Comments on: Protesting at the Hospital

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Mon, 29 Aug 2005 02:18:11 +0000

Joel,
No problem, man. And, for the record, you are most definitely not included in Gregory Travis’ “ilk.” Those guys took an innocuous post about how the job market has been doing well for the past year and a half and turned it into a partisan argument. Your comments, on the other hand, are always welcome and you don’t comment before reading and understanding the post.

By: JohnS

JohnS — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:19:37 +0000

While we're busy linking to proresters with nasty signs, try this one on for size. All too often, the tendency of some is to attack the messenger, not the message...

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 06:04:17 +0000

My humble apologies to Eric Seymour. Trying to be a speed reader has its downside. Maybe I’ll just be red-faced for a month or two.

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 04:25:20 +0000

Hey Joel, I might be wrong, but I’m not sure if ‘Eric’ is the same as ‘Eric Seymour’ on this thread, which is who I think shut down the post you’re referring to. I’m not sure, but there might be two different Erics posting here; it’s ‘Eric Seymour’ in the early posts, and now it’s ‘Eric’.
Not that it changes the points you’re making.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 02:38:34 +0000

Eric,
On 8/25, on the post you shut down, it was Gregory and his ilk. (I wasn’t sure if I was being honored or dishonored to be or not to be in Gregory’s ilk.)
On 8/27 it was Dave and his ilk.
That’s two “ilk” comments in a short span of time.
I’m not declaring civil war on you, just expressing a concern because I thought the comment I made on the post you shut down was fair-minded and not out of line. I felt, however, that the net had been cast my way with the “ilk” comment even though my name wasn’t used specifically. Same for we Iraq war opponents “ilk” that you seem to be accusing of causing deaths. I think that is over the line. That’s really no different than Mrs. Sheehan telling President Bush “you killed my son.”
At least I had the balls to put on a damn uniform for a while.

By: JohnS

JohnS — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 23:49:55 +0000

Eric,
I was a little unclear in the last part of my comment , regarding your statement ,
“We also have to remember that UBL said the US is a paper tiger, and his supporters are looking for any sign that he is right.”. I should have prefaced the rest of my remarks by saying that you are confusing our fighting an Iraqi insurgency with the “War on Terror,” directed at UBL. They are not one and the same.
The fact that some Americans do not support having our troops in Iraq, does not mean we do not support our ongoing fight against UBL’s al-Qaeda.

By: JohnS

JohnS — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 23:40:32 +0000

Eric-
You manageed to completely ignore the other lessons Weinberger raised, and your assertion that the North Vietnamese would have given up if not for the American anti-war movement is prepostrous. However, let’s please not fight that war all over again, shall we?
As for a clearly defined political goal in Iraq, that was to rid Iraq of it’s weapons of mass destruction. Everything else has been made up as we went along, as there were no plans in place for an insurgency. The WH was called on that early on by influential Republicans as well as Dems.
I’m sure that the insurgents are also paying attention to the current Iraq debate within the Republican party as to whether we should stay the course, gradually withdraw trops, or just get out now. I would assume that you consider that just as demoralizing to our troops as you consider anti-war protests.
Finally, your comment, ” We also have to remember that UBL said the US is a paper tiger, and his supporters are looking for any sign that he is right” is a little strange in the context of the Iraq War. There are certainly Jihadists in Iraq now, but most of the violence directed at American troops is from Sunni insurgents. Look for more violence between Sunni nationalists vs Shiite separatists. Sadr is a nationalist and has declared that occupying forces must go for that to ever happen.
I suspect Sadr may be on to something. I do think one of the overriding neocon goals of this war was the breakup of Iraq along sectarian and ethnic lines. Iraq is then removed as a regional threat (to our ally, Israel) and the smaller states become Israel’s satellites, to our and Israel’s benefit. (An autonomous Shiite region in the south also happens to benefit Iran, but that’s another story.)
If the Federalists continue to press for their constitution, excluding the Sunnis from consideration, I fear our troops will be trapped in the middle of an out and out, full scale civil war.

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:06:53 +0000

“Your “ilk” comments are really starting to get annoying.
It is a way to broadly dismiss people in a very uncharitable way, sort of the way Finlay does. Are you part of Finlay’s “ilk”?”
Joel,
Comments?? I made one comment. You seem to be confusing me with someone else if you think I have been making many comments.
JohnS,
“We should employ decisive force in the pursuit of clearly defined political and military objectives; which have STILL not been fully spelled out.”
I agree that we should employ decisive force, and I don’t think we have. We have been too worried about be PC. But I cannot agree that the political and military objectives have not been fully spelled out. That is a lie that has been spouted by the left. Explain to me how providing security until the Iraqi military is trained is not a military objective. How is getting a constitution passed and holding elections not a political objective. How can either of those objective be spelled out any clearer. Do you want and exact number of Iraqi’s that need to be trained. Do you think President Bush should get on TV and say we will leave Iraqi after 200,000 troops are trained?
Dave,
I absolutely believe that the terrorists in Iraq pay attention to what is going on here. That is something we should have learned for Vietnam. The North Veitnamies have stated that they kept holding on becasue of the anti-war movement in America. They would have given up, but they held on hoping the Anti-war movement would force the withdraw of US troops.
We also have to remember that UBL said the US is a paper tiger, and his supporters are looking for any sign that he is right.

By: JohnS

JohnS — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:33:54 +0000

Eric-
“Can’t you see that people of your ilk are COSTING troops lives in Iraq. This is a highly connected would and it is naive to think that the terrorists in Iraq don’t see all of the dissent and feel bolstered. They keep up the fight becuase of people like you. They think if they can keep it up long enough people will start to listen to people like you. If we had a united front, they would be defeated sooner.”
I’m 53 and remember that exact argument used during the Vietnam era, long after the American people began to question the rationale for that war. (ie: “Vietnam is a nasty place to fight. But there are no neat and tidy battlefields in the struggle for freedom; there is no ‘good’ place to die. And it is far better to fight in Vietnam – on China’s doorstep – than fight some years hence in Hawaii, on our own frontiers.”-War historian, H.l. Baldwin in the NY Times in 1965. “Better Dead Than Red” was the bumper sticker version of that argument.)
The Vietnam debacle taught our military a lesson that our current civilian leadership promptly forgot. In 1984, Caspar Weinberger clearly spelled out those lessons:
*Either the United States’ or its close allies’ vital national interests had to be at risk;
* The war had to be fought “wholeheartedly, with the clear intention of winning”;
* We should employ decisive force in the pursuit of clearly defined political and military objectives;
* We must constantly reassess whether the use of force is necessary and appropriate;
* There must be a “reasonable assurance” of Congressional and public support;
* Force should be used only as a last resort.
I would say that our civilian leadership “failed miserably” in following those objectives, especially the crucial * We should employ decisive force in the pursuit of clearly defined political and military objectives; which have STILL not been fully spelled out. Thus, this was a war programmed for failure, and those vets (are they ‘ilk’ too) demonstrating at Walter Reed probably know that better than anybody.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:27:27 +0000

Eric,
Your “ilk” comments are really starting to get annoying.
It is a way to broadly dismiss people in a very uncharitable way, sort of the way Finlay does. Are you part of Finlay’s “ilk”?