Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * 2,000 < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

NoMoreYears
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 12:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So, here we are - our country has sacrificed 2,000 soldiers in Iraq. 48 hours before he launched this war, George Bush said this:
=============
"My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.

For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf war in 1991. Since then the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned."
===============
There were no WMDs, so this war is unjustified. Now we need to ask ourselves how do we get out of this mess? As recently as a week ago, I would have said that we need to stabilize the country before leaving. Now I read that over 40% of Iraqis believe that attacks against our soldiers are justified. I have changed my mind, and now I believe that we need to leave Iraq now. This war was unjustified at the outset and we've made a mess of it. Whether we leave now or after we lose another 2,000 or more lives, it doesn't matter, we're going to be leaving Iraq worse than we found it. All we can do is hold Bush accountable for this mess and hopefully avoid another tragedy like this in the future.

When we first launched the attack, support for the war was between 50% and 60%. At this point, support has eroded to around 40%. I would be really curious to hear from anybody who changed positions.

In the words of Chevy Chase as Fletch : "It takes a big man to admit he was wrong" (of course Fletch followed that with "And I am not a big man")

Anybody willing to admit they were wrong?
 

NoMore Years
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 02:01 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Blah, blah, blah, blah
 

Joseph Listan
Advanced Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 827
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 02:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leave now? While there's still oil in the ground?

I'd say the ratio of dead soldiers to barrels/day is still quite reasonable, especially if you aren't the one that has to tell the little kids that "Daddy isn't coming home anymore".

It is much easier to just stand up for the cameras and mumble repetitive platitudes about honor, freedom, and of course, "hard work". It gets even easier when the residuals from Halliburton keep pouring into your trust funds.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 3749
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 03:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm so far from the Cheney/Rumsfeld neo-con school of international policy that it's difficult for me to deal with the rationale by which the war was sold to the American public. Three reasons were given for the necessity of the invasion: Saddam was a brutal murderer who needed to be deposed, he possessed the capability to develop weapons of mass destruction that threatened the region, and he was allied with and had directly aided Islamic extremists and terrorists, specifically al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who had attacked the United States.

None of these has proven to be substantive, although Saddam was obviously not a benevolent ruler if no worse than several other notable examples. Whether the WMD claim was due to faulty intelligence or outright deception someday may be sorted out by history. The investigation and impending potential indictment of prominent members of the administration clearly shows how important it was regarded at the time. And most observers now realize that an unstable Iraq has become a haven and rallying point for the terrorists who were absent from the country during the Saddam regine.

The only arguments left today that have any resonance with the public are the need to "stay the course" and the difficulty of extricating the US from the situation in which it has mired itself. Even this support grows tenuous with time and as the casualties mount.

I don't know what it will take for the public to demand unconditional withdrawal. In Vietnam, which was greatly burdened by Cold War thinking, it took 17 years and more than 40,000 American deaths before the tipping point occurred. Surely it will take less time and fewer flag-draped coffins than that in Iraq, but my own suspicion is that it will be sometime prior to the 2008 election when Republicans come to realize their future as a majority party depends on it.

(Message edited by BillPierce on October 27, 2005)
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 1864
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 06:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Powell told Bush that if he invaded Iraq, he would own it. Prophetic if not plain obvious.

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Jim E Walls
Junior Member
Username: Oljim

Post Number: 40
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 05:34 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I have (had) been a devout, if not practicing, Republican since my childhood (when, to my utter dismay) good old FDR was practicing his scams and wiles on the world). However, the recent pervasive "opinion polls" which purport to show that a majority of the American people support this president's views and policies leaves me feeling as if I might not be an American in America any more. (Sort of like Dorothy and Toto.) Everyone I talk with expresses disapproval of what is happening, not only in Iraq, but right here at home.

Another poster in World Expression suggested that becoming a Libertarian(sp)was a more satisfifying political statement than remaining in either of our major parties, but was reluctant and unenthusiastic to do so because one essentially threw away his vote. It is getting to the place for me that the trade off makes sense - Speak now or forever lose my peace (of mind).

Well, here follows some insight into the Bush Family (mind?) and some words to live by -

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you need to concentrate on." - George W. Bush, The Elder, shortly after his inauguration

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” George W. Bush, The Younger, August 5, 2005.

“As a democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents more and more closely the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will achieve their hearts’ desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a down right moron”. H.L. Mencken
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 1872
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 12:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jim, the latest opinion polls no longer show much support for the powers that be and they are continuing to fall.

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Tim Wi
Intermediate Member
Username: Riverkeeper

Post Number: 315
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 09:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joe Lieberman said if for me.

I'm talking about his opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, 11/29/2005

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

Tim
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2128
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 10:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tim, I dearly hope he is right, but I deeply fear he is wrong. A very strong measure of progress is the American casualty count. It is climbing, not decreasing. Imagine how things would look if we lost "only" a single GI per day.

The Balkan War did not cost a single American life to combat in all these years. A high hurdle to be sure. The trend in Iraq is not good and really does not show any "light at the end of the tunnel."

(Message edited by listermann on November 30, 2005)

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Tim W
Member
Username: Timw

Post Number: 175
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 03:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Irag had hugh weapon stores before the start of the war. Because Bush was blocked from immediate action by Democrates posturing that the U.N. had to continue its efforts, Saddam shipped wepons and cash into Syria. Three days before the start of the war we had sattelite images of mile long caravans entering Syria. Why do you who try to tear down this nation and the good we are trying to do ignore this fact? Why do you ingnore the fact that the U.N. was on the take with the oil for food program? Why do you ignore the fact that Sadam had two sons groomed to take over. They where just as evil as Sadam. This regime of terror and murder was not going to go away when Sadam died of old age. Why do you ignore the fact that Bill Clinton said that Sadam was a big problem and needed to be deposed? 911 proved that we could no longer set by and let the terrorist activly persue their agenda. How upset would you be if this country did nothing after 911? What would be your complaint then?
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 4036
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 04:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tim, despite the brutality of the Saddam regime, Iraq was not harboring terrorists prior to the US intervening. Now the country is a haven for Islamic extremists who are a true threat to the US. I still fail to see how either America or the world is safer since the invasion. Many anti-terrorism experts view it as counterproductive to the efforts against those responsible for 9/11 and other attacks.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 5256
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 04:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"How upset would you be if this country did nothing after 911?"...I'd be very upset. That's why I supported the war in Afghanistan (anybody remember Afghanistan?). It's also why I'm so pissed off about the war in Iraq...we're taking resources away from the REAL problem.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 939
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 06:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

AND AGAIN I say if you think Saddam & Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda then you are more naive than my three year old. Note, I said Al Qaeda, not 9/11.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 4039
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 06:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, I'd respectfully say that at least a dozen other Arab countries provided al Qaeda with more support than did Iraq under Saddam. Bin Laden enjoyed at least moral support in most of the Islamic world, especially in his efforts to undermine what is seen as the hubris of the US.
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 940
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 06:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'll give you that Bill, but did any of said countries have or were they thought to have any type of nuclear or biological weapons programs that could be made available to OBL? Any of them that we aren't pseudo-friendly with anyway?

Given what we know now Iraq could have and should have been done differently. However, at the time our intelligence believed that Saddam had nuclear and biological weapons programs at the ready and he was at least considering supplying terrorists such as OBL and Al Qaeda. Contrary to popular belief this isn't some crackpot theory that the current administration came up with and lied to us about either. A certain previous Democratic President and members of congress from BOTH SIDES all believed this and said this to be true. There is no reason other than political posturing that the left has turned this into a "Bush Lied" issue. They are preying on the sympathies of the naive and uninformed in this country and use their chants to win elections in '06 and the presidency in '08. It's a rather disgusting display of using our dead troops for political gain. I'm not saying the citizens of this country don't have the right to question what happened, why we went there, etc. But don't kid yourself into thinking the Dem politicians are up in arms for any reason other than for political gain.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2138
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 07:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I do not yet believe that the intelligence was intentionally "cooked" but it was highly slanted by compounding worse case scenarios and ignoring things that did not fit those scenarios. The Bush adminstration was destined to attack Iraq from its beginning. It saw what it wanted to see and didn't hear anything that did not fit its intentions. The Congress and the citizens were pulled along this path and we are paying for it.

My youngest cousin is a Lance Corporal over there. He seems to be a "kill a raghead for Christ" sort. I have some very mixed emotions about all this. I don't like any of them.

(Message edited by listermann on November 30, 2005)

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Mike A.
Member
Username: Mike_a

Post Number: 142
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 08:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Have any of you read about Project for a New American Century, it's some seriously scary stuff. If these guys have their way, invading Iraq is just the beginning. They want American global leadership. The US has no intentions of leaving Iraq, we are currently building 14 permanent military bases there.
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 1681
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 08:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Only the truly foolish and those that have no desire to accept contrary points of views can believe that this administration did not receive conflicting reports on the WMD of Iraq and the now disproved links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. As was mentioned before the Clinton administration conducted bombings against Iraq because of the belief that they were developing WMD, however those that love to bring this up fail to bring up the fact that the intelligence agencies reported that there was a severe lack of hard targets (places believed to house WMD) to bomb. I do remember Clinton talking about Saddam being a dangerous dictator when he had Iraq bombed. But I can not for the life of me remember any “mushroom cloud” talk or “smoking guns” or “planning attacks on US soil” in any of his speeches.

There were enough warning signs for the average man not bent on starting a war. I can not accept the “I guess we were all wrong” excuse from the administration. Not only for the war but also for the blooming deficits that came from cutting taxes while increasing spending. No one is revising history here. There were protests against the war, there were well respected people on the news every day saying that they did not see the evidence of WMD, and there was a promise that war would be a last resort.

-Doug
 

Publius
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 08:01 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"They are preying on the sympathies of the naive and uninformed in this country and use their chants to win elections in '06 and the presidency in '08. It's a rather disgusting display of using our dead troops for political gain.

All I can say is that it's a good thing the republicans would never stoop to such cheap and tawdry political posturing. Thank God that they've never used thousands of dead for politcal gain or dragged family's private torments into the public arena to further their political agenda, or...

aww, never mind.



"Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – and both commonly succeed, and are right."
~H.L. Mencken
 

Publius
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 08:20 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Why do you who try to tear down this nation and the good we are trying to do ignore this fact?"

Hope you were wearing a parachute before you made that leap, Tim. Believe it or not, those who disagree with the current administration's policies just may be doing so out of a desire to make our nation stronger, not to "tear it down". "Doing good" is a nebulous concept that often only makes sense when viewed through the eyes of those who believe they are doing good. I'd hazard a guess that the former Soviet Union thought it was "doing good" when it invaded neighboring states and forced them into its sphere of communist influence. Good vs. Evil is often in the eye of the beholder. Do you think the average Iraqi thinks we're "doing good" with our occupation? Recent polls strongly suggest the answer to that question is a resounding "NO".

Oh, and by the way, why do you choose to ignore the fact that the current administration has been wrong about pretty much everything it has ever claimed about our little "adventure" in Iraq and that our policy there seems to be a total failure?


"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."
~Edward R. Murrow
 

ELK
Senior Member
Username: Elkski

Post Number: 1230
Registered: 01-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 01:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

TIm W. you failed to mention that most of those weapons stockpiles were bought on the open market and big biz including some in the US made big financial gains from them.
 

ELK
Senior Member
Username: Elkski

Post Number: 1231
Registered: 01-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 01:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

One more thing thats much different from nam is that the the casulty rates of today reflect a much higher number of wounded and maimed folks. THis is due to better medical care, armor, and personal protections.. How come we never see stories of these folks in the newpapers and mainstream media.
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 941
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 02:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Do you think the average Iraqi thinks we're "doing good" with our occupation? Recent polls strongly suggest the answer to that question is a resounding "NO".

That's funny, because a story I read within the last week showed how over 1/2 of Americans think that the war in Iraq is wrong yet a poll of Iraqis showed some crazy number like 80% of those polled think they are better off than they were under Saddam and some even crazier number like 98% percent think their lives will get better from here on out. But I suppose if you only get your info from anti-Bush websites and news sources you wouldn't hear things like that, now would you?
 

David Lewinnek
Member
Username: Davelew

Post Number: 214
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 02:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Have you ever noticed that Saddam was always seen wearing a western-style suit, while Osama bin Laden is always seen wearing robes and a turban?

Saddam was a secular dictator, who didn't much care for religion, while Osama is a religious zealot (there's plenty of evidence for this other than what they wear, that's just the most obvious). Saddam and Osama would have killed each other in seconds if either had the chance. The idea that Saddam would give Osama WMDs that could possibly be used against Iraq is just plain ridiculous; Saddam only gave his most elite and trusted troops those weapons, and Osama was certainly not trusted.

The argument that Saddam would have given WMDs to Al Qaeda is soft, brown, and came out the back of a cow. There was no national security justification for this war. The war came out of the misguided, naive, and now disproven idea that mideast governments would topple like dominos and be replaced by pro-US democracies if only the US showed more muscle in dealing with Iraq.

As for the claim that many opponents of the war also thought Iraq had WMDs, I believe htere is a different burden of proof required to say "I believe X" versus saying "I will commit thousands of American lives based on X being true."

Saddam did not have WMDs. If Saddam had WMDs, they would not have been used by Al Qaeda. The US is in Iraq because of naive foreign policy assumptions, not because of any security threat.
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 1684
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 02:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I would like someone to post these pictures of huge caravans of weapons being taken over the border. If they were shown on TV they will exist on the internet somewhere. Are we sure these trucks weren't filled with people trying to avoid being caught up in a war zone? We found out pretty quickly that the sattelite images of weapons labs in trucks were just trucks.

With all the facts that Tim spouted, how is it that every commission looking into the intel before the war have concluded that we were mistaken? Why in the world would Condi Rice say "I guess we were all wrong about WMD"?

As a person who was raised on Army Posts preying that a war doesn't break out when we really did have a world power at odds with us. I can tell you that watching my father go off to this war, knowing that if he dies it will likely be not in battle but driving from here to there as nut cases set off road side bombs, would be truly painful. He would go with no argument because that was his job. Now that he is retired it is a telling sign that he openly speaks out against this war and not only what it is doing to the US but what it is doing to the US Army which he proudly served for 20 years through Vietnam and the Cold War.

-Doug
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2146
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 02:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Another consideration is that if Iraq had these weapons at the time of the attack, why were they not used against the US? What would they been for if not to attack invaders at least?

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 942
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 03:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Saddam did not have WMDs

I am getting so sick of that flat out lie.

1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

Chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas

This is only a PARTIAL LIST of the weapons verified to have been RECOVERED IN IRAQ to date.

But nah, he didn't have WMD's.

And now, again, I'm going to try to refrain. I've found it's impossible to win against the blame America first crowd.
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 1685
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 04:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

ROFL!!

Mike,
Where are you getting these confirmed numbers? They look like the numbers flying out of the President and Vice President in the run up to the war. And yes you are right, they were either lies or wishful thinking.

If even one of the items on your list were true, we would never have had a Congressional Commission on Pre-War Intelligence Failures. The Administration would never have had to say “we were all wrong”. You would never have to refer back to Clinton believing there were WMD because he would have been right (god forbid). The Iraq Survey Team (military and civilians working to find the WMD after the war) would have never been called in front of Congress to tell them that the conclusion was that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and yes they did state that there was NO evidence that WMD were shipped to Syria before the war started. Please please please send me the source of this ground breaking information so I can forward it on to the major news outlets.

Man those Iraqi commanders must have been friggin’ stupid. They would rather load their men into unarmored buses with machine guns and drive them right at our troops while we fill them with bullets instead using these ton and tons of chemical weapons.

Now that is rewriting History!!!!!

-Doug

BTW I don't blame America or Americans I blame those that filled the masses with this sort of false information.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 4043
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 04:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't think the issue in most people's minds is whether Bush deceived the American people by fabricating evidence of WMDs. As Dan says, it was more a case of compounding worst case scenarios and ignoring other evidence that did not support them. Mike is correct that the Clinton administration cited some of the same intelligence, flawed as it may have been, and several other nations accepted it on its face without corroboration.

However, those who had the most to gain from an Iraqi invasion and who advanced it as their agenda were given far more power in the Bush administration than previously. A Democratic President would have heeded other voices and sought a more multilateral international solution that would have earned the US less ill will in the world community, including Arab states. It also would have provided less fuel for Islamic extremists and terrorists who have seized on the US invasion to advance their own ends.

Mike, the list of weapons you cite is possessed at the present time by quite a few nations, several of which are counted as US allies and others that have been identified as potential enemies. Does that provide justification for an American invasion of those countries as well?

By the way, it's not a matter of "blame America first." This is merely an unavoidable consequence of being the world's remaining superpower.
 

David Lewinnek
Member
Username: Davelew

Post Number: 216
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 05:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike Huss didn't list his source, but it appears to be a book called "Disinformation" by Miniter. I'll respond by cutting & pasting a reply from another message board to the same claims. I got this from http://digg.com/security/Dead_Wrong-CNN.com_s_2_min_clip_will_shock_you

which I found from doing a google search on "1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium" (with the quotes).

START QUOTED TEXT:

Wow, ok. Lets start with this:

*1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
"The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility"
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

This wasn't just a stockpile of enriched uranium, it was uranium that was used for nuclear research by Iraq LEGALLY. They removed it to keep it out of the hands of the insurgents, not the Iraqi government.

*1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
"[Military Spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A.] Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found."
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530. html

So the lab was created after the invasion, which means that you can't use it for justification of said invasion.

*Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
"...the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity....the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained."
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722255.stm

1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
"The airlift of the radioactive materials was completed June 23, Abraham said in a statement, 'to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists.'"
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32195-2004Jul6.html
Again, just another case of making sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands, nothing illegal here. It's like claiming every country with a nuclear power plant is harboring WMDs.

17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
"'These rounds were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces,' a statement by the military said."
source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm
Insurgents were attempting to buy these, not Saddam, and not before the war.

Before you guys start spouting off this garbage you should do a couple searches first because I'm REALLY getting sick of refuting this type of crap. If we found anything at all related to a WMD that anyone in the administartion thought they would be able to tout as justification for the war, it would be ALL over the place. These figures originated in a book by Richard Miniter called "Disinformation". If you want to do a little research on Mr. Miniter be my guest, what you will find is that he is just another right wing extremist.
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 1686
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 05:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Good point David. If there really were WMD and a real threat this thread would not exist.

You also made another great point in another post about "Saddam was a secular dictator"

In fact one of the largest population of Arab Jews in the world is found within Iraq. Osama would not have stood for that as he has a stated goal of ridding the world of Jews. Also, it is not widely known that the southern portions of Iraq are home to a relatively large number of Arab Christians. These people are now being killed in the sleep by the people we liberated.

Like it or not we are there and need to find a real way out. I believe it is sink or swim time for the Iraqis. Move our troops to seal the borders and hand over the internal security to the Iraqis. There will be unrest, but the Iraqi people will work it out without outside help.

-Doug

(Message edited by doug_p on December 01, 2005)
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 943
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 06:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ok, one more reply and then I'll let you guys have your merry time Bush bashing. I realize you don't like dissenters among you. I stated a list of WMD's found in Iraq as a response to a statement saying no WMD's have been found in Iraq. I guess now said WMD's aren't GOOD ENOUGH, so whatever. Did I ever say the limited list I posted was justification for a war? No, I did not. I just listed some nuclear and biological chemicals and weapons that could be used as WMD's.

And yeah, I'm sure Saddam was doing legal nuclear research in that facility. Ask the thousands (or was it millions?) of dead Kurds how his biochemical research went.
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 1687
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 06:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike,
You can go to cia.gov for the full report from the Iraq Survey Group. I have read it and although it if full of colorful interpretations as to the "intentions" of Saddam's regime. It clearly states no chemical, Biological, or nuclear weapons were found beyond a couple of left over and forgotten munitions from the 1980s. It clearly states that the sanctions imposed bythe UN were having the desired affect.

It is a good read if you have an open mind. We have a butt load of chemical and nuclear weapons and have stated through the axis of evil speech that we have sworn enemies. Do you think they should launch a pre-emptive strike on us?

Of course the Answer would be NO. Just as it would be wrong to kill the guy next door because he owns a few guns and you have not been getting along.

Desent is perfectly okay and needed in a democracy. However, just a couple of years ago those of us that were arguing that we did not need this war were the loan/minority desenters and we were labeled unamerican. And were told to wait and see what we find after we go in there. What started as a minority of desenting opinion may now help to get our boys home faster and make sure there are less of them coming home in wooden boxes.

-Doug
 

Publius
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 06:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"That's funny, because a story I read within the last week showed how over 1/2 of Americans think that the war in Iraq is wrong yet a poll of Iraqis showed some crazy number like 80% of those polled think they are better off than they were under Saddam and some even crazier number like 98% percent think their lives will get better from here on out."


Crazy numbers, indeed!

From an actual Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll of 3444 Iraqis:

Forty-two percent of Iraqis say their country is better off, while 46 percent say the US has "done more harm than good" in the past year.

Other telling findings of the survey were that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis, 71 percent (and that figure rises to 81 percent if the Kurdish areas in the north are excluded), now see the US-led coalition as an occupying force and not as liberators.

Almost 60 percent, want the US and its allies to leave immediately, even if it means the security situation will deteriorate.
 

Phil Lapp
New Member
Username: Phil_lapp

Post Number: 17
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 06:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

As I recall the dissenters a couple years ago were told to go to Canada or France (Bill P?). I haven't heard the same for the now minority that support the war. But let me be the first.

If you ever don't agree with the majority view in the US, you are no longer an american, and you should go to another country. I will meet you all in Canada later for a beer.
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 944
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 07:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Why oh why can't I just give up? I guess I like to argue.

I feel stupid but now I remember where I saw those numbers, they were in Lieberman's article that Tim posted.

"Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory."

So we results of one poll by Iraqis in Iraq, and we have results of another poll showing something totally opposite done by an American news outlet. You choose which one fits your agenda.
 

Tim Wi
Intermediate Member
Username: Riverkeeper

Post Number: 320
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 07:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The board has been silent on Joe Lieberman's opinion piece from 11/29/05 (except Dan L., who expressed the hope that Joe L is correct).

It would hardly pass the smell test to call a Democrat Senator from Conneticutt a right-wing zealot, a war-monger, a simpleton or a Bushie (espicially after the bitter November of 2000).

Since he cannot credibly be included among the ranks of the neo-con simpletons, how do you answer his arguments?

T
 

Publius
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 09:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, if you were citing Lieberman's piece you weren't doing it very carefully. Nowhere in his piece can I find the 98% figure you referred to. Not surprising; it's pretty tough to get 98% of any group to agree on any issue.

Regardless, I do not agree with your assessment that the poll figures I cited are totally opposite of those cited by Lieberman. The two polls ask different questions.

Poll cited by Me:

Forty-two percent of Iraqis say their country is better off, while 46 percent say the US has "done more harm than good" in the past year.

Other telling findings of the survey were that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis, 71 percent (and that figure rises to 81 percent if the Kurdish areas in the north are excluded), now see the US-led coalition as an occupying force and not as liberators.

Almost 60 percent, want the US and its allies to leave immediately, even if it means the security situation will deteriorate.

Poll cited by Lieberman:

Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today.


I don't think these results are even inconsistent, much less contradictory due to the different questions they are addressing. In Lieberman's poll Iraqis resoundingly say there are better off without Saddam, hardly a surprise. In the poll I cite the question was apparently couched in terms of "has the US military presence over the past year made the country better off?" With typical polling margins for error taken into account this one was pretty much a dead heat. My poll suggests a pretty strong majority of Iraqis want the US out of their country. I don't see any inconsistency there. These poll numbers would be perfectly consistent with an opinion that Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone, but now that he is gone please give us back our country and get out. It's entirely possible that a large majority of Iraqis feel they'll be better off in a year, at least in part, because there are now growing signs that perhaps we'll leave somewhere in that time frame. Besides, things have recently been pretty bleak over there; who wouldn't want to hope they'll get better?

Tim,

Calling Congressman John Murtha a lily-livered, flaming liberal pacifist would also not pass the smell test. Maybe it's time to admit that one's views on the Iraq situation are no longer (if they ever were)determined solely along party lines. For the record, I tend to accept or reject an argument based upon the merits of the argument, not on the political affiliation or philosophy of the person making the argument. Since you seem to want a response to Liberman's piece, here's mine:

Senator Lieberman, I respectfully disagree with you. One of the main reasons you give for continuing US military presence in Iraq is to protect the citizens of Iraq from the terrorists. It is my humble opinion that the terrorists you refer to are in Iraq because we are in Iraq providing them with an ideal opportunity to kill Americans. Perhaps if we left, so would the terrorists leaving the Iraqis little to worry about except how to rebuild their country and install a government that the people support. It seems to me that one of the main reasons we are in Iraq is to help instill democratic principals. One of the bedrock princples of democratic rule is that of majority rule. In a recent poll it is estimated that almost 60% of the Iraqi people want the US to leave immediately even if it means a deterioration in security. Even with polling margin for errors this represents, by the standards of our current administration, a firm mandate on the part of the Iraqi people. Perhaps we should practice some of those democratic principles we hold so dear, comply with the wishes of the majority and leave Iraq. Just my opinion, Senator, of course I could be wrong.
 

ELK
Senior Member
Username: Elkski

Post Number: 1236
Registered: 01-2003
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 04:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

At least I can proudly say I never supported this war and never even considered a yellow ribbon on my gas guzzler. In fact I quit wearing my "United we Stand" T-shirt. I do support the military and don't think we prepared or outfitted them properly. Remember the war was declared over 1800 casualties and years ago. I think this shows how badly we understood our foe. No WMD is a fact bud! I know folks who have made it rich from this war. Some guys here in Utah are on their 3rd tour..I can't imagine being away from the family for so long. I also beleive that most of our troops come from under privilaged or poorer families and they are not Bush or his buddies kids.
We hardly have anyone in the gov't or military that understands arabic much less to think we understand these ancient folks and their beliefs.
Also one cannot say things are better now than before Saddam as attested by the recent pronouncment by the former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-11-27-rightsabuseclaim_x.htm

IT is funny. I live in Utah where Bush still has his highest rating of some 70%. about the same percentage as that of the mormon sheep.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2155
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 04:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Have you noticed that the ribbons are harder to see anymore?

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 4061
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 04:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I was in the US last week and saw lots of ribbons on cars. They're even here in Canada. But it's easily possible to say you support those in uniform far away from home who are making great sacrifices, and yet have an entirely different opinion of those who are responsible for sending them there.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2158
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 04:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It is easily possible to say that you support the troops and not support the war, but the ribbons quickly became a war supporting statment. I saw it as a form of wrapping one's self in the flag.

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Tim Wi
Intermediate Member
Username: Riverkeeper

Post Number: 322
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 05:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well, I have one on my car Dan.

The main reason its on there is because I want soldiers coming home to know that I am thinking about them.

If, God forbid, a returning soldier were to experience the mindless cruelty that many encountered upon their return home from Vietnam, I want to play a role in counteracting it.

Its my way of saying, "I have never been cold, I have never been hungry, I have never lived in terror. Thank you for the you have endured."

I feel strongly about my obligation to THEM and want to show it.

When I see such a symbol on another's car, I don't presume that they support the war or Bush. I am merely glad that they would do a small thing to show solidarity with the soldier.

Tim
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2160
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 07:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well, that is a nice sentiment, Tim, you do support the war, do you not?

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 5265
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 07:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'll put a ribbon magnet on my car when I find one that says "Support the troops...bring them home".
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2162
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 08:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

***** for Denny!

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

David Lewinnek
Member
Username: Davelew

Post Number: 217
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 08:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

And a link for Denny:

http://www.solarbus.org/store/stickers.shtml

(4th bumper sticker from the top says "Support our troops, bring them home now")

NAYY
 

Tim Wi
Intermediate Member
Username: Riverkeeper

Post Number: 324
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 08:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well, that is a nice sentiment, Tim, you do support the war, do you not?

That is a complicated question. I'm not trying to avoid answering, I'll do my best since though I disagree with you on some things, I believe you really do sincerely try to consider things with an open mind.

I have read Duelfer, the UN Resolutions, the Brittish investigation into their intelligence and so on... So I know that our intelligence was terrible. I am tremendously ashamed and embarrassed that we did not find significant quantities of WMDs.

I love history, so I know that all plans are unrealistic after the first shot is fired.

I hunt, so I know first hand what bullets do to flesh and bone. I am a father and a husband. The phrase "war is terrible" has a visceral and real meaning for me, and I have been sick and upset that we are at war.

As I said in earlier threads on this subject, I don't know if it was the right decision at the right time... so I can't really say I support the war. I just don't know for sure. However, I will say that I believe firmly that there are situations where the consequences of failing to go to war may be so terrible that war is necessary. The genocide and enslavement of millions in Europe comes to mind.

I also believe that the strong and able have a moral obligation to come to the aid of the helpless.

I firmly believe that tyrants cannot be tolerated anywhere in the world. History has certainly provided ample instruction on this.

Where I am, I suppose, is that I support finishing the job. That means staying with it until either...

1.) The Iraqi government can fend for itself (victory); or
2.) It is plain and undeniable that we have failed, and further American bloodshed is futile.

I still believe and hope that 1.) is possible. I respectfully acknowledge that others as intellegent or more so than I believe that we are now at 2. I also recognize the impossibility of agreement among us on whether we are at 2 or not. I am here to say that I know those with differing opinions love their country as much as I do, and speak up because of it.

All of this is why I said at the top of the thread, that Joe Leiberman's opinion piece expresses my position. You will notice that he made no mention of whether he thought we were justified in going to war. He pointed out the good that may still come of it, if we stay the course.

I suggest we must agree to disagree, adjourn to the Brews part of the B&V, and indulge our obsession.

Tim

"If there is to be war, let it be in my time, so that my sons will know peace."
 

Ric Heinz
Intermediate Member
Username: Rheinz

Post Number: 323
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 09:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was it not WMD's that gassed thousands of Kurds as documented by European reporters?
Ric
Flatfender Brewing, NW Houston
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2165
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 10:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tim, as I said before, I dearly hope that #1 can happen, I deeply fear that #2 is how things will turn out.

Hearing our leaders take responsibility for this blunder and getting rid of those responsible would make me feel a whole lot better about things. At least those with defective thinking would no longer be in charge of cleaning up the mess. Thus far, they seem to get metals for their efforts.

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Joe Williams
Member
Username: Joewilliams

Post Number: 102
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 09:26 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I've been watching this thread silently for a while and feel it's my time to speak up and be heard. As you know I am in Baghdad right now so I have a unique perspective.

As Far as I am concerned, the discussion about the rational for going to war and if we were duped or not is water under the bridge. A man does not get elected to the Presidency without being able to deftly dismiss this type of controversy. In other words, give any president and his spin doctors time to conduct damage control and he will be back on top again. The real situation at hand is how we get out of this quagmire. If we do as Mr. Murtha suggests and pull out immediately then we have left the door wide open for another radical Islamic state in the region. It's obvious that the American people will not tolerate its sons and daughters coming home in body bags for years and years to come. How long we stay is the only question worth debating.

The Noncommissioned Officer in me says that my soldiers and I will stay until the mission is complete. That's all I need to continue to do my job over here. But the private citizen in me feels that there will never be a point whereby this puppet government will be able to stand on its own. I say that because everything that I read and see about the local population says that they are a people who do not understand the simple concept of a compromise. They would rather blow themselves up than realize that both Sunni and Shiite worship the same god. That kind of conviction does not come from a man who is willing to reach a compromise with his neighbor. Democracy requires compromises be reached every day. Some days I think me and my brothers in arms will be here again and again and again.

That’s my $.10 for what its worth.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2169
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 03:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Thanks for your perspective, Joe. Be careful over there.

Dan

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 5267
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 06:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Likewise..thanks, Joe. For your letter and your service. I may not agree with the war, but I certainly admire and respect people like you and the other troops.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

Ken Anderson
Senior Member
Username: Ken75

Post Number: 1189
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 02:31 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joe, some right-wingers are trying to claim that those Americans harping against the occupation are somehow anti-American soldier. That is absolutely nuts.
Man, stay on top of things, and get yourself and your men home safe.
Ken
 

Publius
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 04:54 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yep, thanks, Joe. Anyone willing to put on the uniform and go into harm's way gets my respect. Watch your butt over there and here's to hoping you're soon home and brewing.

I realize that for someone in your shoes treating the decisions about how we got into this war as water under the bridge is probably the only reasonable thing to do. However, hearing about the futility of our situation from someone with "boots on the ground" only causes me to get more and more pissed off at our current administration. Anyone delusional enough to have thought it was going to be easy to install a democracy in that part of the world has got no business being in a leadership position. Their decision to start this war has resulted in our current damned if you do and damned if you don't situation in which a lot of good people like yourself end up far away from home with their butts hanging out in a combat zone. Like I said, more and more pissed off.

Take care of yourself over there!
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2179
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 05:50 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bush's inabilitry to admit any failure causes him to retain a lot of failed people. If he had any balls he would dump Rumsfield on down now, including Rice. Trouble is that dumping these people would be seen as an admission of failure -something he cannot even think about.

(Message edited by listermann on December 04, 2005)

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Joe Williams
Member
Username: Joewilliams

Post Number: 103
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 12:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ken, nothing makes me prouder in my chosen occupation than when americans exercise their rights and speak out. I don't personally feel like I am on a magicians rug because the so called liberals are speaking out against the war.

The only thing that I view as a disgrace is the fact that americans typically talk more than they vote, remember the anger you feel now and exercise your true political voice next November and every November to come.
 

Mark Bushey
Member
Username: Spiff95

Post Number: 157
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 09:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Good point, Joe.

If you don't vote, don't bitch.
Mark
--Artificial Intelligence is no match for Organic Stupidity.
 

Ken Anderson
Senior Member
Username: Ken75

Post Number: 1193
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 09:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

And it's never too late to start. I never voted in my life until the 2002 presidential election. Yeah I could be raked for that, or commended for FINALLY getting registered.
And I did it because I felt so strongly about this country's direction and the presidency. An irony is that Ohio, my state, was apparently pivotal. And we all know how that turned out.
Ken
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2184
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 01:22 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

2002?

Dan

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Ken Anderson
Senior Member
Username: Ken75

Post Number: 1194
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 02:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

What the hell! I even mentally checked my math before that post. I know 2008 is the next election year. Let's see, 2008 - 4 = Doh!
Damn. Sober as a judge, too.

Edit: Obviously early signs of dementia.

(Message edited by Ken75 on December 05, 2005)
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 1694
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 01:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

For the record, Murtha's plan is to redeploy out of areas we feel are relativley stable to the border regions. He has a sink or swim sort of plan that says We will protect you borders and make sure outsiders don't try to join the fight and you (Iraq) must take up the fight for freedom. I think that if you pay attention to what will happen over the next 6 months, you will see that the Bush administration will basically follow Murtha's plan without admitting it. Remember Murtha has breakfest, lunch, dinner with generals so his plan is likely more of the non-civilian part of the pentagon's view than his own.

-Doug
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2190
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 01:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

There is a low level civil war in Iraq at this time. I believe that the best we can hope for is to delay the oncoming full blown civil war. The question we need to answer is how long are we willing to throw money and lives at Iraq to delay the inevitable?

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 945
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 01:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Seems ironic to me that we have a guy posting on this board that is risking life and limb in Iraq but we have others who are too chicken to even post under a registered pseudo name.

Joe, you guys rock. I wish I had 1/2 the guts that you guys do. I admire the hell out of our military, it takes a special person to sign up and risk your life for your country. Stay safe and get home soon!

Regarding voting I also find it to be ironic that in an area of the world where we are assumed to be insane for trying to start a democracy the voter turnout was larger than ours. In the October election Iraq had 63% voter turnout, yet in '04 in the US even with a record turnout we only had 60%. We typically have much less than that. But yet some in the country say they aren't ready for democracy in Iraq. Looks like we are the ones not ready for democracy if 40% of us are unable to exercise a right as simple as voting.

And I agree with you guys on that, if you are too damn lazy to get out and vote you certainly have no right whatsoever to bitch.
 

ELK
Senior Member
Username: Elkski

Post Number: 1240
Registered: 01-2003
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 02:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Not to take anything away from guys/gals in the service but most of them signed up in peace time for the money and or to get out of their situations and didn't expect to have a war...Look at the current shortfalls in recruits!! plus they are having to lower the standards and taking folks from the bottom of the test pool. All I'm saying is that most of these folks signed up for the dough and now its payback time. Of course there are family traditions and other reasons to join but I'm talking most or a large part. And another sad thing is here in Utah where Bush just had his highest ratings we have the lowest recruitment rate. They say it is because the large amount of mormon missionaries that get out of service during their two years of serving.

You say it takes guts to be there but these poor folks dont have a chance AWOL is a serious crime.
They are just trying to survive this crazy war like the rest of us would.

(Message edited by elkski on December 05, 2005)
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 1695
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 03:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

ELK we have the same view on the war. But I can tell you from growing up in the Army as a Brat. It is not an easy life. Most people that make a career out of the Military do it because that found something inside that makes them want to serve. When you go through basic training they tear you down until you are nothing and then build you back in a way that makes you believe in the greater good.

As for the money, I don't see that one. Most in the military make much less than their counter parts in the civilain world. When you have a guy driving a truck through Iraq that is in the army making 21k a year and the next 5 trucks have civilain contractors in them making 100K for a 6 month tour, that is a real crime.

My last thought about military service is that 99% of people that have served even 1 tour of duty during peace will still leave the military as a better person than they were when they entered it.

-Doug
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 946
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 04:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Elk, recruiting is low right now but re-enlistment is at an all-time high. That says alot about the men and women who are in there. Ya don't suppose a non-stop barrage of bad news on the news and no reporting of the good things we are doing over there has anything to do with the low recruitment rates, do you?

As for the people who enlist and then whine when they have to go to war I have no sympathy. You knew when you signed up that it was a possibility that you could go in to combat. Just because you thought you were on easy street to get money for college don't whine to me when you actually have to fight for your country.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 4081
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 04:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The military is also a means of acquiring skills and obtaining employment often not available in neighborhoods (both urban and rural) where recruits tend to come from. Obviously it's not frequently a choice for those who are well-educated and come from comfortable suburbs. It's traditionally been a way for the disadvantaged to gain a foothold. Those who are motivated have an expensive tradeoff and sometimes pay the ultimate price. In that sense it's less voluntary than it might seem.
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 947
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 05:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, I was one of those semi-poor rural kids growing up. My parents made just enough money that I couldn't get grants for school like the really poor kids, but nowhere near enough to pay for me to go to school, so I took out student loans galore and paid my own way. That option is available to just about anyone. I don't buy it that the only option poor kids have is the military.
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 1696
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 05:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike,
Many poor communities produce kids with a high school education that by no means measures up to the rest of the country. Those kids would never be able to get into college much less pay for it. The vast majority of people that gain skills in the army never wanted to go to college and probably didn't need to.

If you had a car repair shop and two guys came in looking for a job. Would you hire the burner that graduated from Vo-tech high school and bounced from job to job or the guy that spent 4 years in the army repairing top of the line equipment in a mission critical situation?

You don't have to buy it Mike. I lived with these guys. They can all tell you their version of growing up in America and they all leave the Army with a common vision of America. Please don't paint these guys whiners if they have objections to a war that they will have to fight and possibly die in. 99.9% of them will go and do their job without hesitation even if they object. A buddy of mine who spent 10 years in the Marines said that he will never die for his country or the President, but he would gladly give his live for the Marine fighting next to him.

-Doug
 

ELK
Senior Member
Username: Elkski

Post Number: 1241
Registered: 01-2003
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 05:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This whole mess does make you wonder if things would be different if we had a mandatory military service for everyone?? no church or bush excuses.
 

Tim Wi
Intermediate Member
Username: Riverkeeper

Post Number: 329
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 05:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)



(Message edited by riverkeeper on December 05, 2005)
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 950
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 06:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I will admit I had the benefit of going to high school in Wisconsin where we have better public schools than much of the country. But I only went to tech school (and I'm obviously not that smart since I went to school for 4 years and got two associates degrees instead of one bachelors) not a 4 year school. The education I received is available to everyone in this country IF you have the ambition to do it. Trust me, judging by some of the people I went to tech with it's hardly difficult to get in. I agree there are many communities and urban areas where the citizens may feel their only opportunity is the military, but it's not true.

I didn't try to paint them as whiners because they are protesting fighting in THIS war. I said they are whiners if and only if they signed up for the free ride through college after their service and they freak out when they find out they have to go in to combat. Well DUH, you DID sign up for the military, didn't you? You knew the chance you were taking when you signed up.

Elk, that mandatory military service sounds a little too communistic to me. Our military is (simply put) filled with people who chose to be in it, would you want people defending you and yours who don't want to be in it? I know I don't.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 4082
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 07:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I once supported the notion of universal national service, military or otherwise, but I have since met too many people from countries with such service who regarded it as something of a joke. They said anyone with clout or finesse found ways either to secure soft assignments or avoid it altogether, and that all it really taught was cynicism and disrespect for the system. This is typical of any program that adopts a least common denominator, and I'm afraid it's inherent in human nature.
 

ELK
Senior Member
Username: Elkski

Post Number: 1244
Registered: 01-2003
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 08:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I didn't say I support mandatory service.. I just said things would be different if everyones kids were participating, hell dads and grandpas are getting pieces blown OFF!
One more thing about the news reports. I whole heartedly disagree with this idea that they are only reporting the bad news... What are you drinking there my friend? the mainstream news is so in the political pockets that you can bet if there was any good news they would report it.. Of course 2 years after "the wars over! its not safe for reporters is it!!!Plus maybe news services are a little worried about playing to the correct side and are feeling a bit used like a 10th grade slut!!!
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 951
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 08:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm drinking good beer of course! Seriously, I don't see how you can say anyone other that Foxnews is cooperating with the administration and reporting good news from Iraq. If not for the internet and bloggers I never would have heard about the tons of kids going to school (in new schools) that never got to go to school under Saddam and stuff like that. All I ever hear on the evening news or CNN is "There was another IED attack today and two troops were killed"

For instance I have heard reports of numerous military members coming home and being shocked at the doom and gloom they seee on the news, saying that the news is reporting nothing like what it's really like over there and nothing about the all the good things they are doing. Granted, troops building schools isn't "news" in today's ADHD society, but still. It seems that it would kill the networks and CNN to actually show our troops in a favorable light.

(Message edited by mikhu on December 05, 2005)
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 5269
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 09:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Fox "News" (and I use the term loosely)is indeed cooperating with the administration...to the detriment of the truth. They are no better or worse than most other news organizations....
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

ELK
Senior Member
Username: Elkski

Post Number: 1245
Registered: 01-2003
Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 09:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Maybe the spinners don't want news about the US building schools over in Iraq when most folks dont think the school systems here are any good. I would like to see some major news teams do a story on what we could do here at home with 400 billion bucks! Just think thats 7-8 billion for every state...thats 7000 million bucks for each state. Lets just cut taxes for the old folks who vote most and get on with it.. I feel so sorry for the future generations.. Dont forget oil will run out in our lifetimes!
 

Publius
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 07:10 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Just curious. When did the job of the free press in this country become "to cooperate with the administration"?

Back in the 70's, Woodward and Bernstein apparently got it all wrong. Instead of exposing the Nixon administration as the festering cesspool of corruption that it was, they should have been cooperating with Tricky Dick and his wandering band of indicted and unindicted co-conspirators.
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 953
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 01:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I never said it was the job of the free press to cooperate with the administration. It's the job of the free press to report the news, not make it, that of which none of them can do anymore. Foxnews dares to report in a manner different than the rest and is skewered for it daily by the left. The national networks and CNN, oh yeah, and MSNBC (forgot about them mostly because no one watches them) spend their entire time searching for what they can find negative about the administration (see Rathergate). When the guy who basically set the standard for anchors on the evening news for decades ran a bogus store with manufactured documents he exposed the well-known bias of the networks.

What ever happened to REPORTING the news, not manufacturing it?

He/she who must not be named, you must be a politician by trade. You do a wonderful job of twisting opposing viewpoints in an effort to make yourself look good.
 

Patrick C.
Intermediate Member
Username: Patrickc

Post Number: 471
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 03:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Foxnews dares to report in a manner different than the rest "

Huh? I think they just saw a market opportunity and exploited it. They have a brand identity that any company would kill for. I don't know what Rupert Murdoch's politics are, but I know he likes to make money.
 

Publius
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 03:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bernard Goldberg wrote and interesting book on the subject of bias:

Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
 

NoMoreYears
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 04:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yep. That's a good one.

Goldberg is no hack either. He has received the Emmy Award.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060520841/qid=1133884379/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2 _1/002-3880295-4400841?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
 

Joe Williams
Member
Username: Joewilliams

Post Number: 104
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 04:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

ELK Brother you are confused. My wife will tell you that if you want to be rich, don’t marry a soldier. I was a Sergeant in 1993 with 2 kids and I qualified for food stamps, if that’s what you call “signed up in peace time for the money” I would hate to see what you call poor. Doug is right in that I could walk out the door when I get home and get about a 35% pay raise. Fact of the matter is that most recruits signed up because they walked into a recruiter’s office and were blindsided by a high pressure sales pitch that a used car lot would be proud of. Another fact of the matter is that if a soldier is going to go AWOL no law is going to stop him. Most soldiers willingly deploy rather than let down their buddy in the next foxhole because that’s what their leaders have taught them.

I have no problem trusting my life to each and every one of my soldiers and will continue to do so in the future and I take offense at the implication that we poor folk are either mercenaries or sniveling whiners.
 

ELK
Senior Member
Username: Elkski

Post Number: 1246
Registered: 01-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 12:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I know the pay is low and some of you could and will make more when you take a private job but some of you couldn't get a private job without the 4 yrs.. What I meant is that for some folks it is more money than they can make and or a promise to pay for schooling. Why would some one sign up for the reserves?
my main fact is that the less fortunate fight for the rest of us and the folks that send you boys to war don't have any kids in harms way. And most likely all the sons of CEO's of all the companies in the US making billions off this war are not in harms way...
 

Belly Buster Bob
Senior Member
Username: Canman

Post Number: 2478
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 01:11 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

just a few notes from the North:
Firstly...being a soldier myself, I have spent long periods in some shithole away from my family....I was deployed to Mid east on Dec 26 2001,I couldn't see the ribbons on your car...I was there because you insist on driving your gas guzzlers....As long as there is oil...there is war. you want to support your troops???start writing letters, sending care packages. Stop a soldier on the street and shake his/her hand, words are not necessary.
Second I'd like to express my opinion on voting....you don't vote....you are not entitled to an opinion.
That being said, most opinions stated here are based on media reports. The media is in the business of making money, not supplying acurate news reports. News is tailored to keep you watching......for the commercials.
Elk.....you've never actually met a soldier have you?
Bellybuster Bob
www.bellybuster.netfirms.com
 

ELK
Senior Member
Username: Elkski

Post Number: 1247
Registered: 01-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 04:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

No soldier here! I have met military guys before but not sure who the soldiers are?
I didn't need the military to get my ME degree but I was the 23rd guy Texas Instruments moved over to begin the design on a new missle product to compete for the Armys new Anti armor missle contract in 87. This was an intial contract to see who could delvelop a system that might work. Our missle won the contest and 3 design changes later we had the armys javelin missle of which more than 10k are now deployed at a cost of 70k per unit. When I left after 6 yrs there were over 500 folks working on the program and ramping up to full scale production. Our source partner was Martin M. and TI military stuff was bought out by Raytheon. I have seen in the news and elswhere that some have been used in this conflict. There are some cool videos on the net.
http://www.raytheon.com/feature/javelin_warfighters/
 

tobias magan
Junior Member
Username: Magan

Post Number: 93
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

ELK - Thanks for the Javelin. It works. Several of my buddies have used them in combat, and endorse them.

Now on to the other stuff - the military has changed significantly since Vietnam. We don't like to lose, or to take casualties. so we conduct rigorous after-action reviews and ask ourselves, "How could we do this better next time?"

The press, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have changed much. They are still doing the same lame crap they did in the sixties. You get reports of "three soldiers killed in a fight" but no pictures; when a Bagdad hotel "popular with the international press" was hit by car bombs, there were three different camera angles on CNN. The press can tell you the number of casualties, but have no idea how those soldiers fit into the big picture or how the operations they were in related to our strategy. This is the most elementary level of reportage, knowing that there are bombs and machine guns going off but not having any idea what that means.

We can endlessly debate whether or not we should have started this war. (Personally, I would have gone after Iran instead.) But, now that we are in it, we cannot just leave. We have to bring this to a positive outcome. Look at how long we were in Germany, or Japan, or Korea. Look at why we went to each of those places, and how things changed over time. We do not need an exit strategy for Iraq. We need an engagement strategy. Let's start talking about how to make Iraq a better place for the future.
 

NoMoreYears
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 08:13 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

2,155 US Killed
15,568 US Wounded

I can understand the temptation to say that it doesn't matter how we got into this mess and that the real issue is how to move forward from here, but I really have a hard time believing that the same party that impeached a president for lying about getting a blowjob is willing to give this president a pass for starting a war based on faulty intelligence. He has admitted that he is responsible for the intelligence failures and the decision to start this war, and that is a great first step. The next step is to have him removed from the office of president. Bush has proven himself to be a terrible leader and our country (and the rest of the world) deserves better.
 

NoMoreYears
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 01:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Blah, Blah, Blah

I hate Bush and have nothing constructive to say.

whine whine cry sniff
 

ELK
Senior Member
Username: Elkski

Post Number: 1278
Registered: 01-2003
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 09:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

tobias, glad they liked the Javelin.. You could teach an 8 yr old kid how to fire one in about 15 minutes or less with this video game age. In fact for one of our initial test firings a General was there and they asked him if he wanted to fire it and gave him a quick train and he shot if off and it passed that part of the test. He didn't fire it off his shoulder as at that time we were firing by remote to be safe. There is a video out on the net showing one or two at 70k a pop being used to take out a sniper in a building.. The warhead is not really designed for that but might work. The warhead is designed as you know to penatrate large amounts of armor!!! and then everything inside the tank gets hit with 10,ooo degree copper gas. All electrical systems are dead and drivers are toast. They would be deadly aimed at an airplane on final or takeoff and I hope they don't get into the wrong hands.
Can I ask you for details on how we didn't take advantage and protect the oil?
My opinion is that we thought if it was worst case like Kuwait that Haliburton could come in and shut off all the fires. We thought it was going to be a safe occupation after we moved in. Then we had planned on redoing most of the other oil infrastructure to increase production as Saddam had let maintenance and upgrades go by the wayside.. If you think about it is is crazy for these counties to pump the oil out fast as the US uses most of it and the country with the last oil will win.
 

tobias magan
Junior Member
Username: Magan

Post Number: 97
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 05:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't really know details of the plans, but none of the soldiers I have talked to were involved with anything to do with oil field security. They did more IED clearance, opening schools, electrical power generation and transmission, road work, water, stuff like that -- and training the Iraqi army and police. The oil business was mostly left to contractors and Iraqis, from what I know. There were some units tasked to secure elements of the oil infrastructure, like the big pipeline and the tanker port on the coast, but that was not the main effort from what I have seen.

Based on that, I think the strength of the insurgency was a surprise. I think we did expect to be greeted as liberators by a larger segment of the population. There was a definite plan to make the Iraqis finance part of the war through oil revenues, which hasn't panned out.

Also, American soldiers are not shy about pointing out hypocrisy. If there was a unit tasked to secure oil business stuff to protect corporate profits, they would have contacted the press by now, especially if they were taking casualties. The suicidal maniacs are on the other side.
 

Matt B
New Member
Username: Mattb

Post Number: 11
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 04:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I am not sure why but this thread has struck a cord with me. I am saddened by the loss of this many servicemen (a weighty topic for a board with such a light topic). To my mind the whole WMD bit is a big political farce. The coalition has found enough circumstantial evidence to show that there was plenty in the possession of Saddam's regime, and during the first bit of the ground war it went to Syria, was disposed of or was not utilized due to Iraqi confusion and poor communications. People have obviously lost sight of the fact that the US (not just the current administration) used plenty of other reasons for invading Iraq.

It seems to me that those reasons are vindicated every time there is an old mass grave or Ba'ath torture cell discovered, or whenever Iraqis are killed by the "insurgents". And these terrorists are and have long been targetting innocents far more than US forces. Also, to say that the US is just is guilty is to knowingly have your head up your tail end and have adopting the kind of political viewpoint one would find in that location.

Joe, I empathize with you. I was in command in Iraq for a year, and lost two of my own before my eyes with many more wounded. What is ironic is that these "insurgents" killed far more innocent Iraqis in the process, prior to their own dying, than US soldiers. This included young children and bystanders. If this is not an example of pure evil that must be stopped then there is no such thing.

All that is left is to argue how it is best done. And to say that you support our troops but not the war is impossible. You may say you didn't want the war in the first place but now that it is here (for the better IMHO), not supporting the war is not supporting the troops. It implies either wishing them to be defeated (and obviously more killed) or emboldening our enemies (postponing the inevitable and adding potentially thousands of innocent US and allied civilians in the process).

Had to get that off my chest. Been doing the slow burn on any similar subject. I will now refocus my energies on beer and the wonderful doppelbock keg I just tapped for the first time, brewed to celebrate the birth of my second son.
 

Carl McCoy
Junior Member
Username: Ib4it

Post Number: 92
Registered: 08-2002
Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 01:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I still support the Vietnam war. I don't know why we ever left.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 4510
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 02:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Carl, the US left Vietnam because it was never made clear why more than 58,000 Americans needed to die 10,000 miles from home. The strategic importance of the country was only relative to the Cold War, which is now long over.
 

Carl McCoy
Junior Member
Username: Ib4it

Post Number: 93
Registered: 08-2002
Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 01:24 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I was being sarcastic(for some), but your reasoning of the Vietnam conflict is now known to be sound. I wonder if it would apply in this day and age(more sarcasm for some)?

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: