Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Decker on May 09, 2008, 11:59:03 AM
-
I found this on Craigslist.
I post it b/c some people at this forum claim, with their cocktail in their hand, that anti-Iraq war people are whiners.
Maybe it's authentic and maybe it's not. I am certain that this has happened in some form.
Is this soldier a whiner?:
I'm having the worst damn week of my whole damn life so I'm going to write this while I'm pissed off enough to do it right.
I am SICK of all this bullshit people are writing about the Iraq war. I am abso-fucking-lutely sick to death of it. What the fuck do most of you know about it? You watch it on TV and read the commentaries in the newspaper or Newsweek or whatever god damn yuppie news rag you subscribe to and think you're all such fucking experts that you can scream at each other like five year old about whether you're right or not. Let me tell you something: unless you've been there, you don't know a god damn thing about it. It you haven't been shot at in that fucking hell hole, SHUT THE FUCK UP!
How do I dare say this to you moronic war supporters who are "Supporting our Troops" and waving the flag and all that happy horse shit? I'll tell you why. I'm a Marine and I served my tour in Iraq. My husband, also a Marine, served several. I left the service six months ago because I got pregnant while he was home on leave and three days ago I get a visit from two men in uniform who hand me a letter and tell me my husband died in that fucking festering sand-pit. He should have been home a month ago but they extended his tour and now he's coming home in a box.
You fuckers and that god-damn lying sack of shit they call a president are the reason my husband will never see his baby and my kid will never meet his dad.
And you know what the most fucked up thing about this Iraq shit is? They don't want us there. They're not happy we came and they want us out NOW. We fucked up their lives even worse than they already were and they're pissed off. We didn't help them and we're not helping them now. That's what our soldiers are dying for.
Oh while I'm good and worked up, the government doesn't even have the decency to help out the soldiers whos lives they ruined. If you really believe the military and the government had no idea the veterans' hospitals were so fucked up, you are a god-damn retard. They don't care about us. We're disposable. We're numbers on a page and they'd rather forget we exist so they don't have to be reminded about the families and lives they ruined while they're sipping their cocktails at another fund raiser dinner. If they were really concerned about supporting the troops, they'd bring them home so their families wouldn't have to cry at a graveside and explain to their children why mommy or daddy isn't coming home. Because you can't explain it. We're not fighting for our country, we're not fighting for the good of Iraq's people, we're fighting for Bush's personal agenda. Patriotism my ass. You know what? My dad served in Vietnam and NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
So I'm pissed. I'm beyond pissed. And I'm going to go to my husband funeral and recieve that flag and hang it up on the wall for my baby to see when he's older. But I'm not going to tell him that his father died for the stupidty of the American government. I'm going to tell him that his father was a hero and the best man I ever met and that he loved his country enough to die for it, because that's all true and nothing will be solved by telling my son that his father was sent to die by people who didn't care about him at all.
Fuck you, war supporters, George W. Bush, and all the god damn mother fuckers who made the war possible. I hope you burn in hell.
-
Craigslist? Must be 100% true! ::)
-
Craigslist? Must be 100% true! ::)
Why can't it be? ::)
That person is actually spot on. If you really care about the troops then you wouldn't want them out in some shithole and in danger of being blown up by an IED.
And the government doesn't give a shit about soliders. Most of the homeless folks in Manhattan are actually veterans. :-\ How fucking sad is that?
-
Fuck you, war supporters, George W. Bush, and all the god damn mother fuckers who made the war possible. I hope you burn in hell.
Hell yeah!
-
She's clearly better educated than the semi-literate HH6.
-
Bring em home....
-
Bring em home....
Only a Liberal like you would want to end such a successful war, and bring home troops from the job they love.
-
Only a Liberal like you would want to end such a successful war, and bring home troops from the job they love.
LOL. I know. How do i sleep at night.... ;D
-
Craigslist? Must be 100% true! ::)
if you r soo pro iraq war why dont you put your body where your heehaw mouth is and go enlist..
-
Even if it's not legit, it certainly expresses the outrage that many military families feel.
-
Something from Craig's List is about as reliable as this:
(http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/WWN%20cover.jpg)
-
Something from Craig's List is about as reliable as this:
You don't think there are service men and women who see this war for what it really is?
-
You don't think there are service men and women who see this war for what it really is?
I personally know men and women who have been in combat who support the war and those who don't. That really has nothing to do with whether something from Craig's List is authentic.
-
I hate Craigslist. So many scams come out of that place. Put an ad in there and see what happens
-
I personally know men and women who have been in combat who support the war and those who don't. That really has nothing to do with whether something from Craig's List is authentic.
Could be true...but i'm not really going to comment. Her husband is dead, so I'm sure she's upset. Calmus....once again feel free to play in traffic. Beach..headed ur way from 18 Aug through 5 Sept with a 72 hour pass in the middle. I'd like to knee deep and drunk so get ur tour hat out.
-
Could be true...but i'm not really going to comment. Her husband is dead, so I'm sure she's upset. Calmus....once again feel free to play in traffic. Beach..headed ur way from 18 Aug through 5 Sept with a 72 hour pass in the middle. I'd like to knee deep and drunk so get ur tour hat out.
Cool. Just send me a PM when the time gets closer. I don't drink, but I know where the good watering holes are. :) We can also go train at Hickim AFB. They have a really good gym.
-
Cool..we're trying to figure out where we're staying..they don't skimp so I expect it should be a good time.
-
I don't drink,
I don't trust a man who won't fistfight, throw down a shot, or salute the flag at the drop of a hat.
Sounds like you fall into that category...
-
Cool..we're trying to figure out where we're staying..they don't skimp so I expect it should be a good time.
Glad we could help.
-
Did he not decide to enlist? Did he not take an oath to put himself in harms way?
Whether you support the war or not if you're in the military you've made that decision to accept some tough shit. The family would be understandibly upset but it won't change the decisions he made.
-
Cool..we're trying to figure out where we're staying..they don't skimp so I expect it should be a good time.
They'll probably put you guys in the Hale Koa in Waikiki, because it's a military hotel. Nice place: http://www.halekoa.com/
My recommendation would be away from the tourist trap (Waikiki). These are my two favorites:
The Ihilani out at Koolina: http://www.ihilani.com/ http://www.koolina.com/
Or Turtle Bay: http://www.turtlebayresort.com/default_.asp
Both are about 30 to 35 minutes from downtown Honolulu.
-
I don't trust a man who won't fistfight, throw down a shot, or salute the flag at the drop of a hat.
Sounds like you fall into that category...
I don't trust or respect any girlyman who threatens to murder his wife and child. Sounds like you fall into that category:
my woman already knows. if i ever make a fortune, i'll always make sure she and the babies are covered if we split.
but if we ever split and she tries to screw me in court, well, hello scott peterson.
(http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050318/050318_peterson_hmed_6a.h2.jpg)
-
Did he not decide to enlist? Did he not take an oath to put himself in harms way?
Whether you support the war or not if you're in the military you've made that decision to accept some tough shit. The family would be understandibly upset but it won't change the decisions he made.
Military salesmen sell you one thing and then you're sworn to another.
How many recruits consult an attorney before signing? How many have an attorney present *at* the signing?
-
Military salesmen sell you one thing and then you're sworn to another.
How many recruits consult an attorney before signing? How many have an attorney present *at* the signing?
I agree.. and recruiters can be some real scum bags. But the enlistee has to bear more responsibility.
-
Oh I'm fairly certain that something like this has happened.
All those weekend warriors that signed up to the military to get a break on the cost of education are especially part of this. They're older with families.
They got their education plus 3 or 4 extended tours of duty plus psychological damage, bodily harm and indeed death.
It's not that these things don't happen in a time of war, they do.
But that goes to the heart of the matter: what are we fighting for?
Let's sit back with cocktail or beer and cheer on the job the troops are doing.
And let's put down those fucking anti-war whiners. It's over. Like the 'stolen' 2000 presidential election. It's over.....get over it.
In the last two weeks, 24 US soldiers have been killed in Bush's foreign wars.
In a related note, I'm certainly glad that President Bush was able to celebrate the joyous black tie wedding of his daughter.
It must have been a hell of a party.
-
Oh I'm fairly certain that something like this has happened.
All those weekend warriors that signed up to the military to get a break on the cost of education are especially part of this. They're older with families.
They got their education plus 3 or 4 extended tours of duty plus psychological damage, bodily harm and indeed death.
It's not that these things don't happen in a time of war, they do.
But that goes to the heart of the matter: what are we fighting for?
Let's sit back with cocktail or beer and cheer on the job the troops are doing.
And let's put down those fucking anti-war whiners. It's over. Like the 'stolen' 2000 presidential election. It's over.....get over it.
In the last two weeks, 24 US soldiers have been killed in Bush's foreign wars.
In a related note, I'm certainly glad that President Bush was able to celebrate the joyous black tie wedding of his daughter.
It must have been a hell of a party.
Now youre getting it. We should be happy when the troops die because its their choice to serve us. So why should we pointing out the in justices when we can be like Coach and other neo-cons?
From now on we should clap and have a beer when these soldiers die in vain......because thats their job....
-
From now on its one beer for every soldier killed!!! Fvckin A!!!! Party time...24, You say?
-
Did he not decide to enlist? Did he not take an oath to put himself in harms way?
poor people with no other choice join the army...oath my ass
-
From now on its one beer for every soldier killed!!! Fvckin A!!!! Party time...24, You say?
Where're are those WMDs?
(http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2004/04/01/dd_wmd_1.jpg)
Bush's Iraq WMDs joke backfires
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3570845.stm
That pic is from a black tie affair where Bush put on his "Where are the WMDs" routine where he looked under Oval Office furniture for the missing weapons.
Remember military america, your Commander and Chief thinks your reason for dying and fighting is one big fucking joke!
-
Yes, this four-year-old joke was in poor taste.
You still complaining about the 2000 election?
-
Yes, this four-year-old joke was in poor taste.
You still complaining about the 2000 election?
Just commenting Beach Bum.
I see you've gotten over the destruction of our democracy. Good for you! As long as your guy won, hey?
Here's to your next tax cut!
Democracies are for rabble anyways.
-
Just commenting Beach Bum.
I see you've gotten over the destruction of our democracy. Good for you! As long as your guy won, hey?
Here's to your next tax cut!
Democracies are for rabble anyways.
Our democracy hasn't been destroyed. I didn't agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision and I think the Florida Supreme Court got it right, but what that entire situation showed was our democracy is in great shape. In a number of countries there were have been tanks in the streets. Instead, whether you agree with the outcome or not, we had the Florida AG make a decision, two courts make decisions, and there was an orderly change of the guard. The system worked.
Regarding my next tax cut, depends on which guy gets the job. :)
-
(http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2005/01/20/image667974x.jpg)
Look at Dick Go! Another fun Black tie event. Those elites sure know how to party! I bet that's how it was at the Bush Wedding this past weekend. Don't you think?
"I'm here because my dad died in Iraq," said 10-year-old Dakota Givens, in a circle of 8- to 12 year-olds. "He was in his tank … and they went in some water. The gun broke and hit his door so he couldn't get out and he drowned."
"My dad was killed in Iraq," announced Taylor Heldt, another 10-year-old, who spoke matter-of-factly. "He got hit by a roadside bomb. And I lost him June 16, on Father's Day."
"We thought that when we heard the doorbell it was the pizza man," recalled Angel van Dusen, a playful 11-year-old who turned somber in the group. "I went to the door and I told my mom it wasn't [the pizza man] … and the next thing I knew she came inside starting to cry."
Third-grader Katie Staats is as bright and cheerful as kids come. Her blue eyes and broad smile perfectly match those of her father, David, in the photo on her button. He died in Iraq on Dec. 16.
"That ruined my Christmas," she said. "My dad promised that no one would knock on the door. He kept that promise. My mom … met the people in the driveway."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13863193
How do you feel about those stories Beach Bum?
Are those kids whiners or are they understandably upset b/c their dads were protecting our freedoms in Iraq when they were killed?
What do you think?
-
Our democracy hasn't been destroyed. I didn't agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision and I think the Florida Supreme Court got it right, but what that entire situation showed was our democracy is in great shape. In a number of countries there were have been tanks in the streets. Instead, whether you agree with the outcome or not, we had the Florida AG make a decision, two courts make decisions, and there was an orderly change of the guard. The system worked.
Regarding my next tax cut, depends on which guy gets the job. :)
2000 was the final nail in the coffin of this democratic experiment. An unqualified man was installed in the White House after losing the general election.
Do you dispute any of that?
After Karl Rove promised Jack Welch deregulation resulting in billions to the compoany, the corporate media gave substantially favorable coverage to the buffoon candidate Bush while painting Al Gore as a serial liar, borderline traitor and certain psychotic.
I don't blame you for falling for that. Many did.
But it is undenbiable that Bush is in the White House after 2000 b/c the votes were not fully counted. If they were, Gore is the winner.
-
(http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2005/01/20/image667974x.jpg)
Look at Dick Go! Another fun Black tie event. Those elites sure know how to party! I bet that's how it was at the Bush Wedding this past weekend. Don't you think?
"I'm here because my dad died in Iraq," said 10-year-old Dakota Givens, in a circle of 8- to 12 year-olds. "He was in his tank … and they went in some water. The gun broke and hit his door so he couldn't get out and he drowned."
"My dad was killed in Iraq," announced Taylor Heldt, another 10-year-old, who spoke matter-of-factly. "He got hit by a roadside bomb. And I lost him June 16, on Father's Day."
"We thought that when we heard the doorbell it was the pizza man," recalled Angel van Dusen, a playful 11-year-old who turned somber in the group. "I went to the door and I told my mom it wasn't [the pizza man] … and the next thing I knew she came inside starting to cry."
Third-grader Katie Staats is as bright and cheerful as kids come. Her blue eyes and broad smile perfectly match those of her father, David, in the photo on her button. He died in Iraq on Dec. 16.
"That ruined my Christmas," she said. "My dad promised that no one would knock on the door. He kept that promise. My mom … met the people in the driveway."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13863193
How do you feel about those stories Beach Bum?
Are those kids whiners or are they understandably upset b/c their dads were protecting our freedoms in Iraq when they were killed?
What do you think?
How dare Bush celebrate his daughter's wedding. Just heartless. He should be walking around in sackcloth and ashes till he leaves office.
Tragic stories. Any time a child loses a parent it is a tragedy. What's your point?
-
2000 was the final nail in the coffin of this democratic experiment. An unqualified man was installed in the White House after losing the general election.
Do you dispute any of that?
After Karl Rove promised Jack Welch deregulation resulting in billions to the compoany, the corporate media gave substantially favorable coverage to the buffoon candidate Bush while painting Al Gore as a serial liar, borderline traitor and certain psychotic.
I don't blame you for falling for that. Many did.
But it is undenbiable that Bush is in the White House after 2000 b/c the votes were not fully counted. If they were, Gore is the winner.
Yes I dispute all of it.
-
Any time a child loses a parent cause of someone elses fuckup
fixed
-
Only God will fix this mess.....sickning times indeed. If mccain gets elected thru crooked measures like bush did then we may just have tanks rolling the streets soon.
The goal of democracy will never be accomplished in Iraq. the people do not understand ,and even if they did they would rebel for the fact that all the neighboring countries would incite violence and go back to terrorist ways of fighting.
Get em home now. There will NEVER be a right time, so the time is now.
-
How dare Bush celebrate his daughter's wedding. Just heartless. He should be walking around in sackcloth and ashes till he leaves office.
No, he should admit his error in attacking Iraq and stop sacrificing other people's children/parents/brothers/sisters for an obvious mistake that will be passed on to his successor.
Bush did promise to "solve problems, not pass them on to future presidents and future generations."
Or is that another campaign slogan you fell for?
Tragic stories. Any time a child loses a parent it is a tragedy. What's your point?
My point Beach Bum is this: what do you care if those kids lose a parent? You support the war and the sacrifices THEY MAKE. Yet you are going to vote for a presidential candidate that will guarantee sending more parents into the Iraqi meatgrinder.
But you do get a tax cut with McCain. So I can see how the choice is muddled.
Why don't you just show them your handy-dandy laundry list of Democrats that thought Iraq had WMDs?
I'm sure they'd understand that. After all, according to you, it is a bipartisan mistake--this invasion of Iraq.
THE REASON WE FIGHT IS AS VALID FOR TODAY AS IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING.
What's that reason again?
-
No, he should admit his error in attacking Iraq and stop sacrificing other people's children/parents/brothers/sisters for an obvious mistake that will be passed on to his successor.
Bush did promise to "solve problems, not pass them on to future presidents and future generations."
Or is that another campaign slogan you fell for?
My point Beach Bum is this: what do you care if those kids lose a parent? You support the war and the sacrifices THEY MAKE. Yet you are going to vote for a presidential candidate that will guarantee sending more parents into the Iraqi meatgrinder.
But you do get a tax cut with McCain. So I can see how the choice is muddled.
Why don't you just show them your handy-dandy laundry list of Democrats that thought Iraq had WMDs?
I'm sure they'd understand that. After all, according to you, it is a bipartisan mistake--this invasion of Iraq.
THE REASON WE FIGHT IS AS VALID FOR TODAY AS IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING.
What's that reason again?
It's too bad you haven't gotten over the 2000 election. Bush won. Gore lost. Bush won. Kerry lost.
I will absolutely not mention, for about the 10th time (or more) on this site, why I agreed with the start of the war. You are free to go look up my most recent discussion, which I believe I had with you. Wasn't it just about a month or so ago?
I have never called the war a bipartisan mistake. I've said bipartisan members of Congress and much of the world believed Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed. I have, however, said the war has been mismanaged.
Whether you believe the war is "just" or not has zero to do with whether the loss of a parent is tragic for the kid. The fact remains that the child lost a parent. That is a tragedy whether the parent is killed in heroic combat, by friendly fire, or by any other means. The fact there are kids who have lost parents in the war doesn't prove your point (that the was is illegal) one bit. Death is an unfortunate and tragic part of war.
-
It's too bad you haven't gotten over the 2000 election. Bush won. Gore lost. Bush won. Kerry lost.
Kerry didn't run in the 2000 election. The world is as pliable and simple as you make it. If you want to exist insulating yourself from the political crime of the decade, that's your business. I'm certain a man of your intelligence has doubts.
I will absolutely not mention, for about the 10th time (or more) on this site, why I agreed with the start of the war. You are free to go look up my most recent discussion, which I believe I had with you. Wasn't it just about a month or so ago?
If your argument comes down to a simple "Everybody thought Iraq was a threat w/ WMDs" you can insulate yourself with that mistaken notion. The US, GB, Germany, and the UN thought that Hussein may have had residual stockpiles of some chemical and biological WMDs.
Only the Bush people pushed: massive stockpiles of WMD; Hussein was six months away from completing a nuclear weapon, or possibly had developed one already; Hussein had ties with al Qaeda and would readily hand over nukes to al Qaeda; Iraq was poised to attack the USA.
All lies.
You are living in an unexamined world.
I have never called the war a bipartisan mistake. I've said bipartisan members of Congress and much of the world believed Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed. I have, however, said the war has been mismanaged.
The word "mistake" was my addition. But you have gone to great lengths to show the bipartisan nature of the US government's attack on Iraq. Much of the world also believed that a meteor could crash into the earth some day--that's a danger as well. Perhaps we'd better take to space and blow them all up?
Saddam was a disenfranchised flea and everyone new it except for you and the pro-war crowd listening to the propaganda about 'hitler revisited' and 'in league with Al Qaeda' and 'arming up with nukes to attack the USA'.
That is so ridiculous on its face that I can't believe anyone can repeat in solemnity without cracking up.
Are you also worried about Libya or Grenada attacking the US too?
Whether you believe the war is "just" or not has zero to do with whether the loss of a parent is tragic for the kid. The fact remains that the child lost a parent. That is a tragedy whether the parent is killed in heroic combat, by friendly fire, or by any other means. The fact there are kids who have lost parents in the war doesn't prove your point (that the was is illegal) one bit. Death is an unfortunate and tragic part of war.
I'm not reasserting the war is illegal. You are.
I'm saying that: what do you care if those kids lose a parent?
You support the war and the sacrifices THEY MAKE. Yet you are going to vote for a presidential candidate that will guarantee sending more parents into the Iraqi meatgrinder.
THE REASON WE FIGHT IS AS VALID FOR TODAY AS IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING.
What's that reason again?
In other words, what is the reason that you support a presidential candidate that will certainly send more parents to die in Iraq? Why should those parents have to die. What is the reason? Why continue the mistake?
-
10. Never give up on an idea simply because it is bad and doesn't work. Cling to it even when it is hopeless. Anyone can cut and run, but it takes a very special person to stay with something that is stupid and harmful.
http://www.georgecarlin.com/home/home.html
-
Kerry didn't run in the 2000 election. The world is as pliable and simple as you make it. If you want to exist insulating yourself from the political crime of the decade, that's your business. I'm certain a man of your intelligence has doubts.
If your argument comes down to a simple "Everybody thought Iraq was a threat w/ WMDs" you can insulate yourself with that mistaken notion. The US, GB, Germany, and the UN thought that Hussein may have had residual stockpiles of some chemical and biological WMDs.
Only the Bush people pushed: massive stockpiles of WMD; Hussein was six months away from completing a nuclear weapon, or possibly had developed one already; Hussein had ties with al Qaeda and would readily hand over nukes to al Qaeda; Iraq was poised to attack the USA.
All lies.
You are living in an unexamined world.
The word "mistake" was my addition. But you have gone to great lengths to show the bipartisan nature of the US government's attack on Iraq. Much of the world also believed that a meteor could crash into the earth some day--that's a danger as well. Perhaps we'd better take to space and blow them all up?
Saddam was a disenfranchised flea and everyone new it except for you and the pro-war crowd listening to the propaganda about 'hitler revisited' and 'in league with Al Qaeda' and 'arming up with nukes to attack the USA'.
That is so ridiculous on its face that I can't believe anyone can repeat in solemnity without cracking up.
Are you also worried about Libya or Grenada attacking the US too?
I'm not reasserting the war is illegal. You are.
I'm saying that: what do you care if those kids lose a parent?
You support the war and the sacrifices THEY MAKE. Yet you are going to vote for a presidential candidate that will guarantee sending more parents into the Iraqi meatgrinder.
THE REASON WE FIGHT IS AS VALID FOR TODAY AS IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING.
What's that reason again?
In other words, what is the reason that you support a presidential candidate that will certainly send more parents to die in Iraq? Why should those parents have to die. What is the reason? Why continue the mistake?
If you want to continue the futile "the war was illegal" and "Bush is a war criminal" mantra, be my guest. You're just going to become bitter (if you're not there already). But it is good message board fodder.
I'm going to vote for McCain because he's a better presidential candidate than Obama. Nothing more complicated than that.
-
If you want to continue the futile "the war was illegal" and "Bush is a war criminal" mantra, be my guest. You're just going to become bitter (if you're not there already). But it is good message board fodder.
I'm going to vote for McCain because he's a better presidential candidate than Obama. Nothing more complicated than that.
I'm not arguing the legality of the war. I'm not calling Bush a war criminal.
Both of those statements are true though.
Why is McCain a better presidential candidate when he promises to send more American parents to die in Iraq? Don't you care about the people McCain is sending to their deaths?
Is the Iraq war still a good idea after all these years of fighting?
I know, I know, that's 3 questions.
Nothing more complicated than that.
That's kind of an insulating excuse/cop-out on your part, sir.
-
I'm not arguing the legality of the war. I'm not calling Bush a war criminal.
Both of those statements are true though.
Why is McCain a better presidential candidate when he promises to send more American parents to die in Iraq? Don't you care about the people McCain is sending to their deaths?
Is the Iraq war still a good idea after all these years of fighting?
I know, I know, that's 3 questions.
That's kind of an insulating excuse/cop-out on your part, sir.
McCain is a better candidate for at least the following reasons:
- McCain has the right mindset (cut taxes, cut spending)
- Obama will be an enemy of the business community
- He's older and far more experienced than Obama
- McCain is war hero
- Obama never wore the uniform
- Obama is a quasi-socialist with a quasi-socialist agenda
- McCain has an independent streak and isn't afraid to butt heads with his party
- Obama wants to raise capital gains taxes (and many others)
- McCain will be a better commander in chief than Obama
- Obama has displayed an alarming lack of judgment and I frankly don't believe him on this whole Wright thing
I could probably think of others, but that's what immediately comes to mind.
Every commander in chief in every conflict in which we suffered fatalities involved the president sending American parents to die. That one doesn't work for me. Next?
As I said, I think McCain is a better candidate than Obama (see above). Not sure how that becomes a copout.
-
I met a young gentleman yesterday at the pharmacy. He couldn't have been more than 22, maybe 24. He was skinny and walked in great pain. He was going to get his various meds. Him and I began to talk, and he told me that he was injured by shrapnel while fighting in Fallujah in 2004. He pulled up his shirt and I saw one of the nastiest scars I've ever seen...the middle of his chest down to his pelvic region was a mass of scars...it almost looked like he had a giant white scorpion sitting on this torso. I asked him if the Army treats him alright, he said "yea." Apparently he gets 90% of his E4 base pay and he is covered medically.
I didn't press him for specific details or what his political thoughts were. We just shot the shit pretty much, telling old war stories while he waited for his prescription to be dispensed.
It's tough to say some things when you meet the walking wounded in real life. What do you say...thanks? Rot in hell? How'd it feel to kill innocent people? I feel bad for you? Ignore them entirely? Look at them with pity? These are what some people say when those soldiers aren't around.
-
McCain is a better candidate for at least the following reasons:
- McCain has the right mindset (cut taxes, cut spending)
- Obama will be an enemy of the business community
- He's older and far more experienced than Obama
- McCain is war hero
- Obama never wore the uniform
- Obama is a quasi-socialist with a quasi-socialist agenda
- McCain has an independent streak and isn't afraid to butt heads with his party
- Obama wants to raise capital gains taxes (and many others)
- McCain will be a better commander in chief than Obama
- Obama has displayed an alarming lack of judgment and I frankly don't believe him on this whole Wright thing
McCain seeks to grant amnesty to millions of foreigners who are here illegally in the United States.
McCain seeks to appease the warhawks and the poweful Israeli lobby by desiring to attack Iran.
McCain seeks to continue Bush's failed foreign and economic policies.
McCain is woefully ignorant of the top concern of American voters...the economy.
McCain has partnered with such illustrious democrats such as Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold to restrict Freedom of Speech and to continue failed immigration policies.
McCain is hot tempered and irrational.
McCain is probably suffering from dementia.
McCain is old as dirt.
McCain wants to continue the Iraq war with no hope of US withdrawal.
McCain cavorts with the likes of John Hagee.
McCain is accompanied by the Rasputin of our times, the toad-faced Joe Lieberman, seen constantly whispering in McCain's ear.
The best presidents throughout our history have never worn the uniform.
McCain is also a Statist, believing that groups of people are unable to govern themselves.
-
...
I could probably think of others, but that's what immediately comes to mind.
Every commander in chief in every conflict in which we suffered fatalities involved the president sending American parents to die. That one doesn't work for me. Next?
...
After 5 years, is the Iraq war still a good idea?
Is it worth making orphans out of USA children?
I guess from your answer, the other factors--Mc's a hero, not a quasi-socilaist--outweigh the deaths of those childrens' parents in a protracted Iraq war.
I'm just trying to pin down where you are coming from on this.
-
McCain seeks to grant amnesty to millions of foreigners who are here illegally in the United States.
McCain seeks to appease the warhawks and the poweful Israeli lobby by desiring to attack Iran.
McCain seeks to continue Bush's failed foreign and economic policies.
McCain is woefully ignorant of the top concern of American voters...the economy.
McCain has partnered with such illustrious democrats such as Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold to restrict Freedom of Speech and to continue failed immigration policies.
McCain is hot tempered and irrational.
McCain is probably suffering from dementia.
McCain is old as dirt.
McCain wants to continue the Iraq war with no hope of US withdrawal.
McCain cavorts with the likes of John Hagee.
McCain is accompanied by the Rasputin of our times, the toad-faced Joe Lieberman, seen constantly whispering in McCain's ear.
The best presidents throughout our history have never worn the uniform.
McCain is also a Statist, believing that groups of people are unable to govern themselves.
So I take it you don't like McCain? :)
-
After 5 years, is the Iraq war still a good idea?
Is it worth making orphans out of USA children?
I guess from your answer, the other factors--Mc's a hero, not a quasi-socilaist--outweigh the deaths of those childrens' parents in a protracted Iraq war.
I'm just trying to pin down where you are coming from on this.
It's a good idea to get our men and women home as soon as possible without leaving Iraq with the inability to defend itself and without permitting genocide. We will probably always have a presence in Iraq, so if you vote for Obama you'll be voting for a man who will still send men and women to Iraq.
It's not hard to pin down where I'm coming from. I think McCain will be a better CIC than Obama. I'd rather have someone with his experience leading us through two ongoing combat operations than someone who probably favors the Peace Corp over the U.S. military.
What you're trying to do is reconcile my views with your distorted (in my opinion) view of the war.
-
It's a good idea to get our men and women home as soon as possible without leaving a Iraq with the inability to defend itself and without permitting genocide. We will probably always have a presence in Iraq, so if you vote for Obama you'll be voting for a man who will still send men and women to Iraq.
It's not hard to pin down where I'm coming from. I think McCain will be a better CIC than Obama. I'd rather have someone with his experience leading us through two ongoing combat operations than someone who probably favors the Peace Corp of the U.S. military.
What you're trying to do is reconcile my views with your distorted (in my opinion) view of the war.
you've never been in the military, right?
kinda hard for you to tell who would make the best military leader when you lacked the courage to serve ;)
-
you've never been in the military, right?
kinda hard for you to tell who would make the best military leader when you lacked the courage to serve ;)
::)
(http://phillips.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/07/128pinocchio_l.jpg)
-
::)
You're the one who was a dropout who had overcome so much.
Then you were a college professor and all your students thought 911 was silly.
Then you ran a company.
Now you're creating a military record? Wow. Ozmo and berserker must just shake their heads at you. They do professional, objective moderating. You, on the other hand, are a nonstop liar who fakes credentials, believes statistics is witchcraft, and now are telling us you served after saying it wasn't for you.
-
You're the one who was a dropout who had overcome so much.
Then you were a college professor and all your students thought 911 was silly.
Then you ran a company.
Now you're creating a military record? Wow. Ozmo and berserker must just shake their heads at you. They do professional, objective moderating. You, on the other hand, are a nonstop liar who fakes credentials, believes statistics is witchcraft, and now are telling us you served after saying it wasn't for you.
(http://www.dreamstime.com/screaming-baby-thumb2743329.jpg)
-
note he is attacking the messenger, and not the message.
I point out his inconsistencies.
he doesn't deny them.
-
It's a good idea to get our men and women home as soon as possible without leaving a Iraq with the inability to defend itself and without permitting genocide. We will probably always have a presence in Iraq, so if you vote for Obama you'll be voting for a man who will still send men and women to Iraq.
Have you read Obama's position on Iraq--the phased withdrawal?
How do you know there will be a genocide with a phased withdrawal? You pro-war people have been wrong about the effects of every major point in this Iraq debacle.
OBAMA: Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
MCCAIN: Bolster Troops on the Ground
A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq.
http://www.exploremccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
And you want the troops home, when?
It's not hard to pin down where I'm coming from. I think McCain will be a better CIC than Obama. I'd rather have someone with his experience leading us through two ongoing combat operations than someone who probably favors the Peace Corp of the U.S. military.
So you set up a straw argument about Obama's abilities just to insulate yourself from making real choices based on the candidate's platforms.
You'll have to forgive me Beach Bum but when I see someone do that and defer to 'experience' although McCain has the same amount of presidential experience that Obama (hell, even me or you) has, I see someone not fully answering a question.
Here are some things you can bank on with a McCain presidency: More US families will be torn apart by the deaths of a mother/father/son/daughter and you will get your tax cut. Which means more to you?
What you're trying to do is reconcile my views with your distorted (in my opinion) view of the war.
I'm trying to find out why you are voting for McCain.
When I delve into the human costs of the failed Iraq venture, you change the subject.
-
note he is attacking the messenger, and not the message.
I point out his inconsistencies.
he doesn't deny them.
(http://www.beckyphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/pouting-baby.jpg)
-
Have you read Obama's position on Iraq--the phased withdrawal?
How do you know there will be a genocide with a phased withdrawal? You pro-war people have been wrong about the effects of every major point in this Iraq debacle.
OBAMA: Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
MCCAIN: Bolster Troops on the Ground
A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq.
http://www.exploremccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
And you want the troops home, when?
So you set up a straw argument about Obama's abilities just to insulate yourself from making real choices based on the candidate's platforms.
You'll have to forgive me Beach Bum but when I see someone do that and defer to 'experience' although McCain has the same amount of presidential experience that Obama (hell, even me or you) has, I see someone not fully answering a question.
Here are some things you can bank on with a McCain presidency: More US families will be torn apart by the deaths of a mother/father/son/daughter and you will get your tax cut. Which means more to you?
I'm trying to find out why you are voting for McCain.
When I delve into the human costs of the failed Iraq venture, you change the subject.
I don't know if there will be genocide if there is a withdrawal in 16 months, but that is certainly a possibility.
Obama's goal is nothing more than an irresponsible pipe dream. We're not going anywhere. There will eventually be a RIF, but we will have a presence there like we've had in Germany and Korea till kingdom come.
Oh come on. Obama and McCain will not have the same level of experience to be commander in chief. Not even close.
I already told you some of the reasons why I'm voting for McCain over Obama. Not going to repeat it. Use the scroll feature. :)
-
I don't know if there will be genocide if there is a withdrawal in 16 months, but that is certainly a possibility.
Obama's goal is nothing more than an irresponsible pipe dream. We're not going anywhere. There will eventually be a RIF, but we will have a presence there like we've had in Germany and Korea till kingdom come.
Oh come on. Obama and McCain will not have the same level of experience to be commander in chief. Not even close.
I already told you some of the reasons why I'm voting for McCain over Obama. Not going to repeat it. Use the scroll feature. :)
I don't think Military experience is the issue here. It's domestic issues on most people's minds anyway. Namely: GAs, Homes, & Taxes
-
I don't think Military experience is the issue here. It's domestic issues on most people's minds anyway. Namely: GAs, Homes, & Taxes
Not the issue for who? It's definitely an issue for me. Our two conflicts are as important as the economy. I think polls have recently shown the economy is the no. 1 issue, but the war is up there with most people too.
-
I don't know if there will be genocide if there is a withdrawal in 16 months, but that is certainly a possibility.
Obama's goal is nothing more than an irresponsible pipe dream. We're not going anywhere. There will eventually be a RIF, but we will have a presence there like we've had in Germany and Korea till kingdom come.
Oh come on. Obama and McCain will not have the same level of experience to be commander in chief. Not even close.
I already told you some of the reasons why I'm voting for McCain over Obama. Not going to repeat it. Use the scroll feature. :)
So a phased withdrawal of troops is a pipe dream yet McCains escalation of the war is iron clad good policy....I don't agree with that.
What good is McCain's 5 years as a POW to executing the office of president. Neither McCain nor Obama have been president so neither has experience in the matter.
No sir, I don't have to scroll any more.
You've done more than enough to convince me that the lives of our troops are not that high on your values list for drawing up criteria that governs your vote for presidency.
I believe you when you say experience and tax cuts matter to you. I also believe that you do care about our soldiers. The only problem I have sir is that you are making a choice that puts experience and tax cuts over the lives of our soldiers.
But that's just the way I see it. Can you see why someone might think the way I do about your choice of presidential candidate?
-
So a phased withdrawal of troops is a pipe dream yet McCains escalation of the war is iron clad good policy....I don't agree with that.
What good is McCain's 5 years as a POW to executing the office of president. Neither McCain nor Obama have been president so neither has experience in the matter.
No sir, I don't have to scroll any more.
You've done more than enough to convince me that the lives of our troops are not that high on your values list for drawing up criteria that governs your vote for presidency.
I believe you when you say experience and tax cuts matter to you. I also believe that you do care about our soldiers. The only problem I have sir is that you are making a choice that puts experience and tax cuts over the lives of our soldiers.
But that's just the way I see it. Can you see why someone might think the way I do about your choice of presidential candidate?
Yes, telling the American public he will withdraw 1 to 2 brigades a month is an irresponsible pipe dream.
I don't know if McCain will "escalate" matters. I believe he'll do whatever he believes is necessary to complete the mission in a responsible manner. He may be an old fart, but I'll trust him over Obama any day of the week to lead the military.
The fact McCain went to the Naval Academy, served as an Army officer, served in combat, was a true American hero during the war has quite a bit to do with him being commander in chief. People who have served definitely have a different (and usually better) perspective of the military, how it works, how it should be run, etc. You don't think that's important. I do.
I didn't say the troops aren't high on my values list. In fact, one of the reasons I'm going to vote for McCain over Obama is I think McCain will be a better leader for our troops.
What you're essentially saying is if I don't support an anti-war candidate like Obama, that I'm not supporting the troops and don't care about them. How's that for putting words in someone's mouth? :) You're wrong about my views, for the reasons I've already stated.
I can see how someone can have false impressions like you do if they ignore what I've already said. That's pretty easy to do.
-
Not the issue for who? It's definitely an issue for me. Our two conflicts are as important as the economy. I think polls have recently shown the economy is the no. 1 issue, but the war is up there with most people too.
No, i disagree, the CiC will do what's prudent given the situation, and with any luck the CiC will listen to ALL his advisors. Looking at how BUSH handled everything after Afghanistan i'd give him him a "D", I don't see John McCain or Obama being that stupid.
-
No, i disagree, the CiC will do what's prudent given the situation, and with any luck the CiC will listen to ALL his advisors. Looking at how BUSH handled everything after Afghanistan i'd give him him a "D", I don't see John McCain or Obama being that stupid.
Actually, a potential CIC (Obama) has already said what he's going to do, likely without consulting with the Joint Chiefs and likely without consulting with the commanders in theater. He's going to tell his advisors what he wants to do, if he plans to keep his campaign promises.
-
Actually, a potential CIC (Obama) has already said what he's going to do, likely without consulting with the Joint Chiefs and likely without consulting with the commanders in theater. He's going to tell his advisors what he wants to do, if he plans to keep his campaign promises.
Do you really think he was making a campaign speech or deciding policy?
I think it's obvious he wants the war to end and in his uninformed, unadvised, opinion he thinks that's a good plan and he said what he said more for campaign reasons.
-
Do you really think he was making a campaign speech or deciding policy?
I think it's obvious he wants the war to end and in his uninformed, unadvised, opinion he thinks that's a good plan and he said what he said more for campaign reasons.
Both. He has already made a policy decision to "end this war" and he made a military decision to withdraw 1 to 2 brigades a month, over a year before potentially taking the reigns. He is basing a large part of his campaign on these policy decisions. It's a done deal, if you believe him. So the advisors will be following orders as far as the war is concerned.
In reality, if he is elected I think he will quickly find out we won't be going anywhere. At least not according to his timetable.
-
Both. He has already made a policy decision to "end this war" and he made a military decision to withdraw 1 to 2 brigades a month, over a year before potentially taking the reigns. He is basing a large part of his campaign on these policy decisions. It's a done deal, if you believe him. So the advisors will be following orders as far as the war is concerned.
In reality, if he is elected I think he will quickly find out we won't be going anywhere. At least not according to his timetable.
So then it's just a campaign statement.
-
So then it's just a campaign statement.
I'd call it a false promise.
-
I'd call it a false promise.
Yeah, well, what candidate in the history of presidential elections doesn't have them?
-
Yeah, well, what candidate in the history of presidential elections doesn't have them?
Sad but true. :-\
-
...I don't know if McCain will "escalate" matters. I believe he'll do whatever he believes is necessary to complete the mission in a responsible manner. He may be an old fart, but I'll trust him over Obama any day of the week to lead the military.
You are not even familiar with John McCain's Iraq policy...in a word, escalation:
"Increasing U.S. troop levels will expose more brave Americans to danger and increase the number of American casualties."
"A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq."
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
...
What you're essentially saying is if I don't support an anti-war candidate like Obama, that I'm not supporting the troops and don't care about them. How's that for putting words in someone's mouth? :) You're wrong about my views, for the reasons I've already stated.
I can see how someone can have false impressions like you do if they ignore what I've already said. That's pretty easy to do.
You've said nothing to dispel the fact that your candidate, John McCain, is going to escalate the number of troops in Iraq which means more dead americans and more destroyed families for a mistake--no WMDs--and a failed policy.
-
You are not even familiar with John McCain's Iraq policy...in a word, escalation:
"Increasing U.S. troop levels will expose more brave Americans to danger and increase the number of American casualties."
"A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq."
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
You've said nothing to dispel the fact that your candidate, John McCain, is going to escalate the number of troops in Iraq which means more dead americans and more destroyed families for a mistake--no WMDs--and a failed policy.
That's not escalation. That's stabilization. He's saying increased presence will prevent insurgent strongholds. That will reduce violence. That will makes things safer for our troops. I believe that’s what happened with the surge. He was one of the few who supported the surge. He turned out to be right.
Also, he wants the Iraqis to eventually take primary responsibility for their safety, etc.:
Building a capable Iraqi army is a central requirement for ensuring Iraq's ability to govern and protect itself long after American forces have withdrawn. The U.S. must accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi armed forces and police to enable them to play a key role in securing Iraq. Only in a secure environment will the development of Iraq's political and economic institutions have a chance to succeed. Ultimately, Iraq's future lies in the hands of its people, government, and armed forces, and strengthening them is an essential requirement for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. Until Iraqi forces are ready, however, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would condemn Iraq to civil war and intervention by its neighbors and energize al Qaeda and other jihadists across the globe. This would gravely jeopardize American security.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
And here is the full quote you cherry picked from his statement about leadership:
John McCain on Leadership
"Increasing U.S. troop levels will expose more brave Americans to danger and increase the number of American casualties. When Congress authorized this war, we committed America to a mission that entails the greatest sacrifice a country can make, one that falls disproportionately on those Americans who love their country so much that they volunteer to risk their lives to accomplish that mission. And when we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure those men and women could prevail. Extending combat tours and accelerating the deployment of additional troops is a terrible sacrifice to impose on the best patriots among us, and they will understandably be disappointed when they are given that order. Then they will shoulder their weapons and do everything they can to protect our country's vital interests in Iraq."
-
That's not escalation. That's stabilization. He's saying increased presence will prevent insurgent strongholds. That will reduce violence. That will makes things safer for our troops. I believe that’s what happened with the surge. He was one of the few he supported the surge. He turned out to be right.
Also, he wants the Iraqis to eventually take primary responsibility for their safety, etc.:
...
That's wonderful that you put the Iraqi people's interests ahead of the lives of american families. That's laudable.
I'll tell you what, things would be made a whole lot safer for our troops if they weren't in Iraq.
The Surge was a dismal failure.
Troop surge a failure, Iraq war veteran says
Iraq Veterans Against the War says the troop surge is a failure
"It seems that in all measurable aspects, the troop surge has failed. Despite what general Petraeus said before Congress, numerous preliminary reports outline what is clearly a failure in this surge strategy. Casualties, both US and Iraqi have exceeded the numbers from last year for every month in 2007. The Iraqi government is no closer to stability than it was a year ago,..." http://ivaw.org/node/1676
US surge has failed - Iraqi poll
About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months, an opinion poll suggests. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm
The Coalition Casualties have been climbing by the month: http://icasualties.org/oif/
Monthly death tolls in Iraq are on the rise again. For the first time since September 2007 the number of civilian deaths from violence were higher than in the preceding month, according to figures from the Iraq Body Count project (IBC).
Civilian causalties are up too:
Preliminary totals from IBC’s daily assessment of international and Iraqi media-reported violent incidents show 947 civilian deaths between 1st and 27th February. This is already 180 more than the equivalent January total of 767 civilian deaths, with two days of February still left (note that February is also a shorter month).
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/enforced-security/
McCain wants to send more US soldiers to their deaths in Iraq for what again?
-
decker,
that means the US population, and the iraqi population, are very unhappy with this war.
Who IS happy with this war?
-
decker,
that means the US population, and the iraqi population, are very unhappy with this war.
Who IS happy with this war?
Neocon strategists, pro-war supporters, interested corporations, OPEC, and you.
-
Neocon strategists, pro-war supporters, interested corporations, OPEC, and you.
HAHAHAH ;D BOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM.
-
Neocon strategists, pro-war supporters, interested corporations, OPEC, and you.
some say I deliberately take some positions for the sake of strengthening other positions in which I really believe.
-
some say I deliberately take some positions for the sake of strengthening other positions in which I really believe.
I see. In my opinion, the Iraq war is strengthening Al Qaeda, Corporate profiteers and mercenary soldiers (there are as many mercs in Iraq as US soldiers). I can also tell you who is losing: the families of the slain soldiers, the american taxpayer, US debt and the US's reputation.
What's your take on who is profiting from the war?
-
That's wonderful that you put the Iraqi people's interests ahead of the lives of american families. That's laudable.
I'll tell you what, things would be made a whole lot safer for our troops if they weren't in Iraq.
The Surge was a dismal failure.
Troop surge a failure, Iraq war veteran says
Iraq Veterans Against the War says the troop surge is a failure
"It seems that in all measurable aspects, the troop surge has failed. Despite what general Petraeus said before Congress, numerous preliminary reports outline what is clearly a failure in this surge strategy. Casualties, both US and Iraqi have exceeded the numbers from last year for every month in 2007. The Iraqi government is no closer to stability than it was a year ago,..." http://ivaw.org/node/1676
US surge has failed - Iraqi poll
About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months, an opinion poll suggests. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm
The Coalition Casualties have been climbing by the month: http://icasualties.org/oif/
Monthly death tolls in Iraq are on the rise again. For the first time since September 2007 the number of civilian deaths from violence were higher than in the preceding month, according to figures from the Iraq Body Count project (IBC).
Civilian causalties are up too:
Preliminary totals from IBC’s daily assessment of international and Iraqi media-reported violent incidents show 947 civilian deaths between 1st and 27th February. This is already 180 more than the equivalent January total of 767 civilian deaths, with two days of February still left (note that February is also a shorter month).
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/enforced-security/
McCain wants to send more US soldiers to their deaths in Iraq for what again?
It's too bad you don't love your country enough to support measures that will protect our men and women in uniform who are in combat. (I can play the distort the other guy's viewpoint game too. :))
The surge worked:
Why the Surge Worked
January 2, 2008: Over a year ago, a new plan was announced for improving security in Iraq. The plan was simply to increase U.S. presence in the country by 30,000 personnel with a three-fold contribution by Iraqi forces. Other Coalition nations provided additional personnel for the plan. The center of this plan would be Iraq's center of gravity, Baghdad, which is the political center and largest city in the country. The sectarian "fault line" runs throughout out the city.
Now, over a year later, the Surge plan has been successful. Violence is down 60 percent nationwide. Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been expelled from Baghdad and Anbar Province and is currently on the run. Iraqi Ministry of the Interior (Waziriat al Dakhaliyah) has recently stated that AQI is 75 percent destroyed. Both the reduction in violence levels and AQI losses can be reinforced through Open Source Intelligence (OSINT).
. . . .
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20080102.aspx
-
It's too bad you don't love your country enough to support measures that will protect our men and women in uniform who are in combat. (I can play the distort the other guy's viewpoint game too. :))
The surge worked:
Why the Surge Worked
January 2, 2008: Over a year ago, a new plan was announced for improving security in Iraq. The plan was simply to increase U.S. presence in the country by 30,000 personnel with a three-fold contribution by Iraqi forces. Other Coalition nations provided additional personnel for the plan. The center of this plan would be Iraq's center of gravity, Baghdad, which is the political center and largest city in the country. The sectarian "fault line" runs throughout out the city.
Now, over a year later, the Surge plan has been successful. Violence is down 60 percent nationwide. Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been expelled from Baghdad and Anbar Province and is currently on the run. Iraqi Ministry of the Interior (Waziriat al Dakhaliyah) has recently stated that AQI is 75 percent destroyed. Both the reduction in violence levels and AQI losses can be reinforced through Open Source Intelligence (OSINT).
. . . .
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20080102.aspx
Record numbers of soldiers and civilians killed every month........thats success to BB.
-
It's too bad you don't love your country enough to support measures that will protect our men and women in uniform who are in combat. (I can play the distort the other guy's viewpoint game too. :))
Since the Surge failed and US casulties are rising monthly, I would say that your plan to escalate The Surge means more american deaths.
Whereas my idea--leave Iraq--actually spares american military lives.
The surge worked:
Why the Surge Worked
January 2, 2008: Over a year ago, a new plan was announced for improving security in Iraq. The plan was simply to increase U.S. presence in the country by 30,000 personnel with a three-fold contribution by Iraqi forces. Other Coalition nations provided additional personnel for the plan. The center of this plan would be Iraq's center of gravity, Baghdad, which is the political center and largest city in the country. The sectarian "fault line" runs throughout out the city.
Now, over a year later, the Surge plan has been successful. Violence is down 60 percent nationwide. Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been expelled from Baghdad and Anbar Province and is currently on the run. Iraqi Ministry of the Interior (Waziriat al Dakhaliyah) has recently stated that AQI is 75 percent destroyed. Both the reduction in violence levels and AQI losses can be reinforced through Open Source Intelligence (OSINT).
. . . .
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20080102.aspx
January of 2008? Check the monthly death toll from Iraq. It's going up up and away.
There was zero political advancement by the IRaqi government--remember that that was the WHOLE POINT of the SURGE.
Deaths are up and no political progress in Iraq.
I guess I was wrong, the Surge did work!
-
Since the Surge failed and US casulties are rising monthly, I would say that your plan to escalate The Surge means more american deaths.
Whereas my idea--leave Iraq--actually spares american military lives.
January of 2008? Check the monthly death toll from Iraq. It's going up up and away.
There was zero political advancement by the IRaqi government--remember that that was the WHOLE POINT of the SURGE.
Deaths are up and no political progress in Iraq.
I guess I was wrong, the Surge did work!
I don't have a plan for Iraq.
Yes, you were wrong, the surge did work.
-
I don't have a plan for Iraq.
Yes, you were wrong, the surge did work.
Unsupported Conclusions. That's called insulating oneself from the facts. That's why I can't figure out why you are voting for McCain.
Here's your monthly Coalition casualty#s:
Date Monthly DEATHS Wounded
12-2007 25 212
1-2008 40 234
2-2008 30 215
3-2008 40 326
4-2008 52 323
5-2008 14 so far
I see more deaths after the Surge, don't you?
How are the Iraqi Civilians faring after the Surge?
Let's find out.
Deaths
12-2007 548
1-2008 554
2-2008 674
3-2008 980
4-2008 744
5-2008 246
Looks like the civilians are getting their asses handed to them by the SURGE!
http://icasualties.org/oif/
-
Record numbers of soldiers and civilians killed every month........thats success to BB.
I would tend to agree with you here.
The numbers just don't add up to Beach Bum's conclusion that The Surge worked and that we need a bigger Surge in IRaq.
-
I don't have a plan for Iraq.
Yes, you were wrong, the surge did work.
So the surge reached its original goal of allowing the iraqi govt to become functional?
Or the OTHER goal, which was "kill a bunch of people without quantifying anything"?
-
When did the surge start and when did it end?
Cause there are some big numbers of deaths this time last year that far and away exceed this years numbers.
-
surge numbers are murky at best.
dont ya get it yet?
this war isn't about reaching goals. it's about perpetuating war. we said it here 2 years ago, and NBC is now asking now, if that is indeed the goal.
it's about keeping a war going until some goal is met, whether it be 41 new bases built or an oil pipeline completed ;)
you see, once the govt is stable and civil fighting stops, the iraqi govt will go to un and pass a resolution asking for the usa to leave. that doesnt work for us ;)
-
When did the surge start and when did it end?
Cause there are some big numbers of deaths this time last year that far and away exceed this years numbers.
40 to 50 deaths a month ruins 40 to 50 US families a month.
And for what?
-
The surge began in February of 2007 and was complete in June. if you look at the deaths from then, at a glance, they seem to gradually decrease by about 20%.
Period US UK Other Total DayCount Avg
Total 4077 176 136 4389 1883 2.33
5-2008 12 0 2 14 14 1
4-2008 52 0 0 52 30 1.73
3-2008 39 1 0 40 31 1.29
2-2008 29 1 0 30 29 1.03
1-2008 40 0 0 40 31 1.29
12-2007 23 1 1 25 31 0.81
11-2007 37 2 1 40 30 1.33
10-2007 38 1 1 40 31 1.29
9-2007 65 2 2 69 30 2.3
8-2007 84 4 0 88 31 2.84
7-2007 79 8 1 88 31 2.84
6-2007 101 7 0 108 30 3.6
5-2007 126 3 2 131 31 4.23
4-2007 104 12 1 117 30 3.9
3-2007 81 1 0 82 31 2.65
2-2007 81 3 1 85 28 3.04
1-2007 83 3 0 86 31 2.77
12-2006 112 1 2 115 31 3.71
11-2006 70 6 2 78 30 2.6
10-2006 106 2 2 110 31 3.55
9-2006 72 3 2 77 30 2.57
8-2006 65 1 0 66 31 2.13
7-2006 43 1 2 46 31 1.48
6-2006 61 0 2 63 30 2.1
5-2006 69 9 1 79 31 2.55
4-2006 76 1 5 82 30 2.73
3-2006 31 0 2 33 31 1.06
2-2006 55 3 0 58 28 2.07
1-2006 62 2 0 64 31 2.06
12-2005 68 0 0 68 31 2.19
11-2005 84 1 1 86 30 2.87
10-2005 96 2 1 99 31 3.19
9-2005 49 3 0 52 30 1.73
8-2005 85 0 0 85 31 2.74
7-2005 54 3 1 58 31 1.87
6-2005 78 1 4 83 30 2.77
5-2005 80 2 6 88 31 2.84
4-2005 52 0 0 52 30 1.73
3-2005 35 1 3 39 31 1.26
2-2005 58 0 2 60 28 2.14
1-2005 107 10 10 127 31 4.1
-
40 to 50 deaths a month ruins 40 to 50 US families a month.
And for what?
You are preaching to the choir when you ask me that question. You know my position on the war.
But i think if you look at the whole picture, the surge seems to have lessened the amount of American deaths.
-
You are preaching to the choir when you ask me that question. You know my position on the war.
But i think if you look at the whole picture, the surge seems to have lessened the amount of American deaths.
I know. You're a thoughtful man. But sometimes I answer these posts for other people to see.
Yes, there was a temporary dip. Now the numbers are going back up. The Iraqis are still dying by the truckload. And the causative factors in the dip in US deaths could arguably be: bribery of the warring factions, wholesale Iraqi flight from the country etc.
-
They volunteered to be killed. Its to bad they didnt think about their families. No one was trying to occupy our lands. Norad and the gov allowed planes to fly into buildings with missles strapped to them.
I wish they would have known (Soldiers) But like hh6 says "Its their job so quit bitching"
-
Unsupported Conclusions. That's called insulating oneself from the facts. That's why I can't figure out why you are voting for McCain.
Here's your monthly Coalition casualty#s:
Date Monthly DEATHS Wounded
12-2007 25 212
1-2008 40 234
2-2008 30 215
3-2008 40 326
4-2008 52 323
5-2008 14 so far
I see more deaths after the Surge, don't you?
How are the Iraqi Civilians faring after the Surge?
Let's find out.
Deaths
12-2007 548
1-2008 554
2-2008 674
3-2008 980
4-2008 744
5-2008 246
Looks like the civilians are getting their asses handed to them by the SURGE!
http://icasualties.org/oif/
You can't figure out why I'm voting for McCain even though I gave you about ten reasons why I think he's a better candidate in this thread?
Here's another: he is skin and bones and has a pencil neck. Can't have a guy leading the country who doesn't drive iron. I bet McCain lifts at least a little. :)
-
The surge began in February of 2007 and was complete in June. if you look at the deaths from then, at a glance, they seem to gradually decrease by about 20%.
Period US UK Other Total DayCount Avg
Total 4077 176 136 4389 1883 2.33
5-2008 12 0 2 14 14 1
4-2008 52 0 0 52 30 1.73
3-2008 39 1 0 40 31 1.29
2-2008 29 1 0 30 29 1.03
1-2008 40 0 0 40 31 1.29
12-2007 23 1 1 25 31 0.81
11-2007 37 2 1 40 30 1.33
10-2007 38 1 1 40 31 1.29
9-2007 65 2 2 69 30 2.3
8-2007 84 4 0 88 31 2.84
7-2007 79 8 1 88 31 2.84
6-2007 101 7 0 108 30 3.6
5-2007 126 3 2 131 31 4.23
4-2007 104 12 1 117 30 3.9
3-2007 81 1 0 82 31 2.65
2-2007 81 3 1 85 28 3.04
1-2007 83 3 0 86 31 2.77
12-2006 112 1 2 115 31 3.71
11-2006 70 6 2 78 30 2.6
10-2006 106 2 2 110 31 3.55
9-2006 72 3 2 77 30 2.57
8-2006 65 1 0 66 31 2.13
7-2006 43 1 2 46 31 1.48
6-2006 61 0 2 63 30 2.1
5-2006 69 9 1 79 31 2.55
4-2006 76 1 5 82 30 2.73
3-2006 31 0 2 33 31 1.06
2-2006 55 3 0 58 28 2.07
1-2006 62 2 0 64 31 2.06
12-2005 68 0 0 68 31 2.19
11-2005 84 1 1 86 30 2.87
10-2005 96 2 1 99 31 3.19
9-2005 49 3 0 52 30 1.73
8-2005 85 0 0 85 31 2.74
7-2005 54 3 1 58 31 1.87
6-2005 78 1 4 83 30 2.77
5-2005 80 2 6 88 31 2.84
4-2005 52 0 0 52 30 1.73
3-2005 35 1 3 39 31 1.26
2-2005 58 0 2 60 28 2.14
1-2005 107 10 10 127 31 4.1
Oh it's those darn facts again.
-
They volunteered to be killed. Its to bad they didnt think about their families. No one was trying to occupy our lands. Norad and the gov allowed planes to fly into buildings with missles strapped to them.
I wish they would have known (Soldiers) But like hh6 says "Its their job so quit bitching"
Every man and woman who joins the military knows they are preparing for war, even in peacetime. Combat arms in the Army spend the majority of their time preparing for combat, which means preparing to potentially lose their lives. They all know this.
-
Every man and woman who joins the military knows they are preparing for war, even in peacetime. Combat arms in the Army spend the majority of their time preparing for combat, which means preparing to potentially lose their lives. They all know this.
I would hope that they also know that blind obedience to corrupt/incompetent presidential leadership is not part of their enlistment bargain.
-
I would hope that they also know that blind obedience to corrupt/incompetent presidential leadership is not part of their enlistment bargain.
Wrong. Taking orders without question is imperitave to order and discipline. Do you know ANYTHING about the military?? They sign themselves to not be in a position to dictate terms or make judgement calls on the higher ups.
And look at our death toll compared to ALL other wars and half your argument against this war flies out the window.
-
Every man and woman who joins the military knows they are preparing for war, even in peacetime. Combat arms in the Army spend the majority of their time preparing for combat, which means preparing to potentially lose their lives. They all know this.
Correct.
Anyone in Iraq right now, signed up or re-enlisted AFTER 911, where they knew they were walking into a war. Also, most have been exposed to the "possibility" that there were no WMD and that 911 was allowed to happen as a pre-text for a war that was already in the planning stages.
If you are serving, I tip my hat to you. You're brave and you are risking your skin to ensure our standard of living. You know why you're there, you know why you joined, and you reap both the beenfits (college, stripe-chasers) and the deficits (physical risks, moral conflict over killing others for oil control).
I salute you.
-
And look at our death toll compared to ALL other wars and half your argument against this war flies out the window.
Poor argument.
97% of the combat deaths, or 3700 brave men and women, have been killed after our commander-in-chief declared victory.
Can you name any other conflict or war, where you lost 33 times more soldiers AFTER winning, than you did in toppling the country? ;)
-
Wrong. Taking orders without question is imperitave to order and discipline. Do you know ANYTHING about the military?? They sign themselves to not be in a position to dictate terms or make judgement calls on the higher ups.
There were conscientious objectors even in WWII.
I understand that blind obedience is how some people view the military chain. I don't think every soldier checks his or her brain at the door to make that possible.
And look at our death toll compared to ALL other wars and half your argument against this war flies out the window.
Really? Who declared war on whom? Just between you and me, this little invasion was never a war. It was an exercise in terrorism. Did I say 'terrorism'? I'm sorry, I meant we saved the Iraqis by attacking the Iraqis.
No wait, that's not quite right, We attacked Iraq to make the Iraqis comply with the ongoing UN inspections that Iraq was already complying with.
That can't be right.
Did Iraq attack us? Did Iraq attack an ally? Why is the fighting continuing?
I don't know if the reason we fight matters to you at all but it does to me.
I'm sick of seeing US soldiers killed and families ruined b/c the leaders and supporters of the "war" are too damn pigheaded to admit to a mistake.
-
I would hope that they also know that blind obedience to corrupt/incompetent presidential leadership is not part of their enlistment bargain.
There is only one idiot who disobeyed a lawful order to fight because he thought the war was illegal: Ehren "the traitor" Watada. I hope he gets to spend some quality time at Fort Leavenworth.
-
Iraq has oil. we'd like to sell that oil in dollars. they have good spots for bases too. we'd like those.
small-minded people can debate WMD - bush now admits they weren't there.
small-minded people can debate 'helping them'.
grownups know it was about oil, bases, and dollar. you kids keep talking about how we helped them.
-
There is only one idiot who disobeyed a lawful order to fight because he thought the war was illegal: Ehren "the traitor" Watada. I hope he gets to spend some quality time at Fort Leavenworth.
The court appointed US president, George W. Bush, broke international law by ordering the attack on IRaq.
Last time I checked, a soldier can't obey an illegal order.
-
There were conscientious objectors even in WWII.
"Conscientious objectors" are opposed to all killing in war, so not really a good example. They still served. One of them received the Medal of Honor (Desmond Doss).
-
The court appointed US president, George W. Bush, broke international law by ordering the attack on IRaq.
Last time I checked, a soldier can't obey an illegal order.
Last time I checked the Congress and much of the world disagrees with you. Only one dummy in uniform took that stance. We'll see how the military justice system deals with someone who betrayed his oath, his fellow soldiers, and his country.
-
"Conscientious objectors" are opposed to all killing in war, so not really a good example. They still served. One of them received the Medal of Honor (Desmond Doss).
It's a great example.
See Beach Bum, one big problem with the illegal invasion is the killing/murder.
-
you shouldn't sign up unless you're prepared to kill or be killed.
the kid that quit... what was his official statement on why he quit?
My guess is, he learned about the whole "they let 911 happen for oil wars?" and shit his pants.
-
There were conscientious objectors even in WWII.
I understand that blind obedience is how some people view the military chain. I don't think every soldier checks his or her brain at the door to make that possible.
Understandable since the point and principles of the military are lost on liberals.
CO's are cowards, ignorant, or both. You join the military you do what you're told. That's why it's called a "commitment." Soldiers agree to live by different rules than free citizens.
Really? Who declared war on whom? Just between you and me, this little invasion was never a war. It was an exercise in terrorism. Did I say 'terrorism'? I'm sorry, I meant we saved the Iraqis by attacking the Iraqis.
No wait, that's not quite right, We attacked Iraq to make the Iraqis comply with the ongoing UN inspections that Iraq was already complying with.
That can't be right.
Did Iraq attack us? Did Iraq attack an ally? Why is the fighting continuing?
I don't know if the reason we fight matters to you at all but it does to me.
I'm sick of seeing US soldiers killed and families ruined b/c the leaders and supporters of the "war" are too damn pigheaded to admit to a mistake.
You just answered your own question jack ass.. Even IF it was a mistake to invade Iraq we are there NOW fighting insurgents and attempting to maintain order. It's vital to stay until they can govern, police, and defend themselves without our help. We started this wheel so we have to see that we don't leave the country to rot and fall into full civil war or worse, fall victim to Iran.
-
Last time I checked the Congress and much of the world disagrees with you. Only one dummy in uniform took that stance. We'll see how the military justice system deals with someone who betrayed his oath, his fellow soldiers, and his country.
If I, or anyone else, had standing to sue a sitting president for international war crimes, the court appointed president's ass would be grass. But I digress.
Iraq complied with WMD inspections. Bush ordered the invasion to make Iraq comply with WMD inspections.
Do you see a problem with that Beach Bum?
-
It's vital to stay until they can govern, police, and defend themselves without our help.
Problem is, about 6 months ago we suspended the police training programs, remember? We said we'd do it ourselves? It was a major setback for those who said "we're training them to take over" and an admission that letting them take over wasn't going to happen for a long time.
anyone have a link to that? It was discussed wildly on getbig, as a big failure.
-
If I, or anyone else, had standing to sue a sitting president for international war crimes, the court appointed president's ass would be grass. But I digress.
Iraq complied with WMD inspections. Bush ordered the invasion to make Iraq comply with WMD inspections.
Do you see a problem with that Beach Bum?
Yeah cause when it's obvious we mean business Saddam would play us every time. Then he would kick out the inspectors or start playing hat games again. It was all bullshit. The man didn't respect us because we didn't kill the bastard in 91 like we should have.
-
Problem is, about 6 months ago we suspended the police training programs, remember? We said we'd do it ourselves? It was a major setback for those who said "we're training them to take over" and an admission that letting them take over wasn't going to happen for a long time.
anyone have a link to that? It was discussed wildly on getbig, as a big failure.
If that's true it is a huge step back. Definitely NOT doing what we should.
-
Understandable since the point and principles of the military are lost on liberals.
That's stupid.
CO's are cowards, ignorant, or both. You join the military you do what you're told. That's why it's called a "commitment."
Is that what your wife tells you?
Soldiers agree to live by different rules than free citizens.
No argument here.
You just answered your own question jack ass.. Even IF it was a mistake to invade Iraq we are there NOW fighting insurgents and attempting to maintain order. It's vital to stay until they can govern, police, and defend themselves without our help. We started this wheel so we have to see that we don't leave the country to rot and fall into full civil war or worse, fall victim to Iran.
How did I answer my own question? Why is it "vital" that we stay? Guys like you have been so wrong about every single prediction made about the Iraq fiasco that you've become a running gag.
And fuck you for calling me a jackass. I tolerate your presence b/c I'm a bit bored at work.
-
If I, or anyone else, had standing to sue a sitting president for international war crimes, the court appointed president's ass would be grass. But I digress.
Iraq complied with WMD inspections. Bush ordered the invasion to make Iraq comply with WMD inspections.
Dems and Repubs alike, yelled about WMD, in all those quotes up to Feb 2003.
Bush got his UN inspections.
Nothing was found.
The inspectors and the UN all said the same thing - Dude doesn't have WMD.
We didn't like the answer, so we invaded them.
Everytime BeachCum quotes a 1999 Dem quote about WMD, it insults every one of you. Dems and Repubs wanted inspections, and got them. Bush just didn't liek the answers ;)
-
If that's true it is a huge step back. Definitely NOT doing what we should.
I agree 100%.... i've always said I like the idea of forces on bases in iraq forever - to protect the oil and maintain presence in the region. howevevr, letting our guys soak up bullets in the ghettoes of baghdad, that's madness.
Pull our forces out of the cities, and pinkmist anything that comes within 5 miles of our bases, from the air. Easy!
however when the announcement came - I think it was 6 months ago - it was big. Said that won't be happening for at least 2 years, that their police just wasn't ready so no more resources were going that way.
-
Dems and Repubs alike, yelled about WMD, in all those quotes up to Feb 2003.
Bush got his UN inspections.
Nothing was found.
The inspectors and the UN all said the same thing - Dude doesn't have WMD.
We didn't like the answer, so we invaded them.
Everytime BeachCum quotes a 1999 Dem quote about WMD, it insults every one of you. Dems and Repubs wanted inspections, and got them. Bush just didn't liek the answers ;)
That's right. You summed that up pretty well.
Bush undermined international law, international treaties, and the US itself with his illegal invasion.
If we wanted the Iraq oil, we could have taken the vaunted 'free market' approach but we didn't. Why? B/c the US could take IRaq with little resistance.
-
That's stupid.
Not as stupid as an ignorant jack ass who doesn't understand the military.
Is that what your wife tells you?
Not married. No commitment here.
How did I answer my own question? Why is it "vital" that we stay? Guys like you have been so wrong about every single prediction made about the Iraq fiasco that you've become a running gag.
And fuck you for calling me a jackass. I tolerate your presence b/c I'm a bit bored at work.
You seem to have a problem understanding our continued presence in Iraq so I stated why we're still there. And apparently we were right about the surge, among other things. As far as I can see you haven't been right about anything you've ever written about.
I don't see that you're a mod up there so you can eat the shit outta my ass you spineless whore. ;D
-
If I, or anyone else, had standing to sue a sitting president for international war crimes, the court appointed president's ass would be grass. But I digress.
Iraq complied with WMD inspections. Bush ordered the invasion to make Iraq comply with WMD inspections.
Do you see a problem with that Beach Bum?
I see a problem with someone who takes an oath, tramples on that oath, then sits in an air conditioned office while his subordinates are sent off to get shot at.
This just in: the 2000 election is over. The 2004 election is over.
-
I agree 100%.... i've always said I like the idea of forces on bases in iraq forever - to protect the oil and maintain presence in the region. howevevr, letting our guys soak up bullets in the ghettoes of baghdad, that's madness.
Pull our forces out of the cities, and pinkmist anything that comes within 5 miles of our bases, from the air. Easy!
however when the announcement came - I think it was 6 months ago - it was big. Said that won't be happening for at least 2 years, that their police just wasn't ready so no more resources were going that way.
What's worse is that if we leave now and Iraqi citizens are just left as war bait for the next regime minded soon-to-be dictator in 10 or 20 years not only will the next regime hate us but their citizens will all remember how thier mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters were all murdered after being abandoned by the great Satan USA and will hate us so much that they'll be our next batch of bombers, hijackers, and assorted terrorists.
-
That's right. You summed that up pretty well.
Bush undermined international law, international treaties, and the US itself with his illegal invasion.
If we wanted the Iraq oil, we could have taken the vaunted 'free market' approach but we didn't. Why? B/c the US could take IRaq with little resistance.
General Clark disagrees with you:
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
-
Not as stupid as an ignorant jack ass who doesn't understand the military.
Not married. No commitment here.
You seem to have a problem understanding our continued presence in Iraq so I stated why we're still there. And apparently we were right about the surge, among other things. As far as I can see you haven't been right about anything you've ever written about.
I don't see that you're a mod up there so you can eat the shit outta my ass you spineless whore. ;D
hahahaha. A warrior in a chit chat room.
-
I see a problem with someone who takes an oath, tramples on that oath, then sits in an air conditioned office while his subordinates are sent off to get shot at.
Why bring up Bush at this point?
This just in: the 2000 election is over. The 2004 election is over.
The SOL on Bush's appointment is still not up my friend.
-
What's worse is that if we leave now and Iraqi citizens are just left as war bait for the next regime minded soon-to-be dictator in 10 or 20 years not only will the next regime hate us but their citizens will all remember how thier mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters were all murdered after being abandoned by the great Satan USA and will hate us so much that they'll be our next batch of bombers, hijackers, and assorted terrorists.
Early on, the british fueled the civil unrest in the south. 2 of their SF men got caught in basra (i think basra) with bombmaking materials dressed in muslim garb. they were tossed in prison. UK forces stormed the prison and it was a big battle. got lots of coverage. pics of a UK tank on fire was everywhere. they later apologized for the 'misunderstanding'.
the social unrest was by design - we tore down their entire infrastructure except the oil ministry.
Now, we are signing contracts for 41 longterm bases, we are signing contracts to manage their oil in dollars, and the civil unrest which was beneficial for justifying the building of all these things - is a little out off control. we're paying off militias not to fight, and to fight those who refuse to be paid off to fight. Tons of guns, literally thousands of pounds of guns, have disappeared, as have millions of dollars. bribes to "settle down in this area, please".
Hell, that's why al-sadr is sitll breathing. we needed him for unrest in the south. he got organized and now we cna't control him.
-
hahahaha. A warrior in a chit chat room.
"... exposing spineless liberals one post at a time."
-
Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
Look at the date, numbnuts.
Inspections by the U.N. restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,[1] but hadn't turned up any evidence of actual WMDs when the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in March 2003.
He wanted is in September when he made his statement. He got it 58 weeks later. Don't you ever get tired of being proven wrong, clown?
-
Well you douchebags are welcome to spend the rest of the day pissing about everything. As for me I'm headed to the lake for a bit of fishing.
See ya later, LOSERS!!!! ah HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! :D
-
General Clark disagrees with you:
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
Check your dates my friend. The inspections were ongoing right up until march 17, 2003. The attack was on 3-21-2003.
See, here's the court appointed president lying about it:
"We had a choice," Bush said. "Either take the word of a madman or take action to defend the American people. Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."
Hey genius (I refer to Bush) how about taking the word of the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq? You know, the ones you ordered out of the country so you could start your illegal invasion.
It is a shame that Bush's war crime is being justified this long after the fact.
-
"... exposing spineless liberals one post at a time."
Who can argue with authentic gibberish like that?
-
Beach Bum just used a quote from 2002.
Clark got the inspections he was calling for, 58 weeks later.
Beach Bum, it's a terrible argument. I'm embarassed for you.
-
Why bring up Bush at this point?
The SOL on Bush's appointment is still not up my friend.
lol. Hold onto to those dreams my friend. Perhaps Obama can be elected president, liberals will control Congress, and they can spend your money trying to prove war crimes?
What do you mean by "SOL on Bush's appointment"?
-
Check your dates my friend. The inspections were ongoing right up until march 17, 2003. The attack was on 3-21-2003.
See, here's the court appointed president lying about it:
"We had a choice," Bush said. "Either take the word of a madman or take action to defend the American people. Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."
Hey genius (I refer to Bush) how about taking the word of the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq? You know, the ones you ordered out of the country so you could start your illegal invasion.
It is a shame that Bush's war crime is being justified this long after the fact.
Are you saying General Clark was lying? Was Bob Graham lying too?
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
-
lol. Hold onto to those dreams my friend. Perhaps Obama can be elected president, liberals will control Congress, and they can spend your money trying to prove war crimes?
What do you mean by "SOL on Bush's appointment"?
I did see this quote this morning from Obama re the crimes of the Bush administration:
"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued … You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it."
SOL = Statute of Limitations
A man has to dream...I mean set goals.
-
Are you saying General Clark was lying? Was Bob Graham lying too?
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
Which do you regard as more probative:
A) 2002, I believe Iraq has WMDs
or
B) 2003, after inspecting Iraq, we can't find any WMDs
Would you say that B) is a bit more valid as evidence than A)?
-
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
And for 3 months after that statement, they looked everywhere Graham and others said the WMD were.
There were none.
bush didn't like the answer, and bombed iraq. I know you're furiously searching for post-november 03 quotes now, you sad sack ;)
WMD weren't there. They were a lie for people to buy, to jsutify a war for oil and bases. Live with it. I know it pains your religious side to endorse theft and murder, I know WMD lets you loophole that. But you look in the mirror, you know ;)
-
I did see this quote this morning from Obama re the crimes of the Bush administration:
"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued … You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it."
SOL = Statute of Limitations
A man has to dream...I mean set goals.
Just one more reason not to put Obama and his advisor Rev. Wright in the White House. Last thing we need is another absurd, taxpayer funded partisan witch hunt.
What does the "status of limitations" have to do with the 2000 and 2004 elections? Didn't the matter of the 2000 election already get decided by more than one court?
-
Just one more reason not to put Obama and his advisor Rev. Wright in the White House.
You were just anally punked on your dates and WMD speech.
So you're attempting to derail the thread into an Obama/Wright argument.
You are a terrible moderator.
-
Which do you regard as more probative:
A) 2002, I believe Iraq has WMDs
or
B) 2003, after inspecting Iraq, we can't find any WMDs
Would you say that B) is a bit more valid as evidence than A)?
C) From 1998 through the start of the war, the world believed Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed, Congress endorsed the war after it started, and countries from all over the world participated in the invasion.
-
Just one more reason not to put Obama and his advisor Rev. Wright in the White House. Last thing we need is another absurd, taxpayer funded partisan witch hunt.
What does the "status of limitations" have to do with the 2000 and 2004 elections? Didn't the matter of the 2000 election already get decided by more than one court?
I think if he has already made up his mind a crime has been commited without reviewing evidence or in the absence of such then it might be witch hunt. But based on that statement it doesn't look like he has.
-
C) From 1998 through the start of the war, the world believed Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed, Congress endorsed the war after it started, and countries from all over the world participated in the invasion.
What the world believed and what the inspectors found (or didn't) before and after the invasion have nothing to do with each other.
-
I think if he has already made up his mind a crime has been commited without reviewing evidence or in the absence of such then it might be witch hunt. But based on that statement it doesn't look like he has.
He has already made up his mind to engage in a partisan witch hunt. That's what that says to me.
-
...
What does the "status of limitations" have to do with the 2000 and 2004 elections? Didn't the matter of the 2000 election already get decided by more than one court?
That is what we in the legal field call "a joke".
-
You were just anally punked on your dates and WMD speech.
So you're attempting to derail the thread into an Obama/Wright argument.
You are a terrible moderator.
BB is not a debate or discussion moderator. He is a forum moderator.
-
C) From 1998 through the start of the war, the world believed Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed, Congress endorsed the war after it started, and countries from all over the world participated in the invasion.
You are delusional.
"the world"? Everyone except, um, the UN? ;)
The "countries from all over the world", huh? Iceland sent 2 guys, awesome!
-
What the world believed and what the inspectors found (or didn't) before and after the invasion have nothing to do with each other.
Maybe, maybe not. The people pulling the trigger believed he was a threat.
-
BB is not a debate or discussion moderator. He is a forum moderator.
He derails many good threads here when they aren't going his way.
he sucks, IMO.
-
C) From 1998 through the start of the war, the world believed Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed, Congress endorsed the war after it started, and countries from all over the world participated in the invasion.
Thank you for not answering the question.
What we thought (they have WMDs) v. what we know (they don't have WMDs).
The president is the ONLY guy that can order the invasion of Iraq.
He ordered the attack to compel inspections for WMDs even though no WMDs were found through inspections.
Do you see the problem there?
-
He has already made up his mind to engage in a partisan witch hunt. That's what that says to me.
How so?
"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued … You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it."
Considering they set aside 20 million for a Iraq victory party, reviewing information to see if there was wrong doing is not much to do at all.
-
He derails many good threads here when they aren't going his way.
he sucks, IMO.
I think you are confusing debate tactics with moderating.
-
Maybe, maybe not. The people pulling the trigger believed he was a threat.
Based on what? Reality or wishes?
-
That is what we in the legal field call "a joke".
Really? So what is the legal theory that you would use and who would be the defendant(s) regarding the 2000 and 2004 elections?
-
"The World" was never so united than it was in its condemnation of the invasion of Iraq, and no one outside of the US believed there were WMD. Doesn't anyone remember the harsh words coming from France, Germany, Canada, etc... the whole "freedom fries" thing as a result, and Bill O'Reilly's call for the boycott of French goods? Ann Coulter's dumbass condemnation of Canada? ::)
Everyone knew it was all about oil, which is fine I suppose. Except that in the last years, these kinds of stories have been popping up in alternate news... that the war isn't really about securing oil, rather to suppress its production in order to raise prices through the roof.
This one's from 2006.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/37371/
-
Thank you for not answering the question.
What we thought (they have WMDs) v. what we know (they don't have WMDs).
The president is the ONLY guy that can order the invasion of Iraq.
He ordered the attack to compel inspections for WMDs even though no WMDs were found through inspections.
Do you see the problem there?
I answered your question. You just don't like my answer.
The invasion was not ordered "to compel inspections for WMDs." The invasion was ordered to disarm Saddam, which Congress and the world believed was approrpriate. Including this guy:
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."—Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003.
-
The voters of state of Ohio.
In a courthouse in Columbus, there are paper backups of the 2004 E-voting.
Statistically (deep beath, BB)... due to exit polling disparities and historical analysis,
There is a 1 in 50,000 chance that Bush has more votes than kerry.
There is a 49,999 in 50,000 chance that kerry has more votes.
We would count them to verify the E-count, as it's required by law in close elections and there was a mysterious power outage as polls expired which paused the surprising results by 2 hours.
We can't count them, because Republican lawyers sued to have them destroyed. They haven't been destroyed yet, and I'm sure it'll be a really cute moment one day when they discover "technically", kerry had more votes in OH in 2004.
-
I answered your question. You just don't like my answer.
UN answered bush's question. He didn't like their answer. (no wmd).
bombs away, anyway!
-
How so?
"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued … You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it."
Considering they set aside 20 million for a Iraq victory party, reviewing information to see if there was wrong doing is not much to do at all.
What in the world are they going to investigate? The CIC ordered an invasion. Congress endorsed it. Congress funded and continues to fund it. Countries from around the world participated.
This is obviously an appeal to anti-war zealots. He has his finger firmly planted on poll numbers. This is purely partisan politics. Just like the Walsh, Ken Starr, and current U.S. Attorney "investigations."
-
Ken Starr
hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a I remember you voted for Bill Clinton. Fcking libs.
-
I answered your question. You just don't like my answer.
The invasion was not ordered "to compel inspections for WMDs." The invasion was ordered to disarm Saddam, which Congress and the world believed was approrpriate.
You're making a point without distinction from my own.
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."—Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003.
What a shock, another Republican dead wrong about Iraq.
He's basing his opinion on 1998 evidence.
It might as well be 1888.
Keep trying though.
-
You're making a point without distinction from my own.
What a shock, another Republican dead wrong about Iraq.
There is a major distinction. We didn't go in to inspect. We went in to disarm.
So I give you a quote, consistent with all the others, from a Clinton cabinet member, a month after the invasion of Iraq, and that's the best you can do? Dismiss him as a Republican? What he said is entirely consistent with what all of those Democrats said. Including this one:
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."—John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.
-
There is a major distinction. We didn't go in to inspect. We went in to disarm.
Fine. We went in to disarm.
But that assumes/implies that Iraq is armed to begin with.
Which it wasn't.
How did we know that?
B/c UN resolution 1441 authorized inspections and intelligence gathering by UN forces.
UN Res. 1441 governs the matter and here's the language.
Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates
So I give you a quote, consistent with all the others, from a Clinton cabinet member, a month after the invasion of Iraq, and that's the best you can do? Dismiss him as a Republican? What he said is entirely consistent with what all of those Democrats said. Including this one:
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."—John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.
Those are nice quotes.
-
The voters of state of Ohio.
In a courthouse in Columbus, there are paper backups of the 2004 E-voting.
Statistically (deep beath, BB)... due to exit polling disparities and historical analysis,
There is a 1 in 50,000 chance that Bush has more votes than kerry.
There is a 49,999 in 50,000 chance that kerry has more votes.
We would count them to verify the E-count, as it's required by law in close elections and there was a mysterious power outage as polls expired which paused the surprising results by 2 hours.
We can't count them, because Republican lawyers sued to have them destroyed. They haven't been destroyed yet, and I'm sure it'll be a really cute moment one day when they discover "technically", kerry had more votes in OH in 2004.
Reason #1,260 why americans will want him imprisoned soon. Bush works for satan.