did it, but that does not ameliorate the fact that the same end could have been achieved through less horrific means.
Posted by Bud on Jul 18, 2005 at 9:42 PM The decision to go to war with Iraq (to take over the country) was not an honorable one. It was based on lies and deception and it violated the principles of our nation and those of international law.
“In case you haven’t noticed, we…dehumanize our own soldiers, not because of their religion or race, but because of their low social class. Send ’em anywhere. Make ’em do anything. Piece of cake.”—Kurt Vonnegut
“All war is deception”—Lao Tzu
Posted by Tim Christopher on Jul 18, 2005 at 10:14 PM Like most of us who watch the nightly news, two weeks ago I watched and listened to a report about a young man who was arrested for killing a police officer. He had just gone on a crime spree that involved robbery and carjacking. His defense: He played the game “Grand Theft Auto,” a video game which showed carjackings, shootings and robbery and of course, sex. The defense attorney claims that his client was programmed to carry out these senseless shootings of innocent individuals and that he had followed the script exactly as shown in the video game.
Take it for what it’s worth, but that describes an entire generation which has grown up with these video games and for many, respect for the life of another human being doesn’t seem to exist or matter, especially for some whose penchant for violence is reinforced by watching a video game like Grand Theft Auto.
What was startling though, was the admission that this same type of video is used by the U.S. Army for training soldiers in the U.S. military, many who readily claim that that is one of the reasons they want to go in the Army—to see action and kill people.
Simulated battle scenes present situations where soldiers must make split-second decisions, measuring their hand-eye coordination and ability to react and respond to actual battlefield conditions.
Is it any wonder then, that in a real situation, where you see real blood, real human suffering, both of your own comrades and your foes, how densensitzing an experience it must be for an 18 or 22-year-old kid to participate in the act of ultimate sacrifice and gruesome bloodshed called war.
Only those who fought it face-to-face, like Aidan Delgado, can describe it. I, for one, sit at home, watch and read about it on evening TV, and once I’m bored sick of watching it, like playing a video game of Grand Theft Auto, I simply switch channels.
Posted by Richard on Jul 19, 2005 at 12:09 AM Dean Munson and Wondering Aloud,
So, it’s your position that when Aiden Delgado enlisted in the military, part of the bargain was that he would have to fight in a fraudulent war, the only purpose of which was the personal enrichment of G.W.Bush, his family and friends? Or, does he have the right to say no, I’m not willing to kill or die for corporate profits, this has NOTHING to do with defending my country.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 19, 2005 at 12:27 AM Continuing, I’d bet that if Aidan Delgado was deployed in Afghanistan to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban, he would not have objected. I wonder if there were any conscientious objectors in Afghanistan.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 19, 2005 at 12:31 AM Dean,
I’ll bet that young Aiden signed up in the military for the same reason that a lot of young Americans sign up-for training (trade or college degree) and pay while they learn. In other countries of the world, young people have trade or college level training subsidised by the government. Only in the US it seems, is it deemed acceptable to have a military machine performing the duties and tasks that the state performs elswhere. You guys just don’t get it. You are opposed to taxes, the welfare state, ‘big government spending’ etc etc, yet when it comes to the military, you spend money like its going out of style. It is where you expect your working class and middle class youth without rich parents to get their education and training, and it is the only place where working parents can both work and get child care at affordable prices.Does anyone of you right wingnuts have an answer to how small government can be achieved with a military budget that is bigger that the next ten nations in the world put together. And I’m not talking about third world here-I’m talking places like the UK, france Germany and the like. Just what is it with you crackers. You scream about welfare and taxes, and you are happy to have the most inefficient government department ever known to human kind-the Pentagon, eat up an increasing part of the wealth created by every-one living in the US, as well as being responsible for the death and injury of thousands of US kids, (of course never mind the people they kill and injure, the rest of the world knows we can just go to hell)-but you don’t even seem to care about your own. Weird-truly weird
Posted by Jane Doe on Jul 19, 2005 at 4:18 AM Thanks Jane. It just occurred to me that we can’t actually afford to fight a war anymore. I wonder if the Neocons have actually made the world safer by accident. It was all to line the pockets of their cronies, but they have basically made war *way* to expensive.
The other night I heard Lou Dobbs pontificating about how we might actually have to challenge China in an all-out war over Taiwan someday. And then I just read your post and thought “She’s right” The way we have privatized the military and the way we pay contractors like KBR to do our KP duty for us now, it costs us like $300 Billion and we still haven’t been able to defeat a relatively defenseless country of 25 million people.
We have squandered our credibility and enough cash to fund every school in America for a decade over an enemy that was no threat at all. Who can take us seriously after this? Perhaps things are looking up for the future after all.
Posted by GrayArea on Jul 19, 2005 at 5:59 AM Jane Doe, I agree completely with your well-phrased comment.
But once again, for the conservative children in the audience, here is a run down of some basic facts that will never stop being true, not matter how much you put your hands together and pray. Fifteen of the eighteen 9/11 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia, not a single one of them came from Iraq. Usama Bin Laden is currently thought to be hiding out in the hills of Pakistan.
Now, did we invade Saudi Arabia, or are we threatening Pakistan? Or better still are we pursuing relentless and effective international police work to uncover the terrorist networks? No.
We attacked Iraq instead.
Conservative knuckle heads of the world unite and…
GET A CLUE!
WonderingAloud, the invasion of Iraq does embody one major parallel with WWII, the unprovoked Nazi invasion of Poland. This aggressive action, at the time, was sold to the German people as a war of pre-emptive self-defense. The idea was that Poland was in the grip of Jewish control and was planning to attack Germany.
As bogus reasons for going to war go it definitely ranks up there with Bush’s “they have weapons of mass destruction”.Also, a question to all you nice conservative people. Why was it that before the invasion of Iraq, liberals all over the world knew that there was no real threat from WMD, and yet the conservatives didn’t have a clue? Could it be that conservatives in general believe pretty much anything their ‘superiors’ tell them, no matter how illogical, nasty or absurd? Surely not!
Forgive my mocking tone, and I might just begin to forgive your almighty stupidity.
Posted by Matilda Gatsby on Jul 19, 2005 at 10:16 AM “Why was it that before the invasion of Iraq, liberals all over the world knew that there was no real threat from WMD”
But didn’t everyone *know* that Saddam had WMD during Clinton’s terms? Or was that just rhetoric?
(For the record, i was slightly against the war at the onset, but hoped it would end that suffering of sanctions and Saddam. In my opinion, it is still too soon to access whether the war was good or bad for the Iraqis, but believe it is likely to have been bad for the US. Furthermore, i am appalled that nothing is being done in other hot spots, with Sudan leading the list. Perhaps it is simply nothing *can* be done?)
One other thing, off the subject as it were. Remarks like “for the conservative children in the audience” are so unnecessary. Do you really want to have conversations where everyone is reading from the same script? Or is it more interesting and more productive to have conversation, preferably civil, with those with different ideas and opinions?
Last thing. Remarks like “fight in a fraudulent war, the only purpose of which was the personal enrichment of G.W.Bush, his family and friends?” are unintentionally ironic from someone who complains frequently about other posters using “false premises”. I have nothing against hyperbole, but it is most effective when recognized by the one using it. . .
Posted by ummm on Jul 19, 2005 at 2:51 PM “the invasion of Iraq does embody one major parallel with WWII, the unprovoked Nazi invasion of Poland.”
I have heard this many times, even in the beginning of the war. One wonders how far the parallels are to be taken? Do we plan to take over the entire Middle East? Do we plan to institute genocide (perhaps of Arabs?)? Are we looting them of all of their wealth?
From what i can tell, if we are really going down Hitlers agenda, we are doing it all wrong! We should be lining up civilians and shooting them in the streets. We should be raping their women (not by a few “bad” soldiers, but wholesale!) and stealing their stuff. We should institute slave labour. Furthermore, we certainly should not be spending *our* wealth in rebuilding *their* country! What kind of conquers are we?
It seems much more likely to me that we are in the role of do-gooders. Perhaps clumsy, and certainly hindered by those who would rather impose strict religious rule rather than modern democracy (and who are we to disallow this?). One can easily see the key difference between “us” and “them” - they believe that killing of innocents is desirable and useful (and make that clear with each suicide bomber attack); we believe that killing of innocents is bad and undesirable (and regret whenever it happens, especially if we are at fault).
Anyway, however this all turns out we need to develop alternative energy sources and STOP PUMPING BILLIONS OF $$$ (and weapons!!!) INTO A CULTURE STUCK IN THE MIDDLE AGES!!!
Posted by Thomas on Jul 19, 2005 at 3:07 PM ummm:
We *knew* that the chances of finding WMD in Iraq were diminishing when day-after-day the inspectors didn’t find them. This despite our best intelligence telling them where to look.
The turning point for me came when Saddam began to bulldoze his Al Samud II missiles which exceeded their allowed range on a technicality (only when they had no payload).
While I watched thes images, Bush said that he wasn’t falling for it. He said that the fact that Saddam was destroying these weapons only proved that he had more. It was then that I realized that there was no reasonable amount of capitulation on Saddam’s part that would stop our “last resort” for happening.
Our own people claim that you can’t prove a negative. I heard Rumsfeld say it last week. So by the time the war started, most thinking people knew that Saddam would never be able to prove to Bush’s satisfaction what he *didn’t* have. We were going to war, and Bush was determined to go to war, no matter what.
As for Sudan and the others. If we actually participated in the economic future of Africa, we would have other ways to influence these things. Since we tend to neglect Africa, we leave them with little incentive to change the way these countries do business. It would be nice if people would think outside the box a little instead of seeing military intervention as the only option (even if it is the last, only option)
Posted by GrayArea on Jul 19, 2005 at 3:14 PM Thomas,
Sorry to break it to you, but you are employing recycled right-wing rhetoric to justify our presence there. You say that by invading Iraq, we would ease the suffering of the sanctions that our nation helped to immpose and ardently supported? How about modifying the sanctions like the Bush administration agreed to do in 2001! Invasion only perpetuates misery because of the countless civilian casualties involved in such an act. The U.S. did not invade Iraq out of benevolence, but out of its own perceived economic interest. Cheney was holding meetings with his energy task force in 2001 about Iraqi oil fields. We have troops in Iraq who just guard the oil fields when their presence is needed elsewhere. China prior to the invasion was making overtures to Saddam Hussein to explore Iraqi oil fields and was pressing at the U.N. Security Council to ease sanctions for that purpose. China is also signing oil contracts with the government of Iran. It is common knowledge that the U.S. views China as a strategic adversary, and also understood that he who controls the oil controls the world. The U.S. did not want China possessing a key source of the world’s oil. That concern was a large reason Iraq was invaded in the first place. Now the U.S., despite the chaos in Iraq, has troops in that nation and has more control over those oil fields than before. China now has no presence in Iraq. This concerns China, which is why CNOOC has tried to purchase Unocal, because of that company’s heavy presence in Central Asia and the Middle East. The New York Times had a piece which included a desription of Chinese concerns over the U.S. presence in Iraq and what that portends for their ability to obtain oil. Already it is expected that China’s daily demand for oil will climb to 13 million barrels/day in the next decade or so, far above Saudi Arabia’s capacity.
Posted by Bud on Jul 19, 2005 at 4:24 PM Once again, that last posting under my name was not me at all. My postings do not contain one-word lines and incessant attacks on Noam Chomsky. I am sorry that my name is being dragged through the dirt once again by Michael Hardesty. To the fake Lefty, your assertion is blatantly false and racist. Black people do not commit most of the crime, white people do. It is only because of inherent racism in societal stucture that a disproportionate number of African-American males are in prison. Must be because they vote Democratic….
Posted by Bud on Jul 19, 2005 at 5:08 PM In all honesty in spite of my opposition to Bush’s Iraq vanity war I was one of those liberals who initially had a lot of doubts as to whether Saddam Hussein possessed WMD. The same can be said of many others like Democrat congressmen Joseph Biden who is considering a run for president in 2008. My feeling was that once Colin Powell went to the UN at the behest of the Bush war hawks, he made a strong case for the “slam dunk” WMD version proclaimed by CIA director George Tenet.
Looking back, what could Bush’s opponents do at that time except oppose and question the information supplied by $40 billion-per-year fifteen intelligence agencies, promoted by the bully pulpit of the Bush administration and their handmaidens in the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress who were all screeching that if we didn’t take out Saddam Hussein immediately we would soon see mushroom clouds over our cities?
Fear, clearly won the day with Bush and he has been using it successfully to advance his policy and legislation ever since 9/11.
Maintaining an all-volunteer military is so expensive that even Donald Rumsfeld is on record as one of the proponents of a 15-month enlistment plan proposed by the Defense Department bureaucrats. This is the same kind of military policy that he derided in his now famous and oft-quoted remarks when he criticized the selective service draft during the Viet Nam War. He said then, “If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in; they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market because they were without choices…and what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone.”
Now, Rumsfeld is promoting exactly the same kind of policy with the added incentive of $40,000 bonuses to recruit more cannon fodder.
Unfortunately, the Iraq War is not achieving the goal of confronting terrorism but is now only being waged in order to save Bush’s many faces that he presents to the American public. There is no way on God’s green earth that we can deploy uniformed military throughout the world in places like Indonesia, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and former Soviet states that are sponsors of terrorism. The U.S. military cannot be used as bull’s-eyes for an indefinite period of time as they are now being used in Iraq.
As Condoleezza Rice said at her Senate confirmation hearings, it’s a different kind of war all right but one which will take a strong commitment from our allies to help us fight it. But Bush is too weak and too vain to admit it. He is going about this all backwards, trying to fool himself and the American people that the Iraq War is a just war, trying to convince the world that the daily carnage there is defeating terrorism or that a democratic form of government can be propped up almost overnight using American tax dollars and American lives.
Bush proclaimed during the 2000 presidential campaign that the U.S. should not be the world’s policemen nor should we be engaged in nation-building, both of which have become the diestrous outcome of his failed and flawed administration policies.
Prima Donna Bush has wasted valuable time and resources to save the glorious and great War President legacy that he envisioned for himself as he landed on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in May 2003 and proclaimed “Mission Accomplished.”
I remember the line from the movie Patton, describing the procession of a Roman conqueror returning from battle, sitting on his horse-drawn throne while throngs of citizens cheered. A jester leaned forward and whispered into his ear, “All glory is fleeting.”
Posted by Richard on Jul 19, 2005 at 6:15 PM Casualty of War: The US Economy By James Sterngold The San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday 17 July 2005
excerpts:
” The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, has estimated that the Korean War cost about $430 billion and the Vietnam War cost about $600 billion, in current dollars. According to the latest estimates, the cost of the war in Iraq could exceed $700 billion.
Put simply, critics say, the war is not making the United States safer and is harming U.S. taxpayers by saddling them with an enormous debt burden, since the war is being financed with deficit spending.
One of the most vocal Republican critics has been Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who said the costs of the war—many multiples greater than what the White House had estimated in 2003—are throwing U.S. fiscal priorities out of balance.
“It’s dangerously irresponsible,” Hagel said in February of the war spending.
He later told U.S. News & World Report, “The White House is completely disconnected from reality.” He added that the apparent lack of solid plans for defeating the insurgency and providing stability in Iraq made it seem “like they’re just making it up as they go along.” ”—————————— 8212;——————————̵ 12;——-
” Some conservative experts outside Congress also have started questioning whether the war and its uncertain conclusion are worth the cost, in money and blood.
“The objective has always been to install a friendly government,” said Charles V. Peña, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, a libertarian think tank. “Are the costs worth that? No, because it’s not something we can accomplish for the long term. It’s just going to continue to drain the American taxpayer. I don’t see how it’s going to get better. It’s only going to get worse.” ”
—————————
” Since the shooting war in Iraq began in March, 2003, 1,763 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and at least 13,336 have been wounded, according to data collected by the Iraq Index, which is assembled by the Brookings Institution in Washington.
In September 2002, the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, estimated that the war would cost $1.5 billion to $4 billion per month. In fact, it costs between $5 billion and $8 billion per month.
The Pentagon says the “burn rate”—the operating costs of the wars—has averaged $5.6 billion per month in the current fiscal year, but that does not include some costs for maintenance and replacement of equipment and some training and reconstruction costs, experts say. “
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071805G.shtml
Posted by pick of the litter on Jul 19, 2005 at 6:40 PM Some Freudian moments with my spell-checker on my above post. The sentence, “Bush proclaimed during the 2000 presidential campaign that the U.S. should not be the world’s policemen nor should we be engaged in nation-building, both of which have become the diestrous outcome of his failed and flawed administration policies.” Diestrous should have been disastrous. Diestrous, however remote, might work. Ha, ha.
Posted by Richard on Jul 19, 2005 at 6:43 PM Did Washington Try to Manipulate Iraq’s Election? By Seymour M. Hersh The New Yorker
25 July 2005 Issue
last two paragraphs from this lengthy article:
” If this takes place, the election may still be judged a success. But what the Administration accomplished in its interventions is questionable. The efforts to reduce the Shiites’ plurality, if they had any effect, only delayed their formation of a government, contributing to the instability and disillusionment that have benefitted the insurgency in recent months. The election outcome also strengthened the political hand of the Kurds, who have demanded more autonomy and refused to disband their powerful militias.
In early July, Jafaari stunned Washington by signing an extensive pact with Iran-a nation that President Bush named as part of an axis of evil. The deal reportedly included a billion dollars in military and reconstruction aid. At a joint press conference in Tehran, Ali Shamkhani, the Iranian Defense Minister, said, “It’s a new chapter in our relations with Iraq.” “
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071805I.shtml
——————————— ;—————————-
“Iraq’s Dangerous New Friend” By Robert Scheer The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 19 July 2005
excerpt:
” Now, thanks to the U.S. invasion, a new alliance is being formed between Iran and Iraq that threatens to further destabilize the politics of the Mideast. It wasn’t supposed to work out this way.
Forced democratization of Iraq, according to its neocon architects, was supposed to secure oil for the U.S., protect Israel, open markets to Western corporations and, oh yeah, maybe even decrease terrorism. After the invasion, however, the U.S., faced with decidedly more hostility and fewer flowers than expected, was loath to allow elections, because their outcome would probably not produce a pliant government.”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071905L.shtml
Posted by pick of the litter on Jul 19, 2005 at 6:45 PM Thomas,
We obviously do not have Hitler’s agenda, we have an nasty little agenda all our own! I think Matilda’s point was that invading a country without good reason is an illegal and aggressive act in itself, and that just like the Nazi’s our motives were basically very dishonest.
As for the idea that Americans regret the killing of innocents and the enemy does not, what utter nonsense. Try expressing regret to the nearly eight thousand civilians killied in the initial invasion, or the tens of thousands killed since in the needless violence. All the regret in the world doesn’t seem to stop Bush from actually murdering people.
And for what? For control of the second largest deposit of oil in the world, wealth that doesn’t even belong in our grubby hands.Regret! Bush would do it all again in a heart beat if he thought he could get away with it. Tens of thousands of people are lying in their graves now because of us. Support our soldiers, to do what, murder people?
Rergret is the very least of emotions we should be feeling. We should be ashamed of ourselves and our so called government. Anyone who voted for these butchers carries the mark of a war criminal forever.
Posted by Max Godwin on Jul 20, 2005 at 9:20 AM Ummm,
I’m sorry that you find my comments about the war in Iraq being unintended irony and hyperbole. However, when I said the Iraqi war is a fraud, and that it’s sole purpose is the personal enrichment of G.W. Bush, his family and friends, I wasn’t being flippant. That’s exactly what I meant, and IMHO, there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to forecloes my case, inter alia:
1. Numerous “former” Bush cabinet members and WH staffers have stated that Bush had been planning the war since before the election in 2000;
2. It is now established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Bush and Cheney went to extraordinary lengths to falsified CIA intelligence to make the case for war in Iraq;
3. The Bush administration has engaged in an unprecidented practice of not only privatizing military operations in wartime, but also in engaging in a scheme to award these government contracts on a no-bid basis, how do you think a company wins such a bid, Ummmm?;
4. It was reported in the Miami Herald, that, prior to the election in 2000, Neil Bush (yet another brother), formed a Florida corporation, a copy of the application for which was printed in the paper, and that the section that asks for the applicant to explain the purpose of the corporation, Mr. Bush stated: to take advantage of Business opportunities arising out of the war in Iraq, or words to that effect; BTW, Neil Bush owns a company that administers and scores a test called the CAT (comprehensive assessment test), used to determine the scholastic acheivement of high school graduate applicants; among the states that require passing the CAT in order to graduate are . . . that’s right, Florida and Texas, hmmmm Ummmm;
5. And this is just a very small example of the government/corporate corruption - public office for self service practice of the Bush family has been and continues to engage in for 80 years; You remember the Iran/Contra treason? So you suppose Daddy Bush made money in that treasonous arms transaction right under Reagan’s senile nose? What business is The Carlisle Group in? I suggest that you do a little research on the past business dealings of George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush; The trail of corruption is overwhelming to say the least, and continues today.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 20, 2005 at 1:02 PM PS: I forgot to state that the arrogant Demeanor of George and Jeb Bush, when addressing the public, is so utterly disgusting as to defy description. I can only say that, anyone who can watch them make public comments and not see the “I can’t believe what a bunch of suckers you are, and how easy it is to take kickbacks in exchange for political favors, and be loved, adored and applauded for it,” grins on their faces, is either brainwashed or just stupid.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 20, 2005 at 1:09 PM There was another conscientious objector story I read about recently. The wife of the man wrote the story.
“One Soldier’s Fight to Legalize Morality”
By Monica Benderman
CommonDreams.orgFriday 08 July 2005
some key excerpts:
” This soldier fulfilled his commitment, he kept his promise to his enlisted contract, and when ordered to deploy to Iraq at the start of the invasion, he went, not because he wanted to “kill Iraqis” or “destroy terrorist cells,” but because he wanted the soldiers he served with to come home safely. He returned knowing that war is wrong, the most dehumanizing creation of humanity that exists. He saw war destroy civilians, innocent men, women and children. He saw war destroy homes, relationships and a country. He saw this not only in the country that was invaded, but he saw this happening to the invading country as well - and he knew that the only way to save those soldiers was for people to no longer participate in war. Sgt. Kevin Benderman is a Conscientious Objector to war, and the Army is mad. “...........
” Last week we learned that the United States Supreme Court allows itself to keep the Ten Commandments hanging on the walls of its chambers, as a testimony to another form of law. The guardian of the Constitution of our country, presiding over the human rights of our people, maintains that the Ten Commandments, religious context aside, represent a form of law that is powerful enough to occupy a place in its chambers.
In a small, quiet courtroom, on the Ft. Stewart military installation, the stage is set. One soldier who, after firsthand experience with the destructive force of war, decided to take the Ten Commandments at their word - “Thou Shall Not Kill” - and use the rights given to him to declare his conscious objection to war, to no longer be in a position to voluntarily have to kill another human being, is now on trial for not wanting to kill.
The Army has removed itself so completely from its moral responsibility, that its representatives are willing to openly demand, in a court of law, that they be allowed to regain “positive control over this soldier” by finding him guilty of crimes he did not commit, and put him in jail - a prisoner of conscience, for daring to obey a moral law.
It is “hard work” to face the truth, and it is scary when people who are not afraid to face it begin to speak out. Someone once said that my husband’s case is a question of morality over legality. I pray that this country has not gone so far over the edge that the two are so distinctly different that we can tell them apart. “
...................
” After seeing war firsthand, Sgt. Kevin Benderman chose to follow a legal, MORAL law - “Thou Shall Not Kill.” A form of law significant enough to be represented on the walls of our Supreme Court. The US Army cannot let him go. I have to ask - “WHY?” “
from: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/070905G.shtml
Anyway, somethin to think about.BTW, thank you ITT for starting a user registration system for these reader forums. I hope folks will be more forthcoming in making posts (ideas, info, feelings, anything as long as it is civil) knowing that your identifying moniker is not subject to theft.
Posted by pick of the litter on Jul 20, 2005 at 8:49 PM It should also be remembered that the full extent of the crimes committed at the Abu Ghraib prison were withheld from public scrutiny and that “the real war will never make the [history] books.”
“False history gets made all day, any day, the truth of the new is never on the news.”—Adrianne Rich
One must read between the lines of reports and compare events in searching for clues and evidence of things not seen. For example:
As killings escalate in Iraq and polls in the U.S. indicate that support for the administration’s handling of the occupation is waning, cabinet officials declare that the insurgency is on it’s last throes, followed by reports of new joint military offensives being launched. And then you begin read such things as: “American fighters bomb suspected insurgent hide out.”—the key evidentiary word here being, “suspected.” Hello!? Anybody home?
Iraq’s UN Envoy accuses U.S. Marines of ‘cold blooded murder’—now here’s a recent headline that doesn’t take a deconstructionist to figure out. Too bad it didn’t make front page news of your hometown paper though. In fact, this AP story all but disappeared after it’s initial posting on the newswire.
Responding to the allegations, U.S. Maj. Gen. Stephen T. Johnson said, “We take these allegations seriously and will thoroughly investigate this incident to determine what happened.” Remind you of anything else?
Knight Ridder Correspondent Shot Dead in Baghdad —here’s another news story revealing the American scorched earth policy in Iraq. Too bad the real story of what happened was transformed in most American newspapers into a report of insurgents killing a journalist. It’s all in the header and how it’s boiled down to fit and what the average American cares to read into it, if at all.
Posted by Tim Christopher on Jul 20, 2005 at 10:16 PM
Posted by Tim Christopher on Jul 20, 2005 at 10:42 PM “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”—G.B. Shaw
Car bomb kills 24 children as they mob US patrol offering candy—In the movie, ‘Apocalypse Now’, Colonel Kurtz (Brando) describes an incident of horror whereby the arms of village children had been cut off by the enemy for having been immunized for disease by U.S. troops. He comes to a realization that such an enemy was ingenious, that they were stronger than our forces because they had the ability to utilize their primordial instincts to kill—without moral judgment. “These were not monsters,” Kurtz explains, <i>“they were men, trained cadres, these men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who have children, who are filled with love. But they have the strength, the strength to do that.”<‘i>
Posted by Tim Christopher on Jul 22, 2005 at 3:31 AM And what has always bugged me was the fact that the Pentagon refuses to keep track of the Iraqi civilian death toll as a result of their war.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071905C.shtml
Unnamed and Unnoticed: Iraqi Casualties
By Judith Coburn
TomDispatchMonday 18 July 2005
an excerpt:
” But there’s no way to count, protest American journalists. What they mean is that the Pentagon doesn’t count for them—“We don’t do counts,” was the way General Tommy Franks put the matter during our Afghan war. But Iraq Body Count (IBC) counts as does the Brookings Institute among others. As of July 13, IBC estimated Iraqi civilian casualties to be between 22,838 and 25,869, an extremely conservative number. (The range between the two figures represents occasional discrepancies in the number of civilian casualties reported by different media sources about the same incident). So what journalists really mean is that only Pentagon counting counts and that the prosecutor of the war is the only “reliable” source on the magnitude of its own killing. Pentagon casualty figures are rarely questioned. When anyone else counts, these figures are given short shrift. ”
Posted by pick of the litter on Jul 22, 2005 at 4:14 PM “Of course the shootings will increase support for the opposition,” said Farraji, 49, who was named a police general with U.S. approval. “The hatred of the Americans has increased. I myself hate them.”
“One contractor who works for the U.S. government and saw a colleague killed in a suicide bombing said it was better to shoot an innocent person than to risk being killed.”
“I’d rather be tried by 12 than carried by six,” said the contractorwho insisted that he not be identified by name because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
Posted by Tim Christopher on Jul 26, 2005 at 1:36 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Lisa Sousa
- In Defense of a Free Press
Journalist Sarah Olson talks about her defiance in the face of a subpoena by the Army, the rights of U.S. journalists and what the wider context is of the Army's court martial of First Lt. Ehren Watada - A Different Duty
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
