Iraq War Costs hit home

[hoosier]

I ask Tex or anybody else...reverse the situation...

I think you just lost him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm pretty fiscally conservative, and generally tow the Republican party line. But Iraq is not going well. We can't be willingly entering wars

Attitudes about war really don't cut across conservative/liberal lines. There are plenty of isolationist, very conservative people who never saw an intervention they could agree with. Pat Buchanon, Bob Novak come to mind. They are old-school conservatives. Paleocons.

There are interventionist conservatives, neocons. There are a lot of liberal hawks who believe in intervening for humanitarian or other reasons.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm pretty fiscally conservative, and generally tow the Republican party line. But Iraq is not going well. We can't be willingly entering wars unless we are sure we are going to win, and win quick. Think Grenada. This thing has been a half assed operation from the moment they sold us the W.M.D. bill of goods.

War as a foreign policy tactic should be the very last resort.

Though i'm fairly liberal socially, i'm not so when it comes to foreign policy.

While i thought the WMDs was bogus....we still coulda done well. The whole thing went wrong when Rummy ignored MILITARY MEN who advised a higher troop level from the beginning.

If we are going to do it, let's not do it half assed. We shoulda come in..stomped them, laid down the law..no looting, etc...locked the country down...as well as possible. You gotta expect a few "Wolverines."

[Harlan Huckleby]

Though i'm fairly liberal

Now, I'm liberal, but to a degree
I want ev'rybody to be free
But if you think that I'll let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door and marry my daughter
You must think I'm crazy!
I wouldn't let him do it for all the farms in Cuba.

old Dylan song

[Gunakor]

There you go again, Gunakor.

It never ceases to amaze me how somebody can espouse liberal positions so routinely, yet then come out and state that a whole large segment of mankind just ain't suitable for democracy and self-rule.

If that's the case, how can you oppose, probably even ridicule the old "white man's burden" concept and the enlightened colonialism that went with it? If they are so pathetic--in your view--that somebody needs to rule them, then why not enlightened colonial powers like the British the first half of last century--or the Pax Americana scenario I talked about instead of tyrants of their own kind?

Doesn't it occur to you that your argument is self-defeating?

We are better suited to democracy because we have been practicing it for over 200 years. They might not be because they've been under a dictatorship their entire lives. I'm not saying that they don't deserve freedom. But democracy in Iraq will only work as long as the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Kurds are working together peacefully. I personally don't think they can for very long, thus civil war will break out and the Iraqi democracy will dissolve. These are not civil people. That is what I mean when I say democracy might not be suitable for Iraq, and they might not want it. So I argue whether or not we should be over there making that country a democracy. We certainly don't have the right to just because we have the strongest army or because we have the most freedoms.

[texaspackerbacker]

There you go again, Gunakor.

It never ceases to amaze me how somebody can espouse liberal positions so routinely, yet then come out and state that a whole large segment of mankind just ain't suitable for democracy and self-rule.

If that's the case, how can you oppose, probably even ridicule the old "white man's burden" concept and the enlightened colonialism that went with it? If they are so pathetic--in your view--that somebody needs to rule them, then why not enlightened colonial powers like the British the first half of last century--or the Pax Americana scenario I talked about instead of tyrants of their own kind?

Doesn't it occur to you that your argument is self-defeating?

Not to jump in--Gunakor can defend himself--but what's truly self-defeating is the belief that you can emancipate others. Think about it. Logically it just doesn't make any sense: "We should emancipate the Iraqis." What kind of emancipation would that be? While the "Let the Iraqis emancipate themselves" argument might just be an excuse for isolationism (which I'm not advocating as a viable alternative), in the end it is more consistent than the "enlightened imperialism" argument, which is really just a self-serving justification for power politics.

I'm sure glad nobody told LaFayette and the French that in the 1770s when their navy cut off the British retreat at Yorktown, forcing the main British Army to surrender or be pushed into the sea.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

There you go again, Gunakor.

It never ceases to amaze me how somebody can espouse liberal positions so routinely, yet then come out and state that a whole large segment of mankind just ain't suitable for democracy and self-rule.

If that's the case, how can you oppose, probably even ridicule the old "white man's burden" concept and the enlightened colonialism that went with it? If they are so pathetic--in your view--that somebody needs to rule them, then why not enlightened colonial powers like the British the first half of last century--or the Pax Americana scenario I talked about instead of tyrants of their own kind?

Doesn't it occur to you that your argument is self-defeating?

Not to jump in--Gunakor can defend himself--but what's truly self-defeating is the belief that you can emancipate others. Think about it. Logically it just doesn't make any sense: "We should emancipate the Iraqis." What kind of emancipation would that be? While the "Let the Iraqis emancipate themselves" argument might just be an excuse for isolationism (which I'm not advocating as a viable alternative), in the end it is more consistent than the "enlightened imperialism" argument, which is really just a self-serving justification for power politics.

I'm sure glad nobody told LaFayette and the French that in the 1770s when their navy cut off the British retreat at Yorktown, forcing the main British Army to surrender or be pushed into the sea.

Are you that dense? The french weren't leading us to our freedom.

Did i miss something or did the brave and valiant Iraqi freedom fighters ask for our assistance?

Oh, that is right..they did..they were called the kurds...and Bush ignored them.

[texaspackerbacker]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

The place where the analogy goes south, though, is that France was NOT the world's monopolistic super power at the time--more like the Cold War era with the French helping Britain's insurgent rebels and vice versa, just like America and the Soviet Union. There's no need for invitations to parties like those.

[Joemailman]

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Apr/16/br/hawaii80416058.html

Updated at 3:11 p.m., Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Ex-Schofield soldier denied health insurance post-Iraq

By GARANCE BURKE
Associated Press

FRESNO, Calif. — Forced to leave the combat zone after his two brothers died in the Iraq war, Army Spc. Jason Hubbard faced another battle once he returned home: The military cut off his family's healthcare, stopped his G.I. educational subsidies and wanted him to repay his sign-up bonus.

It wasn't until Hubbard, who had served in Iraq with his unit from Schofield Barracks, petitioned his local congressman that he was able to restore some of his benefits.

Now that congressman, U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, plans to join three other lawmakers in introducing a bill that would ensure basic benefits to all soldiers who are discharged under an Army policy governing sole surviving siblings and children of soldiers killed in combat.

The rule is a holdover from World War II meant to protect the rights of service people who have lost a family member to war.

"I felt as if in some ways I was being punished for leaving even though it was under these difficult circumstances," Hubbard told The Associated Press. "The situation that happened to me is not a one-time thing. It's going to happen to other people, and to have a law in place is going to ease their tragedy in some way."

Hubbard, 33, and his youngest brother, Nathan, enlisted while they were still grieving for their brother, Marine Lance Cpl. Jared Hubbard, who was 22 when he was killed in a 2004 bomb explosion in Ramadi.

At their request, the pair were assigned to the same unit, the Hawai'i-based 3rd Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division, and deployed to Iraq the next year.

In August, 21-year-old Cpl. Nathan Hubbard died when his Black Hawk helicopter crashed near Kirkuk. Jason Hubbard was part of the team assigned to remove his comrades' bodies from the wreckage.

Hubbard accompanied his little brother's body on a military aircraft to Kuwait, then on to California. He kept steady during his brother's burial at Clovis Cemetery, standing in dress uniform between his younger brothers' graves as hundreds sobbed in the heat.

But Hubbard broke his silence when he found his wife, pregnant with their second child, had been cut off from the transitional healthcare the family needed to ease back to civilian life after he was discharged in October.

"This is a man who asked for nothing and gave a lot," said Nunes, R-Calif., who represents Hubbard's hometown of Clovis, a city of 90,000 next to Fresno. "Jason is one person who obviously has suffered tremendously and has given the ultimate sacrifice. One person is too many to have this happen to."

Hubbard went to Nunes, who began advocating for the former soldier in December, after hearing the Army was demanding that he repay $6,000 from his enlistment bonus and was denying him up to $40,000 in educational benefits under the GI bill.

After speaking with Army Secretary Pete Geren, Nunes got the repayment waived, and a military health policy restored for Hubbard's wife.

But the policy mandated that she be treated at a nearby base, and doctors at the Lemoore Naval Air Station warned that the 45-mile trip could put her and the fetus in danger. Hubbard said doctors offered alternative treatment at a hospital five hours away.

Meantime, Hubbard and his 2-year-old son went without any coverage for a few months.

The Hubbard Act, scheduled to be introduced today, would for the first to detail the rights of sole survivors, and extend to them a number of benefits already offered to other soldiers honorably discharged from military service.

The bill — co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., and U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. — would waive payback of their enlistment bonuses, allow them to participate in G.I. educational programs, give them separation pay and access to transitional health care.

Meanwhile, Hubbard, his wife Linnea and his son Elijah, have permanent health coverage now that he is once again working as a Fresno County sheriff's deputy, the job he left in 2004 to serve in Iraq.

The Army will adopt to any changes in policy springing from the legislation, said Army spokesman Maj. Nathan Banks.

"Foremost the Army itself sympathizes with him for the loss of his brothers," Banks said. "We will do everything within our means to rectify this issue. He is still one of ours."

Hubbard's father, Jeff, said that resolving the family's bureaucratic difficulties would provide some comfort, but would not help lessen their pain.

"We're still very much deeply involved in a grieving process. We're pretty whacked," he said. "This doesn't relate back to the loss of our boys, it can't, but we would consider it a positive accomplishment."


I can only hope tha legislation being introduced will pass unanimously. Hard to believe our government would have treated any soldier this way, much less one in this situation.

[hoosier]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.

Who exactly is saying this? I haven't read or heard anyone critical of the war talking about what Iraqis are and arent' "cut out for." I think you're deliberately distorting the real point of the critique, which is that by definition you can't "give" someone their freedom (which is what the "white man's burden" view has always sanctimoniously claimed it could do). But of course, the invasion of Iraq, as you yourself have pointed out, was never really interested in freedom, unless you somehow think that freedom and power are the same thing.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

The place where the analogy goes south, though, is that France was NOT the world's monopolistic super power at the time--more like the Cold War era with the French helping Britain's insurgent rebels and vice versa, just like America and the Soviet Union. There's no need for invitations to parties like those.

Wow. Way to rewrite history. Of course we asked for their help. Almost all Euro countries supported the U.S...secretly then openly. Time for you to reread your history books.

I guess those treaties they signed with us in 78 aren't real. Nor was there declaration of war against GB real. Nor were the Spanish or Dutch declarations of war.

You shouldn't talk about history if you don't know it.

King George a tyrant...lol. THere is no way you can even begin to compare the ruler of england to Hussein. More importantly...which you conveniently fail to acknowledge is that the Iraqi people weren't trying to free themselves from Hussein...well, except for the Kurds..which again, you fail to acknowledge that Bush 1 didn't help out with.

[hoosier]

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

King George a tyrant...lol. THere is no way you can even begin to compare the ruler of england to Hussein. More importantly...which you conveniently fail to acknowledge is that the Iraqi people weren't trying to free themselves from Hussein...well, except for the Kurds..which again, you fail to acknowledge that Bush 1 didn't help out with.

Who's calling whom a tyrant?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

King George a tyrant...lol. THere is no way you can even begin to compare the ruler of england to Hussein. More importantly...which you conveniently fail to acknowledge is that the Iraqi people weren't trying to free themselves from Hussein...well, except for the Kurds..which again, you fail to acknowledge that Bush 1 didn't help out with.

Who's calling whom a tyrant?

fukin great movie.

Wierd thing..was just reading a tongue in cheek article on Bush..how he is suffering, like lincoln, from depression.

[hoosier]

fukin great movie.

Wierd thing..was just reading a tongue in cheek article on Bush..how he is suffering, like lincoln, from depression.

Yes.

Someone's trying to humanize Dubya, huh? J/k.

[texaspackerbacker]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

The place where the analogy goes south, though, is that France was NOT the world's monopolistic super power at the time--more like the Cold War era with the French helping Britain's insurgent rebels and vice versa, just like America and the Soviet Union. There's no need for invitations to parties like those.

Wow. Way to rewrite history. Of course we asked for their help. Almost all Euro countries supported the U.S...secretly then openly. Time for you to reread your history books.

I guess those treaties they signed with us in 78 aren't real. Nor was there declaration of war against GB real. Nor were the Spanish or Dutch declarations of war.

You shouldn't talk about history if you don't know it.

King George a tyrant...lol. THere is no way you can even begin to compare the ruler of england to Hussein. More importantly...which you conveniently fail to acknowledge is that the Iraqi people weren't trying to free themselves from Hussein...well, except for the Kurds..which again, you fail to acknowledge that Bush 1 didn't help out with.

Uh, Tyrone, nice post ........ but how exactly is what YOU said any different from what I said?