PDA

View Full Version : Top House Dem Calls Iraq War As Bad As Holocaust



RedFanAlways1966
06-10-2005, 09:58 AM
Rangel - Bush's Iraq 'Fraud' As Bad As The Holocaust

Top House Democrat Charles Rangel complained on Monday that the Bush administration's decision to concoct a "fraudulent" war in Iraq was as bad as "the Holocaust."

"It's the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country," Rangel told WWRL Radio's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. "This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn't their ox that was being gored."

The Harlem Democrat charged that top Bush officials "made up [their] mind to go into Iraq long before 9/11. And every one of the players who made this decision - they were part of this plan to do it. From Rumsfeld to Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bolton, every one of them - Perle - [they were part of the] plan to put our kids in harm's way long before 9/11."

Rangel insisted that American blacks and poor whites are dying in Iraq, while those who supported the war aren't paying any price.

Asked to clarify his Holocaust comparison, Rangel told Malzberg:

"I am saying that people's silence when they know terrible things are happening is the same thing as the Holocaust, where everyone would have me believe that no one knew those Jews were killed over there."

registerthis
06-10-2005, 10:31 AM
OK, I don't agree with the Iraq War, I think we were intentionally deceived into it, I see no end in sight...

But it's NOT the Holocaust. The Holocaust is an event that is-thankfully-unparalleled in human history. It's not a term that should be bandied about lightly. As much as I disagree with this war, it's not at all comparable to the attempted extermination of an entire race, regardless of how this Senator tries to justify it.

ochre
06-10-2005, 10:42 AM
I am opposed to the war in Iraq.

The only real reason to be in Iraq is because Hussein was guilty of holocaustic actions in the last couple decades.

The terrible things going on over there, from what I've heard, are not even close to the magnitude required to even hint at the holocaust comparison.

This person may have some valid points in that some things are going on that should be discussed in public forums, but whatever impact those points might have is ruined by this terrible comparison.

traderumor
06-10-2005, 10:52 AM
Rangel must have watched Fahrenheit 911 for the first time recently :evil:

RFS62
06-10-2005, 11:09 AM
Pretty shameful comparison.

MWM
06-10-2005, 11:30 AM
What was Rangel's position on the war before it started? I honestly don't know, but I'm tired of all these people showing up now telling us what a huge mistake it was and pointing the finger at everyone else. I hated the idea of the war long before the first bomb was dropped. It NEVER made sense to me, but we had next to NO resistance from virtually anyone in our government prior to the war. And I don't buy the "it was too politically risky to not support the war" nonsense. Have some balls. If that's your approach to the office you were elected to then you're pretty much worthless. The war was never challeneged prior to its beginning and that's ALWAYS a huge mistake. My biggest beef with the Democratic Party (even above not giving us anything better than John Kerry) is that they ran and hid before the war and didn't have the guts to make a loud argument against it. A few did, but not near enough. So if Rangel was adamantly opposed before the war, then I might listen to what he says (although this comparison is beyond ludicrous but not surprising considering the source). But if wasn't a vocal critic BEFORE the war, then he's as much to blame as anyone.

I'm sick to death of career politicians (35 years and counting for Rangel, 21 years for Delay) who know there's little to no chance they won't be re-elected. It's easily the largest racket known to man. I'm for smallball when it comes to politics. Get 'em in, get 'em to work, and get 'em out.

Johnny Footstool
06-10-2005, 11:36 AM
"I am saying that people's silence when they know terrible things are happening is the same thing as the Holocaust, where everyone would have me believe that no one knew those Jews were killed over there."

His meaning is pretty clear. He's not saying the war in Iraq in and of itself is comparable to the Holocaust in any way. He's making a comparison between the lack of public outrage at both of these horrible events. Clearly, the Holocaust was on a totally different scale, but the comparison he's making is valid.

It's a shame that people stop listening whenever someone mentions Nazis or the Holocaust.

But a good politician should know that and shouldn't ever mention those things. Rangel is showing an astonishing lack of political savvy.

Johnny Footstool
06-10-2005, 11:39 AM
My biggest beef with the Democratic Party (even above not giving us anything better than John Kerry) is that they ran and hid before the war and didn't have the guts to make a loud argument against it. A few did, but not near enough.

Those who did (Dem and Repub alike) were quickly drowned out by jingoistic claptrap, accusations of being "Un-American," and urgings to "get out of the country if you don't like it."

My biggest beef is that people let patriotism and fear blind their judgement, and then they bully anyone who disagrees.

MWM
06-10-2005, 11:42 AM
Those who did were quickly drowned out by jingoistic claptrap, accusations of being "Un-American," and urgings to "get out of the country if you don't like it."

Then they should have screemed louder. They ran and hid at the first sign that the public generally supported the war. That's what you get with career politicians who are more worried about the next election than they are doing the right thing. And you'll get no support of the Republican Party from me.

registerthis
06-10-2005, 11:49 AM
It's a shame that people stop listening whenever someone mentions Nazis or the Holocaust.
No, I understodd what he was trying to convey, I'm saying the comparison witht he Holocaust shouldn't have been made. Is there no other event in human history which he coul dhave used to make that point?

I agree with his sentiments--which are, the true cost and toll of this war is getting lost on a majority of the population. Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples where that has been the case. He should have used better judgment, and a different example.

ochre
06-10-2005, 11:49 AM
But a good politician should know that and shouldn't ever mention those things. Rangel is showing an astonishing lack of political savvy.
that's just it though. Whatever his intentions, he did compare it to the holocaust. Semantically speaking it wasn't comparing the atrocities, but when you go to that scale in a comparison you lose a lot of rhetorical impact because people turn off to what you are saying.

Not all that different from PETA throwing red paint on fur wearers.

RBA
06-10-2005, 12:02 PM
LOL- Scream Louder? If they did they may of ended up in GITMO with the feverous and hawkish rhetoric coming from the current administration. I have no doubt that we weren't too far from Marshall Law during the period after 9/11 to the Iraqi War. People were called Unpatriotic, Traitors, and Al Qaeda sympthizers; to name a few. A few Anti-War congress persons lost their house seat and a Georgia Senator was labeled a coward, despite having two legs blown off during Vietnam and he lost his job to another Republican chickenHawk. This is politics today, it's cutthroat.

But I somehow agree, the Democrats and the Main Stream Media were and still afraid to speak out. It's disturbing what has become of some of our greatest checks and balances we use to have.

TC81190
06-10-2005, 12:05 PM
So the Iraq War never happened? :p: ;)

Rojo
06-10-2005, 01:02 PM
Then they should have screemed louder.

Howard Dean says "hi".

We were screaming pretty damn loud here in San Francisco......and New York and Chicago and LA and pretty much every major urban center. Nobody gives a damn. The Op-Ed, Sunday Morning idiots control the agenda of the rest of the country and they're all hawks.

Falls City Beer
06-10-2005, 01:09 PM
The Holocaust is an event that is-thankfully-unparalleled in human history.

The genocide committed against Native Americans?

Stalin and the death of 15 million of his own countrymen/women in his effort to turn his country into a military superpower?

Mao?

The Holocaust is merely one name in a long list, IMO. Sadly.

RBA
06-10-2005, 01:11 PM
Don't forget how some compare abortion to the Holocaust. I don't agree. But it's about to come up anyway.

RedFanAlways1966
06-10-2005, 01:20 PM
Don't forget how some compare abortion to the Holocaust. I don't agree. But it's about to come up anyway.

Would that be a top House leader in our Congress who made those abortion comparisons?

We should consider the source. I guy who stated that he would file impeachment charges against Pres. Bush and would not give up on impeaching him. Anyone heard anymore about that? Anyone know of military members who did not signup on their own freewill in today's military? Some Rangle-isms (which got nowhere of course):

* May 6, 2004 -- Cong. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a member of Congress since 1971 and a Korean war combat veteran, today called for the impeachment of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld unless he resigns or President Bush removes him from office.

* Feb. 2, 2003 - Backed by other opponents of a war with Iraq, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has proposed that the draft shelved since 1973 be reinstated in the name of "shared sacrifice." Rangel said the prospect of a draft would make Congress less likely to support a war. I believe that if those calling for war knew their children were more likely to be required to serve and to be placed in harm's way there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq," Rangel wrote. Military service should be a "shared sacrifice" asked of all able young Americans, he said, noting that minorities make up a "disproportionate number" of enlisted members of the military.

Falls City Beer
06-10-2005, 01:27 PM
His meaning is pretty clear. He's not saying the war in Iraq in and of itself is comparable to the Holocaust in any way. He's making a comparison between the lack of public outrage at both of these horrible events. Clearly, the Holocaust was on a totally different scale, but the comparison he's making is valid.

It's a shame that people stop listening whenever someone mentions Nazis or the Holocaust.

But a good politician should know that and shouldn't ever mention those things. Rangel is showing an astonishing lack of political savvy.

I hate the "freeze-out"/sanctification of language; it's just as dangerous as the silencing/"shut up and vote" tactics used by Republicans.

Good post Johnny.

Falls City Beer
06-10-2005, 01:32 PM
Would that be a top House leader in our Congress who made those abortion comparisons?

We should consider the source. I guy who stated that he would file impeachment charges against Pres. Bush and would not give up on impeaching him. Anyone heard anymore about that? Anyone know of military members who did not signup on their own freewill in today's military? Some Rangle-isms (which got nowhere of course):

* May 6, 2004 -- Cong. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a member of Congress since 1971 and a Korean war combat veteran, today called for the impeachment of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld unless he resigns or President Bush removes him from office.

* Feb. 2, 2003 - Backed by other opponents of a war with Iraq, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has proposed that the draft shelved since 1973 be reinstated in the name of "shared sacrifice." Rangel said the prospect of a draft would make Congress less likely to support a war. I believe that if those calling for war knew their children were more likely to be required to serve and to be placed in harm's way there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq," Rangel wrote. Military service should be a "shared sacrifice" asked of all able young Americans, he said, noting that minorities make up a "disproportionate number" of enlisted members of the military.

While I'm not in favor of bringing back the draft, I am in favor of bringing back the mandatory 2 year's service in the military for EVERYONE.

I've been called a fascist by my liberal co-workers/acquaintances, a socialist/communist by my libertarian, more conservative co-workers for this belief.

RedFanAlways1966
06-10-2005, 01:40 PM
While I'm not in favor of bringing back the draft, I am in favor of bringing back the mandatory 2 year's service in the military for EVERYONE.

I've been called a fascist by my liberal co-workers/acquaintances, a socialist/communist by my libertarian, more conservative co-workers for this belief.

As a lot of countries do today, FCB (incl. Israel). Might be more common than not if you count all the countries in the world.

registerthis
06-10-2005, 02:02 PM
The genocide committed against Native Americans?

Stalin and the death of 15 million of his own countrymen/women in his effort to turn his country into a military superpower?

Mao?

The Holocaust is merely one name in a long list, IMO. Sadly.
No, not the ONLY horrific event in human history, of course...but as far as a concentrated, concerted effort to rid the planet of an entire race of people, it stands alone. There have been longer campaigns that have had more deaths, but none, I would argue, as direct as the Holocaust.

registerthis
06-10-2005, 02:04 PM
* Feb. 2, 2003 - Backed by other opponents of a war with Iraq, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has proposed that the draft shelved since 1973 be reinstated in the name of "shared sacrifice." Rangel said the prospect of a draft would make Congress less likely to support a war. I believe that if those calling for war knew their children were more likely to be required to serve and to be placed in harm's way there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq," Rangel wrote. Military service should be a "shared sacrifice" asked of all able young Americans, he said, noting that minorities make up a "disproportionate number" of enlisted members of the military.
I don't really have a problem with this. If the sons and daughters of the politicians who make these decisions were drafted into combat, perhaps they woudln't be so quick to take us into wars such as Iraq. You don't see Jenna and barbara at the front lines, do you?

RedFanAlways1966
06-10-2005, 02:55 PM
I don't really have a problem with this. If the sons and daughters of the politicians who make these decisions were drafted into combat, perhaps they woudln't be so quick to take us into wars such as Iraq. You don't see Jenna and barbara at the front lines, do you?

The only people currently in our military, as far as I know, signed up on their on freewill. If you are there, it is b/c you signed up. Cannot be much fairer than that.

Perhaps those in the military today did not realize that going to war is a part of signing up, if called to do so by Congress and/or the Commander-in-Chief? I find that hard to believe. If people disagree w/ Congress and/or the president, they have the ability to change that (like in 2004). Congress and the president also have the ability to re-instate the draft. I personally do not feel that having Congressional kids killed in combat is a good reason to re-instate the draft.

registerthis
06-10-2005, 03:03 PM
The only people currently in our military, as far as I know, signed up on their on freewill. If you are there, it is b/c you signed up. Cannot be much fairer than that.
Ah, but that's only a part of it. The military intentionally targets poor and lower income young adults--particularly minorities--who view a tour of duty as the only way to go to college, start a career, support their family, etc. There is simply no incentive for an upper class white student to enroll in the military, unless they have an overwhelming desire to get shipped off to Iraq.


Perhaps those in the military today did not realize that going to war is a part of signing up, if called to do so by Congress and/or the Commander-in-Chief? I find that hard to believe. If people disagree w/ Congress and/or the president, they have the ability to change that (like in 2004). Congress and the president also have the ability to re-instate the draft. I personally do not feel that having Congressional kids killed in combat is a good reason to re-instate the draft.
If it forced increased accountability on the part of our government, then i think it's an excellent reason to reinstate the draft. It's much easier to go start a war using someone else's children, than it is when your own sons and daughters will be taking the bullets.

Johnny Footstool
06-10-2005, 03:05 PM
The only people currently in our military, as far as I know, signed up on their on freewill. If you are there, it is b/c you signed up. Cannot be much fairer than that.

It's not about the people who are currently enlisted. It's about the one's who *aren't* enlisted. Senators sons and daughters, children of privilege.

Would George Bush have been so gung-ho about attacking Iraq if he had sons in the service? Would anyone?

Redsfaithful
06-10-2005, 03:08 PM
I just wish everyone who supports the war would actually do their part and enlist. Or encourage their children to enlist. Of course there aren't really that many who are *that* invested in the Iraqi war.

I remember someone asking GAC if he was going to encourage his kids to enlist when they turned 18 and getting a lot of silence. Rather telling.

traderumor
06-10-2005, 03:18 PM
I just wish everyone who supports the war would actually do their part and enlist. Or encourage their children to enlist. Of course there aren't really that many who are *that* invested in the Iraqi war.

I remember someone asking GAC if he was going to encourage his kids to enlist when they turned 18 and getting a lot of silence. Rather telling.With that logic, I guess I have to join law enforcement to believe in the justice system.

With respect to your dig on GAC, are you suggesting that a parent who believes something should force their beliefs on their children, especially their majority children? Is that consistent with your beliefs? What if the child has no acumen for being a soldier? Should he still "encourage" that child? Is that consistent with your beliefs?

Redsfaithful
06-10-2005, 03:45 PM
With that logic, I guess I have to join law enforcement to believe in the justice system.

If law enforcement was having massive recruiting difficulties and being presented as a national crisis (like the war in Iraq/war on terrorism) then that might be a valid analogy.


With respect to your dig on GAC, are you suggesting that a parent who believes something should force their beliefs on their children, especially their majority children?

Forcing and encouraging are two different things. But yes, if a parent truly believes that America is in danger and that the war in Iraq is vital then they should be encouraging their children to join the military.

I just don't think anyone really and truly believes Iraq is vital to our security, and that's why they don't want to sacrifice anything for the war.


What if the child has no acumen for being a soldier?

Last time I checked the military offered a wide variety of positions. I'm sure something would fit.

This is all secondary to my main point though, it's people of military age who support Bush and his policies but refuse to serve who really get on my nerves. I'm sure the troops in Iraq would rather see a fresh influx of recruits than a ridiculous "Support our troops" magnetic sticker on the back of an SUV.

registerthis
06-10-2005, 03:48 PM
With respect to your dig on GAC, are you suggesting that a parent who believes something should force their beliefs on their children, especially their majority children? Is that consistent with your beliefs? What if the child has no acumen for being a soldier? Should he still "encourage" that child? Is that consistent with your beliefs?
His point is that if people are going to actively and vocally support something that entails the sacrifice of others, they should be prepared to sacrifice themselves. Be that through their direct enlistment in the armed forces, or of their children. It is much easier to support a war that you know neither yourself nor your children will ever risk fighting in. With the risk that you or your children may be sent into combat and, consequently, killed, perhaps people would not be so cavalier about their support for this war.

With regards to the law enforcement analogy, law enforcement is a necessary component of our society, a requirement to maintain order. If our community's law enforcement capabilities reached a point where it was necessary to draft citizenry into their ranks in order to protect the public and maintain civil order, I would grudgingly accept that as a price for living in a civil society. The same cannot be said of this war.

Falls City Beer
06-10-2005, 03:49 PM
"With that logic, I guess I have to join law enforcement to believe in the justice system."

While I disagree with RF's (I believe slightly ironic) suggestion that those who are so gung-ho about the war should enlist no matter their ability, I still think the thrust of his argument is an important one: in essence, he's asking: what are YOU willing to sacrifice (in terms of taxes, fundraising, children's health and well-being/life) for the cause of this nation's protection? (of course, in the case of the Iraq war, protection of this country's borders or the sovereignty of our allies isn't even an issue).

It seems the answer to that question ranges widely depending upon the income/influence of the family involved. Would you not agree?

Rojo
06-10-2005, 03:58 PM
If a war is not important enough for your son or daughter to fight then its not important enough for any son or daughter to fight.

Period.

Falls City Beer
06-10-2005, 04:01 PM
No, not the ONLY horrific event in human history, of course...but as far as a concentrated, concerted effort to rid the planet of an entire race of people, it stands alone. There have been longer campaigns that have had more deaths, but none, I would argue, as direct as the Holocaust.

I just get a little bristly at ranking atrocities, that's all. At some point, an atrocity can no longer be measured or graduated.

registerthis
06-10-2005, 04:05 PM
I just get a little bristly at ranking atrocities, that's all. At some point, an atrocity can no longer be measured or graduated.
Well, i didn't mean to rank them, not trying to say that Hitler was better than Lenin because he killed less people, or whatever...seems a rather absurd argument! I've simply always viewed the Holocaust as the most direct example of human evil personified, so mentally that's where i was coming from.

Although, true, there is no shortage of global atrocities to cite as examples...

traderumor
06-10-2005, 04:06 PM
RF, FCB, and reg

I get RF's point. It is a nice comeback, but its also not entirely fair. For example, if someone says "save the whales," do they have to go out in the ocean and guard whales or make one of their children get into a field to protect the whales to support saving the whales? This logic breaks down in that manner, plus you imply that the only legitimate way to support the war effort is by having family in the military or trying to push family members that direction (although I believe you normally tell folks to not push their belief system on their children, or is that only with respect to matters of faith?)

For the recored I am a supporter of the war effort (good, bad and the ugly), too fat and too old to serve myself, none of my children are of military age, but have a daughter nearing that age. I will not be encouraging her to serve in the military as I believe vocation is a personal choice to be made by each individual, but would support her if she chose a non-combat field since she is a female. I have relatives in the military, but did not do one thing to influence their decision. I guess that makes me one of the hypocrites.

Falls City Beer
06-10-2005, 04:07 PM
Well, i didn't mean to rank them, not trying to say that Hitler was better than Lenin because he killed less people, or whatever...seems a rather absurd argument! I've simply always viewed the Holocaust as the most direct example of human evil personified, so mentally that's where i was coming from.

Although, true, there is no shortage of global atrocities to cite as examples...

I think I know hwat you meant; perhaps it's just a peeve of mine that I was attributing to your post. In that case I apologize.

traderumor
06-10-2005, 04:13 PM
If a war is not important enough for your son or daughter to fight then its not important enough for any son or daughter to fight.

Period.Is that original or from a bumper sticker? ;)

Falls City Beer
06-10-2005, 04:45 PM
"This logic breaks down in that manner, plus you imply that the only legitimate way to support the war effort is by having family in the military or trying to push family members that direction (although I believe you normally tell folks to not push their belief system on their children, or is that only with respect to matters of faith?)"

I didn't imply anything (see my post). My question: what do you feel is a necessary sacrifice for the war effort? Because to maintain a standing army and protect our borders, a sacrifice MUST be made by the populace; there is NO getting around that fact--be it a sacrifice in terms of tax dollars, lives, livelihood--there is no avoiding sacrifice when it comes to war.

traderumor
06-10-2005, 05:02 PM
"This logic breaks down in that manner, plus you imply that the only legitimate way to support the war effort is by having family in the military or trying to push family members that direction (although I believe you normally tell folks to not push their belief system on their children, or is that only with respect to matters of faith?)"

I didn't imply anything (see my post). My question: what do you feel is a necessary sacrifice for the war effort? Because to maintain a standing army and protect our borders, a sacrifice MUST be made by the populace; there is NO getting around that fact--be it a sacrifice in terms of tax dollars, lives, livelihood--there is no avoiding sacrifice when it comes to war.the "you" wasn't you at that point, that was directed at RF's position based on his prior comment

registerthis
06-10-2005, 05:16 PM
RF, FCB, and reg

I get RF's point. It is a nice comeback, but its also not entirely fair. For example, if someone says "save the whales," do they have to go out in the ocean and guard whales or make one of their children get into a field to protect the whales to support saving the whales? This logic breaks down in that manner,
If the only way to effectively "save the whales" was to physically pull them to safety and rescue, then yes, this analogy would be appropriate. However, there are many ways (boycotting companies that harm whales, providing help and funds to groups that promote the safety of whales, encouraging the government to put pressure on nations that encourage whaling, etc.) to "Save the Whales" without physically rescuing them. However, there is no way to win a war without soldiers from your country fighting, dying, and eventually defeating the enemy.

It is only reasonable to say that people who expect the sacrifices of others for something they support should be prepared to make sacrifices of their own.


plus you imply that the only legitimate way to support the war effort is by having family in the military or trying to push family members that direction (although I believe you normally tell folks to not push their belief system on their children, or is that only with respect to matters of faith?)
The only thing we're saying you *should* do is be willing to sacrifice your own son, daughter, or loved one for this conflict if you support it. Not everyone is going to be able to fight, or have children or close family members who can--that's not the point. But you should be *honestly* able to say that, yes, I would be willing to send my own son or daughter to Iraq to fight and, potentially, die. Would you view your daughter's death as an acceptable price to pay to achieve victory in this conflict?

dsmith421
06-10-2005, 05:55 PM
I think whoever wrote the subject line needs to read the article. The Congressman in question is a lunatic, but I don't see where he claims that the US's behavior in Iraq was as bad as Hitler's behavior against Jews in Europe. And it's not like the right wing doesn't have its share of morons--remember Falwell and Robertson blaming homosexuals and the ACLU for 9/11?

WVRed
06-10-2005, 06:30 PM
LOL- Scream Louder? If they did they may of ended up in GITMO with the feverous and hawkish rhetoric coming from the current administration. I have no doubt that we weren't too far from Marshall Law during the period after 9/11 to the Iraqi War. People were called Unpatriotic, Traitors, and Al Qaeda sympthizers; to name a few. A few Anti-War congress persons lost their house seat and a Georgia Senator was labeled a coward, despite having two legs blown off during Vietnam and he lost his job to another Republican chickenHawk. This is politics today, it's cutthroat.


I just wish everyone who supports the war would actually do their part and enlist. Or encourage their children to enlist. Of course there aren't really that many who are *that* invested in the Iraqi war.

I thought there was a similarity almost in these two posts. RBA mentions how people who disagree with the war are labeled unpatriotic, while RF suggests to those who support the war to enlist.

I agree with traderumor. If you feel called to serve your country, then you should enlist. If not, then dont do it.

Mutaman
06-10-2005, 06:40 PM
I think whoever wrote the subject line needs to read the article. The Congressman in question is a lunatic, but I don't see where he claims that the US's behavior in Iraq was as bad as Hitler's behavior against Jews in Europe. And it's not like the right wing doesn't have its share of morons--remember Falwell and Robertson blaming homosexuals and the ACLU for 9/11?

Talking about Chicken hawks and walking the walk, unlike many in this administration, Congressman Rangel was not only in the military, but served in Korea, was in combat, and is a genuine American hero, having been awarded the Bronze Star (I realize after the last campaign, such awards don't mean much.)

Its a great country where a poor kid can enlist in the army fight heroically for his country, come back and be elected congressman in New York City , and then gain the respect of democrats and republicans alike, so some guy at his typewriter can call him a "lunatic".

I've met Rangel and he is a most genuine, gracious, and sharp guy. He was opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning. Plus if you've ever seen him on Fox he is one of the few liberals that Hannity et al simply do not mess with. The quoted slur is totally out of line.

dsmith421
06-10-2005, 06:41 PM
My comments were hastily written and based on this article. I should not have made any comment about Rangel's career based on one article. For the most part, I agree with his comments.

Falls City Beer
06-10-2005, 06:48 PM
I thought there was a similarity almost in these two posts. RBA mentions how people who disagree with the war are labeled unpatriotic, while RF suggests to those who support the war to enlist.

I agree with traderumor. If you feel called to serve your country, then you should enlist. If not, then dont do it.

I'm glad it's a choice for you and traderumor. Hats off.

:)

Mutaman
06-10-2005, 06:51 PM
My comments were hastily written and based on this article. I should not have made any comment about Rangel's career based on one article. For the most part, I agree with his comments.

Fair enough. You attacked one of the very few politicians I have any use for, a guy who I think always speaks his mind, for better or for worse. Over the years I've been really overwhelmed by the hypocrisy from politicians. Rangel is a refreshing exception.

traderumor
06-10-2005, 11:59 PM
If the only way to effectively "save the whales" was to physically pull them to safety and rescue, then yes, this analogy would be appropriate. However, there are many ways (boycotting companies that harm whales, providing help and funds to groups that promote the safety of whales, encouraging the government to put pressure on nations that encourage whaling, etc.) to "Save the Whales" without physically rescuing them. However, there is no way to win a war without soldiers from your country fighting, dying, and eventually defeating the enemy.

It is only reasonable to say that people who expect the sacrifices of others for something they support should be prepared to make sacrifices of their own.


The only thing we're saying you *should* do is be willing to sacrifice your own son, daughter, or loved one for this conflict if you support it. Not everyone is going to be able to fight, or have children or close family members who can--that's not the point. But you should be *honestly* able to say that, yes, I would be willing to send my own son or daughter to Iraq to fight and, potentially, die. Would you view your daughter's death as an acceptable price to pay to achieve victory in this conflict?

You keep on changing the rules. It started out as the only way to truly support the war is to "encourage" a child to enlist. I answered that. Then, it turns out that the only way for a support of the war can be legitimate is if they or someone close to them serves. I guess those women who worked in factories to support the effort in WWII were not really supporting the war. Now, they have to die in the conflict before my support is legitimate. How can I be convinced when you're not sure what you mean?

RBA
06-12-2005, 12:19 AM
if ( show_doubleclick_ad && ( adTemplate & SKY_RIGHT ) == SKY_RIGHT ){placeAd('ARTICLE',commercialNode,4,'',true) ;}[/url]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/"]washingtonpost.com (http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v3|3295|0|0|%2a|o;14982268;0-0;1;7075352;255-0|0;10313930|10331826|1;;~sscs=%3fhttp://clk.atdmt.com/VON/go/wpnxxvon0300000427von/direct/01/2005653) .correction {margin-top:8px;padding-top:10px;margin-bottom:8px;border-bottom:1px solid #CCCCCC;padding-bottom:10px;font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:11px;color:#5A5A5A;}.correction strong {color:#CC0000;text-transform:uppercase;}


Antiwar Activist Bids a Son Farewell
Minnesota State Senator Never Asked Lorton Soldier to Refuse His Duty




By Brigid Schulte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 11, 2005; B02


Becky Lourey walked the nearly two miles in the sweltering heat of the afternoon yesterday from the Old Post Chapel at Arlington National Cemetery to the freshly dug grave in Section 60, No. 8,187, where her son, Matthew, was to be buried.

Lourey, one of the most liberal state senators in Minnesota, had been one of the most outspoken critics of the war in Iraq. She circulated a petition opposing the U.S. decision to go to war unilaterally. She publicly sparred with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.

And at a Democratic campaign rally last year, as Matthew was preparing to return voluntarily for a second tour of duty in Iraq, she railed against President Bush. "I don't want any more chicken hawks making these decisions, lying to us about the reasons," she said.

Yesterday, she walked slowly and deliberately behind a military band and the clip-clopping horses pulling a caisson with Matthew's coffin. She walked, along with Matthew's wife and nine of his brothers and sisters, their children and dozens of black-clad friends and mourners because, they said, it was one way they could honor him.

Army Chief Warrant Officer Matthew Scott Lourey, 40, of Lorton and East Bethel, Minn., died May 27, a day after his OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter came under small arms attack and crashed in Buhriz, just north of Baghdad, according to the Department of Defense.

Chief Warrant Officer Joshua Michael Scott, 28, of Sun Prairie, Wis., also died in the helicopter crash. Counting the two men -- members of the 1st Squadron, 17th Cavalry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, based at Fort Bragg, N.C. -- a total of 1,685 U.S. soldiers have died and nearly 13,000 have been wounded since military operations began in Iraq.

This had always been Becky Lourey's worst fear.

Yesterday, Matthew Lourey's father, Eugene, a one-time code breaker for the National Security Agency, sat graveside in a makeshift chair on the green artificial turf, shaking and sobbing into a handkerchief. He cried as officers presented a Bronze Star, Purple Heart and neatly folded flags to Becky Lourey and Matthew's wife, Lisa.

Matthew Lourey's father and brothers had asked him not to go back. He was one of the older pilots in the Army. He had been offered a cushy desk job. The war, they said, was all about oil and greed.

But Becky Lourey never asked him. "I knew he wouldn't be happy any other way," she said. She knew that once a soldier is called, it's the soldier's duty to serve. She is opposed to what she calls the "irresponsible leadership" of the commander in chief who made the call.

In e-mails Matthew sent her, he, too, described feeling uneasy about the war. But he loved the Army, she said. And he looked out for his men.

"Just because we opposed the war doesn't mean Matthew died in vain," Becky Lourey said. "Ever since he died, we've come to find out how many lives he saved, how many people he taught. He flew cover for Iraqis when they went to vote."

At a memorial service in Minnesota a few days ago, Matthew's wife, a captain in the Army's finance branch who works at the Pentagon, said flying was his dream.

He joined the Marines after high school. When they wanted him to be a cook, he quit, became a bush pilot and later signed up for the Army and flight school. He was so determined to stay in the sky that when high cholesterol might have grounded him, he became a vegetarian and marathon runner. "He died never sacrificing his dreams," his wife told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Military officers left the family alone with the silver coffin that soon would be lowered into the ground. Becky Lourey, a woman who bore four children and adopted eight, a politician who voted on a resolution to support the troops but not President Bush, wept.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001980_pf.html

RBA
06-12-2005, 12:44 AM
IMO, if you were/are for this War and able-bodied military age, you should step up to the plate and serve. At least for 1 year. I don't care if you think/feel you have better things to do.

GAC
06-12-2005, 11:52 AM
I remember someone asking GAC if he was going to encourage his kids to enlist when they turned 18 and getting a lot of silence. Rather telling.

NOTHING of the such was ever asked of me. And if it had, then I would have answered it.

I haven't even made one post in response to this thread topic (and didn't plain to), and yet you inject me into this converation just to take a "swipe" at me.

Totally childish and inappropriate on your part (but expected).

Do you think my parents, or any parents, during a time of war want their children drafted or running off to ANY war? Your analogies on here are absurb.

If one of my children, when they turn 18, decided to enter the military, then I will support them wholeheartedly. As a parent, my involvement woud be to help/advise them as to what field/schooling they would want to pursue.

I honorable served my country during a time of war. And I dont need you, or anyone else, trying to question that motivation, or that of my children (if they were to join).

Funny how you don't like anyone questioning your patriotism (which I've NEVER done). But you have no problem trying to do it, and then involve my chidren.

You're of the right age (early 20's) for joining the military. But I've heard you say before that you wouldn't join because you don't agree with this war. Personally, if the enemy was stormin' our beaches you'd still use the same reasoning IMO.

Redsfaithful
06-12-2005, 12:24 PM
Another one of your "telling" lies.

If it was a lie then it was unintentional. I'm fairly certain you've been asked about your children serving, but I'm not going to argue the point. If you say you haven't, then you haven't.


Funny how you don't like anyone questioning your patriotism (which I've NEVER done). But you have no problem trying to do it, and then involve my chidren.

I'm not the one constantly agitating for war and then refusing to sacrifice anything for it. Others, including yourself, are. I couldn't imagine thinking my country was in serious danger and standing idly by and doing nothing, and yet the vast majority of the right has better things to do than serve.

That doesn't mean that they're unpatriotic; it means that they obviously don't really think Iraq is nearly as vital as they like to maintain.

Sorry for "dragging" you into the discussion, although it looks to me like you entered it pretty willingly.

GAC
06-12-2005, 12:55 PM
If it was a lie then it was unintentional. I'm fairly certain you've been asked about your children serving, but I'm not going to argue the point. If you say you haven't, then you haven't.

Nice apology. :rolleyes:



I'm not the one constantly agitating for war and then refusing to sacrifice anything for it. Others, including yourself, are. I couldn't imagine thinking my country was in serious danger and standing idly by and doing nothing, and yet the vast majority of the right has better things to do than serve.

Comstantly agitating for war? You're ridiculous.

Refusing to sacrifice anything for it? What am I suppose to be sacrificing RF? My chldren's ages are 9, 13, 16? So explain what I am suppose to be sacrificing?

The military just doesn't take 50 yr old recruits anymore RF.

What are you sacficing RF? Oh, that's right- since you disagree with the war you aren't required to, or it's not needed.

You make this baseless accusation that people on the right don't/won't let their children join the military because of Iraq. Therefore, they are hypocrites. Got any solid evidence to back that up? Of course not.

Army recruitment is down. That is obvious. But you seem to think that is because those damn, hypocritical conservatives aren't letting their kids join. Are the liberal parents allowing/encouraging it? Do you see how absurb you're sounding? Obviously not.


it means that they obviously don't really think Iraq is nearly as vital as they like to maintain.

Yeah right - those recruiters only target/ship over to Iraq those kids of Democrats/liberals. They stamp the right-wingers 4F as soon as they enter the door. :lol:

I wonder then why our military historically votes so strong Republican/conservative then? Where's that strong military liberal vote? ;)



Sorry for "dragging" you into the discussion, although it looks to me like you entered it pretty willingly.

Only when you make baseless accusations, especially about my previous military career (that I have been open about, and that we've gone over before) and then you knowingly lie about it to take childish partisan shots. And then you try to say how I would/wouldn't react to my children if they were of age to join the military.

Must be nice to be able to sit over there in cozy Columbus knowing so much and doing your part. ;)

Redsfaithful
06-12-2005, 01:20 PM
What am I suppose to be sacrificing RF?

That's just it. You don't have to sacrifice anything, which is the problem. We shouldn't be going to war so casually.


But you seem to think that is because those damn, hypocritical conservatives aren't letting their kids join.

No, it's because no one seems to be letting their kids join, liberals and conservatives alike. It just seems a little more hypocritical of the conservative parents.

RedFanAlways1966
06-12-2005, 09:47 PM
I think whoever wrote the subject line needs to read the article. The Congressman in question is a lunatic, but I don't see where he claims that the US's behavior in Iraq was as bad as Hitler's behavior against Jews in Europe.

"It's the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country," Rangel told WWRL Radio's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. "This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed."

I wrote the subject line. The above is straight from the article. I think you are making an analogy that this has something to do with the U.S. military behaving like the SS deathcamp troopers. In no way has Rep. Rangel or this thread insinuated that at all. Rangel refers to what he perceives as a coverup for a fraudulant war. And he calls "this" (the war in Iraq and what he perceives a coverup of lies) as bad as the Holocaust ("six million Jews being killed" from his quote above and the coverup of it until Allied troops discovered it when advancing through Europe... as I am sure he means).

Rangel said it. He decided to use the Holocaust for comparison. That is shaky ground for any politician to stand upon. He is known for extreme behavior at times. IIRC he once threatened to punch a Repub Congressman in the halls of the U.S. Capitol and it made the national news. Some things probably should not be used for comparison. The Holocaust may make a lot of people's Top-3 List for these things.

WVRed
06-13-2005, 08:52 PM
IMO, if you were/are for this War and able-bodied military age, you should step up to the plate and serve. At least for 1 year. I don't care if you think/feel you have better things to do.

So by that same standard, what are your thoughts on those who are against the war dropping everything to go to DC for a month or so to protest?

It makes sense. Asking those who support the war to go off and fight, while those who dont support it takes a month long vacation from their jobs to picket out in front of the White House.:)

RBA
06-13-2005, 09:02 PM
So by that same standard, what are your thoughts on those who are against the war dropping everything to go to DC for a month or so to protest?

It makes sense. Asking those who support the war to go off and fight, while those who dont support it takes a month long vacation from their jobs to picket out in front of the White House.:)

I don't mean to be nasty. But that statement doesn't make any sense to me.

WVRed
06-13-2005, 09:14 PM
I don't mean to be nasty. But that statement doesn't make any sense to me.

If you are asking those who support the war to enlist and go off to war, then doesnt it make sense to ask those who dont support the war to protest it?

RBA
06-13-2005, 09:17 PM
If you are asking those who support the war to enlist and go off to war, then doesnt it make sense to ask those who dont support the war to protest it?

No, it doesn't make sense. (To me)

registerthis
06-14-2005, 09:28 AM
You keep on changing the rules. It started out as the only way to truly support the war is to "encourage" a child to enlist. I answered that.
Nope, that's not what I said. My exact quote was:

His point is that if people are going to actively and vocally support something that entails the sacrifice of others, they should be prepared to sacrifice themselves.
I then went on to say whether this means enlisting yourself, or encouraging or willing to have your child enlist...if you're expecting others to make this sacrifice, you should be able to do it yourself. That hasn't changed at all--it's a very simple concept, really.


Then, it turns out that the only way for a support of the war can be legitimate is if they or someone close to them serves.
Nope, once again I'm going to pull another quote that I made on this:

It is only reasonable to say that people who expect the sacrifices of others for something they support should be prepared to make sacrifices of their own.
It's an introspective moral question to ask yourself: Is this war worth my husband/wife/son/daughter/granchild dying for? Would I feel comfortable sending them into this battle with the (very real) possibility that they will be killed? If you answer 'no', THEN you cannot legitimately support this war. You're arguing the semantics of whether or not someone you're close to actually serves, which is not the crux of this argument.


I guess those women who worked in factories to support the effort in WWII were not really supporting the war. Now, they have to die in the conflict before my support is legitimate. How can I be convinced when you're not sure what you mean?
You know what I mean, and if you don't, you can go back and re-read this post (and posts by others) a few more times. Like I said, it's not a difficult concept.