Troops kill pregnant woman [Archive] - The Orange Mane

gunns

05-31-2006, 04:43 PM

No I don't blame our troops, they are doing as ordered, but this does not help Bush's game or help us to make friends and influence people.

U.S. troops kill pregnant woman in Iraq By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 8 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. forces killed two Iraqi women — one of them about to give birth — when the troops shot at a car that failed to stop at an observation post in a city north of Baghdad, Iraqi officials and relatives said Wednesday. Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, 35, was being raced to the maternity hospital in Samarra by her brother when the shooting occurred Tuesday.

Jassim, the mother of two children, and her 57-year-old cousin, Saliha Mohammed Hassan, were killed by the U.S. forces, according to police Capt. Laith Mohammed and witnesses.

The U.S. military said coalition troops fired at a car after it entered a clearly marked prohibited area near an observation post but failed to stop despite repeated visual and auditory warnings.

"Shots were fired to disable the vehicle," the military said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press. "Coalition forces later received reports from Iraqi police that two women had died from gunshot wounds ... and one of the females may have been pregnant."

Jassim's brother, who was wounded by broken glass, said he did not see any warnings as he sped his sister to the hospital. Her husband was waiting for her there.

"I was driving my car at full speed because I did not see any sign or warning from the Americans. It was not until they shot the two bullets that killed my sister and cousin that I stopped," he said. "God take revenge on the Americans and those who brought them here. They have no regard for our lives."

He said doctors tried but failed to save the baby after his sister was brought to the hospital.

The shooting deaths occurred in the wake of an investigation into allegations that U.S. Marines killed unarmed civilians in the western city of Haditha.

The U.S. military said the incident in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, was being investigated. The city is in the heart of the so-called Sunni Triangle and has in the past seen heavy insurgent activity.

"The loss of life is regrettable and coalition forces go to great lengths to prevent them," the military said.

The women's bodies were wrapped in sheets and lying on stretchers outside the Samarra General Hospital before being taken to the morgue, while residents pointed to bullet holes on the windshield of a car and a pool of blood on the seat.

Khalid Nisaif Jassim, the pregnant woman's brother, said American forces had blocked off the side road only two weeks ago and news about the observation post had been slow to filter out to rural areas.

He said the killings, like those in Haditha, were examples of random killings faced by Iraqis every day.

The killings at Haditha, a city that has been plagued by insurgents, came after a bomb rocked a military convoy on Nov. 19, killing a Marine. Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a decorated war veteran who has been briefed by military officials, has said Marines shot and killed unarmed civilians in a taxi at the scene and went into two homes and shot others.

Military investigators have evidence that points toward unprovoked murders by Marines, a senior defense official said last week.

In his first public comments on the incident, President Bush said he was troubled by the allegations, and that, "If in fact laws were broken, there will be punishment."

Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Adnan Pachachi told the BBC that the allegations have "created a feeling of great shock and sadness and I believe that if what is alleged is true — and I have no reason to believe it's not — then I think something very drastic has to be done."

"There must be a level of discipline imposed on the American troops and change of mentality which seems to think that Iraqi lives are expendable," said Pachachi, a member of parliament.

If confirmed as unjustified killings, the episode could be the most serious case of criminal misconduct by U.S. troops during three years of combat in Iraq. Until now the most infamous occurrence was the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse involving Army soldiers, which came to light in April 2004 and which Bush said he considered to be the worst U.S. mistake of the entire war.

Once the military investigation is completed, perhaps in June, it will be up to a senior Marine commander in Iraq to decide whether to press charges of murder or other violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The incident has sparked two investigations — one into the deadly encounter itself and another into whether it was the subject of a cover-up. The Marine Corps had initially attributed 15 civilian deaths to the car bombing and a firefight with insurgents, eight of whom the Marines reported had been killed.

"People in Samarra are very angry with the Americans not only because of Haditha case but because the Americans kill people randomly specially recently," Khalid Nisaif Jassim said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_women_killed

Mile High Shack

05-31-2006, 04:47 PM

well that's great

I suppose it's inevitable they will try and make this look like our troops are the enemy so they can be spat upon their return to the states just like in 'Nam

Garcia Bronco

05-31-2006, 04:47 PM

sounds like they should have stopped.

Hotrod

05-31-2006, 04:48 PM

sounds like they should have stopped.

Exactly

gunns

05-31-2006, 08:53 PM

well that's great

I suppose it's inevitable they will try and make this look like our troops are the enemy so they can be spat upon their return to the states just like in 'Nam

I don't know, I think over all most Americans feel bad for our soldiers over there fighting a never ending agenda.

Bronco_Beerslug

05-31-2006, 08:58 PM

well that's great

I suppose it's inevitable they will try and make this look like our troops are the enemy so they can be spat upon their return to the states just like in 'Nam

Who's they? Fu**ing sh*t is out of control over there, just like a lot of us said, bring home our boys now.

enjolras

06-01-2006, 09:51 AM

sounds like they should have stopped.

**** you... those people where driving in a panic to a god damn hospital. I would imagine that stopping to ask permission was sort of low on their overall list.

To smugly sit back in your easy chair and say 'well they should have stopped' is so unbelievably arrogant that it boggles the mind. I don't neccesarily blame the troops (I really blame the insurgents), but I also don't put the blame for such a horrific event on those Iraqi people. Its another sign of how our effort in Iraq is buckling under the pressure of the insurgents.. we can't help but kill pregnant women our of fear for our own safety. The administration desperately needs to find policies that work.

Hotrod

06-01-2006, 10:00 AM

**** you... those people where driving in a panic to a god damn hospital. I would imagine that stopping to ask permission was sort of low on their overall list.

To smugly sit back in your easy chair and say 'well they should have stopped' is so unbelievably arrogant that it boggles the mind. I don't neccesarily blame the troops (I really blame the insurgents), but I also don't put the blame for such a horrific event on those Iraqi people. Its another sign of how our effort in Iraq is buckling under the pressure of the insurgents.. we can't help but kill pregnant women our of fear for our own safety. The administration desperately needs to find policies that work.

Panic my *** she was in labor. Gee have the baby in the car or risk getting everyone shot to ****.

This forum should just be renamed. "Anti-America/Bush/christian" disscussion

Bronco_Beerslug

06-01-2006, 10:24 AM

Panic my *** she was in labor. Gee have the baby in the car or risk getting everyone shot to ****.

This forum should just be renamed. "Anti-America/Bush/christian" disscussion
"People in Samarra are very angry with the Americans not only because of Haditha case but because the Americans kill people randomly specially recently," Khalid Nisaif Jassim said.

Jassim's brother, who was wounded by broken glass, said he did not see any warnings as he sped his sister to the hospital. Her husband was waiting for her there.

"I was driving my car at full speed because I did not see any sign or warning from the Americans. It was not until they shot the two bullets that killed my sister and cousin that I stopped," he said. "God take revenge on the Americans and those who brought them here. They have no regard for our lives."
Of course, the solution is to get our soldiers the F**k out of there, since we are doing absolutely nothing but creating hatred towards all Americans throughout the world with this invasion and police action.

Garcia Bronco

06-01-2006, 10:26 AM

**** you... those people where driving in a panic to a god damn hospital. I would imagine that stopping to ask permission was sort of low on their overall list.

To smugly sit back in your easy chair and say 'well they should have stopped' is so unbelievably arrogant that it boggles the mind. I don't neccesarily blame the troops (I really blame the insurgents), but I also don't put the blame for such a horrific event on those Iraqi people. Its another sign of how our effort in Iraq is buckling under the pressure of the insurgents.. we can't help but kill pregnant women our of fear for our own safety. The administration desperately needs to find policies that work.

You are an idiot radical. When you pull up to the check point...you need to be ready...this is part of your plan to have a baby. And how are those soldiers supposed to know they aren't insurgents? Everybody did what they're supposed to do...except the people in the car. And they payed for it in blood. It's tragic to say the least, but come on...

Bronco_Beerslug

06-01-2006, 10:27 AM

You are an idiot radical. When you pull up to the check point...you need to be ready...this is part of your plan to have a baby. And how are those soldiers supposed to know they aren't insurgents? Everybody did what they're supposed to do...except the people in the car. And they payed for it in blood. It's tragic to say the least, but come on...
How do you know?

Jassim's brother, who was wounded by broken glass, said he did not see any warnings as he sped his sister to the hospital. Her husband was waiting for her there.

"I was driving my car at full speed because I did not see any sign or warning from the Americans. It was not until they shot the two bullets that killed my sister and cousin that I stopped," he said. "God take revenge on the Americans and those who brought them here. They have no regard for our lives."

Garcia Bronco

06-01-2006, 10:29 AM

Panic my *** she was in labor. Gee have the baby in the car or risk getting everyone shot to ****.

This forum should just be renamed. "Anti-America/Bush/christian" disscussion

Unless the baby was minutes form being born...there is no reason to speed through a check point. I guess I would just know what to do better...I can't exspalin it any better than that.

Garcia Bronco

06-01-2006, 10:31 AM

How do you know?

Because our soldiers had to shoot them...that's why.

enjolras

06-01-2006, 10:31 AM

Bronco_Beerslug

06-01-2006, 10:33 AM

Because our soldiers had to shoot them...that's why.
Who says, them?

Marine's Massacre Iraqi's
Marine officials have now confirmed that those accounts were false. What really happened, according to reports confirmed by the Pentagon, was this: A group of enraged Marines entered several homes in Haditha and murdered their occupants, including children, in cold blood. A video of the aftermath -- showing that the residents were unarmed when they were shot at point-blank range -- was obtained by Time. Some were still in their nightclothes.
http://tinyurl.com/mwxg8

Meck77

06-01-2006, 10:39 AM

**** you... those people where driving in a panic to a god damn hospital. I would imagine that stopping to ask permission was sort of low on their overall list.

To smugly sit back in your easy chair and say 'well they should have stopped' is so unbelievably arrogant that it boggles the mind.

This was a civil discussion until you arrogantly started telling people to **** off. Our troops are in Iraq trying to protect that very same lady from roadside bombs and they blew a military checkpoint! There is absolutely no reason they couldn't have pulled up and said "We need to get thru now as we have an emergency".

What boggles my mind is people that make excuses for people that do not use common sense. Common sense goes a long way. The lack of it can cost you your life. See article above.

defenseman

06-01-2006, 10:47 AM

This was a civil discussion until you arrogantly started telling people to **** off. Our troops are in Iraq trying to protect that very same lady from roadside bombs and they blew a military checkpoint! There is absolutely no reason they couldn't have pulled up and said "We need to get thru now as we have an emergency".

What boggles my mind is people that make excuses for people that do not use common sense. Common sense goes a long way. The lack of it can cost you your life. See article above.

Checkpoint, is what it is. The signs were posted, they tried to blow through, our troops apparently tried and did stop them. Agreed, it's sad , but it happened. They should have stopped. And if they weren't who they were? And a half a dozen of our own lose legs, arms and some their lives? No, thats not ok. While I feel bad for the women, our soldiers at the checkpoint were doing their job, they had no idea who these two women were. Unfortunate turn of events which will be exploited by the press I'm sure. This accompanied with the recent marine issues does not help our efforts at all........dman

Mile High Shack

06-01-2006, 10:51 AM

and in the past, the terroists have used the pregnant woman ploy before, while it turned out it was a woman with bombs strapped to herself

so....what are they suppose to do?

Bronco_Beerslug

06-01-2006, 10:56 AM

Checkpoint, is what it is. The signs were posted,

How do you know that? I see no mention of any checkpoint.

Meck77

06-01-2006, 11:02 AM

Bronco_Beerslug

06-01-2006, 11:07 AM

Read the article slug. They failed to stop at an area that was clearly marked STOP.

I know military failures get you guys all excited but give it a rest. A pregnant women died because our troops were trying to protect themselves. It's a very sad and unfortunte situation. No need to try and spin it into some big political debate about the war. There are 4,000 other threads for that. Says who? I already posted a link to the Marine massacre of civilians (women and children) who lied about what really happened. Where in that article does it state there was a mandatory stop at a checkpoint?

The U.S. military said coalition troops fired at a car after it entered a clearly marked prohibited area near an observation post but failed to stop despite repeated visual and auditory warnings.
Jassim's brother, who was wounded by broken glass, said he did not see any warnings as he sped his sister to the hospital. Her husband was waiting for her there.

"I was driving my car at full speed because I did not see any sign or warning from the Americans. It was not until they shot the two bullets that killed my sister and cousin that I stopped," he said. "God take revenge on the Americans and those who brought them here. They have no regard for our lives."
How do you or I or anyone else here know what really happened?

.

Mile High Shack

06-01-2006, 11:12 AM

Says who? I already posted a link to the Marine massacre of civilians (women and children) who lied about what really happened. Where in that article does it state there was a mandatory stop at a checkpoint?

How do you or I or anyone else here know what really happened?

.

I say you go over there and spit on them

stupid baby killers

Garcia Bronco

06-01-2006, 11:19 AM

Who says, them?

Marine's Massacre Iraqi's
Marine officials have now confirmed that those accounts were false. What really happened, according to reports confirmed by the Pentagon, was this: A group of enraged Marines entered several homes in Haditha and murdered their occupants, including children, in cold blood. A video of the aftermath -- showing that the residents were unarmed when they were shot at point-blank range -- was obtained by Time. Some were still in their nightclothes.
http://tinyurl.com/mwxg8

It doesn't sound like in this un-related story that these soldiers had to shoot anybody.

enjolras

06-01-2006, 11:23 AM

This was a civil discussion until you arrogantly started telling people to **** off. Our troops are in Iraq trying to protect that very same lady from roadside bombs and they blew a military checkpoint! There is absolutely no reason they couldn't have pulled up and said "We need to get thru now as we have an emergency".

What boggles my mind is people that make excuses for people that do not use common sense. Common sense goes a long way. The lack of it can cost you your life. See article above.

No, it was a shot at the value of an Iraqi life. When your entire response to this is 'they should have stopped', it shows a complete disregard for the value of the lives lost. Its arrogant and its placing blame on people who are just trying to get help.

So yes... if someone is going to have that little compassion for human life I feel veryl ittle need to keep the discussion civil.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-01-2006, 11:25 AM

It's approaching the same scenario as Vietnam. Those guys don't want to be there, there tired of all the sh*t going on and it's harder and harder not to let loose on someone.

defenseman

06-01-2006, 11:31 AM

No, it was a shot at the value of an Iraqi life. When your entire response to this is 'they should have stopped', it shows a complete disregard for the value of the lives lost. Its arrogant and its placing blame on people who are just trying to get help.

So yes... if someone is going to have that little compassion for human life I feel veryl ittle need to keep the discussion civil.

I will always give the benefit of the doubt to our service men and women in situations like this. We've all been in very tense scenarios before, these folks live it day to day. IF it were to play out that they were negligent, the UCMJ will be envoked I'm sure to take proper action on any member of the military who was in fact , derelict in their duties. Until then, they have my full support..dman

Garcia Bronco

06-01-2006, 11:35 AM

It's approaching the same scenario as Vietnam. Those guys don't want to be there, there tired of all the sh*t going on and it's harder and harder not to let loose on someone.

The problems of Vietnam extend from not doing the job to complete it. This isn't the case here. While the methods used aren't the best and brightest in some cases, generally...from all the people I've talked too that have been in Iraq fighting...they all say that we're accomplishing a great deal of good there. This is obviously a setback, but it could have been avioded had the Iraqi's done what they were supposed to do...and that's yield to a lawful order.

Crushaholic

06-01-2006, 11:35 AM

It's approaching the same scenario as Vietnam. Those guys don't want to be there, there tired of all the sh*t going on and it's harder and harder not to let loose on someone.

Now, YOU'RE assuming things...

Bronco_Beerslug

06-01-2006, 11:46 AM

Now, YOU'RE assuming things... Exactly, using information that's available.

The problems of Vietnam extend from not doing the job to complete it. This isn't the case here. While the methods used aren't the best and brightest in some cases, generally...from all the people I've talked too that have been in Iraq fighting...they all say that we're accomplishing a great deal of good there. This is obviously a setback, but it could have been avioded had the Iraqi's done what they were supposed to do...and that's yield to a lawful order.

We aren't "completing" anything over there except paving the way for a theocracy to rule (see Iran).

Garcia Bronco

06-01-2006, 11:49 AM

Exactly, using information that's available.

See...I question what we're seeing the media. I turn on CNN and all these bad things are happening. I talk to people who've actually been there and they say different.

Garcia Bronco

06-01-2006, 11:52 AM

Exactly, using information that's available.

We aren't "completing" anything over there except paving the way for a theocracy to rule (see Iran).

I don 't about all that... all I know is the people I've met are building schools, roads, and better infrastructure.

El Guapo

06-01-2006, 11:55 AM

looks like they got two birds with one stone.

Rohirrim

06-01-2006, 12:04 PM

I just keep remembering two things about this war:

1. We shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place and were lied into it (yes, just like LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to mire us in Vietnam) simply because Iraq had absolutely ZERO to do with 9/11. Afghanistan was right. Iraq is dead wrong. Expert special forces who were succeeding above and beyond the call of duty in Afghanistan were pulled and sent to Iraq, to the detriment of the primary, and necessary, mission of capturing and killing the perpetrators of 9/11.

2. The invasion of Iraq had been war-gamed for ten years. Military experts had estimated the invasion would require 325 to 385 thousand troops (under the rules of the Powell Doctrine which required overwhelming force). Rumsfeld ****-canned ten years of expert military planning - and the Powell Doctrine - so he could play general. Had we gone in with the troops called for under the original plan, we would probably be out of there by now, or at least, completely in charge of the situation. As it is, every day American soldiers are killed by IEDs built from the ammo that we didn't have enough troops to secure, that in fact, our troops stood by and watched as that ammo was loaded into insurgent pick-up trucks. Every day our troops are killed by terrorists and insurgents who were able to sneak into Iraq from Syria, Iran and elsewhere because we didn't go in with enough troops to secure the borders. Our overwhelmed troops, some of whom are on third, or fourth tours, are reaching the breaking point, which no doubt leads to stories like this, and the massacre being investigated up north.

IMO, Rumsfeld should go to prison for criminal incompetence and dereliction of duty. Once again, we have failed to learn the lesson of Vietnam - leave military missions in the hands of military experts, not civilian wanna-bes.

defenseman

06-01-2006, 12:12 PM

Bronco_Beerslug

06-01-2006, 12:22 PM

I don 't about all that... all I know is the people I've met are building schools, roads, and better infrastructure.
Really, have a link to show all that progress?

Garcia Bronco

06-01-2006, 12:40 PM

Really, have a link to show all that progress?

Like I said..all the people I that have been there say many better things then the morons at "network usa" ...you go dig up your own links...because if it's on the internet...it has to be true..

Bronco_Beerslug

06-01-2006, 12:44 PM

BroncoInferno

06-01-2006, 12:48 PM

Like I said..all the people I that have been there say many better things then the morons at "network usa" ...you go dig up your own links...because if it's on the internet...it has to be true..

Well, most of the inviduals I've talked to say it's a mess over there and the Iraqi army is years away from being even as good as the disbanded army we routed in 14 days.

Speaking to a handful of people in no way paints an accurate picture of events. There are too many factors involved...location of deployment and sensibilities of the indviduals giving the accounts, for instance...to claim that a handful of accounts paint an accurate portrait. The truth is probably a muddled mix of the varying accounts.

defenseman

06-01-2006, 12:58 PM

Well, most of the inviduals I've talked to say it's a mess over there and the Iraqi army is years away from being even as good as the disbanded army we routed in 14 days.

Speaking to a handful of people in no way paints an accurate picture of events. There are too many factors involved...location of deployment and sensibilities of the indviduals giving the accounts, for instance...to claim that a handful of accounts paint an accurate portrait. The truth is probably a muddled mix of the varying accounts.

Just for the record guys, we are going to be over there a while, in one way shape or form...I have no doubt....dman

Garcia Bronco

06-01-2006, 01:02 PM

So you're saying there's no documentation that you know of to verify the tremendous upgrades in infrastructure in Iraq?

Like I said...the people I've talked too say that we're making the most of a bad situation...i.e. war.

Garcia Bronco

06-01-2006, 01:03 PM

The truth is probably a muddled mix of the varying accounts.

which we are not getting as a public.

BroncoInferno

06-01-2006, 01:04 PM

which we are not getting as a public.

Yes, we are. We've all heard the Republican rebuttal regarding the situation in Iraq. Some of it is probably true, much of it is public relations.

Tredici

06-01-2006, 01:08 PM

People die in a war? Really?

The death of a pregnant woman is somehow more tragic than the death of any other human?

Didn't know that.

defenseman

06-01-2006, 01:21 PM

People die in a war? Really?

The death of a pregnant woman is somehow more tragic than the death of any other human?

Didn't know that.

And someone is too short to go to prison? that's logical...dman

*unfortunately, innocent folks killed during the execution of a war, well it will always happen.

gunns

06-01-2006, 06:12 PM

Panic my *** she was in labor. Gee have the baby in the car or risk getting everyone shot to ****.

This forum should just be renamed. "Anti-America/Bush/christian" disscussion

I love this condescending crap from a person that has never experienced labor.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-01-2006, 06:17 PM

I love this condescending crap from a person that has never experienced labor. I was scared to death when my ex told me we had to go NOW with our first daughter. She lost her water in the living room on the way out the door and was in CONSIDERABLE pain. I drove 70, 80 and 90 all the way to the hospital. Got her into a bed in the ER and 5 minutes after she was wheeled into the room she popped.

Definitely had the adrenalin rushing through the veins!

ClevelandBronco

06-01-2006, 06:19 PM

Bronco_Beerslug

06-01-2006, 06:30 PM

Well. They. Should. Have. Stopped.
Says who? Who's telling the truth?

Garcia Bronco

06-01-2006, 06:30 PM

I was scared to death when my ex told me we had to go NOW with our first daughter. She lost her water in the living room on the way out the door and was in CONSIDERABLE pain. I drove 70, 80 and 90 all the way to the hospital. Got her into a bed in the ER and 5 minutes after she was wheeled into the room she popped.

Definitely had the adrenalin rushing through the veins!

How far away from the hospital were you? 60 miles? Or did she have a 45 minute labor?

gunns

06-01-2006, 06:36 PM

Now, YOU'RE assuming things...

Hmmmm...my ex who served in Vietnam told me over a year ago if we didn't get out this would happen.....the enemy isn't the traditional enemy our soldiers are trained for. You'd think after Vietnam we would have learned.

gunns

06-01-2006, 06:39 PM

How far away from the hospital were you? 60 miles? Or did she have a 45 minute labor?

My second was 56 minutes and we lived 5 blocks away. Almost had him in the parking lot. Not every birth is the same and not every one is complication free.

Garcia Bronco

06-01-2006, 07:10 PM

My second was 56 minutes and we lived 5 blocks away. Almost had him in the parking lot. Not every birth is the same and not every one is complication free.

It took you 56 minutes to go 5 blocks?

ClevelandBronco

06-01-2006, 07:14 PM

It took you 56 minutes to go 5 blocks?

She must have stopped at the checkpoint.

elsid13

06-01-2006, 07:18 PM

She must have stopped at the checkpoint.

Now that is actually amusing.

gunns

06-01-2006, 07:20 PM

It took you 56 minutes to go 5 blocks?

Yeah that's what it was GB. Good one.

Garcia Bronco

06-01-2006, 07:21 PM

Yeah that's what it was GB. Good one.

I'm not being sarcastic...I'm being serious. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the senario. I'm not trying to offend you

elsid13

06-01-2006, 07:30 PM

this really sucks, it one those stupid stupid things that happen in war. Hopefully one day the promise of non-lethal weapon system will make this go away.

On side note, as bad as this seems and including the other incidents compared to other insurgencies conflicts, our troops have been extremely disciplines and there have few mistakes. The French in Algeria and Vietnam where committing War Crimes that would have made the Nazi happy. While the stuff that happen in Africa today is even worse.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-01-2006, 07:53 PM

gunns

06-01-2006, 08:27 PM

I'm not being sarcastic...I'm being serious. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the senario. I'm not trying to offend you

A women in labor doesn't know how fast it's going to progress was my point. By the time we realized it wasn't a "normal" labor it was a mad dash.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-01-2006, 08:57 PM

A women in labor doesn't know how fast it's going to progress was my point. By the time we realized it wasn't a "normal" labor it was a mad dash.

http://www.bartcop.com/newborn-share.jpg

Atlas

06-02-2006, 03:23 AM

I know this is going to get slammed,but alot of our troops over there are EXTREME ASSHOLES to the Iraqi people. Some places it is very bad. I blame this not on the upper command or even the soldiers themselves but I blame the sargents, they get a little command and power and if they are unstable or have poor decision making capabilities they can cause a lot of problems. A lot of these Sargents have complete power and loyalty over the soldiers they command and they can do pretty much what they want when they are out in the streets because they know no one will tell.

Do you think this massacre of 24 people in Baghdad was the first time this has happened??? Nope it has happened often.
And the man who led these troops into these houses and slaughtered women and children was just a lowly sargent!

Garcia Bronco

06-02-2006, 05:55 AM

A women in labor doesn't know how fast it's going to progress was my point. By the time we realized it wasn't a "normal" labor it was a mad dash.

Good thing you were five blocks away...that's amazing that it worked out that way.

errand

06-02-2006, 06:41 AM

sounds like they should have stopped.

I'm not saying they're stupid...but wouldn't they have to be? to see a bunch of troops with all kinds of weaponry demanding they stop and they don't stop?

As for the typical liberal 'this just makes them hate us more" crap....I wonder how many pregnant Japanese women were in Nagasaki and Hiroshima on those two infamous days?

errand

06-02-2006, 06:42 AM

sounds like they should have stopped.

We all know life is full of tough decisions...this one should have been a no-brainer

errand

06-02-2006, 06:49 AM

Of course, the solution is to get our soldiers the **** out of there, since we are doing absolutely nothing but creating hatred towards all Americans throughout the world with this invasion and police action.

Newsflash for you clown...they hated us way before we ever invaded Iraq. God, why does Sept. 11th seem like a distant memory to you liberal clowns?

defenseman

06-02-2006, 07:26 AM

I know this is going to get slammed,but alot of our troops over there are EXTREME a-holeS to the Iraqi people. Some places it is very bad. I blame this not on the upper command or even the soldiers themselves but I blame the sargents, they get a little command and power and if they are unstable or have poor decision making capabilities they can cause a lot of problems. A lot of these Sargents have complete power and loyalty over the soldiers they command and they can do pretty much what they want when they are out in the streets because they know no one will tell.Do you think this massacre of 24 people in Baghdad was the first time this has happened??? Nope it has happened often.
And the man who led these troops into these houses and slaughtered women and children was just a lowly sargent!

You'll need to provide solid proof of this. The fact of the matter is innocent people , caught in conflict, do unfortunately die. Massacres? I'd guesstimate that's the exception , not a rule. The way you write, it's the rule. Need more data.
As far as the sgt and above leading men in battle. There can be no question who is in charge in the scenario's these men are in. Second, failure to follow orders exactly , can and does get men killed as a general rule. Lowly sgt.? You have no idea what it takes sometimes to move up in the enlisted ranks. It can be a long haul for many. Very experienced in general, underpaid for the risk by grunches.......Good officers are MADE by solid enlisted personnel. Good officers DO NOT GROW ON TREES. The good officers KNOW who butters their bread, the senior enlisted. Officers , if left to their own devices, would as a general rule, fail miserably in most cases. Structure of the military is what it is for a reason...dman

Hotrod

06-02-2006, 08:05 AM

I love this condescending crap from a person that has never experienced labor.

So you would have tried to pass right thru armed military because of the pain. Brilliant

Hotrod

06-02-2006, 08:09 AM

Newsflash for you clown...they hated us way before we ever invaded Iraq. God, why does Sept. 11th seem like a distant memory to you liberal clowns?

I actually think at this point some on this board lay in bed at night praying for America to fail just so they can throw it in Bush's face. Im not joking every time something goes badly they start jerking each other off. Pathetic/sad really.

bronco_diesel

06-02-2006, 08:19 AM

I love this condescending crap from a person that has never experienced labor.

i would never pretend to understand the pains of labor. in such a time, i would imagine that it would be very difficult to think with a clear head....though i find it hard to believe that at least someone didn't realize the ramifications of not stopping.

in this day and age, especially in war, even we realize and understand how critical it is to show that you are of no threat.

defenseman

06-02-2006, 08:23 AM

I actually think at this point some on this board lay in bed at night praying for America to fail just so they can throw it in Bush's face. Im not joking every time something goes badly they start jerking each other off. Pathetic/sad really.

There are some who wish we would fail in Iraq. I didn't like Clinton , however I NEVER wished ill upon the country or him failing. I always hope the country does well in whatever we pursue. To wish for failure, well to be honest, I would be re-thinking my politics. Glass half empty NEVER gets anyone anywhere. Both parties use this tactic, lay the blame of failures at the others feet and come up with their reasoning as to why it's their fault. I'm sick of it. On both sides, to succumb to this line of thinking, is to have a defeatest attitude, you can't give up on your country and you can't wish ill on your own countrymen, no matter how the politicians conduct themselves day to day. ....dman

*Having a differing opinion than the pres. is fine. Thinking he's wrong is also fine. Wishing ill upon him and failure of our countrymen? Well, thats just plain wrong.

Garcia Bronco

06-02-2006, 08:30 AM

There are some who wish we would fail in Iraq. I didn't like Clinton , however I NEVER wished ill upon the country or him failing. I always hope the country does well in whatever we pursue. To wish for failure, well to be honest, I would be re-thinking my politics. Glass half empty NEVER gets anyone anywhere. Both parties use this tactic, lay the blame of failures at the others feet and come up with their reasoning as to why it's their fault. I'm sick of it. On both sides, to succumb to this line of thinking, is to have a defeatest attitude, you can't give up on your country and you can't wish ill on your own countrymen, no matter how the politicians conduct themselves day to day. ....dman

*Having a differing opinion than the pres. is fine. Thinking he's wrong is also fine. Wishing ill upon him and failure of our countrymen? Well, thats just plain wrong.

quoted for truth

Hotrod

06-02-2006, 08:35 AM

quoted for truth

And yet some in this very forum do such things. It makes me sick that any American would be waiving pom poms and rooting for the insurgents. Yet they cheer away hoping & praying for us to lose in Iraq. Of course they are the same ones who defended Kerrys actions and some even think Barbara Strysand(sp ???) is an American hero......

This forum has become a steaming pile of dog crap. I'm taking a vacation ;D

Rigs11

06-02-2006, 08:53 AM

Newsflash for you clown...they hated us way before we ever invaded Iraq. God, why does Sept. 11th seem like a distant memory to you liberal clowns?
Talk about a clown. I will repeat this to you for the hundredth time. ALqaeda was not in Iraq before the US invaded. Why can't you get that through your melon?Read the pentagon reports that show an increase, yes an increase, in terrorists since the invasion of Iraq.:welcome:

Garcia Bronco

06-02-2006, 08:55 AM

Read the pentagon reports that show an increase, yes an increase, in terrorists since the invasion of Iraq.:welcome:

And of course those are accurate stats you've be reading....everybody knows the AQ members and terrorists wear the green ribbon.

Rigs11

06-02-2006, 08:59 AM

And yet some in this very forum do such things. It makes me sick that any American would be waiving pom poms and rooting for the insurgents. Yet they cheer away hoping & praying for us to lose in Iraq. Of course they are the same ones who defended Kerrys actions and some even think Barbara Strysand(sp ???) is an American hero......

This forum has become a steaming pile of dog crap. I'm taking a vacation ;Doh come on hotrod, don't play the "american's are cheering" card. It's a copout you righties use every time something goes wrong in Iraq and is reported.Don't stoop to Errand lows.The bottom line is soldiers have rules and should abide by them. Yes it's war, unnecessary, but there still needs to be investigations into either intentional or careless acts by our troops.

Rigs11

06-02-2006, 09:02 AM

And of course those are accurate stats you've be reading....everybody knows the AQ members and terrorists wear the green ribbon.
What you don't believe the stats from our own pentagon? You're always saying that articles and websites are biased everytime we use them, and yet the pentagon's aren't good enough for you? Please enlighten us with stats that say otherwise.

defenseman

06-02-2006, 09:13 AM

I'm thinking your correct on this one RIGS. I believe though, some agencies "embellished" the percentages for effect if you know what I mean. The way the information is "presented" is pretty important. By that I mean, some news agencies exaggerated the numbers provided by the state dept...dman

*I'll see if I can come up with some hard data for you on this thought. I do recall some numbers not matching up though.

Garcia Bronco

06-02-2006, 09:31 AM

What you don't believe the stats from our own pentagon? You're always saying that articles and websites are biased everytime we use them, and yet the pentagon's aren't good enough for you? Please enlighten us with stats that say otherwise.

there are only two types of people that use statistics...liars and damn liars. What I'm saying is the information in this case is false because the data cannot possibly be complied correctly to be at all accurate. Since AQ is basically a secret organization...how in the heck can anybody...including the Pentagon...present any numbers like that and say it's fact. They are at best estimates....since they're estimates...they don't really have any merit. You can't even figure out a deviation for it that would be accurate.

Rigs11

06-02-2006, 09:41 AM

there are only two types of people that use statistics...liars and damn liars. What I'm saying is the information in this case is false because the data cannot possibly be complied correctly to be at all accurate. Since AQ is basically a secret organization...how in the heck can anybody...including the Pentagon...present any numbers like that and say it's fact. They are at best estimates....since they're estimates...they don't really have any merit. You can't even figure out a deviation for it that would be accurate.
Oh please. That is the silliest thing that I have ever heard.You mean to tell me that all those polls done in Iraq, all the demonstrations worldwide,all the intenational news sources, and the pentagon count for naught because you say it can't be accurate? What exactly is 'accurate' for ya?I think you're undermining the pentagon in it's ability to collect data. Is it 1005 accurate/ no but that does not mean it has no merit. Silly.

defenseman

06-02-2006, 09:52 AM

Oh please. That is the silliest thing that I have ever heard.You mean to tell me that all those polls done in Iraq, all the demonstrations worldwide,all the intenational news sources, and the pentagon count for naught because you say it can't be accurate? What exactly is 'accurate' for ya?I think you're undermining the pentagon in it's ability to collect data. Is it 1005 accurate/ no but that does not mean it has no merit. Silly.

I'm thinking the numbers quoted by the pentagon are best estimates. Possibly embellished after the fact by the press. I'll see it I can dig some stuff up but I do recall some incongrueties between the two....dman

Garcia Bronco

06-02-2006, 10:26 AM

Oh please. That is the silliest thing that I have ever heard..

I'm sure that's not true either.

Garcia Bronco

06-02-2006, 10:31 AM

You mean to tell me that all those polls done in Iraq, all the demonstrations worldwide,all the intenational news sources, and the pentagon count for naught because you say it can't be accurate? What exactly is 'accurate' for ya?I think you're undermining the pentagon in it's ability to collect data. Is it 1005 accurate/ no but that does not mean it has no merit. Silly.

Polls are the worst...the data collected is totally confounded. Demostrations? Like the ones by illegals in this country....demostrations hardly count as anything other than people skipping work and going outside. I'll tell you whats accurate...a vote....putting down you ID with the register...getting your named marked off and making a choice...that's what counts.

AQ doesn't issue membership cards...so anything that says X amount are here are totally baseless and without any real merit.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-02-2006, 10:51 AM

I'll tell you whats accurate...a vote....putting down you ID with the register...getting your named marked off and making a choice...that's what counts.

Depends on who is counting them and what their agenda is.

defenseman

06-02-2006, 11:17 AM

Depends on who is counting them and what their agenda is.

You can read that statement about 3 different ways. I'm thinking some sort of angle on this is needed so mis-interpretation is not an issue..dman

*In other words, could you be more specific

footstepsfrom#27

06-02-2006, 11:22 AM

Yesterday I was listening to a CNN reporter...not exactly a pro-war/pro-Bush media outlet...commenting on the death and injury of embedded reporters resulting from a roadside bomb. The female reporter told a tale of being trapped on a rooftop with American Marines who were taking fire from several directions and refused to fire back until they had confirmed their targets accurately, a process they engaged in (her words) "with amazing restraint at the risk of their own lives". The unfortunate thing about all this is that people want to find justification to support whatever they already believe. I think it is likely that the overwhelming majority of US Marines and other forces are using professionalism and restraint.

I also think it's completely unreasonable not to expect that in a war that has now taken on the same type of "police action" character to it, and includes the additional burden of tying our troops hands behind their back militarily to achieve political goals...that catastrophes like this aren't simply an inevitable result of our own policy. The presense of a few examples of misbehavior on the part of US forces will be used to suggest that this theme predominates or permeates the actions of all our military. But the bottom line is that we have put these kids over there without adequate resources, support or a clearly defined mission objective that's within achievability and yet we expect them to be impervious to the psychological stressors they're undergoing. If US Marines randomly murdered Iraqui civilians for no reason, I can't excuse that. At the same time, one has to wonder what in God's name is going on over there when people in the best trained army on earth come apart at the seams and act out of characher with such extreme results.

It's time to get multinational forces in there and get most of our guys out. Protect the integrity of the Iraqi government that's been elected and get the right forces in there to finish this thing and then get out and let the Euros who should have been there all along have a crack at this for a while.

Rigs11

06-02-2006, 11:33 AM

Polls are the worst...the data collected is totally confounded. Demostrations? Like the ones by illegals in this country....demostrations hardly count as anything other than people skipping work and going outside. I'll tell you whats accurate...a vote....putting down you ID with the register...getting your named marked off and making a choice...that's what counts.

AQ doesn't issue membership cards...so anything that says X amount are here are totally baseless and without any real merit.
The pentagon reports stated that terrorist activities as well as recruitement were substantially higher since the invasion in Iraq.By demonstrations I mean the ones against the war here in the US as well as throughtout the world, or anytime your buddy Dumbya goes to another country.But hey if you wanna keep discrediting these sources and living in a fairyland world like the current admin then so be it.

Garcia Bronco

06-02-2006, 11:36 AM

The pentagon reports stated that terrorist activities as well as recruitement were substantially higher since the invasion in Iraq.By demonstrations I mean the ones against the war here in the US as well as throughtout the world, or anytime your buddy Dumbya goes to another country.But hey if you wanna keep discrediting these sources and living in a fairyland world like the current admin then so be it.

"The pentagon reports stated that terrorist activities as well as recruitement were substantially higher since the invasion in Iraq"

And I'm saying they couldn't possibly report that with any kind of assurance that it's correct. They are estimates at best. Estimates aren't actual numbers...97.6 of all statistics are made up on the spot

Mile High Shack

06-02-2006, 11:37 AM

"The pentagon reports stated that terrorist activities as well as recruitement were substantially higher since the invasion in Iraq"

And I'm saying they couldn't possibly report that with any kind of assurance that it's correct. They are estimates at best. Estimates aren't actual numbers...97.6 of all statistics are made up on the spot

and even that statistic is made up ;)

(I figure I'd point that out to the slow people)

Bronco_Beerslug

06-02-2006, 11:38 AM

.97.6 of all statistics are made up on the spot So there's a 97.6% chance that what you just posted is made up on the spot?

Rigs11

06-02-2006, 11:39 AM

"The pentagon reports stated that terrorist activities as well as recruitement were substantially higher since the invasion in Iraq"

And I'm saying they couldn't possibly report that with any kind of assurance that it's correct. They are estimates at best. Estimates aren't actual numbers...97.6 of all statistics are made up on the spot

Where are you coming up with this crap? What are you a professor? So i'm to believe that the estimates that the pentagon has given for the last three years are made up because you say so? LOL

Garcia Bronco

06-02-2006, 11:41 AM

So there's a 97.6% chance that what you just posted is made up on the spot?

Look at the post above yours by MHS

Bronco_Beerslug

06-02-2006, 11:42 AM

Look at the post above yours.

Where are you coming up with this crap? What are you a professor? So i'm to believe that the estimates that the pentagon has given for the last three years are made up because you say so?

What about it?

Garcia Bronco

06-02-2006, 11:44 AM

Where are you coming up with this crap? What are you a professor? So i'm to believe that the estimates that the pentagon has given for the last three years are made up because you say so? LOL

An estimate is a guess....it's not crap. Pick up a book on research methods and statistics.

as part of my degree in psychology we had to take many classes on research methods and statistics.

I cannot comment on any other finds until you present them. You've presented this....it's an estimate...it's a guess. WTF do you want?

defenseman

06-02-2006, 11:45 AM

Rohirrim

06-02-2006, 11:56 AM

NO amount of training readies ANY soldier for what the reality of war really is and does. NONE. The only way is go over there, and jump into it. NO ONE can be trained for every factor they will encounter. Not realistic. That's why ALL military strategy is pretty damn good at the outset, until the first shot is fired, then it has to be flexible enough to change as the enemy changes his tactics....no one can truley be fully ready for what they face over there..dman

It's called the "Fog of War," and it's as old as war itself. In the days of Alexander, it actually was a fog, or at least a dust, from when cavalry units went at it. You couldn't see a damn thing except the guy in front of you.

Florida_Bronco

06-02-2006, 11:58 AM

I really only have 1 thing to add to this. Our troops are in a very volatile and dangerous situation over there, in which they do not know if some person in a car is harmless or packing a bomb that could kill them.

Given those circumstances and a reasonable suspicion on the soldiers part, I would much rather they take a chance and potentially kill an innocent civilian and keep themselves alive as opposed to having the opposite happen.

These Iraqi people aren't stupid, so if they go and give an American reason to fear for his life and get killed as a result...hey, that's war. It sucks that it has to come to that, but I will always put the life of an American first.

TheDave

06-02-2006, 12:05 PM

Is it just me or does this resemble Vietnam more and more everyday... I feel for these kids.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-02-2006, 12:07 PM

Is it just me or does this resemble Vietnam more and more everyday... I feel for these kids.
Sure does, for someone who lived through that time, it's eerie!

Rohirrim

06-02-2006, 12:13 PM

Is it just me or does this resemble Vietnam more and more everyday... I feel for these kids.

There's no comparison in scale. Plus, we were allowed to see the killed and injured back then - every night on TV. In some ways it's exactly the same; the government lied to us all along (both parties) and the civilian, political decisions took precedence over the miltary decisions.

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 12:51 PM

Where are you coming up with this crap? What are you a professor? So i'm to believe that the estimates that the pentagon has given for the last three years are made up because you say so? LOL
So, is the Pentagon a bunch of liers that cover massacres and lie about results, or are they the paragon of truth, whose estimates must be taken as solid gold? Interesting conundrum, eh?..

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 12:56 PM

Is it just me or does this resemble Vietnam more and more everyday... I feel for these kids.
I think a better historical comparison would be Germany after WWII. It took us several years to put down the Nazi insurgency also. The diffence was that we have many more soldiers to handle it and that we shot the insurgents immediately in the street in front of everyone to show that we would be giving no quarter.. The Germans are smart, they quickly got with the program once they realized they would be better off under what we were offering, compared to the Nazis or Communists..

As to more troops.. I hear that being used as a criticism quite often. However, I hear just as many people saying that a larger footprint (more us forces) would enflame the situation and turn the average Iraqi more against us.. Who here definitely knows the right answer to that problem?!

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 12:59 PM

I think a better historical comparison would be Germany after WWII. It took us several years to put down the Nazi insurgency also. The diffence was that we have many more soldiers to handle it and that we shot the insurgents immediately in the street in front of everyone to show that we would be giving no quarter.. The Germans are smart, they quickly got with the program once they realized they would be better off under what we were offering, compared to the Nazis or Communists..

As to more troops.. I hear that being used as a criticism quite often. However, I hear just as many people saying that a larger footprint (more us forces) would enflame the situation and turn the average Iraqi more against us.. Who here definitely knows the right answer to that problem?!
Interesting link w/ more info..

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/rubin082005.htm

defenseman

06-02-2006, 01:00 PM

So, is the Pentagon a bunch of liers that cover massacres and lie about results, or are they the paragon of truth, whose estimates must be taken as solid gold? Interesting conundrum, eh?..

Hmmmm? little of both maybe, to a point. On the other hand, todays american press, well they are about the same, depending on the nature of subject. Both quite similar in may respects, just like the DEMS and REPUBS are similar is certian respects..tactics for one...dman

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:01 PM

Relevant section:

"The Nazi insurgency was much smaller and less effective than the current Iraqi insurgency, which is estimated as having between 12, 000 and 20, 000 hardcore supporters along with substantial passive support from a large minority of the Sunni Muslim population of Iraq.

Nonetheless, there are four critically important and practical lessons to be gleaned from the defeat of the Nazi insurgency in post-war Germany.

First, the appearance of failure in the media is not necessarily accurate. The Nazi insurgency generated a fear and panic completely out of proportion to their actual effectiveness. Radio and leaflet propaganda claimed every setback in reconstruction as one of their operations, and deaths of prominent occupation personalities as assassinations. The media gobbled it up, while the citizens of American and Germany worried.

Just as they seem to be constantly describe a ‘quagmire’ in Iraq today and report on the unpopularity of American troops, many articles in the New York Times predicted doom and gloom for Germany in 1945.

The "attitude toward the American occupation forces has swung from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike. According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared."

"Grave concern was expressed today by informed officials that the United States might soon lose the fruits of victory in Germany through the failure to prepare adequately for carrying out its long-term commitments…"

"An exhaustive compilation of opinions of Germans in all walks of life on their reaction to the United States occupation of their country was released…Bitter resentment and deep disappointment was voiced over the Americans' first six months of occupation..."

Substituting Iraq for Germany, would these statements seem out of place in the New York Times today? No. Yet, though they predicted imminent disaster, the reconstruction went fairly smoothly, for the most part. Media thrives on disaster and pain; it survives by creating a climate of fear that glues people to their television sets, radios and newspapers. Hence the old adage "no news is good news.""

elsid13

06-02-2006, 01:02 PM

I really disagree on Vietnam comparison

Historical you need to compare this the US intervention in Haiti/Nicaragua or the conflicts in west post Civil War with Native Americans

In the last 40 years the British campaigns in Malaysia and Kenya are also good case studies.

Atlas

06-02-2006, 01:02 PM

You'll need to provide solid proof of this. The fact of the matter is innocent people , caught in conflict, do unfortunately die. Massacres? I'd guesstimate that's the exception , not a rule. The way you write, it's the rule. Need more data.
As far as the sgt and above leading men in battle. There can be no question who is in charge in the scenario's these men are in. Second, failure to follow orders exactly , can and does get men killed as a general rule. Lowly sgt.? You have no idea what it takes sometimes to move up in the enlisted ranks. It can be a long haul for many. Very experienced in general, underpaid for the risk by grunches.......Good officers are MADE by solid enlisted personnel. Good officers DO NOT GROW ON TREES. The good officers KNOW who butters their bread, the senior enlisted. Officers , if left to their own devices, would as a general rule, fail miserably in most cases. Structure of the military is what it is for a reason...dman

I was an eye witness to a couple of incidents. I saw a gun truck run a taxi in a ditch on purpose, killing a 5 year old kid and his mother. That's neither here nor there I'm not here to bash soldiers. Almost all of them do exactly what they are supposed to do.

Atlas

06-02-2006, 01:04 PM

Newsflash for you clown...they hated us way before we ever invaded Iraq. God, why does Sept. 11th seem like a distant memory to you liberal clowns?

Tell me again what was Iraq's roll in the 911 attacks??

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:05 PM

I was an eye witness to a couple of incidents. I saw a gun truck run a taxi in a ditch on purpose, killing a 5 year old kid and his mother. That's neither here nor there I'm not here to bash soldiers. Almost all of them do exactly what they are supposed to do.
You're always going to find evil or criminal individuals in any large group of humans.. However, our troops are the best trained they have ever been and 98% are doing the right thing over there.. I just wish the orgy of condemnation could get some perspective...

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:07 PM

Tell me again what was Iraq's roll in the 911 attacks?? Because 911 showed that we could no longer tolerate terrorist states (ie Afghanistan) or rogue regimes that support them and may potentially supply them with WMD (ie Iraq, Iran, N.Korea). Iraq is just a stepping-stone in the overall strategy in the War on Terror. You can make valid arguments about whether it was the right step to make, but you can't remove it from the post-9/11 context..

elsid13

06-02-2006, 01:09 PM

Atlas

06-02-2006, 01:10 PM

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:14 PM

I agree with that. From my experience I think the Sargents that are career military often work anyway they want. They feel that if they keep everything within their little group and cover for each other they can do anything they want with impunity.
I understand that.. As most with knowledge of the military know, the non-comms generally have the most power over what happens on the ground.. Just watch Band of Brothers to see examples of totally incompetent officers having their a**es saved by savvy experienced Sargeants..

defenseman

06-02-2006, 01:15 PM

You're always going to find evil or criminal individuals in any large group of humans.. However, our troops are the best trained they have ever been and 98% are doing the right thing over there.. I just wish the orgy of condemnation could get some perspective...

Much of the american press will not be happy , nor reliquish, until they have put the iraq war "lock and step" with the vietnam war. I have no doubt about it. We could ultra mobilize and clean out of every terrorists in the ME and beyond, and they won't stop. Why? ask them, I personally am not interested in wasting my time....dman

However, the first terrorists to hit us hard again, the same press will condemn us for not stopping them prior to them getting here. Amazing...dman

It's a have your cake and eat it too society anymore. Really sad.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-02-2006, 01:17 PM

Atlas

06-02-2006, 01:18 PM

I understand that.. As most with knowledge of the military know, the non-comms generally have the most power over what happens on the ground.. Just watch Band of Brothers to see examples of totally incompetent officers having their a**es saved by savvy experienced Sargeants..

I agree the Sargents are usually the guys that never went to college and are career. They often have much more military savy than the college boys that got promoted ahead of them. I also think that this feeds into their "do it their way" outlook.

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:18 PM

You really need to read Cobra II. Cheney and Rumsfeld planned first target was Iraq. They didn't think Afghanistan was worth punishing.
I will check that out.. However, I would like to remind what actually happened.. (Afghanistan first)

C'mon guys.. You have to know that DOD/admin has all the rogue regimes in their sights.. They are trying to tackle them in an order that was judged to be easy to succeed. Afghanistan first, then Iraq. Iraq would be an example of democracy and give us a base to take on Iran. N.Korea is the gorilla in the room and I think the admin was definitely putting them off to the side (or last).. Obviously reality has spoiled the best laid plans/intentions of the war (as always is the case throughout history)..

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:19 PM

Much of the american press will not be happy , nor reliquish, until they have put the iraq war "lock and step" with the vietnam war. I have no doubt about it. We could ultra mobilize and clean out of every terrorists in the ME and beyond, and they won't stop. Why? ask them, I personally am not interested in wasting my time....dman

However, the first terrorists to hit us hard again, the same press will condemn us for not stopping them prior to them getting here. Amazing...dman

It's a have your cake and eat it too society anymore. Really sad.
Bingo! Good post!

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:20 PM

Our troops are NOT trained for police actions. And 72% have said they want out of there, they've had enough. How can you blame them with the Bush regime making them do tour after tour after tour?
Link please? I question your "facts"..

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:23 PM

What drives me crazy is the absolutely horrible job this country does when it comes to teaching history (among other things). It's amazing how a solid knowledge of history (especially military) can totally put everything we are going through today in context. Humans have done this all before...

Bronco_Beerslug

06-02-2006, 01:24 PM

Link please? I question your "facts"..
Which ones? I've posted them numerous times here.

Rohirrim

06-02-2006, 01:24 PM

Because 911 showed that we could no longer tolerate terrorist states (ie Afghanistan) or rogue regimes that support them and may potentially supply them with WMD (ie Iraq, Iran, N.Korea). Iraq is just a stepping-stone in the overall strategy in the War on Terror. You can make valid arguments about whether it was the right step to make, but you can't remove it from the post-9/11 context..

That's a logical argument, if that was the primary strategy of this administration. What isn't logical is that if this administration was worried about WMD as a primary inducement to invasion, why did they proceed with the invasion (an extremely provocative, expensive and dangerous expenditure of life and treasure, not to mention political cache) when their own intelligence services, not to mention the various UN inspection teams, kept telling them that the evidence of WMDs in Iraq was dubious, at best - I think the word "questionable" showed up on the reports? Hans Blix was telling them that the evidence was non-existent. Also, we had complete control of their skies and the movement of their military power, before the invasion.

Given that the rest of the world now thinks that Britain and the U.S. "cooked the books" on WMDs in Iraq, haven't they endangered their ability to deal with Iran and N. Korea, who were a bigger threat than Iraq at that time, and are an even bigger threat now? Not to mention that Afghanistan, where we had the most unassailable reasons to invade, now seems to be slipping out of our grasp, directly due to the expenditure of forces in Iraq, AND we let Osama and Zawahiri get away. So either the thinking of this administration is suspect, or they are simply incompetent.

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:33 PM

That's a logical argument, if that was the primary strategy of this administration. What isn't logical is that if this administration was worried about WMD as a primary inducement to invasion, why did they proceed with the invasion (an extremely provocative, expensive and dangerous expenditure of life and treasure, not to mention political cache) when their own intelligence services, not to mention the various UN inspection teams, kept telling them that the evidence of WMDs in Iraq was dubious, at best - I think the word "questionable" showed up on the reports? Hans Blix was telling them that the evidence was non-existent. Also, we had complete control of their skies and the movement of their military power, before the invasion.

Given that the rest of the world now thinks that Britain and the U.S. "cooked the books" on WMDs in Iraq, haven't they endangered their ability to deal with Iran and N. Korea, who were a bigger threat than Iraq at that time, and are an even bigger threat now? Not to mention that Afghanistan, where we had the most unassailable reasons to invade, now seems to be slipping out of our grasp, directly due to the expenditure of forces in Iraq, AND we let Osama and Zawahiri get away. So either the thinking of this administration is suspect, or they are simply incompetent.
WMD was emphasized as the primary reason for the invasion, but not the only one. Go back and listen to Bush's speeches prior to the war. He had 5 reasons for going to war, but obviously WMD was the emphasized (and overly reported) reason. Obviously this was mistake, as your other comments are true about the perceptions that have been created and the effect that has on our future plans..

However, I disagree with your doom and gloom assessment of the current state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hear you parroting the main media message, but I see plenty to dispute the assertions.. Just because something is hard, dangerous, and time-consuming, doesn't mean it's a failure. That is illogical as long as you put events in context and understand them from a historical perspective.

The problem we have is lack of patience, attention-span, and unfortunately guts many in this nation (and media) seem to have.. All hail the ADD nation! :)

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:39 PM

Gotta run all! It's been fun and interesting mixing it up with you guys.. The reason I keep coming back to the Mane.. :)

Bronco_Beerslug

06-02-2006, 01:41 PM

The problem we have is lack of patience, attention-span, and unfortunately guts many in this nation (and media) seem to have.. All hail the ADD nation! :)

That's the same BS that was bantered around during Vietnam. Anyone with any common sense at all understands that we have created a theocracy (see Iran) where non existed before. And anyone with any common sense also understands these religious fanatics hate only us more than they hate each other. They won't be satisfied with the other controlling the oil and or dictating religious or law of the land and will continue to be at each other's throats for years to come.

Rigs11

06-02-2006, 01:45 PM

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:48 PM

That's the same BS that was bantered around during Vietnam. Anyone with any common sense at all understands that we have created a theocracy (see Iran) where non existed before. And anyone with any common sense also understands these religious fanatics hate only us more than they hate each other. They won't be satisfied with the other controlling the oil and or dictating religious or law of the land and will continue to be at each other's throats for years to come.
No, that's my opinion..

So, Khomeni had nothing to do with the theocracy in Iran? Carter's weakness had nothing to do with the Ayatolla's rise to power?

What exactly is your point about religious fanatics? They hate us more, so we should not fight them? I guess your solution is to cut & run and return to a pre-9/11 posture?.. (scratches head)

P.S. Was really leaving, but the sky just opened up here with mucho agua coming down..

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:49 PM

Hmmm....let's see ... reports by the pentagon, or a poster on a political forum? I'll go with the pentagon.
That doesn't answer the question..

Rigs11

06-02-2006, 01:49 PM

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:51 PM

That's the same BS that was bantered around during Vietnam. Anyone with any common sense at all understands that we have created a theocracy (see Iran) where non existed before. And anyone with any common sense also understands these religious fanatics hate only us more than they hate each other. They won't be satisfied with the other controlling the oil and or dictating religious or law of the land and will continue to be at each other's throats for years to come.
Also, the countries in the middle east will stop doing what you state once they get a chance to join the modern world with stable, free, and democratic countries. They will not have time for terrorism and extremism when they are busy going to work, raising their kids, improving their houses, etc.. Unless you are saying that Muslims/Arabs are incapable of handling freedom and democracy.. Is that your point?!

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:51 PM

Nice try, but it's widely known that Dickie and Dumbya were planning on invading Iraq before 911 ever happened.
Widely known where?! Can I have one example please? Other than your (and others) anectdotes..

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:54 PM

Widely known where?! Can I have one example please? Other than your (and others) anectdotes..
Speculation in the mainstream media and Moveon.or* do not equal "well-known" facts and proof..

Rohirrim

06-02-2006, 01:58 PM

WMD was emphasized as the primary reason for the invasion, but not the only one. Go back and listen to Bush's speeches prior to the war. He had 5 reasons for going to war, but obviously WMD was the emphasized (and overly reported) reason. Obviously this was mistake, as your other comments are true about the perceptions that have been created and the effect that has on our future plans..

However, I disagree with your doom and gloom assessment of the current state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hear you parroting the main media message, but I see plenty to dispute the assertions.. Just because something is hard, dangerous, and time-consuming, doesn't mean it's a failure. That is illogical as long as you put events in context and understand them from a historical perspective.

The problem we have is lack of patience, attention-span, and unfortunately guts many in this nation (and media) seem to have.. All hail the ADD nation! :)

Parroting the media? I was respectful to you. A mistake on my part. I suppose it is easier to construct a straw man, let's call it "lack of political will" and then blame that disease on the media, or better yet, let's blame it on the lazy Americans. That's been a popular one lately. Even our politicians are on the bandwagon for that one (an interesting hypocrisy, given that they live on the people's largesse, much like parasites) - "Jobs Americans Won't Do."

You must be one of those who believe the media should go to a prizefight and report on who was the seamstress on the trunks? "Why won't they cover the good stories?" you whine. The insurgency won't go away just because some reality-challenged amateur historian believes it is a media creation. If you want some history, read up on the British in Iraq, c. 1918. The parallels are remarkable.

As Scowcroft pointed out in 1990, some people actually knew what to expect in Iraq, not to mention the military planners who spent ten years war-planning an invasion of Iraq and decided that the number of troops needed would be three times what that cowboy Rumsfeld went with.

Sometimes, when that last lemming decides not to take the leap, he is not really suffering from a lack of guts, he has simply watched where all the other lemmings have ended up. And it's not that I don't understand the lure of the kool-aid. I'm sure it's very refreshing. Knowing history as well as you claim to, you no doubt are aware that many military failures are not caused merely by a lack of political will or a recalcitrant media. Many are caused by incompetent leaders.

BTW, since when did it become the media's job to sell the administration's kool-aid for them?

Rigs11

06-02-2006, 01:59 PM

Widely known where?! Can I have one example please? Other than your (and others) anectdotes..

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 02:23 PM

Parroting the media? I was respectful to you. A mistake on my part. I suppose it is easier to construct a straw man, let's call it "lack of political will" and then blame that disease on the media, or better yet, let's blame it on the lazy Americans. That's been a popular one lately. Even our politicians are on the bandwagon for that one (an interesting hypocrisy, given that they live on the people's largesse, much like parasites) - "Jobs Americans Won't Do."

You must be one of those who believe the media should go to a prizefight and report on who was the seamstress on the trunks? "Why won't they cover the good stories?" you whine. The insurgency won't go away just because some reality-challenged amateur historian believes it is a media creation. If you want some history, read up on the British in Iraq, c. 1918. The parallels are remarkable.

As Scowcroft pointed out in 1990, some people actually knew what to expect in Iraq, not to mention the military planners who spent ten years war-planning an invasion of Iraq and decided that the number of troops needed would be three times what that cowboy Rumsfeld went with.

Sometimes, when that last lemming decides not to take the leap, he is not really suffering from a lack of guts, he has simply watched where all the other lemmings have ended up. And it's not that I don't understand the lure of the kool-aid. I'm sure it's very refreshing. Knowing history as well as you claim to, you no doubt are aware that many military failures are not caused merely by a lack of political will or a recalcitrant media. Many are caused by incompetent leaders.

BTW, since when did it become the media's job to sell the administration's kool-aid for them?
Talk about escalation in lack of respect.. I never disrespected you by saying that I hear you parrot (maybe that was inflammatory word) what I hear in the mainstream media.. Nor did I make any argument about the media causing anything.. I criticize the media for providing a shallow and negative bias, but do not blame them for anything. People are responsible for their own actions...

Also, you ASSUME I haven't read about the British in Iraq cir. 1918 and that I am an amatuer historian. You are wrong on both accounts.. I guess you are technically right in that I do not make my living through history, therefore I am technically an amatuer. However, I've forgotten more history than most people know.. How about just keeping it to the issues..

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 02:24 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
So your examples are the BBC and a disgraced ex-admin official looking to sell books..

Anything else that is even close to objective?!

BroncoInferno

06-02-2006, 02:29 PM

Parroting the media? I was respectful to you. A mistake on my part. I suppose it is easier to construct a straw man, let's call it "lack of political will" and then blame that disease on the media, or better yet, let's blame it on the lazy Americans. That's been a popular one lately. Even our politicians are on the bandwagon for that one (an interesting hypocrisy, given that they live on the people's largesse, much like parasites) - "Jobs Americans Won't Do."

You must be one of those who believe the media should go to a prizefight and report on who was the seamstress on the trunks? "Why won't they cover the good stories?" you whine. The insurgency won't go away just because some reality-challenged amateur historian believes it is a media creation. If you want some history, read up on the British in Iraq, c. 1918. The parallels are remarkable.

As Scowcroft pointed out in 1990, some people actually knew what to expect in Iraq, not to mention the military planners who spent ten years war-planning an invasion of Iraq and decided that the number of troops needed would be three times what that cowboy Rumsfeld went with.

Sometimes, when that last lemming decides not to take the leap, he is not really suffering from a lack of guts, he has simply watched where all the other lemmings have ended up. And it's not that I don't understand the lure of the kool-aid. I'm sure it's very refreshing. Knowing history as well as you claim to, you no doubt are aware that many military failures are not caused merely by a lack of political will or a recalcitrant media. Many are caused by incompetent leaders.

BTW, since when did it become the media's job to sell the administration's kool-aid for them?

Good post. The fact of the matter is that you can produce any number facts before the eyes of folks like Edskins, and if they don't like the message will bemoan the "liberal media". The only objective sources are ones that stroke their delusions (i.e. Fox news).

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 02:33 PM

Good post. The fact of the matter is that you can produce any number facts before the eyes of folks like Edskins, and if they don't like the message will bemoan the "liberal media". The only objective sources are ones that stroke their delusions (i.e. Fox news).
You guys have anything more substantive, other than creating a straw man out of me supposedly claiming it was the media's fault?!

Garcia Bronco

06-02-2006, 02:40 PM

So, is the Pentagon a bunch of liers that cover massacres and lie about results, or are they the paragon of truth, whose estimates must be taken as solid gold? Interesting conundrum, eh?..

I didn't even want to go there with them. It's like George Bush...he's such an idiot right...he's so much an idiot that he's duped everyone at every turn.

Rigs11

06-02-2006, 02:50 PM

So your examples are the BBC and a disgraced ex-admin official looking to sell books..

Anything else that is even close to objective?!
Ahh of course it's never good enough is it? You'll blindly take the word of the commander in sleaze over anyone else huh? Well why don't you decide what kind of proof you need and i'll see what i can do.....

Rohirrim

06-02-2006, 02:58 PM

Talk about escalation in lack of respect.. I never disrespected you by saying that I hear you parrot (maybe that was inflammatory word) what I hear in the mainstream media.. Nor did I make any argument about the media causing anything.. I criticize the media for providing a shallow and negative bias, but do not blame them for anything. People are responsible for their own actions...

Also, you ASSUME I haven't read about the British in Iraq cir. 1918 and that I am an amatuer historian. You are wrong on both accounts.. I guess you are technically right in that I do not make my living through history, therefore I am technically an amatuer. However, I've forgotten more history than most people know.. How about just keeping it to the issues..

The issue, as I see it so far, is that the leadership of the Bush administration, from Bush on down, is relentlessly incompetent. They have dismantled a U.S. tradition of international political engagement that has served this country very well since WWII (under presidents of both parties), and replaced it with nothing except cowboy adventurism, fear mongering, political ineptitude, attacks on the civil rights of the American citizen, violations of the Constitution, strategies based on political ideology and wishful thinking, a complete lack of pragmatism, a complete ignorance of history and the establishment of a foreign policy that favors international corporatism over the "general welfare" of the American people. So far, they have been bailed out of their incompetence by the service "above and beyond the call of duty" of our armed forces, which are now starting to crack under the pressure.

Here's a nugget for ya. The first duty of the anti-insurgent military force, according to the Brits (who wrote the book on anti-insurgency in Malaysia) is to provide a "basic needs" infrastructure. That means food, water, housing, education for children, electricity (AC is a must in Iraq) and secure markets so that people can continue to concentrate on making their livelihoods - rather than engaging in the insurgency. We still have not accomplished that. Number two is provide law and order. We still have not done that. It's been three years.

Taco John

06-02-2006, 03:06 PM

When my wife is in labor, the police are going to have to shoot me to stop me from getting her to the hospital. That's about the only thing that's going to slow me down any.

Taco John

06-02-2006, 03:11 PM

I guess I would just know what to do better...I can't exspalin it any better than that.

Here's praying you never have to put your money where your mouth is on that one...

:pray:

Rascal

06-02-2006, 03:12 PM

I understand the family not stopping, but I also understand the troops opening fire. Just an unforunate incident that happens in war. Leave it at that.

Rascal

06-02-2006, 03:18 PM

According to CNN's front page the troops involved in the shooting incident in Ishaqi, near Balad, have been cleared of any misconduct.

Taco John

06-02-2006, 03:19 PM

See...I question what we're seeing the media. I turn on CNN and all these bad things are happening. I talk to people who've actually been there and they say different.

Here's what the Pentagon has to say about things... They might be a better authority on this. (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/05/31/insurgent_attacks_in_iraq_at_highest_level_in_2_ye ars/)

Taco John

06-02-2006, 03:22 PM

I understand the family not stopping, but I also understand the troops opening fire. Just an unforunate incident that happens in war. Leave it at that.

It's hard to leave it at that when you don't believe in the mission. That's where the outrage comes from. I argued in favor of this war back when I believed it to be about WMDs. I screamed my head off about the need to protect ourselves from Saddaam Hussein and his nuclear programs... Only to find out that he didn't have them, and that all the best intelligence leading up to the war indicated as much... So I'm left with the question, if he didn't have WMDs and we generally knew this based on the best intelligence we had at the time, why did we go over there in the first place?

We've put our sons and daughters in an ugly place, and by and large America doesn't understand why.

Taco John

06-02-2006, 03:26 PM

But we gotta win... We're there now.

I just don't understand WHY we're there.

Hotrod

06-02-2006, 03:28 PM

When my wife is in labor, the police are going to have to shoot me to stop me from getting her to the hospital. That's about the only thing that's going to slow me down any.

Oh settle down newbie you'll be fine ;D

Rascal

06-02-2006, 03:30 PM

It's hard to leave it at that when you don't believe in the mission. That's where the outrage comes from. I argued in favor of this war back when I believed it to be about WMDs. I screamed my head off about the need to protect ourselves from Saddaam Hussein and his nuclear programs... Only to find out that he didn't have them, and that all the best intelligence leading up to the war indicated as much... So I'm left with the question, if he didn't have WMDs and we generally knew this based on the best intelligence we had at the time, why did we go over there in the first place?

We've put our sons and daughters in an ugly place, and by and large America doesn't understand why.

I don't think anybody can truly believe in the original mission of going over there. Fact is we are there so we need to finish the job.

Rascal

06-02-2006, 03:31 PM

But we gotta win... We're there now.

I just don't understand WHY we're there.

Because Bush, Cheney, and Rummy are idiots but the price of leaving IMO is worse then the price of staying there.

Taco John

06-02-2006, 03:33 PM

I don't think anybody can truly believe in the original mission of going over there. Fact is we are there so we need to finish the job.

Well, we both agree on that. We probably disagree on some points. For one, I don't think it's possible to win with GWB as president, and Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary. I think they've sufficiently lost the support of the American people making it impossible to win the war from the standpoint of our own shores.

I think our folks overseas will continue to rot from the inside out under the current leadership. It breaks my heart.

elsid13

06-02-2006, 04:11 PM

But we gotta win... We're there now.

I just don't understand WHY we're there.

That is one on my major problem with this administration. The forget to first rules of leadership, explain to your folks why they need what they are doing. The war against the extremism is going to define this century, and if we cannot explain why we have to win and why there must be sacrifices then we already going down the wrong path.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-02-2006, 04:18 PM

Also, the countries in the middle east will stop doing what you state once they get a chance to join the modern world with stable, free, and democratic countries. They will not have time for terrorism and extremism when they are busy going to work, raising their kids, improving their houses, etc.. Unless you are saying that Muslims/Arabs are incapable of handling freedom and democracy.. Is that your point?!
It's NOT our duty to try install OUR vision of government on foreign nations. Most of the religious fanatics of the ME want NO part of any definition of U.S. democracy. Their is no such thing as "victory" in Iraq. Religion will rule government there as in most other Muslim nations. The Bush administration had NO F**king clue on what these people want and don't want.

Bush's grudge match in Iraq will cost us, our children and their children over 1 trillion dollars in VA benefits alone as of Oct. 2005.

I don't think anybody can truly believe in the original mission of going over there. Fact is we are there so we need to finish the job.
Can't and won't happen

Mile High Shack

06-02-2006, 04:31 PM

Can't and won't happen

why not with a better philosophy over there?

Can't shouldn't be an option

Bronco_Beerslug

06-02-2006, 04:37 PM

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course."

------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

This March will mark the beginning of the 4th year of the war in Iraq. In contrast, U.S. involvement in WWI came to an end after 19 months. Victory in Europe was declared in WWII after 3 years 5 months. In the Korean War, a cease-fire was signed after 3 years and 1 month. But after more than three and a half years into the war in Iraq, your administration finally produced what is called a "Plan for Victory" in Iraq.

Iraq is not the center for the global war on terrorism. I believe Iraq has diverted our attention away from the fight against global terrorism and has depleted the required resources needed to wage an effective war. It is estimated that there are only about 750 to 1,000 al-Qaeda in Iraq. I believe the Iraqis will force them out or kill them after U.S. troops are gone. In fact, there is now evidence that Iraqi insurgent groups are increasingly turning against al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists.

Our country needs a vigorous and comprehensive strategy for victory against global terrorism. The architect of 9/11 is still out there but now has an international microphone. We must get back to the real issue at hand - we have to root out and destroy al-Qaeda’s worldwide network.

There are 4 key elements that I recommend to reinvigorate our global anti-terrorism effort: Redeploy, Replace, Reallocate, and Reconstitute.

Redeploy

The war in Iraq is fueling terrorism, not eliminating it. Our continued military presence feeds the strong anti-foreigner fervor that has existed in this part of the world for centuries. A vast majority of the Iraqi people now view American troops as occupiers, not liberators. Over 80% of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq and 47% think it is justified to attack Americans. 70% of Iraqis favor a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces, with half favoring a withdrawal in the next six months. In fact, 67% of Iraqis expect day-to-day security for Iraqi citizens will improve if U.S. forces withdraw in six months and over 60% believe violent attacks, including those that are ethnically motivated, will decrease. Our military presence is the single most important reason why the Iraqis have tolerated the foreign terrorists, who account for less than 7 percent of the insurgency. 93% of the insurgency is made up of Iraqis. Once our troops are re-deployed, the Iraqis will reject the terrorists and deny them a safe haven in Iraq. The Iraqis are against a foreign presence in Iraq of any kind.

The steadfast and valiant efforts of the United States military and coalition partners have provided the Iraqi people with the framework needed to self govern. The Iraqis held elections that have been touted as highly successful, based primarily on the accounts of Iraqis who went to the polls. But our continued military presence in Iraq, regardless of the motives behind it, is seen by Iraqis as interfering in Iraq’s democratic process and undercuts the chances for the newly elected government to be successful. Recently, Iraq’s National Security Adviser accused U.S. negotiators of going behind the back of the Iraqi government on talks with insurgents, saying the process could encourage more violence. He said, "Americans are making a huge and fatal mistake in their policy for appeasement and they should not do this. They should leave the Iraqi government to deal with it… The United States should allow the new Iraqi government to decide on how to quell the insurgency."

In December 2005, an ABC News poll in Iraq produced some noteworthy results. 57% of Iraqis identified national security as the country’s top priority. When asked to rate the confidence in public institutions, they gave Iraqi police a 68% confidence level, the Iraqi army 67%, religious leaders 67%. But the U.S./U.K. forces scored the lowest, a mere 18%.

The longer our military stays in Iraq, the more unwelcome we will be. We will be increasingly entangled in an open-ended nation building mission, one that our military can not accomplish amidst a civil war. Our troops will continue to be the targets of Iraqis who see them as interfering occupiers.

Redeploying our forces from Iraq and stationing a mobile force outside of the country removes a major antagonizing factor. I believe we will see a swift demise of foreign terrorist groups in Iraq if we redeploy outside of the country. Further, our troops will no longer be the targets of bloody attacks.

Replace

The ever-changing justifications of the war in Iraq, combined with tragic missteps, have resulted in a worldwide collapse of support for U.S. policies in Iraq.

The credibility of the United States of America will not be restored if we continue down the path of saying one thing and doing another. We must not lower our standards and tactics to those of the terrorists. In order to keep our homeland secure, we must hold true to the values that molded our American democracy, even in the face of adversity. Former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, said it best during a speech in March 2004 to the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies: "America knows we cannot seek a double standard. And, America knows we get what we give. And so we must and will always be careful to respect people's privacy, civil liberties and reputations. To suggest that there is a tradeoff between security and individual freedoms -- that we must discard one protection for the other -- is a false choice. You do not defend liberty to forsake it."

Restoring the world’s confidence in America as a competent and morally superior world leader is essential to winning the war on global terrorism.

A recent pubic opinion poll, conducted jointly with Zogby International and taken in Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, found that 81% said the war in Iraq had brought less peace to the Middle East. A majority of the respondents said they view the United States as the biggest threat to their nations.

Mr. President, I believe in order to restore our credibility, you must hold accountable those responsible for so many missteps and install a fresh team that demonstrates true diplomatic skill, knowledge of cultural differences and a willingness to earnestly engage other leaders in a respectful and constructive way. This would do much to reinvigorate international participation in a truly effective war on global terrorism.

Reallocate

The Department of Defense has been allocated $238 billion for the war in Iraq, with average monthly costs growing significantly since the beginning of the war. In 2003 the average monthly war cost was $4.4 billion; by 2005 the average monthly cost had reached $6.1 billion.

Despite the urgent homeland security needs of our country, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission issued a dismal report card on the efforts to improve our counter-terrorist defenses. Even the most basic of recommendations, such as the coordination of fire and police communication lines, still have not been accomplished.

In the face of threats from international terrorists, we need to reallocate funds from the war in Iraq to protecting the United States against attack. A safe and swift redeployment from Iraq will allow us to do just that.

Reconstitute

The U.S. army is the smallest it's been since 1941. It is highly capable. But this drawn out conflict has put tremendous stress on our military, particularly on our Army and Marine Corps, whose operations tempo has increased substantially since 9/11.

The Government Accountability Office issued a report in November 2005 addressing the challenges of military personnel recruitment and retention and noted that the Department of Defense had been unable to fill over 112,000 positions in critical occupational specialties. This shortfall includes intelligence analysts, special forces, interpreters, and demolition experts-- those on whom we rely so heavily in today’s asymmetric battlefield.

Some of our troops have been deployed four times over the last three years. Enlistment for the regular forces as well as the guard and reserves are well below recruitment goals. In 2005, the Army missed its recruitment goal for the first time since 1999, even after offering enlistment bonuses and incentives, lowering its monthly goals, and lowering its recruitment standards. As Retired Army officer Andrew Krepinevich recently warned in a report to the Pentagon, the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk 'breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.

The harsh environment in which we are operating our equipment in Iraq, combined with the equipment usage rate (ten times greater than peacetime levels) is taking a heavy toll on our ground equipment. It is currently estimated that $50 billion will be required to refurbish this equipment.

Further, in its response to Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard realized that it had over $1.3 billion in equipment shortfalls. This has created a tremendous burden on non-deployed guard units, on whom this country depends so heavily to respond to domestic disasters and possible terrorist attacks. Without relief, Army Guard units will face growing equipment shortages and challenges in regaining operational readiness for future missions at home and overseas.

Since 9/11, Congress has appropriated about $334 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the insurgents have spent hundreds of thousands. We have seen reports estimating that the total cost of the wars may reach as high as $1 trillion. These estimates are said to include such costs as providing long-term disability benefits and care for injured service members. It is estimated today that over 16,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq, 10,481 of whom have been wounded by "weaponry explosive devices."

But while war costs continue to climb, cuts are being made to the defense budget. As soon as the war is over there will be pressure to cut even more. This year, even while we are at war, 8 billion dollars was cut from the base defense spending bill. You ordered another $32 billion in cuts to the defense budget over the next five years, with $11.6 billion coming from the Army. The Pentagon told Congress only last year that it needed 77 combat brigades to fulfill its missions, but now insists it only needs 70. In fact, 6 of the 7 combat brigades will be cut from the National Guard, reducing its combat units from 34 to 28. Even though all of the National Guard combat brigades have been deployed overseas since 9/11, your Administration has determined that, because of funding shortfalls, our combat ground forces can be reduced. Not only will these cuts diminish our combat power, but our ability to respond to natural disasters and terrorist threats to our homeland will be adversely affected. It is obvious that the cost of the war, in conjunction with the Army’s inability to meet recruitment goals, has impacted this estimate. My concern is that instead of our force structure being based on the future threat, it is now being based on the number of troops and level of funding available.

I am concerned that costly program cuts will lead to costly mistakes and we will be unable to sustain another deployment even if there is a real threat. The future of our military and the future of our country could very well be at stake. The high dollar forecasts of our future military weapons systems and military health care add pressure to cut costs on the backs of these programs. As our weapons systems age, the concern becomes even greater.

During a time of war, we are cutting our combat force, we have not mobilized industry, and have never fully mobilized our military. On our current path, I believe that we are not only in danger of breaking our military, but that we are increasing the chances of a major miscalculation by our future enemies, who may perceive us as vulnerable.

Sincerely,

JOHN P. MURTHA (http://tinyurl.com/pn3xr)
Member of Congress

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 05:37 PM

It's NOT our duty to try install OUR vision of government on foreign nations. Most of the religious fanatics of the ME want NO part of any definition of U.S. democracy. Their is no such thing as "victory" in Iraq. Religion will rule government there as in most other Muslim nations. The Bush administration had NO ****ing clue on what these people want and don't want.

Bush's grudge match in Iraq will cost us, our children and their children over 1 trillion dollars in VA benefits alone as of Oct. 2005.

Can't and won't happen
Well, I guess that's the final word then! You obviously are psychic or have a crystal ball over there and now exactly what's going to happen in the future.. Care to throw me some lotto numbers?! :wiggle:

So let me see if I understand you position:
- Arabs and Muslims can't handle freedom and democracy (I would throw out the racis* word here, but I think it's overused)
- Not only that, they don't WANT freedom and democracy and a modern economy / lifestyle - (Not sure where you get that info from)
- No such thing as victory in Iraq - (Really? So defeating the army, taking down and bringing to justice a brutal dictator, and successfully having 3 democratic elections under threat of death, writing a Constitution, and forming a new government is losing?) No wonder you think we can't win...
- Religion will rule - (So there are NO moderate religious leaders over there? Is this part of your muslim arabic people aren't capable of self-rule in a democratic fashion logic?)
- Bush has no clue, but apparently YOU do.. Have you run for office so I can vote for you?!
- It's a grudge match, not part of the War on Terror.. (Not much I can say to that other than see my previous posts)

Finally... You're a really optimistic person! I'll bet you're great at parties.. :wave:

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 05:37 PM

------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

This March will mark the beginning of the 4th year of the war in Iraq. In contrast, U.S. involvement in WWI came to an end after 19 months. Victory in Europe was declared in WWII after 3 years 5 months. In the Korean War, a cease-fire was signed after 3 years and 1 month. But after more than three and a half years into the war in Iraq, your administration finally produced what is called a "Plan for Victory" in Iraq.

Iraq is not the center for the global war on terrorism. I believe Iraq has diverted our attention away from the fight against global terrorism and has depleted the required resources needed to wage an effective war. It is estimated that there are only about 750 to 1,000 al-Qaeda in Iraq. I believe the Iraqis will force them out or kill them after U.S. troops are gone. In fact, there is now evidence that Iraqi insurgent groups are increasingly turning against al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists.

Our country needs a vigorous and comprehensive strategy for victory against global terrorism. The architect of 9/11 is still out there but now has an international microphone. We must get back to the real issue at hand - we have to root out and destroy al-Qaeda’s worldwide network.

There are 4 key elements that I recommend to reinvigorate our global anti-terrorism effort: Redeploy, Replace, Reallocate, and Reconstitute.

Redeploy

The war in Iraq is fueling terrorism, not eliminating it. Our continued military presence feeds the strong anti-foreigner fervor that has existed in this part of the world for centuries. A vast majority of the Iraqi people now view American troops as occupiers, not liberators. Over 80% of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq and 47% think it is justified to attack Americans. 70% of Iraqis favor a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces, with half favoring a withdrawal in the next six months. In fact, 67% of Iraqis expect day-to-day security for Iraqi citizens will improve if U.S. forces withdraw in six months and over 60% believe violent attacks, including those that are ethnically motivated, will decrease. Our military presence is the single most important reason why the Iraqis have tolerated the foreign terrorists, who account for less than 7 percent of the insurgency. 93% of the insurgency is made up of Iraqis. Once our troops are re-deployed, the Iraqis will reject the terrorists and deny them a safe haven in Iraq. The Iraqis are against a foreign presence in Iraq of any kind.

The steadfast and valiant efforts of the United States military and coalition partners have provided the Iraqi people with the framework needed to self govern. The Iraqis held elections that have been touted as highly successful, based primarily on the accounts of Iraqis who went to the polls. But our continued military presence in Iraq, regardless of the motives behind it, is seen by Iraqis as interfering in Iraq’s democratic process and undercuts the chances for the newly elected government to be successful. Recently, Iraq’s National Security Adviser accused U.S. negotiators of going behind the back of the Iraqi government on talks with insurgents, saying the process could encourage more violence. He said, "Americans are making a huge and fatal mistake in their policy for appeasement and they should not do this. They should leave the Iraqi government to deal with it… The United States should allow the new Iraqi government to decide on how to quell the insurgency."

In December 2005, an ABC News poll in Iraq produced some noteworthy results. 57% of Iraqis identified national security as the country’s top priority. When asked to rate the confidence in public institutions, they gave Iraqi police a 68% confidence level, the Iraqi army 67%, religious leaders 67%. But the U.S./U.K. forces scored the lowest, a mere 18%.

The longer our military stays in Iraq, the more unwelcome we will be. We will be increasingly entangled in an open-ended nation building mission, one that our military can not accomplish amidst a civil war. Our troops will continue to be the targets of Iraqis who see them as interfering occupiers.

Redeploying our forces from Iraq and stationing a mobile force outside of the country removes a major antagonizing factor. I believe we will see a swift demise of foreign terrorist groups in Iraq if we redeploy outside of the country. Further, our troops will no longer be the targets of bloody attacks.

Replace

The ever-changing justifications of the war in Iraq, combined with tragic missteps, have resulted in a worldwide collapse of support for U.S. policies in Iraq.

The credibility of the United States of America will not be restored if we continue down the path of saying one thing and doing another. We must not lower our standards and tactics to those of the terrorists. In order to keep our homeland secure, we must hold true to the values that molded our American democracy, even in the face of adversity. Former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, said it best during a speech in March 2004 to the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies: "America knows we cannot seek a double standard. And, America knows we get what we give. And so we must and will always be careful to respect people's privacy, civil liberties and reputations. To suggest that there is a tradeoff between security and individual freedoms -- that we must discard one protection for the other -- is a false choice. You do not defend liberty to forsake it."

Restoring the world’s confidence in America as a competent and morally superior world leader is essential to winning the war on global terrorism.

A recent pubic opinion poll, conducted jointly with Zogby International and taken in Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, found that 81% said the war in Iraq had brought less peace to the Middle East. A majority of the respondents said they view the United States as the biggest threat to their nations.

Mr. President, I believe in order to restore our credibility, you must hold accountable those responsible for so many missteps and install a fresh team that demonstrates true diplomatic skill, knowledge of cultural differences and a willingness to earnestly engage other leaders in a respectful and constructive way. This would do much to reinvigorate international participation in a truly effective war on global terrorism.

Reallocate

The Department of Defense has been allocated $238 billion for the war in Iraq, with average monthly costs growing significantly since the beginning of the war. In 2003 the average monthly war cost was $4.4 billion; by 2005 the average monthly cost had reached $6.1 billion.

Despite the urgent homeland security needs of our country, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission issued a dismal report card on the efforts to improve our counter-terrorist defenses. Even the most basic of recommendations, such as the coordination of fire and police communication lines, still have not been accomplished.

In the face of threats from international terrorists, we need to reallocate funds from the war in Iraq to protecting the United States against attack. A safe and swift redeployment from Iraq will allow us to do just that.

Reconstitute

The U.S. army is the smallest it's been since 1941. It is highly capable. But this drawn out conflict has put tremendous stress on our military, particularly on our Army and Marine Corps, whose operations tempo has increased substantially since 9/11.

The Government Accountability Office issued a report in November 2005 addressing the challenges of military personnel recruitment and retention and noted that the Department of Defense had been unable to fill over 112,000 positions in critical occupational specialties. This shortfall includes intelligence analysts, special forces, interpreters, and demolition experts-- those on whom we rely so heavily in today’s asymmetric battlefield.

Some of our troops have been deployed four times over the last three years. Enlistment for the regular forces as well as the guard and reserves are well below recruitment goals. In 2005, the Army missed its recruitment goal for the first time since 1999, even after offering enlistment bonuses and incentives, lowering its monthly goals, and lowering its recruitment standards. As Retired Army officer Andrew Krepinevich recently warned in a report to the Pentagon, the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk 'breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.

The harsh environment in which we are operating our equipment in Iraq, combined with the equipment usage rate (ten times greater than peacetime levels) is taking a heavy toll on our ground equipment. It is currently estimated that $50 billion will be required to refurbish this equipment.

Further, in its response to Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard realized that it had over $1.3 billion in equipment shortfalls. This has created a tremendous burden on non-deployed guard units, on whom this country depends so heavily to respond to domestic disasters and possible terrorist attacks. Without relief, Army Guard units will face growing equipment shortages and challenges in regaining operational readiness for future missions at home and overseas.

Since 9/11, Congress has appropriated about $334 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the insurgents have spent hundreds of thousands. We have seen reports estimating that the total cost of the wars may reach as high as $1 trillion. These estimates are said to include such costs as providing long-term disability benefits and care for injured service members. It is estimated today that over 16,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq, 10,481 of whom have been wounded by "weaponry explosive devices."

But while war costs continue to climb, cuts are being made to the defense budget. As soon as the war is over there will be pressure to cut even more. This year, even while we are at war, 8 billion dollars was cut from the base defense spending bill. You ordered another $32 billion in cuts to the defense budget over the next five years, with $11.6 billion coming from the Army. The Pentagon told Congress only last year that it needed 77 combat brigades to fulfill its missions, but now insists it only needs 70. In fact, 6 of the 7 combat brigades will be cut from the National Guard, reducing its combat units from 34 to 28. Even though all of the National Guard combat brigades have been deployed overseas since 9/11, your Administration has determined that, because of funding shortfalls, our combat ground forces can be reduced. Not only will these cuts diminish our combat power, but our ability to respond to natural disasters and terrorist threats to our homeland will be adversely affected. It is obvious that the cost of the war, in conjunction with the Army’s inability to meet recruitment goals, has impacted this estimate. My concern is that instead of our force structure being based on the future threat, it is now being based on the number of troops and level of funding available.

I am concerned that costly program cuts will lead to costly mistakes and we will be unable to sustain another deployment even if there is a real threat. The future of our military and the future of our country could very well be at stake. The high dollar forecasts of our future military weapons systems and military health care add pressure to cut costs on the backs of these programs. As our weapons systems age, the concern becomes even greater.

During a time of war, we are cutting our combat force, we have not mobilized industry, and have never fully mobilized our military. On our current path, I believe that we are not only in danger of breaking our military, but that we are increasing the chances of a major miscalculation by our future enemies, who may perceive us as vulnerable.

Sincerely,

JOHN P. MURTHA (http://tinyurl.com/pn3xr)
Member of Congress
Murtha.. How NOT suprising! (sighs and shakes head)

Bronco_Beerslug

06-02-2006, 06:18 PM

So let me see if I understand you position: You don't.

- Arabs and Muslims can't handle freedom and democracy (I would throw out the racis* word here, but I think it's overused)
- Not only that, they don't WANT freedom and democracy and a modern economy / lifestyle - (Not sure where you get that info from)
More proof you don't understand what I stated or refuse to listen to facts.
Over 80% of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq and 47% think it is justified to attack Americans.

- No such thing as victory in Iraq - (Really? So defeating the army, taking down and bringing to justice a brutal dictator, and successfully having 3 democratic elections under threat of death, writing a Constitution, and forming a new government is losing?) No wonder you think we can't win...
- Religion will rule - (So there are NO moderate religious leaders over there? Is this part of your muslim arabic people aren't capable of self-rule in a democratic fashion logic?)
Moderate s h i t e s and sunnis DO NOT rule anything over there.

- Bush has no clue, Now, you're getting it.

- It's a grudge match, not part of the War on Terror.. Absolutely! The War on terror excuse doesn't even work on the troops there anymore.

Finally... You're a really optimistic person! I'm a realist, not a Bush bootlicker.

Murtha.. How NOT suprising! (sighs and shakes head)
And your reply, no actual rebuttal on his statements, (attack the source) is "NOT suprising!"

Rigs11

06-02-2006, 06:38 PM

I don't think anybody can truly believe in the original mission of going over there. Fact is we are there so we need to finish the job.
Another bullshet post.We aren't gonna win there with the current admin. How many more soldiers and iraqi civilians have to die before you get that through your head?

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Edskins_RVA
- Arabs and Muslims can't handle freedom and democracy (I would throw out the racis* word here, but I think it's overused)
- Not only that, they don't WANT freedom and democracy and a modern economy / lifestyle - (Not sure where you get that info from)

More proof you don't understand what I stated or refuse to listen to facts.
Over 80% of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq and 47% think it is justified to attack Americans.
I would also want us to leave if I was an Iraqi! Who wants an occupying force, especially when you have a dominant hostile media (ie Al-Jazeera) that pushes anti-American propaganda to the point where it obscures any other objective (or for that matter counter) sources. But that hardly makes the case that they, as human beings, cannot or do not yearn for freedom, peace, and prosperity as we all do..
Why won't you just admit your bias and say that you think that muslims aren't capable of having freedom and democracy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edskins_RVA
- No such thing as victory in Iraq - (Really? So defeating the army, taking down and bringing to justice a brutal dictator, and successfully having 3 democratic elections under threat of death, writing a Constitution, and forming a new government is losing?) No wonder you think we can't win...
- Religion will rule - (So there are NO moderate religious leaders over there? Is this part of your muslim arabic people aren't capable of self-rule in a democratic fashion logic?)

Moderate s h i t e s and sunnis DO NOT rule anything over there.

Not yet.. If we cut and run, that will definitely be the case.. Not to mention you are wrong. The Kurds have considerable power and they are not nearly as religiously motivated..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edskins_RVA
- Bush has no clue,
Now, you're getting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edskins_RVA
- It's a grudge match, not part of the War on Terror..
Absolutely! The War on terror excuse doesn't even work on the troops there anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edskins_RVA
Finally... You're a really optimistic person!

I'm a realist, not a Bush bootlicker.

Yes, you are clearly thoughtful and objective in your responses. You still haven't stated where you get all this imperical evidence you throw around (ie know what all Iraqi's and the troops think, know the future, know, but can't state why Iraq is going to be just like Vietnam, etc.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edskins_RVA
Murtha.. How NOT suprising! (sighs and shakes head)
And your reply, no actual rebuttal on his statements, (attack the source) is "NOT suprising!"

Isn't that what you have been doing with me?! :rofl:

Bronco_Beerslug

06-02-2006, 06:52 PM

Isn't that what you have been doing with me?! :rofl: You're a "johnny come lately" here so apparently you aren't aware of the 1000's of links that have been posted over the years in this forum showing the Bush administration for what it is.

Since you're so "informed" on this invasion of Iraq, do you know what this police action is now costing this country in monetary terms alone each week?

Do you know what Bush thought would happen after the invasion with different ethnic groups in Iraq?

Do you know that Iran is a democratically elected theocracy (the same as Iraq now)?

Do you know how many Americans have died in Iraq up to today and how many have been wounded and maimed?

Do you know that 12% (you're probably one of them) of Americans believe Iraq attacked us?

Do you know that 85 percent of troops in a Zogby poll believe they are fighting as retaliation "for Saddam Hussein’s role in the 9/11 attacks?

Do you know that 72 percent of troops say the U.S. should exit Iraq before the end of the year and 29 percent said the withdrawal should happen immediately?

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 07:12 PM

Since you're so "informed" on this invasion of Iraq, do you know what this police action is now costing this country in monetary terms alone each week?

Yes, you provided some of that info in a previous link. So? What is your point? Wars cost money.. Duh..

Do you know what Bush thought would happen after the invasion with different ethnic groups in Iraq?
Do you? Have you spoken with him? From what I read and hear, he wants them to form a stable, democratic, and most importantly, peaceful nation in the middle of a region of despots.. Again, your point?!

Do you know that Iran is a democratically elected theocracy (the same as Iraq now)?
I know that no one in Iran was democratically elected. Don't you know that?! I know that Iraq is nothing like Iran now (other than cultural and religious similarities)..

Do you know how many Americans have died in Iraq up to today and how many have been wounded and maimed?
Yes.. 2,473 deaths / 18,184 wounded. People die and get wounded in war.. 11,000 American died in 1 day on June 6, 1944. Again, what is your point?!

Do you know that 12% (you're probably one of them) of Americans believe Iraq attacked us?
Again you assume incorrectly bacause of you arrogance and bias. So you are surprised that there are that many morons in this country?! Then again you are here.. Sorry!!! Couldn't resist!! I retract!! :)

Do you know that 85 percent of troops in a Zogby poll believe they are fighting as retaliation "for Saddam Hussein’s role in the 9/11 attacks?
And this proves what?...

Do you know that 72 percent of troops say the U.S. should exit Iraq before the end of the year and 29 percent said the withdrawal should happen immediately?
You're a "johnny come lately" here so apparently you aren't aware of the 1000's of links that have been posted over the years in this forum showing the Bush administration for what it is.
So polls are facts?! Links in the past?! That's just a sloppy and weak response...

Rascal

06-02-2006, 07:30 PM

Another bullshet post.We aren't gonna win there with the current admin. How many more soldiers and iraqi civilians have to die before you get that through your head?

Remove your head from your ass rigs.

I never said we are going to win with the current admin. Did I say I want people to die.

Rascal

06-02-2006, 07:37 PM

Well, we both agree on that. We probably disagree on some points. For one, I don't think it's possible to win with GWB as president, and Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary. I think they've sufficiently lost the support of the American people making it impossible to win the war from the standpoint of our own shores.

I think our folks overseas will continue to rot from the inside out under the current leadership. It breaks my heart.

Working in the civilian side of the military I've seen the incredible changes that they have implemented and it's safe to say they have not been good improvements. They are trying to transform the military into a private structure with the same procedures and what not. The backlash from starting these new programs with no forethought and direction is incredible. In my organization we have restructured three times in the past 15 months and attempted to implement so many different processes/etc that nobody has any clue how we are suppose to do our job. While at the same time implementing the new NSPS that is complete BS and having to send 2 people every quarter to a nine week immersion training that has absolutely no benefit to us at all.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-02-2006, 07:43 PM

Yes, you provided some of that info in a previous link. So? What is your point? Wars cost money.. Duh.. My point, it's not a war but a police action that will cost us trillions before it's over.

Do you? Yes I do...
Bush said (http://tinyurl.com/9sj87) that he: "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups."

I know that no one in Iran was democratically elected. Everyone was free to vote and they held free elections, how is that not democratic?

Yes.. 2,473 deaths / 18,184 wounded. People die and get wounded in war.. 11,000 American died in 1 day on June 6, 1944. Again, what is your point?! You didn't but good job of googling it up.

Again you assume incorrectly bacause of you arrogance and bias. So you are surprised that there are that many morons in this country?! No, Bush is still in the WH. but nice job of describing the kind of people that put him in there.

And this proves what?... They don't know why they're there.

So polls are facts?! Links in the past?! That's just a sloppy and weak response...[/quote]
Polls are polls, but not one has come out to dispute that one. Actually, your responses are pretty weak. How does it feel to support someone who lied the country to thousands of Americans dying and being maimed, is spending the country into economic oblivion, is using the constitution as sh*t paper and can't form coherent sentences?

defenseman

06-03-2006, 08:51 AM

no one is willing anymore to acknowledge the positives of the others point of view, here let alone in washingtone DC. Time to take a breather I'm thinking...dman

gunns

06-03-2006, 09:56 AM

Well, I guess that's the final word then! You obviously are psychic or have a crystal ball over there and now exactly what's going to happen in the future.. Care to throw me some lotto numbers?! :wiggle:

So let me see if I understand you position:
- Arabs and Muslims can't handle freedom and democracy (I would throw out the racis* word here, but I think it's overused)
- Not only that, they don't WANT freedom and democracy and a modern economy / lifestyle - (Not sure where you get that info from)
- No such thing as victory in Iraq - (Really? So defeating the army, taking down and bringing to justice a brutal dictator, and successfully having 3 democratic elections under threat of death, writing a Constitution, and forming a new government is losing?) No wonder you think we can't win...
- Religion will rule - (So there are NO moderate religious leaders over there? Is this part of your muslim arabic people aren't capable of self-rule in a democratic fashion logic?)
- Bush has no clue, but apparently YOU do.. Have you run for office so I can vote for you?!
- It's a grudge match, not part of the War on Terror.. (Not much I can say to that other than see my previous posts)

Finally... You're a really optimistic person! I'll bet you're great at parties.. :wave:

Clueless sheep in Virginia.

gunns

06-03-2006, 10:07 AM

Yes.. 2,473 deaths / 18,184 wounded. People die and get wounded in war.. 11,000 American died in 1 day on June 6, 1944. Again, what is your point?!

Huge difference here. In 1944 we were fighting for our freedom, but I'm sure some of those parents or spouses or children of those 2473 will feel so much better with your "analogy".....of course after it's answered for them, why.

And this proves what?...

That the lies persist even in the military, that the troops don't even really know why they are there.....does anyone except the deluded mind of the mental midget and of course his sheep.

So polls are facts?! Links in the past?! That's just a sloppy and weak response...

I don't need a poll, my brother who was there when we first invaded, my sister in law who got home in January and my son and those in his troop say the same thing. Good enough for me.

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 01:09 PM

Clueless sheep in Virginia.
That is not a valid rebuttal... Have any info to back that up?

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 01:13 PM

Huge difference here. In 1944 we were fighting for our freedom, but I'm sure some of those parents or spouses or children of those 2473 will feel so much better with your "analogy".....of course after it's answered for them, why.

That the lies persist even in the military, that the troops don't even really know why they are there.....does anyone except the deluded mind of the mental midget and of course his sheep.

I don't need a poll, my brother who was there when we first invaded, my sister in law who got home in January and my son and those in his troop say the same thing. Good enough for me.
The US will have no freedom if we are DEAD.. What do you think the War on Terror is all about? Oh wait, you're probably don't believe we are in a WoT..

So ad hominum attacks on Bush and the Admin is the "substance" of your argument against the war?

Oh wait! I guess all those members of your family "in the military" are "liers" according to what you said above.. So what's the "truth" again?!

I know just as many members of the military (family and friends) who say the opposite.. So I guess we both have anectdotal "evidence"..

BroncoInferno

06-03-2006, 01:27 PM

I would also want us to leave if I was an Iraqi! Who wants an occupying force, especially when you have a dominant hostile media (ie Al-Jazeera) that pushes anti-American propaganda to the point where it obscures any other objective (or for that matter counter) sources. But that hardly makes the case that they, as human beings, cannot or do not yearn for freedom, peace, and prosperity as we all do..
Why won't you just admit your bias and say that you think that muslims aren't capable of having freedom and democracy?

It isn't that they aren't capable. What you and others don't seem to get is that they don't WANT democracy, at least not our version of it. Neocons (and even some old school liberals) mistakenly believe that there is an inate, inborn sense people have to be free. What is the evidence for this? If this were the case, wouldn't free societies have popped up sooner in civilization than they did? Wouldn't more than a handful of nations strive for free socieities if to do so is a wish of all people? It's the abject failure on the part of this administration and its supporters to understand that different cultures have different ideals from our own (for better or worse) that has put us in this mess. The majority of Iraqis want a gov't governed on Islamic principles. They don't want deomcracy. This was plain before we went over there; unfortunately, Bush didn't bother to educate himself on the situation before making his decision. Now we are all paying for his adminstrations ignorance.

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 01:43 PM

It isn't that they aren't capable. What you and others don't seem to get is that they don't WANT democracy, at least not our version of it. Neocons (and even some old school liberals) mistakenly believe that there is an inate, inborn sense people have to be free. What is the evidence for this? If this were the case, wouldn't free societies have popped up sooner in civilization than they did? Wouldn't more than a handful of nations strive for free socieities if to do so is a wish of all people? It's the abject failure on the part of this administration and its supporters to understand that different cultures have different ideals from our own (for better or worse) that has put us in this mess. The majority of Iraqis want a gov't governed on Islamic principles. They don't want deomcracy. This was plain before we went over there; unfortunately, Bush didn't bother to educate himself on the situation before making his decision. Now we are all paying for his adminstrations ignorance. One question..

Then why did millions of people risk their lives and other smaller hardships to vote in 3 elections since the end of the invasion?

One more..

How do YOU know they don't want democracy? What is your source for this knowledge?

One more..

How can you honestly say there are human beings that would rather live in primitive, backwards, mostly poverty-stricken, and definitely oppressive states, rather than in peaceful, prosperous, modern conditions, such as we enjoy in the West?

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 01:50 PM

If this were the case, wouldn't free societies have popped up sooner in civilization than they did? Wouldn't more than a handful of nations strive for free socieities if to do so is a wish of all people?
No.. Freedom does not come easy! Because of the fraility of human nature/character and the corruptive nature of power. Freedom has always required the sacrifice of patriots to win and preserve it.. Authoritarian control has been the historical norm, such as it is the easy path for man to take dominion over others..

America is a great experiment that is unparalleled in human history, save for some valiant attempts in early Greece and Rome. We, Americans, have always fought for our freedom and way of life and are one of the few examples in human history of a nation that sacrifices its own blood and money to fight for the freedom of other nations.. We should honor, cherish, and most of all understand that..

BroncoInferno

06-03-2006, 02:05 PM

One question..

Then why did millions of people risk their lives and other smaller hardships to vote in 3 elections since the end of the invasion?

So they could vote in their Islamic leaders. Simply voting does equate to a democracy, at least not our version of it. What one votes for is the real question.

One more..

How do YOU know they don't want democracy? What is your source for this knowledge?

Literally dozens of reading material on the subject--try George Packer's The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq for a taste.

One more..

How can you honestly say there are human beings that would rather live in primitive, backwards, mostly poverty-stricken, and definitely oppressive states, rather than in peaceful, prosperous, modern conditions, such as we enjoy in the West?

Because they have a different perspective than you or I. What you view as "primitive" may be heaven on Earth for someone else. Again, you are using the sensibilities of your own culture here; you fail to understand that different cultures view the world differently than we do. Now, I'm not saying Iraqis preferred Sadaam or anything of the kind, but what we are trying to replace it with is our version of an ideal gov't. For better or worse, you've got to let people decide for themselves how they want to be governed. They want Islam to play a major role in their government (take a look at their constitution if you doubt me on this); religious rule and democratic principals simply cannot coexist.

BroncoInferno

06-03-2006, 02:09 PM

No.. Freedom does not come easy! Because of the fraility of human nature/character and the corruptive nature of power. Freedom has always required the sacrifice of patriots to win and preserve it.. Authoritarian control has been the historical norm, such as it is the easy path for man to take dominion over others..

Doesn't the fact that authoritarian rule usually wins out say more about what is inate in the human psyche than the desire to be free? Freedom is a philosophical principal (and a good one, in my view), but there is no evidence to suggest that this is an inborn characteristic of all human beings.

America is a great experiment that is unparalleled in human history, save for some valiant attempts in early Greece and Rome. We, Americans, have always fought for our freedom and way of life and are one of the few examples in human history of a nation that sacrifices its own blood and money to fight for the freedom of other nations.. We should honor, cherish, and most of all understand that..

Fair enough; that has nothing to do with what is valued in other cultures.

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 02:22 PM

So they could vote in their Islamic leaders. Simply voting does equate to a democracy, at least not our version of it. What one votes for is the real question.
[Quote]
I don't think the Kurdish faction of the government, not the handful of moderates would agree with you. However, democracy = election of leaders by the people. That has been achieved in Iraq. If they choose to vote in religious leaders and factions, that is their choice and understandable considering their culture. However, that does not mean that they will automatically turn into a repressive theocracy such as Iran. America is not trying to recreate a Constitutional Republic, such as we have(no, we are not a democracy..never mind, I'm starting down the road of tangents). We are allowing the Iraqi's to develop their own form of "democratically elected" government. If we were imposing our view, then why do they have a parlimentary structure??

[Quote]
Literally dozens of reading material on the subject--try George Packer's The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq for a taste.
I am familair with some of these.. They all make some good and thoughtful points, but they are still one person's take. As with all things, the truth often lies somewhere in the middle..

Because they have a different perspective than you or I. What you view as "primitive" may be heaven on Earth for someone else. Again, you are using the sensibilities of your own culture here; you fail to understand that different cultures view the world differently than we do. Now, I'm not saying Iraqis preferred Sadaam or anything of the kind, but what we are trying to replace it with is our version of an ideal gov't. For better or worse, you've got to let people decide for themselves how they want to be governed. They want Islam to play a major role in their government (take a look at their constitution if you doubt me on this); religious rule and democratic principiles simply cannot coexist.
That's not what most of the young people in Iraq and the Middle East as a whole would say. Most dream about Internet, IPods, Mustangs, Malls, etc that American kids take for granted. They want to keep their culture, but I simply can't agree with the position that they don't want to improve their lives and those of the future generations.. Otherwise, why are so many people from all over the world willing to risk everything to get into this country and those of Western Europe?

Florida_Bronco

06-03-2006, 02:27 PM

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 02:27 PM

Doesn't the fact that authoritarian rule usually wins out say more about what is inate in the human psyche than the desire to be free? No.. Authoritarian rule wins out because it is a much simpler and easier form of government. It is easy for Man to follow his dark side. Following the light has always been the hard path..

Freedom is a philosophical principal (and a good one, in my view), but there is no evidence to suggest that this is an inborn characteristic of all human beings. I reject that out of hand as you have no evidence to the contrary. Look into your own soul and answer that question. What would/do you yearn for? Are you different or better than any other human on the earth?

Fair enough; that has nothing to do with what is valued in other cultures. True, but it totally puts into perspective the American mindset (or at least some) and why we do what we do..

Our leaders and General have always made mistakes and errors in every war we have engaged in. People have died horribly and needlessly, such is the nature of war. It is a terrible and horrible thing to enter into under any circumstances. However, there are those that believe there are some things worth fighting and dying for.. Time will tell on what side the Operation Iraqi Freedom will fall...

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 02:35 PM

Fair enough; that has nothing to do with what is valued in other cultures.
Maybe we should get Germany, Japan's, and the newly free Easter Eurpean nations (among others) perspective on what form of government they prefer..

BroncoInferno

06-03-2006, 02:48 PM

Edskins, we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. I really do hope I am wrong and you are right, because it will be better for everyone invloved if that's the case. Good discussion.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-03-2006, 04:44 PM

What do you think the War on Terror is all about? Oh wait, you're probably don't believe we are in a WoT..

Sure the hell isn't about invading countries who were and are absolutely no threat to us.

Don't know what a WoT is but if you mean war, no the USA is not at war. Only a few hundred thousand NG, RA and Marines are, tour after tour after tour.

BUT, I believe all the Bush sheeple who believe in his invasion and police action in Iraq should do their part and enlist so the these fine soldiers who are fighting Bush's grudge match can finally come home and take care of their families and get on with their lives.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-03-2006, 06:13 PM

BUT, I believe all the Bush sheeple who believe in his invasion and police action in Iraq should do their part and enlist so the these fine soldiers who are fighting Bush's grudge match can finally come home and take care of their families and get on with their lives.

Exactly.

Funny, if they really believed the Iraq spin they're peddling here, then you would think they'd be lining up to enlist.

24champ

06-03-2006, 07:12 PM

BUT, I believe all the Bush sheeple who believe in his invasion and police action in Iraq should do their part and enlist so the these fine soldiers who are fighting Bush's grudge match can finally come home and take care of their families and get on with their lives.
On the flip side majority of the military vote republican. I dont see a huge number of liberals in the military or serving in Iraq.

spdirty

06-03-2006, 07:17 PM

On the flip side majority of the military vote republican. I dont see a huge number of liberals in the military or serving in Iraq.

They won't explain that one, because it would require them to say what they actually think, which is that our troops are a bunch of idiot hicks who do not deserve the benefit of the doubt when in trouble.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-03-2006, 07:39 PM

On the flip side majority of the military vote republican. I dont see a huge number of liberals in the military or serving in Iraq.

Why would people who don't believe in killing people for a political agenda based on lies be serving in Iraq?

spdirty

06-03-2006, 07:40 PM

Why would people who don't believe in killing people for a political agenda based on lies be serving in Iraq?

Yeah, only rightards, bushbots, and sheep serve in Iraq right?

Bronco_Beerslug

06-03-2006, 07:43 PM

Yeah, only rightards, bushbots, and sheep serve in Iraq right?

And people trapped in the Bush lie.

spdirty

06-03-2006, 07:46 PM

And people trapped in the Bush lie.

man, not even a denial...amazing.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-03-2006, 07:48 PM

man, not even a denial...amazing.
Denial of what? Do you think people who know Bush ****ed America are going to volunteer to go die for him?

spdirty

06-03-2006, 07:51 PM

Denial of what?
Denial of what I said that you think our brave men and women serving in iraq are rightards, bushboots, and idiots.

Do you think people who know Bush ****ed America are going to volunteer to go die for him?

And that explains your contempt for our brave troops serving in Iraq.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-03-2006, 07:56 PM

Denial of what I said that you think our brave men and women serving in iraq are rightards, bushboots, and idiots. Don't be an idiot, 72% of our brave troops want out of there NOW! There not dumb, even if they thought Bush's invasion was justified in the beginning, they know it wasn't and isn't now.

And that explains your contempt for our brave troops serving in Iraq. No, Iraq explains why the military can't meet recruiting numbers and is on the brink of a being a "broken army".

spdirty

06-03-2006, 11:31 PM

Don't be an idiot, 72% of our brave troops want out of there NOW!

Well no ****, and I'm sure that 98.5% of our brave troops wanted out of Germany, Japan, Vietnam, Somalia, France, Korea...War is hell, and you have to be a different breed to want to be there...Although I would appreciate a link to make sure you didn't pull the poll result out of your ass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spdirty
Yeah, only rightards, bushbots, and sheep serve in Iraq right?

And people trapped in the Bush lie.

There not dumb, even if they thought Bush's invasion was justified in the beginning, they know it wasn't and isn't now.

one word...contradiction.

spdirty

06-03-2006, 11:33 PM

gunns

06-03-2006, 11:36 PM

That is not a valid rebuttal... Have any info to back that up?

The content of your posts.

gunns

06-03-2006, 11:41 PM

On the flip side majority of the military vote republican. I dont see a huge number of liberals in the military or serving in Iraq.

Here's an eye opener. You don't have to be liberal to not agree with this war. Unless 61% of the country suddenly became liberal. There's plenty of liberals serving over in Iraq. Liberals enter the military too and they don't take a poll before sending them and leave the liberals at home. And I'd like to see where you got that vote count from the military.

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 12:32 AM

The content of your posts. Wow.. That's really insightful.. I may just have to change all my opinions based upon that well-crafted, deeply thought out, fact-based, and example-filled rebuttal..

Man you're good...

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 12:43 AM

Edskins, we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. I really do hope I am wrong and you are right, because it will be better for everyone invloved if that's the case. Good discussion.
I understand.. I also appreciate you engaging in a substantive discussion with thoughtful positions..

Intellectually stimulating discussion/debate can be had in a reasonable way without either party having to cave on their opinions/beliefs at the end. Debate is supposed to be an exchange of ideas with the attempt to persuade to your view, not necessarily a battle.. You just have to come to the table with something other than dismissal, deflection, or red herrings.. Those are cop-outs.. (not talking to you BI)

24champ

06-04-2006, 02:20 AM

Here's an eye opener. You don't have to be liberal to not agree with this war.
Dont know but I was saying there are more republicans in the military than there are
There's plenty of liberals serving over in Iraq.
Id say they do not make up a good portion of the military in Iraq, not to demean their service. They are brave & Courageous soldiers for fighting in Iraq but I was merely responding to someone challenging that republicans should join up and fight in Iraq. Fact is the majority of the Military is republican, so then I would assume that the majority is in Iraq. As far as polling the Military on who votes which way, I believe it is ILLEGAL to pull the military on who is Republican or Democrat. I would say the Military is mostly republican because of Ronald Reagan and his huge defense budget. Here is an semi-old article on the subject. A pretty good article.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0311.wallace-wells.html

The Wolverines had invited both North Carolina senators, Democrat John Edwards and Republican Elizabeth Dole, to address them as they were sent off to six months of training and 18 months of war, but both had prior engagements. They sent letters instead, and the mobilization ceremony's MC, a North Carolina National Guard lieutenant colonel named Tom Harris, read both aloud, Edwards's first. It was five short sentences long.

"I write to wish you well as you assume a vital role in our nation's continuing war against terrorism," Edwards wrote. North Carolina Guardsmen represented the "best our nation has to offer." Edwards offered his "deepest thanks to you and your loved ones for the courage you so readily display and the sacrifices you so willingly make."

Dole's, by contrast, was wonderful, touching, and personal. She talked about the "trials" the soldiers would go through, and how proud and worried the families would be. She discussed the experiences of her husband, fighting through the mountains of Italy in World War II She wrote empathetically about the difficulties that families would face, and employers, and how crucial their small sacrifice was to the larger, so important sacrifice the men in the guard would be making. She mentioned the places the men in this company came from by name, and reminded them how proud they had made those towns. When Colonel Harris finished reading Dole's letter, the two women on my left were crying, for the first time in the ceremony, and the older gentleman in front of me began to applaud, quietly, to himself.

Any Democrat in the crowd or among the Wolverines would have cringed at the contrast. These letters are an unglamorous staple of life in political offices in Washington; 27-year old junior staffers, not Edwards or Dole themselves, wrote them. But they reflected quite clearly what many, many retired officers told me last month: The Republican majority in the military community is due less to any specific policies than to a sense that they "get" what the military is all about, while the Democrats don't. Elizabeth Dole's letter, compassionate and personal, "got" the military. John Edwards's perfunctory, bland sending off, which could have been a fare-ye-well to recently assigned airport security guards, did not.

Atlas

06-04-2006, 02:35 AM

Dont know but I was saying there are more republicans in the military than there are

Id say they do not make up a good portion of the military in Iraq, not to demean their service. They are brave & Courageous soldiers for fighting in Iraq but I was merely responding to someone challenging that republicans should join up and fight in Iraq. Fact is the majority of the Military is republican, so then I would assume that the majority is in Iraq. As far as polling the Military on who votes which way, I believe it is ILLEGAL to pull the military on who is Republican or Democrat. I would say the Military is mostly republican because of Ronald Reagan and his huge defense budget. Here is an semi-old article on the subject. A pretty good article.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0311.wallace-wells.html

From my experience blacks in the military are overwhelmingly democrat. But I would say if you just counted all officers and career military, probably 80% are repubican. They guys that are just in there for 4 years usually stay affliated with the party they chose when they enlisted. Of course this is just my opinion and not really based on any facts.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-04-2006, 06:15 AM

Well no ****, and I'm sure that 98.5% of our brave troops wanted out of Germany, Japan, Vietnam, Somalia, France, Korea...War is hell, and you have to be a different breed to want to be there...Although I would appreciate a link to make sure you didn't pull the poll result out of your ass.
. Comparing the Iraq invasion and police action to WWII is pathetic but I reckon it's just about all the last few Bush minions have left.

----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months.
Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war.
Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more. http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-04-2006, 06:56 AM

Comparing the Iraq invasion and police action to WWII is pathetic but I reckon it's just about all the last few Bush minions have left.

:D

They just keep getting more desperate with each downward tick in the frat boy's approval ratings.

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 12:18 PM

Comparing the Iraq invasion and police action to WWII is pathetic but I reckon it's just about all the last few Bush minions have left.

----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
You can deny that comparisons to WWI all you want. However, if you look back, I've done a quite detailed analysis showing the comparisons. Care to look back and actually provide counter-point, rather just "proclaiming" it not to be the case?

So soliders in a war zone want to come home, huh? What a huge surprise... And what point is this supposedly making?!

Bronco_Beerslug

06-04-2006, 04:08 PM

So soliders in a war zone want to come home, huh? What a huge surprise... And what point is this supposedly making?!

They've had enough of the liars in charge and their phony stories for over 20,000 American casualties.

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 04:33 PM

They've had enough of the liars in charge and their phony stories for over 20,000 American casualties.
That's a leap.. I just think it's obvious that any soldier in a war zone would want to leave. You are the one making the leap to some sort of broader meaning to this "poll".. How about asking them if they think they are doing a good thing over there. If 74% came back as No, THEN you would have a point..

Bronco_Beerslug

06-04-2006, 04:37 PM

That's a leap.. I just think it's obvious that any soldier in a war zone would want to leave. You are the one making the leap to some sort of broader meaning to this "poll".. How about asking them if they think they are doing a good thing over there. If 74% came back as No, THEN you would have a point..
All soldiers believe that are doing what they are trained for and doing it well. What they don't believe in anymore is the lies that have sent them to Iraq.

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 04:43 PM

All soldiers believe that are doing what they are trained for and doing it well. What they don't believe in anymore is the lies that have sent them to Iraq.
That's illogical..

Bronco_Beerslug

06-04-2006, 04:47 PM

That's illogical..
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country [B]within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately.

No it's fact. Everyone knows Iraq was a huge mistake except for a few blind Bush minions.

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 04:57 PM

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country [B]within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately.

No it's fact. Everyone knows Iraq was a huge mistake except for a few blind Bush minions.
You just repeated yourself..

I repeat in response:
That's a leap.. I just think it's obvious that any soldier in a war zone would want to leave. You are the one making the leap to some sort of broader meaning to this "poll".. How about asking them if they think they are doing a good thing over there. If 74% came back as No, THEN you would have a point..
Illogical:

All soldiers believe that are doing what they are trained for and doing it well. What they don't believe in anymore is the lies that have sent them to Iraq.
How can soldiers believe in doing well what they are trained for, yet they don't believe in DOING what they were sent to Iraq to do (a mission they are trained to do and believe in according to you)?

Have you interviewed every soldier to know they all want to come home because of Bush's so-called lies or is it that they would rather be out of a war zone and safely back with their families? I think it's obvious..

Bronco_Beerslug

06-04-2006, 05:29 PM

You just repeated yourself..

I repeat in response:

Illogical:
I repeat they've had enough of Bush's lies and the police action in that sh*thole.

How can soldiers believe in doing well what they are trained for, yet they don't believe in DOING what they were sent to Iraq to do (a mission they are trained to do and believe in according to you)?

Have you interviewed every soldier to know they all want to come home because of Bush's so-called lies or is it that they would rather be out of a war zone and safely back with their families? I think it's obvious..
You apparently have never served. They have only one job, follow orders.

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 05:38 PM

I repeat they've had enough of Bush's lies and the police action in that sh*thole.
I repeat, how do you KNOW that?! That's just your opinion..

You apparently have never served. They have only one job, follow orders.
No I have not, but that does not disqualify me from commenting on it as I do have considerable knowledge of American military history up to the present. It is an intellectual passion (or hobby if you will) of mine and I consume as much information about it as I can.. Also, I have just as much anectdotal evidence of current soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines (friends, family, & co-workers) attitudes toward the current conflict as you.. Your word is not the definitive word on this subject. Just your opinion..

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-05-2006, 01:30 AM

http://www.bartcop.com/haditha-mill-stones.gif

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-05-2006, 01:31 AM

http://www.bartcop.com/haditha-high-ground.jpg

defenseman

06-05-2006, 07:51 AM

Garcia Bronco

06-05-2006, 08:18 AM

I'm wondering how the question, EXACTLY was worded my self. Not paraphrased, but exactly how it was asked. ....dman

Or how many troops they talked too.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-05-2006, 08:22 AM

Or how many troops they talked too.

Originally Posted by defenseman
I'm wondering how the question, EXACTLY was worded my self. Not paraphrased, but exactly how it was asked. ....dman

Is there a reason either of you don't read the links for the articles posted?

Garcia Bronco

06-05-2006, 08:23 AM

Is there a reason either of you don't read the links for the articles posted?

I don't click on any link you post ever. If it's not in the post...I don't read it.

defenseman

06-05-2006, 08:27 AM

I don't click on any link you post ever. If it's not in the post...I don't read it.

I prefer to hear from you personally, thats all it is. Like to get it straight from the "horse's mouth" if you know what I mean. Not meant as a derogatory statement towards you, please don't take it that way, just a useful analogy on my part anyway..dman

Garcia Bronco

06-05-2006, 08:32 AM

Is there a reason either of you don't read the links for the articles posted?

And that's not just you either....I don't click on other people's either.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-05-2006, 08:35 AM

I don't click on any link you post ever. If it's not in the post...I don't read it. LOL
Are you scared you may learn something or is it just your vanity doesn't allow for outside information entering your world?

If you want to know about numbers click on the link to see how they are gathered or just continue on with your blind bias and bigotry.

BroncoInferno

06-05-2006, 08:35 AM

Or how many troops they talked too.

I've talked to fairly good mix of troops...some who I know personally, others who I've chatted with in bars, a couple who I met at a speaking event I attended a couple of months back. The response I've gotten has been mixed. Not a single one said it was going smoothly and that the media was totally full of crap, though several had a pretty optimistic view of things in terms of the progression of infrastructure and troop build up. Literally all but one guy was at the very least mildly annoyed with the handling of the war, even if they ultimately thought it was a good cause.

The problem with you is that you think you are being a pragmatist by ignoring the media altogether. To truly be pragmatic, you need to balance your assessment between all the sources so you can get as clear a picture as possible. Most of the reporters are over in Iraq along with the troops. They aren't partcipating in the fighting, obviously, but they are certainly risking their lives to make their reports. But they are all a pack of liberal liars, right? Whatever.

defenseman

06-05-2006, 08:49 AM

I've talked to fairly good mix of troops...some who I know personally, others who I've chatted with in bars, a couple who I met at a speaking event I attended a couple of months back. The response I've gotten has been mixed. Not a single one said it was going smoothly and that the media was totally full of crap, though several had a pretty optimistic view of things in terms of the progression of infrastructure and troop build up. Literally all but one guy was at the very least mildly annoyed with the handling of the war, even if they ultimately thought it was a good cause.

The problem with you is that you think you are being a pragmatist by ignoring the media altogether. To truly be pragmatic, you need to balance your assessment between all the sources so you can get as clear a picture as possible. Most of the reporters are over in Iraq along with the troops. They aren't partcipating in the fighting, obviously, but they are certainly risking their lives to make their reports. But they are all a pack of liberal liars, right? Whatever.

I agree Inferno. However, a I would "guesstimate" that a large portion of the media needs to get the real story also. Often slanted and full of holes. My dad (Korean war pilot, Intelligence operative and engineer RETIRED) who is a staunch pro-clinton democrat, put it well. When you can't trust the source, the solution? Give the source at best 10% credibility and move on. He has a few contacts and with input is convinced the media is doing the same thing papers like the New York times did during WWII. A media blitz , anti-war, doom and gloom scenarios. Part of the significant problem with the war, according to him anyway, is the medias coverage of it. He said they need to get out of there and let them finish the job. Interesting take. He also said, by the way the media handles coverage, they actually "virtually extend" the war. Didn't have time to get into the discussion on that. From a former intel operative though, he is privvy to some stuff that we can't get to. Interesting take from a staunch pro-Clinton democrat..dman

BroncoInferno

06-05-2006, 08:56 AM

I agree Inferno. However, a I would "guesstimate" that a large portion of the media needs to get the real story also. Often slanted and full of holes. My dad (Korean war pilot, Intelligence operative and engineer RETIRED) who is a staunch pro-clinton democrat, put it well. When you can't trust the source, the solution? Give the source at best 10% credibility and move on. He has a few contacts and with input is convinced the media is doing the same thing papers like the New York times did during WWII. A media blitz , anti-war, doom and gloom scenarios. Part of the significant problem with the war, according to him anyway, is the medias coverage of it. He said they need to get out of there and let them finish the job. Interesting take. He also said, by the way the media handles coverage, they actually "virtually extend" the war. Didn't have time to get into the discussion on that. From a former intel operative though, he is privvy to some stuff that we can't get to. Interesting take from a staunch pro-Clinton democrat..dman

Well, you have to distinguish between editorial reporting and 'on-the-ground' reporting. I would agree that much of the editorial reporting is from guys who have already made up their mind and their pieces have a bias slant as a result, but you also have staunch conservatives like George Will and Bill Buckley who have been scathingly critical of the war...so it isn't just liberals. Re: 'on-the-ground' reporting, I think those reports are generally reliable because the reporters are often traveling with the troops and are risking their lives as well. They see first hand what is going on.

defenseman

06-05-2006, 09:00 AM

Well, you have to distinguish between editorial reporting and 'on-the-ground' reporting. I would agree that much of the editorial reporting is from guys who have already made up their mind and their pieces have a bias slant as a result, but you also have staunch conservatives like George Will and Bill Buckley who have been scathingly critical of the war...so it isn't just liberals. Re: 'on-the-ground' reporting, I think those reports are generally reliable because the reporters are often traveling with the troops and are risking their lives as well. They see first hand what is going on.

He's for limiting "greatly" the press's "access" to ANY military movements or operations. to be honest, I tend to agree. .....dman

*Never saw the press on one of my boats during action, that's for damn sure.

Garcia Bronco

06-05-2006, 01:27 PM

I've talked to fairly good mix of troops...some who I know personally, others who I've chatted with in bars, a couple who I met at a speaking event I attended a couple of months back. The response I've gotten has been mixed. Not a single one said it was going smoothly and that the media was totally full of crap, though several had a pretty optimistic view of things in terms of the progression of infrastructure and troop build up. Literally all but one guy was at the very least mildly annoyed with the handling of the war, even if they ultimately thought it was a good cause.

The problem with you is that you think you are being a pragmatist by ignoring the media altogether. To truly be pragmatic, you need to balance your assessment between all the sources so you can get as clear a picture as possible. Most of the reporters are over in Iraq along with the troops. They aren't partcipating in the fighting, obviously, but they are certainly risking their lives to make their reports. But they are all a pack of liberal liars, right? Whatever.

The reviews I get are more that we're getting results...few that I've talk too have many negatives. There is nothing the media can tell me on this issue that I haven't heard from people that are actually over there. While I agree with the philisophy...in this case...I can skip the major outlets and definately the blogis-hacks because most of them slant and lie..and that's all of them. Another thing too...I don't have cable and I got rid of the sat. Makes life a ton quieter.

Garcia Bronco

06-05-2006, 01:29 PM

He's for limiting "greatly" the press's "access" to ANY military movements or operations. to be honest, I tend to agree. .....dman

*Never saw the press on one of my boats during action, that's for damn sure.

I'm for getting them out period. They have no business there unless they're going to pick up a gun and fight. They do more harm than good for our people on the ground IMO.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-05-2006, 01:33 PM

I'm for getting them out period. They have no business there unless they're going to pick up a gun and fight. They do more harm than good for our people on the ground IMO. Only if you believe in communism. The press and free speech are the only thing between us and leaders of countries that lie and spy on their own voters.

BroncoInferno

06-05-2006, 01:41 PM

The reviews I get are more that we're getting results...few that I've talk too have many negatives. There is nothing the media can tell me on this issue that I haven't heard from people that are actually over there.

Many of the reporters are over there as well, risking there lives to report the news so that Americans can see for themselves what is going on. Having a psychology degree, you ought to know that psychologically it would be very difficult for a soldier to think of their sacrifice as a mistake. Many of them have had to kill. Can you imagine how it would feel to think of those deaths at your hands as being a mistake? It's only natural that many of them want to present the mission they were forced to perform as being just. They have their own bias (understandably so). Going only on what you hear from the troops and ignoring reporters who are also sticking their necks out (though certainly not to the same degree) is not being very pragmatic.

Garcia Bronco

06-05-2006, 02:55 PM

Only you believe in communism. The press and free speech are the only thing between us and leaders of countries that lie and spy on their own voters.

I'm not saying they should lie..this is the problem with you warped 60's kids...there are some things that don't need to made public for the good of the objective.

Garcia Bronco

06-05-2006, 02:56 PM

Many of the reporters are over there as well, risking there lives to report the news so that Americans can see for themselves what is going on. Having a psychology degree, you ought to know that psychologically it would be very difficult for a soldier to think of their sacrifice as a mistake. Many of them have had to kill. Can you imagine how it would feel to think of those deaths at your hands as being a mistake? It's only natural that many of them want to present the mission they were forced to perform as being just. They have their own bias (understandably so). Going only on what you hear from the troops and ignoring reporters who are also sticking their necks out (though certainly not to the same degree) is not being very pragmatic.

There is no mistake. You people have forgotten 9/11.

ant1999e

06-05-2006, 03:56 PM

Panic my *** she was in labor. Gee have the baby in the car or risk getting everyone shot to ****.

This forum should just be renamed. "Anti-America/Bush/christian" disscussion
Yeah, your right about the name change. That's why I'm getting tired of posting here. Gets a little ridiculous after awhile.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-05-2006, 05:03 PM

This forum should just be renamed. "Anti-America/Bush/christian" disscussion

Oh no! Yikes!

He's having a relapse...

He's having the old "criticism of Bush policies = hatred of America" delusions again.

Call the GOP Kool-Aid Detox Center!

BroncoInferno

06-06-2006, 06:26 AM

There is no mistake. You people have forgotten 9/11.

Tell me again Iraq's role in 9/11? ???

This statement proves that you are not interested in being pragmatic, your posturing aside. You are only interested in hearing things that support your biased viewpoint.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-06-2006, 03:16 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-06-2006, 03:27 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/news-test.jpg

Taco John

06-06-2006, 03:46 PM

There is no mistake. You people have forgotten 9/11.

Nine what now? Never heard of it... ::)

/can't believe anybody would stoop so low as to actually use that worthless cliche'

Edskins_RVA

06-06-2006, 04:53 PM

Tell me again Iraq's role in 9/11? ???

This statement proves that you are not interested in being pragmatic, your posturing aside. You are only interested in hearing things that support your biased viewpoint. Here goes again..

Iraq is NOT direct revenge or retribution for 9-11.

Iraq is part of the strategy in the larger War on Terror. Obviously the admin was worried about Iraq supplying AQ with WMD and this was emphasized as the primary reason,, but we also have exhausted that portion of it and it can be honestly said that appears to have been a mistake.. However, this aspect is only a tree in the forest.. WMD was the initial reason why Iraq was targeted (the tactical decision), but it is also part of the long-term plan (strategic decision) to win the overall War on Terror. Just killing/capturing Osama and the boys is a temporary solution at best..

As has been stated by the admin before, during, and still is that we are attempting to bring basic freedom, democratic goverment, and a modern free market to Afghanistan, Iraq, and is hoped, the Middle East as a whole. I think we'd all agree the Middle East is the region of the world were we are having the most problems with terrorists.

If we are successful in doing this, then Iraq can not only be a future ally in the region, they can be an example to all the other nations of what they too can have if they get rid of their despotic leaders (and yes I am including the Saudi's and others in that). Similar to what happened in Lebanon, Ukraine, and other places where popular uprisings for democracy have forced the hand of the ruling government..

If this LONG-TERM strategy can be successful, then the Middle East will catch up to the rest of the modern world. When that happens, the people in that region are going to be too busy going to school and work, tending to their houses, having and raising children, and generally trying to get ahead in the world to want to fly planes into our buildings and kill our people wherever they can find them.. Modern democratic nations DO NOT (generally speaking) conquer and make war on each other! Peace, prosperity, and freedom = less terrorists!

Not to mention that in the short-term, we have freed millions from tyranny in two nations and are now giving them the best chance they've had, or likely to have, to enjoy the fruits of life that we all take for granted. Not to mention we are killing and capturing a whole bunch of AQ and other terrorists in the process..

I know you guys are going to jump all over this now, but I would urge you to take a minute to reflect on this and understand the bigger picture that is involved here.. Just because Iraq did not have a direct link to 9-11, doesn't mean they were not a threat or would not become a larger threat if they did increase their cooperation with AQ as time went on.. You guys do remember that there was a big push to remove inspectors and lift sanctions on Iraq in the UN, just prior to 9-11?

If you were the President after 9-11, do you think you would have taken a chance that Iraq was not, or going to be, a huge threat? If he had and been worng and we had 9-11 the sequal(s), all you libs would have been all over GW as to why "he didn't protect the American People?!"

Either way, I'm sure I got the juices flowin'.. :strong:

Extra Credit: Anyone here know how long it took the US to write a Constitution and form a permanent government after the Revolution?

Garcia Bronco

06-06-2006, 05:05 PM

Tell me again Iraq's role in 9/11? ???

This statement proves that you are not interested in being pragmatic, your posturing aside. You are only interested in hearing things that support your biased viewpoint.

All I know is Islamic Fundamentalists from the middle east took 3 planes into our buildings on our soil caused another to crash They've been picking at us for years. It doesn't matter where we stick our foot. We've got business with them. The armchair presidents need ease back on the throttle and realize where their bread is buttered.

elsid13

06-06-2006, 05:08 PM

Here goes again..

Iraq is NOT direct revenge or retribution for 9-11.

Iraq is part of the strategy in the larger War on Terror. Obviously the admin was worried about Iraq supplying AQ with WMD and this was emphasized as the primary reason,, but we also have exhausted that portion of it and it can be honestly said that appears to have been a mistake.. However, this aspect is only a tree in the forest.. WMD was the initial reason why Iraq was targeted (the tactical decision), but it is also part of the long-term plan (strategic decision) to win the overall War on Terror. Just killing/capturing Osama and the boys is a temporary solution at best..

As has been stated by the admin before, during, and still is that we are attempting to bring basic freedom, democratic goverment, and a modern free market to Afghanistan, Iraq, and is hoped, the Middle East as a whole. I think we'd all agree the Middle East is the region of the world were we are having the most problems with terrorists.

If we are successful in doing this, then Iraq can not only be a future ally in the region, they can be an example to all the other nations of what they too can have if they get rid of their despotic leaders (and yes I am including the Saudi's and others in that). Similar to what happened in Lebanon, Ukraine, and other places where popular uprisings for democracy have forced the hand of the ruling government..

If this LONG-TERM strategy can be successful, then the Middle East will catch up to the rest of the modern world. When that happens, the people in that region are going to be too busy going to school and work, tending to their houses, having and raising children, and generally trying to get ahead in the world to want to fly planes into our buildings and kill our people wherever they can find them.. Modern democratic nations DO NOT (generally speaking) conquer and make war on each other! Peace, prosperity, and freedom = less terrorists!

Not to mention that in the short-term, we have freed millions from tyranny in two nations and are now giving them the best chance they've had, or likely to have, to enjoy the fruits of life that we all take for granted. Not to mention we are killing and capturing a whole bunch of AQ and other terrorists in the process..

I know you guys are going to jump all over this now, but I would urge you to take a minute to reflect on this and understand the bigger picture that is involved here.. Just because Iraq did not have a direct link to 9-11, doesn't mean they were not a threat or would not become a larger threat if they did increase their cooperation with AQ as time went on.. You guys do remember that there was a big push to remove inspectors and lift sanctions on Iraq in the UN, just prior to 9-11?

If you were the President after 9-11, do you think you would have taken a chance that Iraq was not, or going to be, a huge threat? If he had and been worng and we had 9-11 the sequal(s), all you libs would have been all over GW as to why "he didn't protect the American People?!"

Either way, I'm sure I got the juices flowin'.. :strong:

Extra Credit: Anyone here know how long it took the US to write a Constitution and form a permanent government after the Revolution?

And once again I strongly recommend that you Cobra II, Iraq is not a part of the "long war", but rather gave Cheney and his inner circle from days as SECDEF an opportunity to correct a perceived wrong national security policy. Now we broke it and we "own" it. Was Saddam an evil ass, the answer is yes, but was one the #1 threat to the nation, the answer was no. If you want to dicuss winning the GWOT then lets dicuss the policies and actions required to bring basic human, economic and security needs to places that allow this element of to exist.

Edskins_RVA

06-06-2006, 05:15 PM

And once again I strongly recommend that you Cobra II, Iraq is not a part of the "long war", but rather gave Cheney and his inner circle from days as SECDEF an opportunity to correct a perceived wrong national security policy. Now we broke it and we "own" it. Was Saddam an evil ass, the answer is yes, but was one the #1 threat to the nation, the answer was no. If you want to dicuss winning the GWOT then lets dicuss the policies and actions required to bring basic human, economic and security needs to places that allow this element of to exist.
And I again reply that is one sources perspective. There are numerous others that would back up what I said.. Also, please quote above where I stated that Iraq was the #1 threat? Obviously it was considered the easier target over Iran and N. Korea.. I believe I addressed that in detail above...

Garcia Bronco

06-06-2006, 05:28 PM

Edskins_RVA

06-06-2006, 05:39 PM

Definately an easier target.

I guess 9/11 was a little closer to home for the three of us. Literally. Good point! That crazy aunt I was talking about works for DOD and fortunately she wasn't at the Pentagon that fateful day.. My Grandmother lives about 10 miles from the Pentagon as well..

I also worry about the future considering where we live.. In addition to having DC a stones throw away, there's Norfolk, Oceana, Little Creek, Quantico, Ft. Lee, Defense General Supply, etc. Not to mention some pretty valuable historic sites dating to the birth of the nation. Some pretty tasty targets if you are looking to do harm..

elsid13

06-06-2006, 05:50 PM

And I again reply that is one sources perspective. There are numerous others that would back up what I said.. Also, please quote above where I stated that Iraq was the #1 threat? Obviously it was considered the easier target over Iran and N. Korea.. I believe I addressed that in detail above...

I never meant that you stated that Iraq was the #1, but rather in overall picture that you painted in the GWOT. Will you might discredit, Gordan, and Trainor book, which is very well document, when you add in both Woodard's book and the media statements by Richard Clark, and the Powell aide on the subject you get a clear picture on certain members of this administration view of OIF. Even with regime changes in N Korea, and Iran I hope people don't think that ends the war on terror. The are an indirect enablers but the main threat to nation still remain in the conditions in areas of the world that allow the bastards to gain followers.

spdirty

06-06-2006, 06:25 PM

Oh no! Yikes!

He's having a relapse...

He's having the old "criticism of Bush policies = hatred of America" delusions again.

Call the GOP Kool-Aid Detox Center!

Since when was it "support of our troops=support of Bush policies?" God forbid those men ensure their own safety by killing a suspected car bomber before they could take out a bunch of our brave men and women.

24champ

06-06-2006, 06:34 PM

There is no mistake. You people have forgotten 9/11.
either that or they ACTUALLY believe the kook theories that it was the US goverment that cordinated the attacks.

Florida_Bronco

06-06-2006, 06:49 PM

Since when was it "support of our troops=support of Bush policies?" God forbis those men ensure their own safety by killing a suspected car bomber before they could take out a bunch of our brave men and women.

:thumbsup:

Edskins_RVA

06-06-2006, 07:33 PM

I never meant that you stated that Iraq was the #1, but rather in overall picture that you painted in the GWOT. Will you might discredit, Gordan, and Trainor book, which is very well document, when you add in both Woodard's book and the media statements by Richard Clark, and the Powell aide on the subject you get a clear picture on certain members of this administration view of OIF.
I don't discredit the book.. However, if I remember correctly, that book seemed to focus more on the disputes behind the scenes during the run-up to the war and the mistakes of actually implementing it.

They do include claims of invasion plans already in the works for Iraq prior to 9-11? But that is rather specious as of course our military had invasion plans for Iraq before 9-11! The military is constantly performing threat assessments, planning, running scenarios, war-gaming, updating plans, etc. on numerous areas of the world and in a wide variety of situations all the time. And of course we emphasize "hot" areas (most immediate threats), so Iraq would definitely be near the top of the list.

Don't forget we had 2 active no-fly zones in Iraq for a decade+ after ending the war. Don't forget we were getting a little tired of having to maintain that. Not to mention Saddam was constantly taking shots at us, against the provisions of the '91 peace accord he signed. I notice none of you guys ever want to discuss that little piece of info.. LET ME SAY IT AGAIN, IRAQ WAS CONSTANTLY TAKING SHOTS (AAA & SAMS) AT OUR PILOTS PATROLLING THE NO FLY ZONES VIOLATING THE PEACE TREATY HE SIGNED WITH US AFTER THE GULF WAR! (Sorry for yelling, seemed appropriate)

I'm not sure how that CAN'T be considered a threat, other than the fact that they was rarely if ever successful and usually lost a battery and radar site in the process.. Regardless, Iraq was an active "hot spot" and a target of constant planning. Not sure that proves a conspiracy however..

Also, I know they (G&T) were on the losing side of the heated debate that progressed during the lead-up concerning our "footprint" in the war. Were we going to use the "Powell Doctrine" and go in with overwhelming force, or were we going to use a new model of lighter forces and more technology? It was a vigorous debate, but again hardly proves anything..

I know for a fact that politics, ego, reprisals, etc. are a way of life for the top brass at the highest levels. These guys are very confident, believe passionately in what they think is right, have good arguments for their positions, but they are certainly not immune to some sour grapes, "I told ya so's!", and desire to make money on book sales when they didn't ultimately prevail..

The side that won considered the history of the region. Britain's experiences in the early 20th century and the Soviet's in Afghanistan a couple of decades ago made Rummsfeld, Franks, and others decide to go smaller, lighter, & more tech. to try and minimize the turning of the Iraqi people over the resentment of having that many foreign troops on their soil. Add in Rummy's transformation project and his desire to test the new paradigm on a bigger stage, and you see how we were led to the decision that was ultimately taken..

Now, in retrospect, whether or not that was a good decision is certainly up for debate and these guys may end up being right. However, I still think that remains to be seen..

Regardless, this book is one perspective amongst many and not a difinitive source. You must look at the info through the prism of the individuals and internal Pentagon/DC politics..

I don't give much credence to Clarke and Woodward however.. It can be argued that they are frauds and hippocrites, though Woodward has done good work in the past (and emphasize past)..

Even with regime changes in N Korea, and Iran I hope people don't think that ends the war on terror. The are an indirect enablers but the main threat to nation still remain in the conditions in areas of the world that allow the bastards to gain followers.You may be right about that. However it is hard to argue those events would add considerable to world peace and stability. To change hearts and minds is going to take a long time. However I still maintain the best strategy is to give these disenchanted youths who want to kill us something to live for (new hope and opportunity), rather than die for (terrorism and the perversion of religion).. That is what the long-term strategy is designed to address...

elsid13

06-06-2006, 07:51 PM

"However I still maintain the best strategy is to give these disenchanted youths who want to kill us something to live for (new hope and opportunity), rather than die for (terrorism and the perversion of religion).. That is what the long-term strategy is designed to address..."

This is my basic problem with the strategy that the current administration has in place, it great in rhetoric but piss poor on execution of ideas and the basic stuff required to make this happen on the ground. The whole "hope and opportunity" thing is missing those key elements make the things happen. The reason Ha-mas, the Taliban and the new Islamic militia in Somalia have gain popular support isn't because of what they preach, but rather because they provide the basic government services the community need to survive. the whole Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If we are truly committed to winning this war, we the American public need to step up to plate, and effective provide those services to the folks, either directly or thru effective indirect means. Problems is that no politicians will ever stand up for this kind of foreign investment.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-06-2006, 08:05 PM

Iraq is part of the strategy in the larger War on Terror. Obviously the admin was worried about Iraq supplying AQ with WMD and this was emphasized as the primary reason,, but we also have exhausted that portion of it and it can be honestly said that appears to have been a mistake.. However, this aspect is only a tree in the forest.. WMD was the initial reason why Iraq was targeted (the tactical decision), but it is also part of the long-term plan (strategic decision) to win the overall War on Terror. Just killing/capturing Osama and the boys is a temporary solution at best..

Once again, the facts do not support your spin...

US admits the war for ‘hearts and minds’ in Iraq is now lost

Pentagon report reveals catalogue of failure

Excerpts:

THE Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the “self-serving hypocrisy” of George W Bush’s administration over the Middle East.

The mea culpa is contained in a shockingly frank “strategic communications” report, written this autumn by the Defence Science Board for Pentagon supremo Donald Rumsfeld.

On “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.

“American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies.”

Referring to the repeated mantra from the White House that those who oppose the US in the Middle East “hate our freedoms”, the report says: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedoms’, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

“Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypo crisy. Moreover, saying that ‘freedom is the future of the Middle East’ is seen as patronising … in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.”

The way America has handled itself since September 11 has played straight into the hands of al-Qaeda, the report adds. “American actions have elevated the authority of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims.” The result is that al-Qaeda has gone from being a marginal movement to having support across the entire Muslim world.

“Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic,” the report goes on, adding that to the Arab world the war is “no more than an extension of American domestic politics”. The US has zero credibility among Muslims which means that “whatever Americans do and say only serves … the enemy”.

The report says that the US is now engaged in a “global and generational struggle of ideas” which it is rapidly losing. In order to reverse the trend, the US must make “strategic communication” – which includes the dissemination of propaganda and the running of military psychological operations – an integral part of national security. The document says that “Presidential leadership” is needed in this “ideas war” and warns against “arrogance, opportunism and double standards”.

“We face a war on terrorism,” the report says, “intensified conflict with Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America’s tarnished credibility and ways the US pursues its goals. There is a consensus that America’s power to persuade is in a state of crisis.” More than 90% of the populations of some Muslims countries, such as Saudi Arabia, are opposed to US policies.

“The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe,” the report adds, “weakened support for the war on terrorism and undermined US credibility worldwide.” This, in turn, poses an increased threat to US national security.

Full article:

http://www.sundayherald.com/46389

Garcia Bronco

06-06-2006, 08:23 PM

Once again, the facts do not support your spin...

US admits the war for ‘hearts and minds’ in Iraq is now lost

Pentagon report reveals catalogue of failure

Excerpts:

THE Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the “self-serving hypocrisy” of George W Bush’s administration over the Middle East.

The mea culpa is contained in a shockingly frank “strategic communications” report, written this autumn by the Defence Science Board for Pentagon supremo Donald Rumsfeld.

On “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.

“American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies.”

Referring to the repeated mantra from the White House that those who oppose the US in the Middle East “hate our freedoms”, the report says: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedoms’, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

“Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypo crisy. Moreover, saying that ‘freedom is the future of the Middle East’ is seen as patronising … in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.”

The way America has handled itself since September 11 has played straight into the hands of al-Qaeda, the report adds. “American actions have elevated the authority of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims.” The result is that al-Qaeda has gone from being a marginal movement to having support across the entire Muslim world.

“Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic,” the report goes on, adding that to the Arab world the war is “no more than an extension of American domestic politics”. The US has zero credibility among Muslims which means that “whatever Americans do and say only serves … the enemy”.

The report says that the US is now engaged in a “global and generational struggle of ideas” which it is rapidly losing. In order to reverse the trend, the US must make “strategic communication” – which includes the dissemination of propaganda and the running of military psychological operations – an integral part of national security. The document says that “Presidential leadership” is needed in this “ideas war” and warns against “arrogance, opportunism and double standards”.

“We face a war on terrorism,” the report says, “intensified conflict with Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America’s tarnished credibility and ways the US pursues its goals. There is a consensus that America’s power to persuade is in a state of crisis.” More than 90% of the populations of some Muslims countries, such as Saudi Arabia, are opposed to US policies.

“The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe,” the report adds, “weakened support for the war on terrorism and undermined US credibility worldwide.” This, in turn, poses an increased threat to US national security.

Full article:

http://www.sundayherald.com/46389

There are no facts in this article you've posted that was created on foreign soil. Any other articles for Scotland?