the people on this board, and around the world for a large part, don't give a damn about Iraqis.
they just want to see the American government get it's just deserves for whatever myopic and selfish misinformed reasons.
Q5echo
quote:
'To Old Times'
A toast to American troops, then and now.
Peggy Noonan
Friday, August 24, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Once I went hot-air ballooning in Normandy. It was the summer of 1991. It was exciting to float over the beautiful French hills and the farms with crisp crops in the fields. It was dusk, and we amused ourselves calling out "Bonsoir!" to cows and people in little cars. We had been up for an hour or so when we had a problem and had to land. We looked for an open field, aimed toward it, and came down a little hard. The gondola dragged, tipped and spilled us out. A half dozen of us emerged scrambling and laughing with relief.
Suddenly before us stood an old man with a cracked and weathered face. He was about 80, in rough work clothes. He was like a Life magazine photo from 1938: "French farmer hoes his field." He'd seen us coming from his farmhouse and stood before us with a look of astonishment as the huge bright balloon deflated and tumbled about.
One of us spoke French and explained our situation. The farmer said, or asked, "You are American." We nodded, and he made a gesture--I'll be back!--and ran to the house. He came back with an ancient bottle of Calvados, the local brandy. It was literally covered in dust and dry dirt, as if someone had saved it a long time.
He told us--this will seem unlikely, and it amazed us--that he had not seen an American in many, many years, and we asked when. "The invasion," he said. The Normandy invasion.
Then he poured the Calvados and made a toast. I wish I had notes on what he said. Our French speaker translated it into something like, "To old times." And we raised our glasses knowing we were having a moment of unearned tenderness. Lucky Yanks, that a wind had blown us to it.
That was 16 years ago, and I haven't seen some of the people with me since that day, but I know every one of us remembers it and keeps it in his good-memory horde.
He didn't welcome us because he knew us. He didn't treat us like royalty because we had done anything for him. He honored us because we were related to, were the sons and daughters of, the men of the Normandy Invasion. The men who had fought their way through France hedgerow by hedgerow, who'd jumped from planes in the dark and climbed the cliffs and given France back to the French. He thought we were of their sort. And he knew they were good. He'd seen them, when he was young.
I've been thinking of the old man because of Iraq and the coming debate on our future there. Whatever we do or should do, there is one fact that is going to be left on the ground there when we're gone. That is the impression made by, and the future memories left by, American troops in their dealings with the Iraqi people.
I don't mean the impression left by the power and strength of our military. I mean the impression left by the character of our troops-- by their nature and generosity, by their kindness. By their tradition of these things.
The American troops in Iraq, our men and women, are inspiring, and we all know it. But whenever you say it, you sound like a greasy pol: "I support our valiant troops, though I oppose the war," or "If you oppose the war, you are ignoring the safety and imperiling the sacrifice of our gallant troops."
I suspect that in their sophistication--and they are sophisticated--our troops are grimly amused by this. Soldiers are used to being used. They just do their job.
We know of the broad humanitarian aspects of the occupation--the hospitals being built, the schools restored, the services administered, the kids treated by armed forces doctors. But then there are all the stories that don't quite make it to the top of the heap, and that in a way tell you more. The lieutenant in the First Cavalry who was concerned about Iraqi kids in the countryside who didn't have shoes, so he wrote home, started a drive, and got 3,000 pairs sent over. The lieutenant colonel from California who spent his off-hours emailing hospitals back home to get a wheelchair for a girl with cerebral palsy.
The Internet is littered with these stories. So is Iraq. I always notice the pictures from the wire services, pictures that have nothing to do with government propaganda. The Marine on patrol laughing with the local street kids; the nurse treating the sick mother.
A funny thing. We're so used to thinking of American troops as good guys that we forget: They're good guys! They have American class.
And it is not possible that the good people of Iraq are not noticing, and that in some way down the road the sum of these acts will not come to have some special meaning, some special weight of its own. The actor Gary Sinise helps run Operation Iraqi Children, which delivers school supplies with the help of U.S. forces. When he visits Baghdad grade schools, the kids yell, "Lieutenant Dan!"--his role in "Forrest Gump," the story of another good man.
Some say we're the Roman Empire, but I don't think the soldiers of Rome were known for their kindness, nor the people of Rome for their decency. Some speak of Abu Ghraib, but the humiliation of prisoners there was news because it was American troops acting in a way that was out of the order of things, and apart from tradition. It was weird. And they were busted by other American troops.
You could say soldiers of every country do some good in war beyond fighting, and that is true enough. But this makes me think of the statue I saw once in Vienna, a heroic casting of a Red Army soldier. Quite stirring. The man who showed it to me pleasantly said it had a local nickname, "The Unknown Rapist." There are similar memorials in Estonia and Berlin; they all have the same nickname. My point is not to insult Russian soldiers, who had been born into a world of communism, atheism, and Stalin's institutionalization of brutish ways of being. I only mean to note the stellar reputation of American troops in the same war at the same time. They were good guys.
They're still good.
We should ponder, some day when this is over, what it is we do to grow such men, and women, what exactly goes into the making of them.
Whatever is decided in Washington I hope our soldiers know what we really think of them, and what millions in Iraq must, also. I hope some day they get some earned tenderness, and wind up over the hills of Iraq, and land, and an old guy comes out and says, "Are you an American?" And they say yes and he says, "A toast, to old times."
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com
atbell
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
the people on this board, and around the world for a large part, don't give a damn about Iraqis.
they just want to see the American government get it's just deserves for whatever myopic and selfish misinformed reasons.
Or because they invaded a country in a brazen act of unfounded aggression which undermines the a notion of peace and soverign self determination that has been a pillar of global security for the last 50 years.
Careing about Iraqis is one thing. Caring about the precedent being set by the worlds largest military is quite another.
Fir3start3r
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
32 years after the Vietnam War ended, Vietnam is now one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and has joined the international diplomacy/economy.
Geeee, I wonder which side the of Vietnam border THAT could be happening on....hmmmm....
Magnetonium
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
the people on this board, and around the world for a large part, don't give a damn about Iraqis.
they just want to see the American government get it's just deserves for whatever myopic and selfish misinformed reasons.
YOU CARE ABOUT IRAQIS???? :haha: :haha: :haha: SINCE WHEN? AND HOW?
Krypton
quote:
what lies?
the Iraqis will prove you wrong. they are doing it as we speak.
Some falsities...
1. Iraq had a secret arsenal of wmd's.
2. Iraq was colluding with Al-Qaida.
3. Iraq was trying to get nuclear materials from Nigeria.
I provide some in depth research on these lies HERE...
or here..
What will the Iraqis prove me wrong about? That we invaded their country illegally and unjustifiably? Iraq violated no other country's sovereignty, and was not guilty in any of the proganda used to justify the invasion. If the Iraqi people truelly did not want Saddam as their leader, it would not be so. And what gives the US or any other country for that matter the right to force any brand of law and order on another country even for such great forms like democracy? Notice how close we are being pushed to attack the next "axis of evil" country Iran?
quote:
jeez how astonishingly insensitive to actually endorse genocide for the mere satifaction of holding someone accountable for something you can't even begin to prove. wtf is wrong with you dude?
you sit here and aggrandize about one nation's soveriegnty, indignant that this once proud nation was somehow violated by another for duplicitous reasons yet you haven't the slightest problem casting them off as lambs to a slaughter so you can be proven right at some point down the road.
you are paleo-con. i'm convinced now.
Prove? What proof? You prove to me Iraq had WMDs, connections to Al-Qaida to attack foreign targets, nuclear weapons program... Can't you see the the very reasons we went to war are the very reasons this war is so wrong. All these reasons have been debunked and the Bush Administration is now a lame duck presedency.
Paleo-con? Huh? I'm a realist. I'm calling it like it is. I'm not staying loyal to the conservative-liberal lines as many blindly do. I've seen the war for what it is. A fraud. Yes, sovereignty. Iraq never violated US sovereignty nor planning to.
Listen, there would be no sectarian strife, waves of suicide bombers, and destruction if the US hadn't gone to invade Iraq in the first place. Qecho don't you understand that? There would be no debate here today, but guess what there is. And you need to think about why we're even having to debate this right now.
quote:
if you'd do a little research you'd find out Iran wanted nukes a long time ago.
Oh, I've done my research. Have you researched into the US support of Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war? Here's your friend Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam in the 1983...
The reason Iran restarted the nuclear enrichment program (started by the Shah with help from the West), was because of Saddam's own arsenal of WMDs and his known nuclear weapons program at the time then underway.
Iran views us as their worst enemy alongside Israel. Having two US military expeditions on two sides of their border, including 2 super-carriers out in the Persian Gulf doesn't help either. You don't see an already paranoid regime getting even more paranoid by these threatening acts (at least viewed as threatening by Iran)?
quote:
Am I hearing this right?you are actually begining to see why a country like Iran would ever want to have nuclear weapons?
I ve noticed that your opinion has changed alot toward this administration for a while,but what I want to know is that lets say things were going well in Iraq right now,would still have been against the occupation?or are you against it now because things arent going the way that Bush wanted to?
I think this war may have been an experiment. Can democracy really be exported by force worldwide? Can tyrants be 'policed' by regime change? These hopes may have blinded many from having an open mind and not taking everything the government says as the holy truth, because it isn't. If the US withdraws from Iraq to correct this nasty situation, Iran should then have further incentive stop uranium enrichment. They would face more pressure to stop it.
quote:
Geeee, I wonder which side the of Vietnam border THAT could be happening on....hmmmm....
What side of the Vietnam border? The side that's Vietnam...:rolleyes:
Magnetonium
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
What side of the Vietnam border? The side that's Vietnam...:rolleyes:
LOL ... I was thinking about posting a response to that, too, but I figured that Firestarter is smart enough to know that the reference is to Vietnam. :stongue: I don't think he was thinking about the Cambodian side of Vietnamese border? Or the Chinese side of Vietnamese border ... or whatever :haha:
Krypton
I guess Q5echo has nothing more to say.:rolleyes:
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
I guess Q5echo has nothing more to say.:rolleyes:
this has all been done before.
i watched your video. now you watch mine. again
like i told u and others. the "lie" is that Bush lied.
Krypton endorses genocide. remember that.
Krypton
Who do you blame then for providing such faulty intelligence that duped republicans AND democrats? The fact is, we should have never even gone to Iraq. The First Gulf War had total justification because Kuwait's sovereignty was violated by Iraq.
But what pisses me off, and what is documented in the Rumsfeld video I posted was that when Iraq invaded Iran, nobody did anything. In fact, Saddam had the blessing of the USA. The Islamic Revolution in Iran was a reaction to foreign intervention. For decades before 1979, foreigners controlled Iran. The CIA ousted a democratically elected leader in 50's or 60's! WTF happened to democracy!? Then they supported the Shah with help starting their nuclear program, and the Shah went on a shopping spree of western weapons including fighter jets, tanks, and guns. In the meantime, the SHah's secret police had the Iranian people living in fear of their lives. All with American blessing. Then the Iranians do something about it, and strike back at the very power behind the Shah, the US.
So, the US gets angry with Iran, they the people ed the embassy over just like they themselves had been ed over for decades. So the US supports Saddam in the Iran/Iraq War.
Then after Saddam gets his ass handed to him, he needs some way to pay his debts, so he invades Kuwait. Now, after thinking long and hard, I honestly don't really think the US got so involved in liberating Kuwait because its sovereignty was infringed upon, but because the US oil supply was threatened. I'm not saying that's the reason we got involved in the First Gulf War, but I'm saying it might have been a HUGE motivational factor for changing previous support for Saddam and becoming so anti-Baathist afterwards.
Why is US foreign policy so two-faced? No wonder our standing in the world is going to .:rolleyes:
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Why is US foreign policy so two-faced? No wonder our standing in the world is going to .:rolleyes:
gee, let me think. perhaps because it is a democracy with changing leadership? who said a country's policies have to remain static? do you care that the US government isn't still maintaining a hard line against the germans? :rolleyes: how can you blame anyone in the current administration for what previous admins did 50 years ago?
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Who do you blame then for providing such faulty intelligence that duped republicans AND democrats? The fact is, we should have never even gone to Iraq. The First Gulf War had total justification because Kuwait's sovereignty was violated by Iraq.
But what pisses me off, and what is documented in the Rumsfeld video I posted was that when Iraq invaded Iran, nobody did anything. In fact, Saddam had the blessing of the USA. The Islamic Revolution in Iran was a reaction to foreign intervention. For decades before 1979, foreigners controlled Iran. The CIA ousted a democratically elected leader in 50's or 60's! WTF happened to democracy!? Then they supported the Shah with help starting their nuclear program, and the Shah went on a shopping spree of western weapons including fighter jets, tanks, and guns. In the meantime, the SHah's secret police had the Iranian people living in fear of their lives. All with American blessing. Then the Iranians do something about it, and strike back at the very power behind the Shah, the US.
So, the US gets angry with Iran, they the people ed the embassy over just like they themselves had been ed over for decades. So the US supports Saddam in the Iran/Iraq War.
Then after Saddam gets his ass handed to him, he needs some way to pay his debts, so he invades Kuwait. Now, after thinking long and hard, I honestly don't really think the US got so involved in liberating Kuwait because its sovereignty was infringed upon, but because the US oil supply was threatened. I'm not saying that's the reason we got involved in the First Gulf War, but I'm saying it might have been a HUGE motivational factor for changing previous support for Saddam and becoming so anti-Baathist afterwards.
Why is US foreign policy so two-faced? No wonder our standing in the world is going to .:rolleyes:
IN OTHER WORDS BUSH DIDN'T LIE.:rolleyes:
you found out about all this crap about the Shah and the CIA back in the 50's now your'e an apologist for the Mullahs. brilliant.
Saddam started his own war with Iran. for his own damn reasons. we've seen the mullachracy as a threat from day one of the Revolution and guess what genius? they still are.
...but because the Mullahs were the victims right?
