Jesse Macbeth, Jessie Macbeth

I just phoned the IVAW, they said Jessie has resighned his membership and is no longer a member. They are investigating if he was hired by someone.. No further info right now.

who is Jesse Macbeth

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


and my only post before this on another thread about it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Some of us don't speak military (or fake military).

http://www.ivaw.net

DT

The fraud Jesse MacBeth.

Irar Veterans Againt War, he was a member there and has resigned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

He was claiming veteran discrimination in a coffee shop incident in April 2004.

REMF DORK WANNABE - if he served at all.

http://arizona.indymedia.org/mail.php?id=17198

When people are convinced a course of action is wrong (Iraq) some will go to any lengths to fight it. In this case it's propaganda of War Crimes. All it takes is someone pouring a little bile in one ear and honey in the other to convince someone to go out and lie, lie, lie.

The problem is this is ammo for the Hannity's of the world who will turn around as use this for their own propaganda to smear someone like Murtha. And of course it diminishes the outrage over true war crimes.

This type of propaganda is as old as warfare itself.

they will go to any lengths and tell any lies. Including planting fakes that can later be used to discredit the movement.

Read up on Winter Soldier.

If true, then that is an even bigger scandal than Macbeth simply being a poseur.

Somehow, I don't think Rove or anyone remotely related to the White House is that dumb.

It could be someone from the blog world. But what sane person ruins his reputation, and gets his face and photo spread around the country in this fashion, just for a blogger?

I really have to wonder what made Macbeth do this. I really do.

Who in the hell would kick a soldier out of a coffee shop? Sounds like right wing propoganda bullshit.

This kid sounds like he has some mental issues. Either that, or he is doing somebody's dirty work by being a plant.

Either way, the story is bullshit.

Does a number of discredit jobs: 1) Actual War Crimes, 2) Anti-War Vets such as myself are discredited, 3) Right-to-War Crowd will harp on this being a sloppy Leftist plot and declare it shows the "Left's" hatred of the Serive (and servicemembers) by showing such an obvious fake.

despite all the problems because they *really wanted* it to be true.

This is the worst scenario it takes the emphasis off the true war crimes. The War itself and the recent incidents.

One can let their desire of proof of malfeasance override the examination of the facts in evidence.

It was suspicious from the outset, and the right is baiting the board
with ghost stories to weaken and reduce trust. I think most persons
with any military exposure did not even need to look at the video,
as the stills showed a guy not capable of getting in the rangers.

And I think the verdict is still out on the Leopold story.

on this thread alone. The idea that is emerging is it doesn't matter if Jessie's story is a complete fabrication, the FACT that other atrocities have occurred is enough for us to listen to and give credence to his argument. That sort of thinking leads to the "IF I want it to be true bad enough it is True" and the universe doesn't work that way.

Remember My Lai?

People in the military are taught about it. I think we've learned something from that tragedy.

justification. Everytime anyone says a massacre was committed we are to belive them? I'm not going to get into a back and forth, but what is at stake here is big. People are dying and an incident like MacBeth hinders real progress.

IMO, he was a plant to discredit the IVAW, True Anti-War Vets, reporters who may break war crimes, and in a subtle move liberals. Because the right will be able to use this to show how little the left thinks of servicemembers by trotting out this obvious fake.

However, there have been quite a few civilian deaths, and people with a lot of firepower at their disposal and under constant threat of random death have been known to go off.

The real stories seem to be more trigger-happy events instead of the planned brutality of knocking off family members. Still, there are those Seymour Hersch reports from Abu Ghraib of raping kids in front of their parents.

The fact is that the very nature of an unprovoked attack against a comparatively defenseless country sets the stage for who knows what.

The only people who can really be expected to nail this as a fake are people who are intimately familiar with what Army Rangers and their uniforms are supposed to look like. Given everything else that we know has happened, why should anybody else suspect something off-kilter?

Thinking of that fake Kaloogian photo, it's reassuring to know that bullshit is going to get outed quickly these days. Thank heavens for that, at least.

Do you personally believe incidents like Haditha are common practice ala Luzon and other previous Wars or more aberrant incidents? Are these incidents standard operating procedure or due to the a mix of bad ingredients?

I do not believe that US Forces are operating as they have done in previous wars (Seminole Wars, Philippines, etc). But that does not mean many innocents haven't been slaughtered by 1000lb J-Dams and 155mm Howitzer shells as well as .50 cal rounds flying around the area. But, US Forces are not routinely going into small villages along the Euphrates and just killing everyone as a mission.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I read all the threads, and I can only recall a few posts wherein someone totally bought into what he was saying. I was in a mode of... not sure, he's aligned with IVAW, etc., and googled him to find out more. I'm pretty shocked at people here who have attempted to chastise DUers for buying into his scam, when in fact, it was quite the opposite. Why are some people pushing that idea, when it was clear that it was not the case?

You stated you read all the threads. I admit I did not. The ones I read had the real fire and brimstone screeching at those not believing his story. I did say many not all, perhaps some or a very loud few would have been more accurate.

I showed the original thread to a co-worker who is a legitimate Ranger vet, and the string of cuss words that came from his mouth was pretty intense, even for him. He was offended that the guy was impersonating a Ranger, but was really offended that anyone would think "that sloppy fuck" (his words) would ever be a Ranger.

Here's a link to the Pima County Superior Court search tool: http://www.cosc.co.pima.az.us/record_search

Edit: He was two years old, at the time.

For what its worth.

I mean....MacBeth?

Some people will believe anything...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Many here swallowed it all.

This is like lethal injection ... no swallowing needed. And it appears the effort was entirely on the IVAW part ... "Trust but Verify". Piece of advice - When it begins to sound like a bad Rambo movie ..... it isn't true - ya' dump f*ucks!

for JESSE ADAM MACBETH involving violation of court orders of protection, assault in the fourth degree:

http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/cfapps/linx/calendar/GetCrim...

DT

On top of Credit Card fraud in Arizona 2004: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

after verifying as many facts as they can. (If they cannot be sure if he is for real or not they should just say that, but at least say that that he does not represent them and they don't vouch for his story.)

Good approach.

(Including his detractors) into thinking he was endorsed by IVAW.

Classic psy-op. Pretending to be a "tar baby" as Rather (or Tony Snow) would put it.)

IVAW didn't have to embrace him or know who he was -- he impersonated a representative of IVAW.

(as opposed to just a member -- this is why they should be careful w/ credentials because the US is rife with people who buy camos and say "I'm a vet!")

than getting in front of a story that turns out to be wrong.

Just sayin.

(to a segment of DU, not to you.)

As a former social worker (and as a current teacher) I've dealt with lots of people--some marginal, some well adjusted sociopaths--who lie so convincingly they start to believe their own BS. Macbeth's account was so far over the top, so out of whack with even the worst horror stories I've heard from actual vets, I just couldn't believe it whole cloth. Of course I detest this war so much I tried to keep an open mind--maybe he was just exaggerating actual atrocities, maybe he was too freaked out from the trauma of serving there that his mind was constructing nightmares...

But after reading the words of several debunkers here on DU, I'm going back to my first impression. He's a sad guy with some perceptional issues and probably not even a combat vet; possibly using a fake name. I doubt Rove or associates are in on this--it's not their MO. But somebody was certainly using this delusional guy to further their own anti-IVAW agenda. A crude smear too marginal to matter. We should expect a few more between now and November.

now the wrath of vets countrywide is going to rain down on his pathetic little wannabe head. LOL Poor schmuck. LOL

I trust you'll forgive me if I don't take your post at face value.

I've been trying to call them on and off for over 24 hours, and after getting their voicemail each time (which states that they're usually in the office Tuesdays and Thursdays), a person finally picked up this morning and verified that Jesse Macbeth did indeed resign his membership in IVAW. They haven't responded to emails that some of us have sent, nor have they posted any sort of disclaimer about this on their website.

DT

I had to send them a copy of my DD-214.

I would hope IVAW takes the same precautions.

...if you go to their site and click on the Join link, you'll be able to see the membership form that people can sign and submit. No other documentation is required.

DT

I hope they change their procedures to avoid these jerks in the future.

I wonder if the guy has any service at all.

If you don't check up on people, individuals like the Jesse/Jessie Con-artist will burn you.

see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

DT

"critical thinking" means to a lot of people. It seems to mean "criticizing people on the other side of the political/ideological/class divide and disbelieving anything they say."

But those are the things that the conscious application critical thinking skills is precisely *less* important for in some ways: One's prone to subject whatever the 'enemy' says to withering criticism and instinctively distrust it--sometimes "criticism" is even wrongly taken to mean "critique", which is also a problem.

But it's the stuff we *want* to believe that needs the conscious application critical thinking skills.

This kid goes and says he helped kill something like 220 civilians; because he says it in order to say bad things about a war and a president we dislike, some think he's some sort of hero, instead of a depraved, weak-willed mass-murderer. Ask if he should be imprisoned, some answer 'no', he was just following orders. Uh-huh. Then when it turns out he's not really a depraved, weak-willed mass-murderer--just a simple snake-oil salesman, or perhaps tetched--people defend him and try to show he's really as evil to the core as he wanted us to believe. Mind boggling.

whatever this online phenomenon was, snake-oil salesman or whistle-blower, it was put down with amazing speed, which is the scariest element in the whole episode.

There is a statment.

http://www.ivaw.net/

Now i don't have to take just anyone's word for it.

plant, just someone who can't cope. I do a lot of work with PTSD sufferers and MacBeth certainly looked the part with the shallow affect and the almost dissociated nature of his speech, both of which are common during the numbing phase of PTSD. I think he is in need of compassion, not bashing.

then perhaps compassion would be in order. As there isn't, and in fact a whole lot of evidence to the contrary, I'm content to say that he's a damned liar who's done serious damage to the anti-war movement.

we will only believe what is comfortable. If it's hard to imagine that women and children die daily in Iraq at the hands of our troops we can simply decide it's not true, right?

are the only ones who come forward, I will not believe it at all.

But his message of the holocaust rings true. Look at the site to see what we have done:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=1...

no matter who comes forward and no matter how much proof they furnish. For example: how many women and children have died in Iraq and were they ALL terrorists? I bet you don't even care enough to know.

I supported the war wholeheartedly. I worked two six month contracts over there. But I have gotten digusted with the whole thing. Yes, I find it tragic that children and innocents are dying over there. They always do in war.

But that does not mean I am going to pile on the Army with everybody else when a story like this pops up.

Maybe I'll hold on to what I believe about our troops until a real spokesman comes forward, not a fake one like Jesse MacBeth.

Being against the war does not mean I have to see our own troops with disgust.

How many have died? How many died in My Lai massacre? Was it all just another urban legend, like the Holocaust?

A lot of those children are being blown up by car bombs also. When I was in the Army, car bombs were not part of the US inventory.

Innocents die in war. When shit gets dropped out of the sky that is hard to run from, it does not always go to where it is supposed to. I am not saying that Iraqis aren't dying.

I just do not believe that they are being delibertely targeted by American troops.

based on treasonous lies. I never implied you "said that." I simply asked reasonable questions about Iraq, which you failed to answer. How many children died of car bombs and how many die from U.S. gun-fire? It's a reasonable question to someone who claims to have been in Iraq.

There is no scoreboard in the lobby with a running total. I do not know how children have been killed by car bombs. Too many if you ask me. How many from American gunfire and bombs, I do not know. Too many in that case also.

I am not saying that there is not any blood on American hands. It is the claims of a systematic targeting of civilians that I do not believe.

I worked with a security company. Body counts were not out stock and trade.

On that point; I agree. Our hands are too bloodly and it hasn't been a war for a very long time. "Occupation of Iraq" is a better term. If the idiots in DC don't kill them all first, I bet most of our troops will vote Democrat when they return.

despite our little online dust up, I believe we have found some common ground.

It's a very big ten in DU, where even Republicans control which threads attain high visibility on certain days. Nice debating you Scooby. Your ability to detach emotionally for higher analysis is commendable.

Nobody is saying Americans have not spilled innocent blood. This happens in all wars, and is one of the great tragedies of war that can be minimized, but not avoided. I've not been to Iraq, but lots of soldiers in my unit have, and would it surprise people here to learn that none of them were on orders to routinely blow away Iraqi civilians whenever they felt like it? Hell, some of them spent 18 months in Iraq, and never had to pull the trigger once. Not once.

My greatest fear, where the anti-war movement is concerned, is that hate for Bush has slopped over and become hate for soldiers in general. Too many people are eager, indeed all too willing, to believe that we're all a bunch of monsters running around out there, ventilating skulls and sucking the brains out through the hole.

Our armed forces have been asked to do the near-impossible, and most of them are working very hard to avoid unnecessary deaths.

Sadly, those fighting U.S. forces in Iraq, tend not to feel the same.

Innocents die in war. When shit gets dropped out of the sky that is hard to run from, it does not always go to where it is supposed to. I am not saying that Iraqis aren't dying.

I've seen this voiced as the "shit happens" excuse for casualties. Pukes will then say that the deaths are tragic but we must push on and other such bullshit.

From my point of view, I agree that innocents will die in any war so that should be the PRIMARY question right from the start! "Will this war be worth the cost in lives?" Line up a thousand children and have a soldier with a pistol and a big box of ammo walking behind them, putting a bullet in each and every head. Now what goal could be worth that? Saving the lives of a thousand other children? Saving the lives of a million? Making a fuckload of money for your friends and showing daddy you're a hard man, just like him?

you better be careful telling hard to handle truths around here.

I have had my fill of this war myself. I said innocents die in war because, yes, shit does happen. And yes it is tragic, but it is not the same thing as troops running around lining up civilians and targeting them.

I have had my fill of this war myself. I said innocents die in war because, yes, shit does happen. And yes it is tragic, but it is not the same thing as troops running around lining up civilians and targeting them.

For all practical purposes, it's the same thing. If I fire my gun in the air on New Year's, there's a chance the bullets could hit someone on the way down. If they do and the cops figure it out, I'm probably up for manslaughter. Cause and effect, action and responsibility. If I'm a stupid teenager throwing bricks off the overpass, I may not have targeted a specific individual but my actions could result in injury or death. I would be held acconutable.

As to the part about our troops intentionally targeting civilians, it appears that's happened in a few cases. But we'll ignore that for the sake of this argument. No, our guys aren't picking individuals out of a crowd, looking them in the eye, and blowing their heads off. All the same, they're still dead. "Nothing personal, it's just business." That seem like a good answer?

I just hate how Republicans and other war supporters use that phrase as a means of dismissing the dead. "Eh, what can you say? Shit happens."

Incidentally, nice Faye pic.

You're the one here who seems to only be able to believe what he's comfortable with.

It's obvious now Jesse MacBeth was a fraud. The fact that was discovered quickly (after the video, although he apparently had the IVAW going for awhile) is not a bad thing. It's a good thing.

The people who argued that MacBeth was a fraud didn't make those arguments because they don't like to confront uncomfortable truths. They made the arguments because they had reason to believe MacBeth was a fraud.

Because I believe MacBeth is a fraud doesn't mean I'm going to reject credible reports of atrocities in Iraq. I'm very concerned about this incident in Haditha. It looks like Marines are going to be charged with crimes, and that there are going to be public hearings on the incident. I'm not unwilling to accept that a massacre occurred there. But what is being alleged there is not based on the testimony of a fraudulent soldier.

And because I am able to think critically doesn't mean I discount My Lai or the Holocaust, for crying out loud.

and because I remain open-minded on the topic without real proof doesn't make me evil or wrong, especially since I never categorically claim the fool is telling the truth. Truths that you choose to accept don't make you wrong or bad but we must always remain alert to why we choose to believe certain things.

This is my biggest beef with the anti-war front: they are uncomfortable with the idea that the U.S. soldiery is, in spite of it all, still a pretty good group of pretty good people who simply want to do good in the world. Whatever anyone thinks of Bush or the stinking politicians in Washington, why must this translate into disdain for the troops? Most troops are good people who just want to do their duty and go the hell home. Maybe you get a few bad apples here and there, but if you have a barrel filled with 500 apples and 10 of them are truly rotten, does that mean the whole barrel should be thrown out?

you haven't been on this board very long, or you would not have made that statement. Many, many people on the anti-war front have family members in Iraq. Many are themselves either active duty or veterans. Most do NOT blame the troops. They blame the lying war-profiteers who sent them there. The same ones who support every war but never fight in them. Your statement is a rightwing talking point with absolutely NO basis in fact.

Otoh, the rightwing so-called 'troop supporters' are anything but that from my observations. It is the rightwing who refuse to acknowledge the total lack of concern for the troops in Iraq by this administration and the Republican Party and the constant cutting of their benefits. It was the anti-war front that forced the Bush administration to at least put off their budget-cutting of veterans benefits, eg. It is the 'left', many of them veterans themselves, who end up taking care of homeless vets, some even taking them into their homes long after all the flag-waving is over.

I see lots of flag wavers on the right, but very little support for the troops, and when these hyped-up wars are over, it is not the Right who, years afterwards when they really need support, are there to help. It is not the right who fights for benefits, or who fights to get answers about those affected by DU, Agent Orange and all the other horrors the troops are forced to endure ~ it is in fact, the right who DENY these illnesses.

I am totally sick and tired of that nonsensically statement ~ as if every person who insists that this country only fight wars that are absolutely necessary is some kind of wacko, commie leftie.

People who oppose unnecessary wars are true patriots since that is one of the principles laid down by the founding fathers of this democracy. It is those who blindly rah-rah every war who are unpatriotic, imo. They care nothing for the ideals laid out in this country's most important documents.

The term 'ant-war' itself is a wrong term. What most patriotic Americans are 'anti' is wrong wars, wars that are unnecessary, which is why they are lied about. Just wars, wars to defend this country are not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a war based on lies. That is un-American!

Welcome to DU btw ~ and sorry to rant ~ but that mantra is getting a little old so I guess I'm glad you're here. Maybe you'll learn some truth about Americans who love their country and why they object to warmongering for profit and the waste of the lives of the troops they love many times their own children. I do not know why Democrats have allowed this to stand for so long, but it's time to put an to these myths created by chicken-hawks like Rush Limbaugh who himself wasn't able fight in a war he supported because of an anal cyst!

a few months back to bolster troop levels. He's now letting criminals enlist in the military.

Are you saying that his veracity is unimportant? If so then I guess you are correct..."we will only believe what is comfortable".

Reality-based indeed.

You want to believe anything that fits your world view.

Many of us prefer the truth, as uncomfortable as it may be.

They can't handle the truth, so if they discredit the messenger, they discredit the message. History will look upon this ongoing massacre of inocents, and make the Nazi era look like a tea party.

is skewed by time. 20th Century Wars use to rack up the dead in the tens of millions - and while hundreds of thousands is a humanitarian disaster it is exponentially better than our past slaughters.

There have been worse massacres. There is no way this is close to the Nazis, or the Armenian Genocide, or what the US did in The Phillipines Insurrection or during the Seminole Wars.

But, you're argument basically breaks down to: If I see something that is "Evil" in my opinion then ANY AND ALL METHODS I use to combat what I call evil are acceptable.

That stance can then be turned around and used by your opposistion. So, if for example, one thinks liberals are bad for the nation you could steal elections in 2000 and 2004 to keep them out of power.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Liars like Macbeth do not help the cause. Just makes it that much harder to get the truth out.

He'd best keep a much lower profile for the nonce.

Nice Faye by the way...

Beautiful, independent, deadly with pistol, and since she had been cryogenically frozen for a lifetime, NO IN LAWS!

seals and green barets in the deep south but they miss all the easy service related questions when they run into REAL veterans like me. For example, I might ask: what was the highest paygrade you attained or if it's ex-Navy they intend to mimic, I can sometimes snag them up with sargent vs. petty officer conversation.

Snipers, SEALs and Green Berets over beers in a bar. Those only wind up looking like idiots when they get subtlely called out and trip over details.

Guys like Jesse MacBeth are completely different, though. They try to pass themselves off as Rangers or Special Forces to gain something. He wanted to besmirch our soldiers and tried to gain legitimacy by posing as a Ranger.

like the rest of us, you have no tangible proof of anything.

he had a picture in a Ranger costume (it is only a uniform when a real Ranger wears it) on his wall and called himself a Ranger in the interview. Said that his Ranger unit was killing innocent people in Fallujah.

May be I am wrong, but to me it seems he tried to use his fake Ranger status to lend credibility to his story.

I really don't understand why anyone is defending this Macbeth person. Part of what's supposed to make us different from The Other Side is our ability to face truths when they present themselves, even truths we don't like. If we play all the usual obfuscation games The Other Side plays, we're making ourselves just like them. Again, with all the REAL Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who are against the war, why do we need to invent fake ones??

what bothered me most about the whole episode is the way it got quickly shut down, just like Big Brother wants...

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

~ Thomas Paine ~


"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

--- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

and last but certainly not least:

"The trouble about fighting for human freedom is that you have to
spend so much of your life defending sons of bitches; for oppressive
laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be
stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

--- H.L. Menken

the unit he claims to have been in Fallujah with was at Ft. Benning on the date of the supposed massacre.

He is currently a fugitive.

He exercised his free speech. Free Speech does not mean a person's word has to be believed.

if he's a liar, prove it with solid evidence, not the folly I've seen online so far.

No Army soldier, even the freshest recruit down at Ft. Jackson--home of the non-combat MOS--would make the simple mistakes that were made in this photo. You ask for evidence? It has been given!

but that's not evidence, it's simply a means to impugn his character. There are several technical reason the beret might appear inverted, when it's not. Hold a sign up to a mirror and you'll see how the problem arises. I'll say this just one more time in my role as Devil's advocate:

The trouble about fighting for human freedom is that you have to
spend so much of your life defending sons of bitches; for oppressive
laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be
stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

--- H.L. Menken

the most outlandish claims and it's up to you to disporve them? Sorry, you don't understand how reasoning works. I can claim that 11th dimensional gremlins have imprisoned the right and honorable Bush and Cheney and embarked on 9/11 and the Wars and offer little in the way of evidence other than my testimony and then declare you disprove them. He has to PROVE his claims, I do not have to DISPROVE them.

And before you respond, yes thousands of innocent civilians have been killed. That is war and that is why you never go to war no matter how noble the reasons.

innuendo seems to work just fine.

Like most wars (re:massacres) this one is fraught with propaganda. It's just now, the Internet is more powerful than the printing press and Mimeograph machine and all sorts of disinformation can be circulated rapidly.

I want the war to end. The question is are any and all methods acceptable to reach your goals?

especially if it's no longer a war but instead an illegal, unpopular occupation. I do not, however, subscribe to the Machiavellian notion that the end justifies the means.

And that is my problem with Jessie. His actions do not aid those who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan and wish the war to end. His actions do not aid those who wish this regime to be brought low and removed and imprisioned for their actions.

Please see my post 106 for more.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The only way to make it end again is to discuss the horrors that occur in Iraq in detail, as we point out, once again, how stupid war is at the core. Whatever triggers anti-war discussion serves the greater good for society.

They hijacked the little box in the den Ozzy did you tell Harriet? Maybe the Beaver had something to do with it.

Beaver, come off that field and tell us what you did to the TV!

"And before you respond, yes thousands of innocent civilians have been killed. That is war and that is why you never go to war no matter how noble the reasons."

I can think of a few things a lot worse than war. Like slavery. It took the bloodiest war in U.S. history to end slavery and obliterate the Southern slave economy, down to the bedrock. It also took war to end the Nazi nightmare and halt the 'Final Solution' to the 'Jewish Question'.

Yes, war is a miserable, brutal, costly, bloody business. No man should rushy giddy into war. But neither should a man shy from it, when it becomes absolutely necessary. I'm not saying the current war is necessary. But I hesitate to draw absolutes, based purely on the current war.

I am also open-minded enough to admit that (perhaps) there is a chance that in two or three generations, provided that Iraq is a liberal democracy and that many of her sister nations have followed suit, even this nasty business we've gotten ourselves into might yield a few roses.

If Christopher Hitchens, no Bush robot he, can support it....?

Wars are best evaluated in the long view of history. Many have been fought, some necessary and some not. We'll be old men and women before we know if this current war accomplished anything of merit.

help. The very fact that he does support this war is enough reason to oppose it! He's nothing but a blowhard and he obviously has his own reasons for wanting to send others to fight in a war which he has so far been unable to explain the reasons for. But then he's not very good at explaining anything these days.

War is a sign of failure ~ if Bankers and Industrialists had not supported the Hitler regime, there would have been no need for that war. Most wars are and always have been about greed and power.

The only time a war is justified is if a country is attacked. Iraq was attacked they did not start this war, therefore they are justified in defending their country from pillaging of their natural resources, the killing of their citizens and the installation of a puppet government that will sell their country down the river. There is absolutely no doubt that this country is the invader, the pillager, the colonialist, everything this country's founders fought a revolution against.

Nobody but the dead know whether all these things people talk about are worth dying for or not. And the dead can't talk. So the words about noble deaths and sacred blood and honor and such are all put into dead lips by grave robbers and fakes who have no right to speak for the dead. If a man says death before dishonor he is either a fool or a liar because he doesn't know what death is. - Johnny Got His Gun

Every war has at it's base the acquisition of territory. No war has ever been necessary, that's why leaders always have to couch their base reasons for going to war in some noble cloak, "Remember the Maine!", "Halt the Hun, the Womanhood of Belgium is at stake.", Allah, God, Amon-Ra, whomever wills it.

Slavery wasn't the true issue of the Civil War, the control of the economy of the South and the rich land owners fear of Northern Dominance. Black/White relations in America have always been used to separate poor whites and blacks from uniting against the control the rich and powerful have exercised over them.

In WWI, the 3rd Republic of France wanted to regain the land lost to Prussian (afterward the German Empire) and revenge the "insult" of the Prussians using Versailles to crown the German Emperor in 1871. The Prussians were angry over the French conquest of "their land" by the French Armies of Napoleon. And the question goes back further to the Free Country of Burgundy and the Duchy of Burgundy, one supported the Hapsburgs one was absorbed by the French Crown. And you could follow this back to the division of Charlemagne's Empire in 814.

The Cathars in Southern "France" (Languedoc) were some of the most pious peoples in History actually following the teachings of Christ. So-called Saint Dominic tried to convince them to follow the path of the corrupted Church of Rome but they declined. This angered Dominic and lead to the creation of the Medieval Inquisition which was zealous enforced by Dominicans. And then angered that the "Heretics" wouldn't convert the French King Philip II Augustus (he of the Lion in Winter and the Pope Innocent III decided a 20 year campaign of murder and destruction was needed. And of course, the lands then went into the control of nobles who fought in the "Crusade" and the Crown and Church.

Look at the battles of Israel, Ireland, and Kashmir. The all trace their roots back to control of the land and some empire or ruler who through fire and sword controlled the land, but which now a new generation struggles to gain freedom.

And as for Hitchens, "You can always hear the people who are willing to sacrifice somebody else's life. They're plenty loud and they talk all the time. You can find them in churches and schools and newspapers and legislatures and congress. That's their business. They sound wonderful. Death before dishonor. This ground sanctified by blood. These men who died so gloriously.
They shall not have died in vain. Our noble dead.
Hmmmm.
But what do the dead say?- Johnny Got His Gun

and prove he WAS NOT in the Army, I tried to prove that he HAD been in the Army on another thread dealing with this. His name is not on any DOD register and there is no .mil profile (a requirement for every single member of the military since 2001) for him.

All I say is that his words should not be hushed in a free society. Run-away patriotism fueled the Third Reich.

if he had stood in a corner and said, "Americans are slaughtering Iraqi civilians by the hundreds!" Not that I would have believed him, but Free Speech and all that.

I do have a problem with him doing an interview claiming to have been there and claiming to have taken part in the killing and going so far as to naming the unit that supposedly committed these atrocities.

See the difference?

must we call them all "soldiers" or are many of them civilians? I also refuse to buy into calling an occupation based on lies a "war."

and you know what? the END DOES JUSTIFY THE MEANS if it ends the evils of an illegal occupation, which mainly breeds terrorism.

Please listen to the speech, especially questions at the end on this site and get back to me on fixing the problems:
http://feingold.senate.gov/

if poserers and liars like Jesse MacBeth are the ones carrying forth the message. They make liars out of the rest of us. They make the anti-war segment look inept and not worthy of listening to.

Let's suspend reality for a moment and pretend that Jesse MacBeth had actually served in the Army. Let's say he was cook and saw a couple of troops take a couple of insurgent prisoners out behind the mess tent an shoot them.

Now he comes on the internet and instead of saying, "When I was a cook in the Army, my First Sergeant and Platoon Sergeant took a couple of insurgents out, bound their hands and shot them in the head." He says he was a non-existent "Special Forces Ranger" who served in a unit that was never where he said it was and killed two hundred civilians himself.

The story of two prisoners being shot would have been horrific enough, no one would have slammed him for being a cook and things would have gone from there.

Instead, nothing that he says now will be taken seriously. Even if he stopped exagerating and told the truth.

Depending on liars to carry forth a message with lies is only going to hurt us.

Well said, scoody boo.

There comes a point when winning and losing in an ideological battle ceases to have meaning. Then, only principle remains. And if those opposed to the war are willing to sell out on principle, with the only logic being that the war must be stopped by all means and at all costs, then the result is almost certainly going to be failure because the voting public will conclude that everyone against the war is as much of a fraud, or a bigger fraud, than Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld.

I myself admit to mixed feelings. The part of me that thinks like Christopher Hitchens, thinks maybe it is worth it, in spite of Bush and Co. The part of me that is pragmatic thinks it was a bridge too far. My inner idealist and inner pragmatist share uneasy quarters, as you all may well guess.

I suppose military folk take this more seriously than most, because it is a punishable offense for any of us to place even a single unauthorized ribbon on our uniforms, to say nothing of parading around in a getup like Macbeth. I read in Army Times a year or two ago about an FBI agent who has made it his hobby busting civilians and military personnel alike; people who masquerade as something they are not, either by wearing unauthorized ribbons or badges or by being in a uniform at all. He got started busting fake Medal Of Honor producers and procurers, and branched out from there, with the help of several current and retired military personnel. He told some interesting and shameful stories.

No doubt the Macbeth hoax is making him smile and shake his head. Just one more addled civilian who thought it would be fun to dress up and "play Army". Macbeth deserves to be hauled in and have the book thrown at him just like any other military fake.

he played.

I'm not sure why people are going on an on about this incident. The story was debunked here on DU as soon as it was posted by DU members who are veterans themselves and others.

So, why all the discussion about an incident that is over and done with and that in the scheme of things and considering the daily carnage in Iraq and Afganistan, is a non-story. Why not more concern about the reality we are dealing with? To be honest, I find it very strange indeed.

I'm very glad he was lying because it means that more than 200 Iraqi civilians he claimed to have killed, are not dead.

But I don't see how this is a free speech issue. The guy was given a platform. He spoke. He exposed himself as a fraud. He lost credibility and most people quickly disassociated themselves from him. I don't see Big Brother in here anywhere. I don't understand why you expect people to continue to support this guy even after he's proven a fraud. If it's because of the Menken quote, well, I don't think MacBeth is the kind of son of a bitch Menken was talking about.

and you'll see he meant sons of bitches worse than minor liars, like terrorists.

He snatched a platform and it was rapidly snatched from him by over-zealous people.

I personally don't "support him" but I do support the right of Iraq veterans to speak out against the war and comments like the ones on this board make them less apt to tell their stories.

The quotes are nice and all, but there's no reason to defend MacBeth. There are mountains of evidence showing that his story doesn't add up and just what exactly is the evidence that he's not a fraud? He said so? Is there any evidence that he is who he says he is?

I'm not saying these warcrimes aren't happening. I believe they are. Maybe not on the scale that he claims, but they do exist. All I'm saying is there is plenty of proof that this "soldier" is a fucking liar.

I have nothing against those guys. I spent a year in Iraq. I saw the shit going on over there.

There is plenty for a soldier to be pissed about.

The accusations put forwrd by a guy who was not not even in the military for a single day of his life is what I have a problem with.

It's not what Macbeth is saying as much as the fact that he is saying it under totally false pretenses.

I've yet to see proof that he was not in Iraq. As for uniforms, we never had to "earn" them in the Navy. They issued mine in '72 and I then learned the differences between a "conflict" and a "war." BTW, after discharge I wasn't too picky about wearing a P-coat with blue jeans. Some Nam vets had flags upside down on the backs of their field jackets. Many wars in US history are unlike modern confrontations for profit; WW1 and WW2 are good examples.

A photo taken while wearing beret, BDU coat, and there is a flag in the background? That's pretty much stock "me in the service" stuff, the kind of thing you get taken when you are STILL IN THE SERVICE. I would perhaps buy your argument if this were just some photo of the guy hanging out with buddies, and he happened to have a BDU coat on. But the photo in question is clearly an amateurish attempt to replicate the qualities of the real thing. And I am sorry, I know of no Ranger or Special Forces personnel, current or prior, who would ever make some of the mistakes this guy made, like wearing the flash over the wrong eye. Even if playing around. Rangers and Special Forces are too hooah for that. Anyone lacking the military bearing to at least get the beret right, is 99% likely to lack the military bearing to be a Ranger, or Special Forces.

SIMPLY HOLD A SIGN UP TO A MIRROR TO SEE WHAT I MEAN. THAT PHENOMENON CAUSES THE VIDEO INVERSION ISSUES. Some cameras compensate for image inversion but fail when it's a picture of a picture as in the video.

Windows platform media players typically use a system known as DirectShow to decode video files. As part of this system special filters can be installed, in order to handle additional video formats or add effects during decoding, for example. Unfortunately some filters can have undesired effects, such as inverting the video or commandeering DivX decoding from the genuine DivX decoder.

Upside down or mirrored video is commonly caused by these filters:

* Bicubic resize filter
Filename: bicubic_resizer.ax
Installed as part of many codec packs, this filter is perhaps most responsible for inverted video.

* G400 filter
Filename: divxg400.ax
Also installed as part of many codec packs, this filter can also invert the video.

* XviD filter
Filename: xvid.ax
Again, installed as part of many codec packs, the XviD filter can decode DivX video as inverted.

more info at: http://forums.divx.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/441101651...

this guy's LACK of being an effective speaker makes it more believable because if it was a lie, they'd have hired a better speaker.

if it was a lie, they'd have hired a better speaker.

Sorry to jump into your conversation, I really don't have an opinion on the issue but have enjoyed the back and forth.

Never forget that not everyone puts as much stock in intelligence and articulation as we'd like them to.

Evidence against, "if it was a lie, they'd have hired a better speaker."

I have no intention of proving this guy is telling the truth because there is potential that he is a liar. All I ask is that EVERYONE reserve judgment until real evidence surfaces. In the "war of ideas" let's not let the bad guys win without coming forward with convincing evidence. Let's allow our troops to speak openly without fear of repercussions or they will remain silent. If you were a soldier with something like this to reveal, would this thread make you more or less likely to tell the whole truth about what you saw in Iraq?

Jesse MacBeth has recieved would keep a REAL soldier from speaking out. For one thing, a real soldier would be just as disgusted by MacBeths charade as anyone. MacBeth is being raked over the coals because of he pretended to be what he was not. A REAL soldier coming forward would not have to worry about such things, because he would easily be able to shoot down such accusations. He would have a DD-214, he would have the actual dates his unit was somewhere. He would be pretty much unimpeachable if he was truly who he said he was.

Like I said, no one needs to spin the truth into the truth.

after all, John Kerry is swiftboated by modern neocons as we chat. He's a USDA certified WAR HERO for Christ's sake! Don't tell me, "A REAL soldier coming forward would not have to worry about such things, because he would easily be able to shoot down such accusations."

He thought that ignoring them would make them go away. That was one of the biggest mistakes of his campaign.

He could have easily done so.