POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

The planning and execution were fine. The endgame got an F of massive proportions.

Democracy works in a few places. The rest - give them a benevolent despot. Most won't care who is running the country as long as they have full bellies and have a decent standard of living.

Political opposition is fine as long as they realize tbeir place. Co-op a few of tbeir ideas, but arrest the lunatics and keep the moderates and sloths in charge.

With all due respect, the planning was horrible. And the reason it lasted SO LONG after the battles were won.

Sure, the planning of the fighting was good- given a massive superiority on all sides of fighting, even bad planning would have been fine.

But the planning for what to do after the fighting was done was the actual problem with the war. Ignore the problem that WMD's were never found, especially anything related to nuclear weapons- where the leaders were totally clueless was how to rebuild the country. Had that been done well, I don't think ISIS would have had 10 years to form. Nor would have we lost many lives in the long hanging battles against a guerrilla force.

One could easily presume that anyone voting for the war gave the planners the benefit of the doubt that it was well planned out and could have been easily executed. Which means that a good sized amount of the D's thought that it would be a fast war.

I will also extend to think that democracy works than more than a few places. When democracy is properly bounded, it works just fine. Better than fine. The more robust and less violent opposition that we have is very good. And by violent- I mean both the actual actions of the opposition as well as the reactive actions back to the opposition. The recent trend of one side pretty blatantly threatening violence has taken the "opposition" to a totally new level. Not the fear mongering- that's been going on for a long time. But the use of crosshairs in a round picture, or reminding the NRA that they have the ability to rise up when they are not happy- things like that really make it bad.

The proper opposition is in the voting booth- not via intimidation.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

THIS. ALL THIS. Hell, Newt coulda blown Bill in the middle of a Congressional Session, and I wouldn't have cared. Just don't lie about it under oath.

Yeah, but Trump's still going to eat Comey's lunch.There are no tapes.

[jerphisch]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

The planning and execution were fine. The endgame got an F of massive proportions.

While planning "The War on Terror", we decided to eliminate the one government in the region that was hostile to terrorists. How is that good planning?

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

The right has also manipulated the narrative so thoroughly, especially since 9-11, that if you don't support the troops 100% (no matter what you think of the politics) then you are an unpatriotic piece of excrement and should be shunned, mocked and driven out. If the sale of this narrative wasn't so damaging it would be a thing of beauty to watch and admire because of its effectiveness.

The right does this in a lot of ways, but one of the most effective has been selling the idea of the superiority of people who volunteered for military service over those who choose to serve their communities in ANY OTHER WAY. Part of the indoctrination process is a sales pitch to young recruits that encourages resentment and that sense of superiority over civilian America. If you don't think that is happening, you're not paying attention. Political leaders (of BOTH parties) then limit inconvenient dissent by accepting and repeating the erroneous message that only veterans are in a position or even deserving to have real opinions on military matters. So the only safe thing for the civilians to do is fall back on their tired and meaningless platitudes and phony grace. For heaven's sake I don't want someone to think I'm unpatriotic, so I won't question anything...

We all feel great when we stand and cheer for the young veteran trotted out during the first media timeout of the second period in every single hockey arena in the country and shed a tear or two of appreciation when we see one of those "my son is a United States Marine" bumper stickers. Meanwhile we forget that the person who teaches in an inner city Cleveland public school, or who provides home health care to our grandmothers, or who hops off the back of the fire apparatus in Detroit hoping that enough other fire fighters show up to safely save your house while the one next door burns will have a much greater effect on your life than anyone currently serving a tour of duty in the military.

It's too bad progressives can't come up with an effective way to get their message out instead. A lot of people, American and innocent Iraqis and other nationalities (if that even matters to you who are on the right wing) would still be alive today.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

You've got it backwards. If you don't support hawkish policies 100% of the time then you don't support the troops. That's their line of attack.

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

I think you're way overplaying the Iraq war angle. It could have been because I was still in high school and a moron, but the evidence was fairly compelling at the time. Again, young and dumb.

Obviously now we know it completely destabilized the Middle East. But back then it wasn't so obvious. I remember Syria being somewhat of a destination for a few friends in high school going on vacation.

He war hadn't turned ugly in time for the 2004 election. I voted for Boring McWhateverface, but it wasn't a choice like 2016 where only a moron couldn't see Trump playing out like he has.

I'll chalk it up to being young, but Bush didn't induce derangement until much later.

Disagree. I knew many, many people who were worried about the outcome that eventually happened. Anyone who lived thru Viet Nam and being told that we would just go in for a quick clean up had flash backs (if they were not part of the thought process that to think so was being unpatriotic.

Let's chalk it up to you being in high school and a moron

The evidence was next to nothing, the rhetoric totally justified it. Kind of like anything Trump wants to do. The AHCA is amazing coverage for all. The wall will be beautiful and Mexico will pay for it...I could go on. Iraq played no role in 9/11, and Sadam actually kept terrorists out of Iraq. Pretty much anyone outside of the administration would tell you there were no WMDs, yet the Ds were still too afraid of being called un-American to vote their conscience.

Best way to get anyone to do anything is to frame it as 'patriotic' and claim anyone who does their civic duty and voices dissent is 'unpatriotic')

Only if you exclude "having a good reason" as part of the planning process. I was in college, and even I knew the rationale for going in was bogus. It wasn't about WMD, it wasn't about oil, it was W trying to avenge Daddy.

THis. Amazing how much you can accomplish when you are an expert at bait and switch

Fair enough. I just vaguely remember that the real anti war pressure didn't ramp up until after the election.

This is a really good point.

Depended on where you lived.

We made that catastrophic decision because the powers that be took advantage of anger and fear. Nobody takes advantage of anger, ignorance, and fear like the people steering Good Ship GOP, and nobody allows themselves to be manipulated through anger, ignorance, and fear like those poor souls in the solid red states whose lives continue to get worse as a result.

But for the last 8 yrs that has been all Obama's fault. Wonder how long they will be able to sustain the blame when it really starts to fall down. How much do the red states have to bleed before they get it or will they completely exsanguinate while still believing?

I started to think of what I wanted to type. So frustrated. Then you saved me the typing and posted this:

The right has also manipulated the narrative so thoroughly, especially since 9-11, that if you don't support the troops 100% (no matter what you think of the politics) then you are an unpatriotic piece of excrement and should be shunned, mocked and driven out. If the sale of this narrative wasn't so damaging it would be a thing of beauty to watch and admire because of its effectiveness.

The right does this in a lot of ways, but one of the most effective has been selling the idea of the superiority of people who volunteered for military service over those who choose to serve their communities in ANY OTHER WAY. Part of the indoctrination process is a sales pitch to young recruits that encourages resentment and that sense of superiority over civilian America. If you don't think that is happening, you're not paying attention. Political leaders (of BOTH parties) then limit inconvenient dissent by accepting and repeating the erroneous message that only veterans are in a position or even deserving to have real opinions on military matters. So the only safe thing for the civilians to do is fall back on their tired and meaningless platitudes and phony grace. For heaven's sake I don't want someone to think I'm unpatriotic, so I won't question anything...

We all feel great when we stand and cheer for the young veteran trotted out during the first media timeout of the second period in every single hockey arena in the country and shed a tear or two of appreciation when we see one of those "my son is a United States Marine" bumper stickers. Meanwhile we forget that the person who teaches in an inner city Cleveland public school, or who provides home health care to our grandmothers, or who hops off the back of the fire apparatus in Detroit hoping that enough other fire fighters show up to safely save your house while the one next door burns will have a much greater effect on your life than anyone currently serving a tour of duty in the military.

It's too bad progressives can't come up with an effective way to get their message out instead. A lot of people, American and innocent Iraqis and other nationalities (if that even matters to you who are on the right wing) would still be alive today.

Because we trot them out, every one feels bad for them except- we don't pay them sh1t and don't take care of them when they come out. Guilt does a lot.

MOST politicians won't vote their conscience. They'll vote party lines.

Woke up thinking about this today. It used to be about getting to pass laws that were promoting your ideology. In the last years this seems to have been lost. It isn't about passing things or getting things done any more. It is about winning. Pure and simple. It doesn't matter if the things you are willing to tolerate will destroy the country, seriously harm your constituents or result in failure of your stated goals. All that matters is winning.

I never thought I would see, in my lifetime, any party willing to not just ignore Russia getting its claws into our country but actually doing things that block any attempts to prevent it. Trying to prevent the public from knowing it is happening, trying to prevent investigation, actively supporting someone who may have aided and abetted. When you take a step back it is mind blowing. While the GOP bleats things about the difference between 'hope' and a 'directive' no one seems to have the testicular fortitude to pay attention to the things that threaten us. Aren't these the same folks that were wailing about being tough on Russia, going on about the threat, etc. Honestly do not understand how we get to a point that this is even part of a movie script never mind real life.

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

You've got it backwards. If you don't support hawkish policies 100% of the time then you don't support the troops. That's their line of attack.

Our troops that don't get paid squat, that are put in a position to be financially in trouble, are unable to get services they need (not all cases but enough). Striking that no one is horrified about this part.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Because we trot them out, every one feels bad for them except- we don't pay them sh1t and don't take care of them when they come out. Guilt does a lot.

Except the low pay thing is not true. First of all, no one can be paid enough to be shot at or blown up. $30,000 a pear, $40,000 a year, $4 million a year, it doesn't matter. But having said that, military pay compares well or better than civilian pay when you look at ages, education level and years on the job. Free health care, free food and free or greatly subsidized housing, and retirement benefits earned (without contributing a dollar) at an age young enough to still then have an entire career after military service then make military compensation better than what most people see. Will you get rich spending a career in the enlisted ranks? No. But neither will the teacher, nurse or firefighter. Can you imagine the national outcry if we decided to cut military pensions? Other than for those affected we hear nary a peep when a retired firefighter has a pension promised to them 2 or 3 decades earlier cut by a third or more.

Where we fall down on the job and act horridly and without shame though is how we take care of broken service personnel when they return. For a nation that supposedly venerates it's military personnel we sure do forget a whole lot of 'em when they come back with mental issues and sometimes with severe physical ones. While I have no problem with organizations like the Wounded Warrior Project, if we truly were a nation that appreciated our military veterans, organizations like that would never exist. But for the average red blooded RWNJ, driving around with an "I support the troops" bumper sticker is enough support, thank you very much. Asking them to think about anything beyond that might burst their republican bubble and the belief that people like trump actually give the first da mn about the troops.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

You've got it backwards. If you don't support hawkish policies 100% of the time then you don't support the troops. That's their line of attack.

Except I know a lot of people who fall for the "I support the troops" myth that DON'T support the ridiculous republican military policies. Yes, the right tries to tell them that they don't ACTUALLY support the troops if they oppose the republican agenda, but my point is partially that even progressives fall for this sometimes. One of my huge issues with this is how can you voluntarily support people who are carrying out policies you vehemently disagree with? That's like saying I don't support bank robbery but I support the bank robbers. And before anyone trots out the argument that many people are joining the military because of a lack of civilian opportunities -- especially for the uneducated -- how many people would think for one second to excuse the 19 year old kid who turns to selling drugs because there are no other opportunities and he's had no other role models to show him a different way?

I think having an effective military remains very important, but like a lot of other things in our society we seem to be losing our way with this too. Right now I would never counsel young people I know who sincerely want to serve their community to undertake military service. There are 100s of other ways -- and some just as potentially dirty or dangerous -- they can make their neighborhood and the world a better place.

[mookie1995]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Our troops that don't get paid squat, that are put in a position to be financially in trouble, are unable to get services they need (not all cases but enough). Striking that no one is horrified about this part.

much like babies are only gived a chit for until the pop outta the womb

[joecct]

While planning "The War on Terror", we decided to eliminate the one government in the region that was hostile to terrorists. How is that good planning?

Texas justice. Saddam tried to kill Daddy. The takeover was successful. They had no idea what to do after Saddam died.

[St. Clown]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Support was high...evidence was lacking though

I can't tell if you're arguing with me on that because that's what I was saying. My caveat to that thought is this: the average voter didn't understand the lack of evidence until it was too late. And once they did, the wheels fell off the wagon and the 2006 election lost Bush his Congressional support.

[St. Clown]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Our troops that don't get paid squat, that are put in a position to be financially in trouble, are unable to get services they need (not all cases but enough). Striking that no one is horrified about this part.

Yes and no. My brother and his wife both retired from the MN Air Guard. They own a nice home, nothing lavish, but he drives a well appointed Ford Edge and she just bought a fully loaded Lincoln. They did it on the strength of my SIL's wages from the military while my brother's wages are a pittance compared to hers. Both of them were Master Sergeants, only her field was more highly desired than his.

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Except the low pay thing is not true. First of all, no one can be paid enough to be shot at or blown up. $30,000 a pear, $40,000 a year, $4 million a year, it doesn't matter. But having said that, military pay compares well or better than civilian pay when you look at ages, education level and years on the job. Free health care, free food and free or greatly subsidized housing, and retirement benefits earned (without contributing a dollar) at an age young enough to still then have an entire career after military service then make military compensation better than what most people see. Will you get rich spending a career in the enlisted ranks? No. But neither will the teacher, nurse or firefighter. Can you imagine the national outcry if we decided to cut military pensions? Other than for those affected we hear nary a peep when a retired firefighter has a pension promised to them 2 or 3 decades earlier cut by a third or more.

Where we fall down on the job and act horridly and without shame though is how we take care of broken service personnel when they return. For a nation that supposedly venerates it's military personnel we sure do forget a whole lot of 'em when they come back with mental issues and sometimes with severe physical ones. While I have no problem with organizations like the Wounded Warrior Project, if we truly were a nation that appreciated our military veterans, organizations like that would never exist. But for the average red blooded RWNJ, driving around with an "I support the troops" bumper sticker is enough support, thank you very much. Asking them to think about anything beyond that might burst their republican bubble and the belief that people like trump actually give the first da mn about the troops.

Yes and no. My brother and his wife both retired from the MN Air Guard. They own a nice home, nothing lavish, but he drives a well appointed Ford Edge and she just bought a fully loaded Lincoln. They did it on the strength of my SIL's wages from the military while my brother's wages are a pittance compared to hers. Both of them were Master Sergeants, only her field was more highly desired than his.

From what have seen with a mix of patients, friends, family once you get up in the ranks or have in a lot of yrs- yes. If you don't have a bunch of yrs in or are a 'grunt' it depends. Those who have families can struggle and if they get deployed it can be more difficult. The free food doesn't include the family altho the BX (or what ever they call it depending on the place) discounts can help. Having to deal with things like childcare, etc can really stink depending on where you are stationed. I probably souldn't have made that a blanket statement but the bottom of the barrel really take one for the team.

[Slap Shot]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

much like babies are only gived a chit for until the pop outta the womb

Hammered at 10 a.m.?