Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Iraq the new Korea?

My father, Major James Marks, used to tell me war stories about his time in Korea and I just could not comprehend what war and occupation of a country was. My brother Roy later had the experience of watching an army buddy of his shot to death as the did border patrol. He was transferred to Vietnam and served as a door gunner on a helicopter for two tours. My brother Mike served in Nam also. Both were highly honored/medaled veterans. I was sent pictures of carnage while I waited for my draft time. (Thank God they stopped the draft right before my time.) I have seen first hand the post war effects on a family and it is not pretty. Roy is permanently disabled from agent orange. Agent Orange Exposure: Vietnam Veterans: Side Effects, Diseases, Cancers

It seems the Republicans are set to make this illegal occupation of Iraq our modern day Korea, with a 50 year plan to witness their demise. It sickens me. Disgusts me. Angers me. But what can we do if people do not stand up and protest in Mass? People are just preoccupied by life. We seen it played out in the 60's and 70's. Yes there were protesters. Back then they were called card burning, druggie, draft dodging hippy. Even if they had short hair and were college students who would help build America.

I am holding out hope that the Democratic party can do something positive. Last November should have been an edict to get out of Iraq immediately. But someone must have missed the memo. Keith Olbermann says it all better than me:

YouTube - Keith Olbermann: We have been betrayed

42 comments:

Carol said...

This is this Republican's Administration's war. Let's not let them blame the war on the Democrats.

The news was not as filtered back in the 1960's and 1970's. The Vietnam War was brought into our living rooms through our TV's every evening. Now even flagged-draped coffins are kept from being shown on our mainstream corporate television media.

I am sad to hear about your brother's health problems due to agent orange. I hope he is getting the health care he certainly deserves.

samoasoftball said...

Carol-This is the Republicans war for sure. They are using the media to pressure Democratic leaders into hiding on the subject of immediate withdrawl. We need a leader now! One of the candidates needs to take a radical stand to lead what we know is a majority thought: GET OUT OF IRAQ now and forget the rhetoric and media pandering.

Anonymous said...

carol you are wrong again. Why don't you tell eveyone why your Senator had to resign from her seat on the committe that doled out the money for war toys. As much as I uaually disagree with Thompson he is one of only a handful that actually have been and are staying consistant on this Iraq F%#K-UP.

Anonymous said...

Democrats are traitors, they should all be voted out of office along with the Republicans remaining. Go Independent!

Anonymous said...

Twq terms. One in office. One in prison. Carol and all her prog pals should have to clean the "crappers" for them.

samoasoftball said...

I bet you anonymous posters have never met Carol. If you had, you would not post your hateful nothingness.

Anonymous said...

It's not about Carol who as you say is a nice lady(so-so) it's about the bulls%*t she promotes in the guise of all knowing progressive PC superority. Let her answere the question about her queen on high phony Senator. Won't do it I'll bet. Call a spade a spade and a Humboldt Co demorcate a socialist heading left.

Greg said...

What is it that makes right-wingers go straight for the hate speech when caught out being dead wrong? Just a question.

-----

On the issue of war and the topic of your post, Richard: Mike Thompson has said for years that one of his main concerns has been the apparent permanency of our occupation of Iraq. Four large military bases have been under development by the US in Iraq for some time. It is no surprise to hear Bush talk of a Korean-style operation.

With the split in the Senate, any congressional action will be subject to a presidential veto; it will take 60 senate votes (meaning many republicans) to override a veto.

What, if anything, could congress legislate that could then gain the sixty senate votes needed to override the veto?

Thanks for your kind comment about Carol. "Socialist" is the big Republican Buzz Word of the moment. More fun with words...

Anonymous said...

"What is it that makes right-wingers go straight for the hate speech when caught out being dead wrong? Just a question."

Oh, I don't know, Greg, but I suspect you know the answer, as you are one to use the same tactics, which, btw are repugnant whether coming from the left OR right.

The above quote, coming from you, is hilariously ironic. You are inconsistent, and when confronted with logical posts which you are hard pressed to answer, you switch to name calling, which by your above response is equal to hate speech...

Anonymous said...

greg, will use your name with carols from now on when pointing out the far,far,far lefts (in HUm. Co. that means democrat) one sidedness. Do not use hate speach but do know the definition of political factions,groups and a phony sales pitch when it rears its ugly head. If you don't like being confronted you should mask yourself better. You can always fool a young college student.

Greg said...

Humboldt Democrats come in different shapes and sizes. I am probably more moderate than many.

But "far,far,far left?". There are 4000 Greens in Humboldt who may want to claim that for themselves. Anyway, isn't this kind of labeling the same thing as name-calling? It doesn't seem to solve any problems and is sure as hell not going to get us out of Iraq.

10:21, I don't mind being confronted or I wouldn't put my opinions out there with my name. Go piss up a rope.

Anonymous said...

"Go piss up a rope."

My gosh Greg, you've just proven my point! Hate speech! Lol.

"10:21, I don't mind being confronted or I wouldn't put my opinions out there with my name"

Well Bully for you Greg, but folks like you, Carol,Fred & Eric are by far the minority. Such is the way of the blogosphere, where anonymity is the norm. Get over it, and get over yourself.

An anonymous poster making valid points is in no way invalidates the arguement made by virtue of being anonymous.

In in many ways, (with the exception of kooky trolls, and no, gregor, those who disagree with you are do not qualify for troll status for that quality), anonymity encourages the free flow of ideas.

You may not mind being "confronted", but geez Greg, you are never able to back your arguements up, and you simply offer up the same hackneyed hate speech and name calling and talking points that you hold in disdain, when it comes from someone with a view other than your own...

Ahhhh, Consistency. Thats where you get your ass kicked each and every time, Greg.

Until you change your tune and act in a consistant manner this will continue...

Greg said...

Ah, but if I change my tune, I would be more inconsistent than ever. What's a person to DO?

Richard, thanks for trying to bring up an important topic.

Anonymous said...

"Ah, but if I change my tune, I would be more inconsistent than ever. What's a person to DO?"

Ahh, but therein lies the rub, my friend; you are in fact CONSISTENT in one area; your INconsistency.

You still havent added anything to the conversation other than namecalling and accusing others of the very same thing...

Carol said...

This song, Is it for Freedom?, was written by singer/songwriter, Sara Thomsen during the first Iraq War. I found it so hauntingly beautiful that I purchased the CD called Fertile Ground. Here are the lyrics:



Rulers of the nations as you fuss and fight
Over who owns this or that and who has the right
To design, build, sell and store and fire
All the bombs and guns to defend your holy empire

There are children hungry, children sick and dying
There are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers dying
They're only pawns in your play of power and corruption
Slowly starve them, your new weapon of mass destruction

refrain: And prove to me, America, that you care
And prove to me, America, you're aware
Who's Dying for your freedom in this land
Who pays the cost for the liberties you demand

Is it for freedom, or our comfort and convenience
Is it to profit for big business we pledge our allegiance
Are we prisoners in the land of the brave and the bold?
Held by indifference or hearts grown hard and cold (refrain)

Children of the world, you have the right
To sing and dance, run and play, let your dreams take flight
As the innocent die you rulers carry the shame
And if we stand idly by we share the blame

And, oh, America, do we care
Oh, America, are we aware
Who's dying for our comfort in this land
Who pays the cost for the convenience we demand?
Children of the world, you have the right

To sing and dance, run and play, let your dreams take flight

samoasoftball said...

Nice song. I think the deaths in Iraq do not protect us from terror, we only are stirring up a jihad against us.

Here is something I do think many will not argue: We do not belong in Iraq. Period. We want our people back home building lives, not over there risking lives for the egos of few and the coffers of Haliburton. (You need only follow the money.)

Anonymous said...

Wowie ! The world according to Greg, Carol, and Richard.

A question to you three! What do you think would happen to Iraq, Afganistan, the Middle East if the U.S. and all the assisting countries and corporations pulled out by let's say October 07? What would the the consequences to the region, the world?

And I don't mean to go back and rant about we shouldn't have been there in the first place or war is bad.

Dazzle us with your wisdom and knowledge.

Greg said...

Ask a Republican. It's a Republican War

HCDCC stands by our September 2002 resolution against the use of force in Iraq. At that time the committee went on record opposing "the preemptive use of force or a Congressional resolution authorizing such a use of force against Iraq or any sovereign nation without independently verified evidence of an imminent threat, due consideration of the short- and long-term consequences...and the exhaustion of all peaceful means to remedy the situation" (full text available at humboldtdemocrats.org under "issues").

We are disappointed but not surprised by congress' inability to change the course of the war, but without enough votes to over-ride a presidential veto there are few options left. Many of our anti-war friends believed that by taking away Bush's Republican congressional majority we would be able to stop the war; unfortunately it is not that easy. The federal government began denying payment for already-funded programs earlier this year, we believe in anticipation of funding the escalation so carefully planned even prior to the November election. It has become apparent that our Republican president has been determined to escalate this war whether or not congress provided war funding -- they would have simply "robbed Peter to pay Paul", withholding money from other federal programs if necessary.

In June of last year, HCDCC wrote to California Democratic Chair Art Torres that "The current administration has flaunted a culture that is dishonest, lacks any transparency and is self-serving to the point of moral negligence. People across the democratic spectrum are looking to our party's leaders to act boldly in the face of such egregious betrayals of the public trust and to be the champions of integrity. It is through such actions of moral courage that the party articulates its values and demonstrates its commitment to the people it serves."

We have called for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice-president Cheney, and just last month endorsed state Senator Don Perata's legislation to place a war referendum on California's January ballot, as a way for California's Democratic voters to send a message through their presidential candidates. (link).

California's Democrats and Humboldt's Democrats continue to oppose Bush's war for oil and the cynical propagandizing that, to this day, has about half of the public believing the outright lie that Saddam Hussein of Iraq ordered Saudi renegade Osama bin Laden's attack on September 11, 2001. A Republican acquaintance asked me recently "what would you have done?" Well, about fifty million of us (21%) would have gone straight for bin Laden rather than using his attack as an excuse to invade Iraq.

This war is not about differing political opinions; it is about lies versus the truth and right versus wrong, and as with all wars, it is about innocent people dying and generations ruined. Don't blame the Democrats--this is a Republican War.

samoasoftball said...

6:34am-So there!

mresquan said...

Pull out in 2007!! What are you talking about,mission accomplished was in 2003,crap I haven't been paying attention,you're saying we're still there?Greg,Carol,and Richard,is that true?

Anonymous said...

Richard, the question that 634am asked was this:

"A question to you three! What do you think would happen to Iraq, Afganistan, the Middle East if the U.S. and all the assisting countries and corporations pulled out by let's say October 07? What would the the consequences to the region, the world?"

All Greg did was do what he accuses others of doing, namely pulling out a list of talking points, and NOT addressing the above question...

So there...!

Gregor, try answering the question posed.

Anonymous said...

Well greg as you tell me to piss up a rope you are again pissing down my leg and telling me it's good sippin scotch. My point,which is clear and valid, is that you are a phony and only pretend to be balanced or moderate. Provided by your drone of the republicans did it. Well I am a republican. I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Supported the Afgan invasion. Am pro-choice. Support the death penelty. Want to strangle any idiot who believes in the 9-11 conspiracy theory. Understand Diann's double speak and ask you again greg and carol to enlighten the blog about her resignation from her powerful committe seat on the funding of war toys. When I piss on your leg sonny-boy I'm damn well gonna tell'ya it's PISS!

Anonymous said...

She can't be a democrat. she surely didn't fund munitions for the Iraq war. she must have resigned as a protest aganist the purely republican war. she probably knows that Osama is innocent and that the CIA brought the towers down. sure glad the purity of the democrat party is now in charge. still swimming with the turds.

Anonymous said...

No matter how much I may disagree with another person's comments on this blog or any other blog, they have every right to make their comments anonymously. Ever hear of the First Amendment? It's kind of sad that a person like Greg would attack someone just because they post anonymously. Greg, focus on what they say, not how they say it. Greg Connors said "I don't mind being confronted or I wouldn't put my opinions out there with my name. Go piss up a rope." Greg Connors sounds like he has already retired from the work world, which no doubt gives him the free time he needs to participate with the Humboldt Democratic Central Committee. Some of us out here, who are younger, have families to support, and need to retain our employment have very legitimate reasons for maintaining an anonymous identity on the blogs. Who are you to judge us, just because you indulge your ego by attaching your name to your comments? The blogosphere is not the letters to the editor section of your local paper. It never has been and it never will be. Why must every opinion be pre-approved by some official editorial censor? Welcome to the world of free speech and the internet! Long live the First Amendment!

In addition, on this same topic of anonymous bloggers and commenters, here's a story that someone should get to the bottom of. Recently, the North Coast Journal's editor Hank Sims made the claim on a local blog that he knew the identities of certain anonymous commenters who happened to be critical of Hank Sims and the North Coast Journal. Sims was obviously upset about some of the anonymous comments directed his way, and he made threatening statements about the anonymous commenters saying he knew who they were. Remind anyone of the threats of exposure he made against The Humboldt Herald's Heraldo? So, the question is - if Hank Sims is telling the truth, that he in fact knows the identities of anonymous individuals posting on the local blogosphere, then which local blog or blogs handed over the internet addresses/IPV's to Hank Sims and the North Coast Journal? As bloggers well know, this is about as low as a blogger can sink, ethically speaking - a blatant violation of internet free speech. So, who is responsible? I have already asked for a response from Carson Park Ranger of the Eureka Standard, as he recently filled in for Hank Sims doing the Town Dandy column in the NCJ, and Hurley of the Buhne Tribune would be another obvious candidate as Hank Sims has already admitted in print that he knew Buhne's secret identity for a year, but for some reason didn't see fit to expose Hurley. So, why is Sims so gung-ho to bring down Heraldo of the Humboldt Herald along with any other anonymous individuals who have committed the capital offense of being critical of Hank Sims and the North Coast Journal? And Sims actually is surprised at the public's criticism of his tactics? If Sims is so thin-skinned as to be opposed to the right of others to criticize, then why not come clean and let us know which blog or blogs is responsible for providing Sims with the internet addresses? Then we will know who supports the First Amendment locally, and who does not. Hank Sims will no doubt claim he supports the First Amendment as a so-called journalist, but does he really? Not as long as the anonymous commenter and/or blogger is critical of Hank Sims. Now that's hypocrisy.

Greg said...

One of the lessons of politics:

Activism threatens established interests. You anonymii seem threatened; no one is trying to hurt you, okay?

There is no retirement here, either from business or from public involvement. The freedom to blog comes from a) an independent mind, b) owning my own business and c) a Quixotic need to tilt at the occasional windmill.

So like I said, go piss up a rope.

Greg said...

On re-reading the last comment, let me add: Do not try to piss up a rope while tilting at a windmill.

Greg said...

On topic, from today's Washington Post:

"Even if a total pullout is the goal, it could take a year to execute a full withdrawal. One official estimated that with only one major route from the country --through southern Iraq to Kuwait -- it would take at least 3,000 large convoys some 10 months to remove U.S. military gear and personnel alone, not including the several thousand combat vehicles that would be needed to protect such an operation."

Of course, a total pullout is NOT the goal. Bush is establishing what he calls a "new Korea". I do not know of anyone saying we should be completely out by October 2007 anymore.

Carol said...

I have children to care for, one still at home, and make the time for politics. Greg and I run a business and work very hard at our life. We are involved with the HCDCC because WE CARE about our country.

Incidentally, my 12 year old is student body president at her school! Politics is part of the family dinner table conversation in our household.

If you are interested, then just SHOW UP. Then you can be more helpful rather than writing anonymous diatribes.

Anonymous said...

Carol said:

" Then you can be more helpful rather than writing anonymous diatribes. "

Carol, I am sure you are a lovely lady and all of that, but, let me ask, do you and Gregor even read the posts related to anonymity? There are reasons that the Blogosphere is, for the most part anonymous - get over it. It doesnt change the fact that there are relevant
posts made by anons, and there are trollish posts made by some who sign their names (nick bravo, anyone).

Does the fact that you sign your name to your post change the deflecting, talking point "diatribes" that Greg and you use?

Gregor, once again, answer the question posed:

" A question to you three! What do you think would happen to Iraq, Afganistan, the Middle East if the U.S. and all the assisting countries and corporations pulled out by let's say October 07? What would the the consequences to the region, the world? "

The quotation marks are there because I am not the the person who wrote this, but it is a great question, one that seems to have you stumped, as you seem to be able to answer it.

Also, Carol the question doesnt seem to qualify as an "anomymous diatribe", it is a relevant question.

Greg, I care about your wellbeing, so that being said, be careful to not be around an open flame when you put a voice your hateful, inconsistent, self-aggrandizing thoughts...I chances are, being the pompous gasbag that you are, you'd simply go up in flames.

As you seem to be fixated on pissing up ropes, I assume you must have a lot of experience with doing just that, so I won't suggest that for you...

(and to act like Gregor, and to try and place myself above all of this dreary nonsense, like trying to answer reasonable questions), Richard, thanks for this wonderful topic...
:-P

Carson Park Ranger said...

"What...would happen to Iraq, Afganistan, the Middle East if the U.S. and all the assisting countries and corporations pulled out...?"

They'd be better off.

Anonymous said...

Why do these folks like Greg + Carol display such naked animosity towards the anonymous? Did an anonymous individual do something really bad to you once? Tell me about your childhood. Were you a student body president too, born to rich parents who were business owners? Or were your upbringings something to be ashamed of? Since you Greg + Carol Connors own your own business and are not likely to fire yourselves for your own opinions, it must be easy to sign your names to all of your opinions. How superior you are to the rest of us! You sound more like Republicans than Democrats. You must be proud of your greatness.

Anonymous said...

"What...would happen to Iraq, Afganistan, the Middle East if the U.S. and all the assisting countries and corporations pulled out...?"

Formerly anonymous Joel Mielke, until he was outed said"

"They'd be better off."

So, explain exactly how? I mean be specific.....

Now, as a lesson for Gregor to follow, I am actually going to use a real response to the nonthinking quip made my our own CPR...No talking points used, lol...

Afghanistan - I highly doubt that they would be, in your words, "better off". Don't let your animosity towards all things american blind you here Joel, but Afghanistan has been a success, as far as getting rid of the Taliban - and if you think that they were much beloved in that country, methinks you're mistaken.

Does the Taliban still exist? Of course they do. Are they still a threat? Yep.

Do you think that by and large the citizens of Afghanistan feel that they would be better off if the US pulled out then you are ignoring the facts. They Afghans are, for the most part not fighting the US occupation the way they did the Soviet invasion.

Of course there have been riots and protests of the US intervention there. But, to answer YOUR quip, that they would be, in fact, BETTER off if we pulled out by Oct 07, I think they would in fact be worse off, with the Taliban trying to worm their way back in, with another bloody civil war.

See Greg - question answered, one that is certainly open to debate.

Greg, once again, please stay away from an open flame...

mresquan said...

"What...would happen to Iraq, Afganistan, the Middle East if the U.S. and all the assisting countries and corporations pulled out...?"

They would finally have the opportunity to go piss up a rope without an American soldier watching every move they make,then interrogating them.

Anonymous said...

Why is Greg so into pissing up ropes? Is that some sort of obscure foreplay technique? Do tell, Carol.

Anonymous said...

"What...would happen to Iraq, Afganistan, the Middle East if the U.S. and all the assisting countries and corporations pulled out...?"

Mark Konkler said:

"They would finally have the opportunity to go piss up a rope without an American soldier watching every move they make,then interrogating them."

Watch again Gregor, here I go, another actual response...

Well Mark, in the case of Afghanistan, with the Taliban back in charge, the women wouldnt have any chance to piss up a rope,(physical challenges notwithstanding), as they would be relegated back to having NO status in their society, repressed, oppressed and stoned (no, not the type stoned that you enjoy now and again, Mark) if they displease their Taliban masters.

Then the Taliban would be back destroying and desecrating pricless wonders such as the huge Buddah that they shelled into oblivian.

Better off? Doubtul...

mresquan said...

That's happening now with us there occupying the place.For Afgani women we're now just another hurdle for them to get through.Our soldiers have done nothing to improve their living situations.Talban rule has only strengthened since our invasion.

Anonymous said...

"Talban rule has only strengthened since our invasion."

BULL SHIT

"For Afgani women we're now just another hurdle for them to get through.Our soldiers have done nothing to improve their living situations."

Dude, that is such unmitigated tripe, I dont even know where to start. Well, for one, Afghani women no longer have freaking BRICK WALLS toppled on them when they have (allegedly) committed infidelities either real or imagined. (Of course these are being prevented by our soldiers being there).

Afghani women are now (gasp) allowed to leave the home without being vieled, and allowed to have careers...yes indeedy, the "Taliban rule has only strengthened since our invasion", lol...

Nobody is claiming that the US has a complete handle on the goings on in Afghananistan, but for you to make such absurd statements, well it does provide a good laugh. Mark, the Taliban ran the country before the US invasion...for you to state that their rule has "only strengthened" since the inavasion is ludicrous and easily debunked.

mresquan said...

Hey quit knockin' the Taliban,Ronald Reagan was a true patriot and would never have alllowed U.S.taxdollars to fund there assention to power if they were not a moral and just group of individuals.

Anonymous said...

Mark, Mark, Mark....

Once again another off handed quip, not addressing YOUR outright BULLSHIT claim that the "Taliban has rule only strengthened since our invasion"

You got your head handed to you on that.

I don't recall the point of the conversation being the funding of the Muhadjeen(sp) resistance against the Soviet invasion, but if you would like to discuss that, I in fact agree that many of the problems we are facing now are a byproduct of that fiasco.

Much of the Martyrdom fervor is a byproduct of the camps which sprung up on the Afghani-Pakistan border, coupled with the toppling of the Shah in Iran.

Wow, see what happens when talking points aren't used? We can have an actual conversation...

But...to reiterate, you seem to be fixated on inane quips, but I really want to know; Do you REALLY believe the Afghani people, and the women in particular are better off under the Taliban? You seem to think so...

Anonymous said...

nice...very nice. Your inability to respond speaks volumes...

samoasoftball said...

Let me have the last word on this thread:

This illegal occupation of Iraq sucks!

Greg said...

Thanks for the fun time, Richard...