V.P. Debates...

CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
well this coming from a Coulter fan does not surprise me in the least. Apparently she thinks the word "traitor" is synonymous with anyone in disagreement. :rolleyes:
Any different from liberals always calling people who don't support affirmative action racists? Having once been on the left, then on the right, and finally backing up to a true conservative or Libertarian, I have to say that of all groups it's liberals who throw around the most invective, hurl the most insults and who debate almost entirely in ad hominems. Remember that NAACP invitation GWB declined? He did so because they had but flat out called him a Nazi, and then they get all hurt and befuddled when he turns down a dinner invitation.

Basically the right somehow allowed the left to attain the Moral High ground position, and when they did they started behaving just like the fundamentalists they replaced, only they somehow managed to do more bitching and moaning, and to incorporate more complete irrationality and self contradiction into their rhetoric.
 

ironviking

The Axe Man Cometh!!
Awards
1
  • Established
well this coming from a Coulter fan does not surprise me in the least. Apparently she thinks the word "traitor" is synonymous with anyone in disagreement. :rolleyes:

Yea Ok Coulter is a little overboard, but she looks hot in her picture.

Do you actually think Kerry will do a better job if elected? Im not just talking on the Iraq war but on homeland issues as well. They want to end tax breaks for businesses that send jobs overseas, lets look at some numbers real quick from one area that is going overseas - helpdesks.

HP just sent over 3 of thier support desks to India, the average person at these desks were making 30k/year. The India employees are making about 160/month or 1,920/year. Ending tax breaks will not stop these jobs from going overseas. Especially when these contracts were contigent upon meeting standards that if not met costs the company (HP) a considerable amount of money or maybe even losing the contract all together. They hired over twice the amount of people in India and still saved tons of money.

The focus should not be on stopping the jobs from going overseas but how to create new jobs that will stay here. So far Kerry hasnt explained how to do that. Cheney was explaining that in keeping the tax cuts for income over 200k because most of that is from small business owners. Place a cap on liability lawsuits so companies dont have such high cost for litigation; frivolous lawsuits are still ridiculously high today. In other words let companies keep more of thier money to expand and hire more people.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
well this coming from a Coulter fan does not surprise me in the least. Apparently she thinks the word "traitor" is synonymous with anyone in disagreement. :rolleyes:
I'm not a big fan of Coulter myself for the reason that when I see her on TV, she acts just like the loudmouth liberals do. BUT, the word traitor was not synonymous with disagreement between political parties and their ideology. It's in reference to the fact that the leftists are attempting to undermine many important properties of America, which are founding fathers were so proud of. The simplest of which being "taxation". Next in line "religion" (i recognize this is for the extreme leftists and not all of 'em). Most importantly IMHO, is what they've done to the "judicial system". Now "equality of races" has become a major american issue, yet the left is punishing people for being white males! School, government jobs, judicial system (i.e. a white murders a black, it gets upgraded to "hate crime" just because...). "Freedom of Speech" is another. They say that they're for freedom of speech, yet they've made it practically illegal for religious organizations to talk about homosexuality and abortion in a public forum. Now, one that would be extremely important to our founding fathers would be "the right to bare arms". Can you image what would have happened during the revolutionary war if we didn't have the right to bare arms? Umm....can you say massacre? That's what would happen right here if we didn't have that right. Hell, if we ever get invaded and out military can't mobilize fast enough, you better hope they invade the south, b/c those bastards are gonna kill some folks! ;) Another example of freedom of speech is what they're trying to do to talk radio. They love their liberal media, but they've (senators and congresspeople of the left) tried to shut down both Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage! Please, tell me these are not actions that one would label as traitorous...

Now the republicans aren't too gret themselves (i.e. stem cell an abortion) and that's why I dont' identify as a republican. But in comparison with the democrats and those on the left...well thereis no comparison. I think the greatest example would be how John Kerry and the democrats reacted the swift boat vets and the 2M they poured at him vs. the way the Bush and republicans acted at th 60M thrown at them in hate ads, including one with a comparison of Bush and Hitler not to mention the millions that were spent on Michael Moore's movie "Farenheit 9/11" of which Bush never said a word after Moore painted him as the most crooked man on the planet! Who's the advocate of freedom of speech here?
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Haliburton is not special except the fact that their profits = Cheney's profits.
That is Flat out not true. Cheney is getting deferment payments from his previous salary. That is a common practice for CEOs. All his profits from stocks are going to charity.Why do I get the feeling you weren't screaming about Halliburton when they got the contract for Somalia.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Well I agree with one thing:

We can do better, and more of the same from Bush doesn't seem like it will get us where we need to be.

As for Bush "trying his best"....ROFL WTF man!! I don't care how "hard he tries", he created this shithole mess in Iraq and someone unfortunately will have to wipe his administrations ass and clean it up. His "best" is a complete mess, and I say get someone in who can do the job.
If you don't like Bush's plan for Iraq I take it that you don't like Kerry's because they are pretty much identical right? Except Kerry can get international support right? Wait France and Germany said they won't send troops no matter who is elected. Lets also pretend the UN oil for food scandal didn't happen either. The problem is I believe they are holding hearings about it, so the UN probably isn't too happy about that.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
"Farenheit 9/11" of which Bush never said a word after Moore painted him as the most crooked man on the planet! Who's the advocate of freedom of speech here?
Dick Morris said that they screened his movie hype 9-11 at a college Moore was going to speak at and guess what happened? Moore canceled his appearance. Someone doesn't like it unless he can selectively edit things they way he wants.
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
I suggest you folks go to factcheck.org

They tore Bush and Cheney a new one. It seems both a very prone to:

1) distorting facts
2) misquoting numbers
3) making up numbers
4) taking quotes out of context and changing their meaning
5) lieing

Oh they've got some stuff on Kerry and Edwards too, but the stuff in there about Cheney and Bush is priceless.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I suggest you folks go to factcheck.org

They tore Bush and Cheney a new one. It seems both a very prone to:

1) distorting facts
2) misquoting numbers
3) making up numbers
4) taking quotes out of context and changing their meaning
5) lieing

Oh they've got some stuff on Kerry and Edwards too, but the stuff in there about Cheney and Bush is priceless.
Like I said above, factcheck.org is a POS liberal website and Cheney was stupid to quote it, especially as a 'non partisan' website. I doubt he's ever even been to the site. They're probably loving it! The factcheck.org people are probably saying "hey, we can really ream this guy now! *they roll on the floor laughing their asses off*)

If they, like other media outlets, would just stick to the facts and leave their biased commentary out of it, it may be worthy of the name "factcheck.org", but their commentary is obviously partisan.
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
It doesn't change the fact that they verify facts. The whole purpose of that website is to call out politicans on their lies. Not just some, all. It isn't their fault that Cheney and Bush seem to do most of the lieing.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
It doesn't change the fact that they verify facts. The whole purpose of that website is to call out politicans on their lies. Not just some, all. It isn't their fault that Cheney and Bush seem to do most of the lieing.
Let me make this more simple to you. I can pull out all of "the facts" against one party and "not all of the facts" against another. Even Michael Moore can do that. They look for facts that the Bush/Cheney admin get wrong and catch the Kerry/Edwards' on the way. It doesn't change the facts, but is sure as hell can take things out of proportion and change voters' opinions / perspectives on things. Especially since most people are stupid enough to think that because the website is called "factcheck.org" that it's non-partisan, as it claims. ROFL, take a look at exactly "who" the fact-checkers are! Journalists, CNN commentators, etc. ROFLMAO....yeah, we can trust them!

EDIT: The more I read the articles on this website, the more I hate these misleading pricks! They'll say that one "experts" assertionsa re entirely false, all because one other expert has contradictory opinions. Gee...what kind of fuckin' idiot believes this ****? Ooops..the entire general public! Grr! :rant:

I don't get it...people are so fucking stupid. If one person's research turns out different results than another person, and both are experts in their field, why would one be more correct than the other? Hmm...to further their political agenda maybe? They need to make real rebuttals, i.e. the source used for statement "x" was 1 of 100 who wrote about the same issue "y" and the other 99 totally disagree with statement "x"...that would be valid. But this Person A is wrong because person B says so **** is for fucking idiots!!! How can ppl buy into this!???
 
Last edited:

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Personally I just think you're in denial about Bush and Cheney being some of the most amoral POS lieing SOBs in the history of the USA. You desperately want to vote Republican so you refuse to let anything tell you something negative about your party's candidate.
 

Jeff

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
You desperately want to vote Republican so you refuse to let anything tell you something negative about your party's candidate.
Let's not go crazy here, a large number of conservatives are pissed off at bush. Besides the tax breaks, he really is no different then a democrat when it comes to goverment spending. The democrats probably had a really good chance, too bad they only gave their delegates a choice between 5 or 6 of the looniest mother fvckers on the planet. Hell I would have switched over and voted for liberman if the opportunity had been there.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Personally I just think you're in denial about Bush and Cheney being some of the most amoral POS lieing SOBs in the history of the USA. You desperately want to vote Republican so you refuse to let anything tell you something negative about your party's candidate.
I wouldn't say that at all. I'd rather have a good Libertarian candidate on the ticket. I like Bush personally, but I'm not at all happy with a number of his positions.

Bush and Cheney being some of the most amoral POS lying SOBs in the history of the USA? You're kidding right? You can't be that left! This is exactly what I'm talking about...people believe that crap.

Tell me, what intelligent person would not notice fault with the fact that this supposed non-partison, unbiased, fact checking website / organization will negate one person's opinion, simply because there is another person with a different opinion (or came to different conclusions). I'm not saying that everything they say is BS. There is some definite truth in there about GWB and Cheney. You cannot deny the facts as you state above, BUT you'd have to be an ignorant fool not to notice the blatant bias and the extremely flawed logic behind many of their rebuttals, especially when it comes to undermining one person / organization's opinion because one other person / organization says different. You'd have to be a waterboy (bobby bouchet...adam sandler) to believe that crap! Ma...ma...ma...momma says... :think:
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm not really left at all.

I'm for small government. I want a TRUE flat tax (not to be confused with a flat tax rate). I'm pro second ammendment. I firmly believe if someone wants to own an assault rifle they should be allowed. I want the government to butt out of my business and stop telling me what to do. However this means I'm pro choice since the government shouldn't be telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body. I'm obviously for legalization of all drugs. I'm also for harsher criminal penalties for crimes committed under the influence.

There are a few government organizations that I think are important (even if they step outside of their bounds a little too often). The FDA is one such organization. I also believe the FDA should enforce accurate label claims on all supplements. I do not however think it is their job to tell us that we aren't permitted to take those supplements.

When it comes to immigration, I'm very conservative. I think we need to tighten up the borders bigtime. We need a wall between us and Mexico and we need to increase border patrols. I think illegal aliens caught stealing welfare or social security should be thrown in jail for a very long time and all of their money stripped.

When it comes to how we handle a war I'm definitely not liberal. For example, I think the only thing wrong with Abu Graib is the fact that any information leaked. In warzones, drastic measures need to be taken. This means not only defeating the enemy on the battlefield, it means more importantly defeating their spirits. They need to have their will broken.


So no, I am not liberal. I just hate Bush. I see the problems he has caused, I see the situation we are in, and I see more disaster in the near future if he gets re-elected.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm not really left at all.

I'm for small government. I want a TRUE flat tax (not to be confused with a flat tax rate). I'm pro second ammendment. I firmly believe if someone wants to own an assault rifle they should be allowed. I want the government to butt out of my business and stop telling me what to do. However this means I'm pro choice since the government shouldn't be telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body. I'm obviously for legalization of all drugs. I'm also for harsher criminal penalties for crimes committed under the influence.

There are a few government organizations that I think are important (even if they step outside of their bounds a little too often). The FDA is one such organization. I also believe the FDA should enforce accurate label claims on all supplements. I do not however think it is their job to tell us that we aren't permitted to take those supplements.

When it comes to immigration, I'm very conservative. I think we need to tighten up the borders bigtime. We need a wall between us and Mexico and we need to increase border patrols. I think illegal aliens caught stealing welfare or social security should be thrown in jail for a very long time and all of their money stripped.

When it comes to how we handle a war I'm definitely not liberal. For example, I think the only thing wrong with Abu Graib is the fact that any information leaked. In warzones, drastic measures need to be taken. This means not only defeating the enemy on the battlefield, it means more importantly defeating their spirits. They need to have their will broken.


So no, I am not liberal. I just hate Bush. I see the problems he has caused, I see the situation we are in, and I see more disaster in the near future if he gets re-elected.
Who do you think is closer to your core beliefs Bush or Kerry? Kerry is for increasing taxes-Bush cut taxes, the party that is adamantly against the second amendment is the democrats, on immigration neither side is really doing anything. Unfortunately we are stuck voting for the lesser of to evils. If those really are your positions on issues why the hell would you vote for Kerry.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm not really left at all.
That's good :)
I'm for small government. I want a TRUE flat tax (not to be confused with a flat tax rate). I'm pro second ammendment. I firmly believe if someone wants to own an assault rifle they should be allowed. I want the government to butt out of my business and stop telling me what to do. However this means I'm pro choice since the government shouldn't be telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body. I'm obviously for legalization of all drugs. I'm also for harsher criminal penalties for crimes committed under the influence.
I agree with you here for sure!
There are a few government organizations that I think are important (even if they step outside of their bounds a little too often). The FDA is one such organization. I also believe the FDA should enforce accurate label claims on all supplements. I do not however think it is their job to tell us that we aren't permitted to take those supplements.
I agree here as well, we need to know what we're taking /using, but they shouldn't tell us whether or not we can.
When it comes to immigration, I'm very conservative. I think we need to tighten up the borders bigtime. We need a wall between us and Mexico and we need to increase border patrols. I think illegal aliens caught stealing welfare or social security should be thrown in jail for a very long time and all of their money stripped.
This seems to be the one issue that probably 75% of americans can agree on.
When it comes to how we handle a war I'm definitely not liberal. For example, I think the only thing wrong with Abu Graib is the fact that any information leaked. In warzones, drastic measures need to be taken. This means not only defeating the enemy on the battlefield, it means more importantly defeating their spirits. They need to have their will broken.
Good, then you'll be happy to know that we "outsource" many of our captured terrorists to foreign governments who make Abu Grahib look like a day care facility.
So no, I am not liberal. I just hate Bush. I see the problems he has caused, I see the situation we are in, and I see more disaster in the near future if he gets re-elected.
That's good you're not liberal, I think you're a) falling for the liberal spokesmouth's BS or b) a devote internationalist. Those are the only reasons that I can think of a conservative would choose Bush over Kerry when given the choice.

I'd advise you to read Shadow War by Richard Miniter. I personally am going to read the whole thing when school allows it; you may have a better outlook on the administration. I'm comforted (in an odd way) that Al Qaeda plotted to assasinate our president, because it shows that they are afraid of him...The guy who wrote this book started out under the assumption that the war on terror was going to hell b/c of Iraq, etc, but over the course of his travels, research, etc, etc he changed his mind.

What bugs me is this guy had the perfect rebuttal of undisputable facts to the F*cked up BS that Kerry / Edwards were talking about when referring to Tora Bora saying that we lost Bin Laden b/c we outsourced the fight to warlords...those POS!! If anybody had any idea how nasty the terrain, caves networks, etc of Tora Bora are, they'd understand how "we were working with" the warlords as a necessity and it was damn smart! How do ppl think the USSR lost in Tora Bora? B/C of Afghanistan's great army? ROFL!! (you can't compare Tora Bora to vietnam, we had political pressures which held us back from flattening north vietname, communist ussr went all out!!
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Who do you think is closer to your core beliefs Bush or Kerry? Kerry is for increasing taxes-Bush cut taxes, the party that is adamantly against the second amendment is the democrats, on immigration neither side is really doing anything. Unfortunately we are stuck voting for the lesser of to evils. If those really are your positions on issues why the hell would you vote for Kerry.
:trout: exactly!
 

INFOHAZARD

Member
Awards
0
I wouldn't say that at all. I'd rather have a good Libertarian candidate on the ticket. I like Bush personally, but I'm not at all happy with a number of his positions.

Bush and Cheney being some of the most amoral POS lying SOBs in the history of the USA? You're kidding right? You can't be that left! This is exactly what I'm talking about...people believe that crap.

Tell me, what intelligent person would not notice fault with the fact that this supposed non-partison, unbiased, fact checking website / organization will negate one person's opinion, simply because there is another person with a different opinion (or came to different conclusions). I'm not saying that everything they say is BS. There is some definite truth in there about GWB and Cheney. You cannot deny the facts as you state above, BUT you'd have to be an ignorant fool not to notice the blatant bias and the extremely flawed logic behind many of their rebuttals, especially when it comes to undermining one person / organization's opinion because one other person / organization says different. You'd have to be a waterboy (bobby bouchet...adam sandler) to believe that crap! Ma...ma...ma...momma says... :think:


Of course, Edwards was talking about fines levied over things that happened when Cheney was CEO. The Fact Check article was not about that at all, but noted that a Kerry ad distorted facts on Cheney's companstion package. Same adversaries, different issue. That meant Cheney had no real retort to Edwards attack (which factcheck points out).

Seems to me that if the Veep recommends it, and it gives a message you don't want to hear about the veep, the only logical thing to do is engage in cognitive dissonance....


If he'd only sent folks to the Limbaugh site....


Cheney is (Pick one):
1) Careless in making this critical argument in front of the Nation

2) Hoping you wouldn't check it out

3) Secretly wanting Kerry/Edwards to win so he sabotages himself

4) too busy practicing hunching over and wringing his hands to do his own fact-checking

5) All of the above.

INFOHAZARD
 

INFOHAZARD

Member
Awards
0
That's good :)
I agree with you here for sure!
I agree here as well, we need to know what we're taking /using, but they shouldn't tell us whether or not we can.
This seems to be the one issue that probably 75% of americans can agree on.
Good, then you'll be happy to know that we "outsource" many of our captured terrorists to foreign governments who make Abu Grahib look like a day care facility.

That's good you're not liberal, I think you're a) falling for the liberal spokesmouth's BS or b) a devote internationalist. Those are the only reasons that I can think of a conservative would choose Bush over Kerry when given the choice.

I'd advise you to read Shadow War by Richard Miniter. I personally am going to read the whole thing when school allows it; you may have a better outlook on the administration. I'm comforted (in an odd way) that Al Qaeda plotted to assasinate our president, because it shows that they are afraid of him...The guy who wrote this book started out under the assumption that the war on terror was going to hell b/c of Iraq, etc, but over the course of his travels, research, etc, etc he changed his mind.

What bugs me is this guy had the perfect rebuttal of undisputable facts to the F*cked up BS that Kerry / Edwards were talking about when referring to Tora Bora saying that we lost Bin Laden b/c we outsourced the fight to warlords...those POS!! If anybody had any idea how nasty the terrain, caves networks, etc of Tora Bora are, they'd understand how "we were working with" the warlords as a necessity and it was damn smart! How do ppl think the USSR lost in Tora Bora? B/C of Afghanistan's great army? ROFL!! (you can't compare Tora Bora to vietnam, we had political pressures which held us back from flattening north vietname, communist ussr went all out!!

All I know is that a guy I know who was at Tora Bora who voted for Dubya in 2000 wants nothing more than to get him out of office. Another person (my boss) was a doctor at Abu Ghraib (after the **** hit the fan). He calls Iraq a "quagmire." Before he went, he was basically a war supporter. Now he thinks we should just leave now because the outcome will be the same except for the dead Americans.

And I'm a veteran; I care for veterans for a living and I'm a firm second amendment supporter. Bush fucked up. It's the fate of all ideologues. It's just a question of how many dead bodies pile up before the idealogue goes down in flames.

INFOHAZARD
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Cheney is (Pick one):
1) Careless in making this critical argument in front of the Nation

2) Hoping you wouldn't check it out

3) Secretly wanting Kerry/Edwards to win so he sabotages himself

4) too busy practicing hunching over and wringing his hands to do his own fact-checking

5) All of the above.

INFOHAZARD
I picked a winner
:thumbsup:
 

INFOHAZARD

Member
Awards
0
Who do you think is closer to your core beliefs Bush or Kerry? Kerry is for increasing taxes-Bush cut taxes, the party that is adamantly against the second amendment is the democrats, on immigration neither side is really doing anything. Unfortunately we are stuck voting for the lesser of to evils. If those really are your positions on issues why the hell would you vote for Kerry.
Bush is just passing the bill for the big budget run-up to the next president down the line, to the inflation that is coming (how's your fuel bill lately?) and to our kids.

What we really need is a parlementary government that would create an environment that actually encourage more than two parties and which forces coalition and compromise. Having an all-or- nothing electoral system that only supports two parties (and there is an active push by the DeLay machine to make it single party) leads to a sickness of extremes.

You know, we left Japan and Germany with Parlementary governments. We didn't give them one exactly like our own. The people who did that were wise. Where are they now?

While no where in the Constitution is the idea of political partisanism is even mentioned, the only way we could change our government to allow for a multitude of parties would be to have a Constitutional Convention. Unfortunately, that would be opening Pandora' s Box. As likely as not, we'd end up with a Born-Again Theocracy instead.

INFOHAZARD
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
All I know is that a guy I know who was at Tora Bora who voted for Dubya in 2000 wants nothing more than to get him out of office. Another person (my boss) was a doctor at Abu Ghraib (after the **** hit the fan). He calls Iraq a "quagmire." Before he went, he was basically a war supporter. Now he thinks we should just leave now because the outcome will be the same except for the dead Americans.

And I'm a veteran; I care for veterans for a living and I'm a firm second amendment supporter. Bush fucked up. It's the fate of all ideologues. It's just a question of how many dead bodies pile up before the idealogue goes down in flames.

INFOHAZARD
I've got family and friends in the military. My cousin just got home from Afghanistan not that long ago. He told me that he hates what the media is doing and is voting for Bush. He's a smart guy. He was a good student, etc. and could have had scholarships all over, but he's always wanted to be a lifer ever since he was a kid, so that's his deal. His friends tell me the same thing. They don't "officially" poll military persons on their political beliefs, but "unofficial polls" suggest about 75% of military people support GWB over John Kerry.

Now, if your friend wouldn't mind being slaughtered in Tora Bora, then fine, he should hate GWB. But if he values his life, he should thank him...not only that, but GWB doesnt' control what goes on, on the ground! He takes recommendations from his generals and gives them what they need! So, he's hating the wrong person for that.

Imagine being in somebody's private maze...this person wants to kill you and can be lurking around any corner or hiding in any crevice. There is another person who is a resident and swears to guide you. Would you take their help or would you be slaughtered? I think that's a fair analogy as to what happened in Tora Bora. The americans took help and in those thousands upon thousands of square miles of hideously unfriendly terrain, they had to track a few people, all of which knew the terrain like the distance between their zipper and their cock!! They lost them...pity, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous to believe that the admin carelessly lost UBL. It's ridiculous to think that they're not keeping that their top priority. But, hate does blind people.

If Bush is an idealogue, what is Kerry? What is every politician? :think:

Kerry is much more dangerous, despite what he says, and then says he didn't say, and then says again, he's a devout internationalist and our pseudo-allies in Europe will be more responsible for our safety than ever. That's very uncomfortable to me. Maybe he doesn't think that he is what people say he is, but if he does, he probably hasn't read his own voting record!!
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Bush is just passing the bill for the big budget run-up to the next president down the line, to the inflation that is coming (how's your fuel bill lately?) and to our kids.
Why do people believe that if a government isn't taxing the hell out of people, were going to just increase debt indefinately? Totally absurd! We'll see. It's very likely Bush will be pres again come november. By mid 2005 we should already see declines in the budget deficit. We'll see...

Raegan increased the deficit b/c he had to break the 11% unemployment mess that taxing the hell out of people created under Carter and the rest of the communist democrats. (76% taxation is communist to me). We had a historic high of 6% deficit, yet our deficit began to sharply decline because businesses had the money to operate, government had to spend less (welfare, etc, etc.) and that continued UNTIL the gulf war, then it rose again. Then the internet and the stock market boom took full effect (not in any way related to Clinton's policy's despite what liberals want people to believe)...eventually, the rising costs of doign business (thanks to the taxation policies of clinton) started bringing down business and a recession took place even with our "surplus" (Clinton-Gore recession of May (?) 2000, their policies were directly responsible for this and there was nothing the current admin could do to change them.) then 9/11 happened, the stock market fell, two wars began, low and behold we're at a 3.8% budget deficit, with virtually no inflation, 5.4% unemployment (same as when clinton left office), highest home ownership in history (especially of minorities), budgetary predictions as of this year are ahead of schedule, and we're in such a horrid mess arent we??? You can argue that we are still at a net loss of jobs and that's true. However, people never take into account the internet and technology boom creating 20M jobs, many of which will be/ were replace by technology itself, that were "destined to fall in number evenetually. We never expereinced anything like that before. It was "stupid" for Bush to think he could make 6M jobs; that's for damn sure, but it's not his fault we lost jobs. If it wasn't for Bush, Im positive we'd be down many more jobs than we are currently however.
What we really need is a parlementary government that would create an environment that actually encourage more than two parties and which forces coalition and compromise. Having an all-or- nothing electoral system that only supports two parties (and there is an active push by the DeLay machine to make it single party) leads to a sickness of extremes.
I agree 100% here.
You know, we left Japan and Germany with Parlementary governments. We didn't give them one exactly like our own. The people who did that were wise. Where are they now?
They dont want to lose their power...bunch of hypocrites!
While no where in the Constitution is the idea of political partisanism is even mentioned, the only way we could change our government to allow for a multitude of parties would be to have a Constitutional Convention. Unfortunately, that would be opening Pandora' s Box. As likely as not, we'd end up with a Born-Again Theocracy instead.

INFOHAZARD
Possible, but I highly doubt it. Just like I don't think we'd have a facist (yes, the left in this country are very facist) left-wing government in place. I think it'll never happen becaue both parties would rather duke it out between the two of them, rather than introducing more parties to the system. Especially the democrats who do everything they can (as the equality party...WTF??) to keep Nader down and out.
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
apparently there are alot of people on this board who should be running for president, because they seem to know a hell of alot more than our current president. it's easy to say that bush handled this or that wrong after the fact. i do the same thing monday mornings after watching football all weekend. I think one thing people need to keep in mind is that NONE of us are privy to the same information as the president. Neither was kerry or edwards. Nor are any of us burdened with the defending of this nation(in a presidential sense). Kerry can say all he wants" we will do things better", but until he AT LEAST outlines a solid plan of action, how can anyone buy into it? Whether or not we should be in Iraq is a moot point now. We're there, we can't just leave, we need to finish this. we were spoiled by desert storm into thinking war is a clean quick process. It's not. It's just a reflection of how our country loses interest so fast nowadays. People are no longer willing to accept any sacrifices for ANY cause. After just a few weeks into the war people were already making references to vietnam. And I am also a veteran, infohazard, and still keep in contact with many active duty friends. If the majority of our Marines/soldiers/navy thought like the example you gave our military would be worthless. The MAJORITY are brave men and women who believe in their country and believe in what they are doing. People who have made sacrifices and would do it again if given the chance. And screw the WMD's. Show me ONE person that wishes saddam was still in power.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
apparently there are alot of people on this board who should be running for president, because they seem to know a hell of alot more than our current president. it's easy to say that bush handled this or that wrong after the fact. i do the same thing monday mornings after watching football all weekend.I think one thing people need to keep in mind is that NONE of us are privy to the same information as the president. Neither was kerry or edwards. Nor are any of us burdened with the defending of this nation(in a presidential sense). Kerry can say all he wants" we will do things better", but until he AT LEAST outlines a solid plan of action, how can anyone buy into it? Whether or not we should be in Iraq is a moot point now. We're there, we can't just leave, we need to finish this. we were spoiled by desert storm into thinking war is a clean quick process. It's not. It's just a reflection of how our country loses interest so fast nowadays. People are no longer willing to accept any sacrifices for ANY cause. After just a few weeks into the war people were already making references to vietnam. And I am also a veteran infohazard, and still keep in contact with many active duty friends. If the majority of our Marines/soldiers/navy thought like the example you gave our military would be worthless. The MAJORITY are brave men and women who believe in their country and believe in what they are doing. People who have made sacrifices and would do it again if given the chance. And screw the WMD's. Show me ONE person that wishes saddam was still in power.
Good points
:thumbsup:
 

INFOHAZARD

Member
Awards
0
I've got family and friends in the military. My cousin just got home from Afghanistan not that long ago. He told me that he hates what the media is doing and is voting for Bush. He's a smart guy. He was a good student, etc. and could have had scholarships all over, but he's always wanted to be a lifer ever since he was a kid, so that's his deal. His friends tell me the same thing. They don't "officially" poll military persons on their political beliefs, but "unofficial polls" suggest about 75% of military people support GWB over John Kerry.
That's funny- it was 90% last year. I'd be interested in the source of your stats. But you are right - a person in uniform is not to speak out against the Commander-in-Chief for obvious reasons, plus you've got to account for cognitive dissonace and peer pressure. This is only healthy and appropriate when you are on the batlefield.

Now, if your friend wouldn't mind being slaughtered in Tora Bora, then fine, he should hate GWB.
It sure is easy to say that when you weren't there, and you've only heard what's been told to you. He was there and he did risk his life for you. You know what? He's entitled to his opinion just as your cousin is.

Yes, we were grossly undermanned to go in there ourselves. But why was that? War on the cheap? We lost Osama. I promise you, the Warlords would sell their own mothers for the right price, but they were NEVER going to let us get Osama. Never, because they respected him a lot more than they respected us. Osama and the warlords went waaaay back.


GWB doesnt' control what goes on, on the ground!
The commander and chief does not control what our troops do on the ground? If that's the case, he's incompetent.


He takes recommendations from his generals and gives them what they need! So, he's hating the wrong person for that.
I would advise you to look up a certain 4-star, head of the US Army named Shinseki. He told them it would take "several hundred thousand" troops to maintain the peace after the war and did Dubya give it to him? No. He fired him. If only he had listened.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm


Imagine being in somebody's private maze...this person wants to kill you and can be lurking around any corner or hiding in any crevice. There is another person who is a resident and swears to guide you. Would you take their help or would you be slaughtered? I think that's a fair analogy as to what happened in Tora Bora.
I don't.


...I think it's absolutely ridiculous to believe that the admin carelessly lost UBL. It's ridiculous to think that they're not keeping that their top priority. But, hate does blind people.
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)


If Bush is an idealogue, what is Kerry?
He's not an idealogue.

What is every politician? :think:
Yeah, you telling me to think. Right.



Kerry is much more dangerous, despite what he says, and then says he didn't say, and then says again,
"I'm the war president" -G.W. Bush

"I want to be the peace President." - G.W. Bush

"We are more safe, more secure." - G.W. Bush

"We are a nation in danger." - G.W. Bush

he's a devout internationalist and our pseudo-allies in Europe will be more responsible for our safety than ever. That's very uncomfortable to me. Maybe he doesn't think that he is what people say he is, but if he does, he probably hasn't read his own voting record!!

My advice is to quit going to GOP operatives to find out where Kerry is coming from. I think they are a tad biased, and unfortunately, they occupy something close to a critical mass of media niches.

Our nation has always been split between the Puritan fascists and the Deist/Unitarian Founding Fathers. I grieve over the political war being waged right now to turn this into a single-party nation. Our nation is very ill, but perhaps the fever is about the break.

INFOHAZARD
Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. -Thomas Jefferson
 

INFOHAZARD

Member
Awards
0
Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD
I'm a loser.

INFOHAZARD
I agree
:thumbsup:

First, this is really and genuinely uncool. It's what we see every day on the campaign trail and it is simply banal and evil.
I advise readers to study this technique of evil and recognize it when you see it.

NEVER NEVER NEVER put up with this.

INFOHAZARD
 
Last edited:

INFOHAZARD

Member
Awards
0
apparently there are alot of people on this board who should be running for president, because they seem to know a hell of alot more than our current president. it's easy to say that bush handled this or that wrong after the fact. i do the same thing monday mornings after watching football all weekend. I think one thing people need to keep in mind is that NONE of us are privy to the same information as the president. Neither was kerry or edwards. Nor are any of us burdened with the defending of this nation(in a presidential sense). Kerry can say all he wants" we will do things better", but until he AT LEAST outlines a solid plan of action, how can anyone buy into it? Whether or not we should be in Iraq is a moot point now.
I think it's obvious why neither of the candidates will come out and say that we've already lost this war. Some of the retired Genrerals will though. Google "Anthoni Zinni Tom Clancy", "Lt. Gen. James T. Conway" ( or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16309-2004Sep12.html)
or the Middle East Intelligence analyst who found herself in the Office of Special Plans, Ltc. Karen Kwaitkowski.

We're there, we can't just leave, we need to finish this. we were spoiled by desert storm into thinking war is a clean quick process. It's not. It's just a reflection of how our country loses interest so fast nowadays. People are no longer willing to accept any sacrifices for ANY cause. After just a few weeks into the war people were already making references to vietnam. And I am also a veteran, infohazard, and still keep in contact with many active duty friends. If the majority of our Marines/soldiers/navy thought like the example you gave our military would be worthless.
I completely understand the need to maintain a sharp fighting force. However, the truth is the truth, and you can only hide it for so long. This doesn't become any kind of real issue in a just war.

As a jarhead, you have been the modern minuteman; the first line of defense and I salute you. I am saddened that our political leaders have done this to us. But you are right; this is not a conversation the troops in Iraq need to be engaging in. It's one we need to be engaging in.

The MAJORITY are brave men and women who believe in their country and believe in what they are doing. People who have made sacrifices and would do it again if given the chance. And screw the WMD's.
YEAH!

Show me ONE person that wishes saddam was still in power.
You would Have to ask:

From: [Wall Street Journal reporter] Farnaz Fassihi
Subject: From Baghdad

Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under
virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference.

Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second.

It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it April
when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when
Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began
spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a
foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.

Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?' they reply: 'the situation is very bad."

What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the
country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of
landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them.

Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.

A friend drove thru the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday. He said young men were openly placing improvised explosive devices into the ground. They melt a shallow hole into the asphalt, dig the explosive, cover it with dirt and put an old tire or plastic can over it to signal to the locals this is booby-trapped. He said on the main roads of Sadr City, there
were a dozen landmines per every ten yards. His car snaked and swirled to avoid driving over them. Behind the walls sits an angry Iraqi ready to detonate them as soon as an American convoy gets near. This is in Shiite land, the population that was supposed to love America for liberating Iraq.

For journalists the significant turning point came with the wave of abduction and kidnappings. Only two weeks ago we felt safe around Baghdad because foreigners were being abducted on the roads and highways between towns. Then came a frantic phone call from a journalist female friend at 11 p.m. telling me two Italian women had been abducted from their homes in broad daylight. Then the two Americans, who got beheaded this week and the Brit, were abducted from their homes in a residential neighborhood. They were supplying the entire block with round the clock electricity from their generator to win friends. The abductors grabbed one of them at 6 a.m. when he came out to switch on the generator; his beheaded body was thrown back near the neighborhoods./CONTINUED BELOW

WSJ reporter Fassahi's e-mail to friends /2
9/29/2004 2:47:12 PM

The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it-baathists, criminals, nationalists and Al Qaeda-are cooperating and coordinating.

I went to an emergency meeting for foreign correspondents with the military and embassy to discuss the kidnappings. We were somberly told our fate would largely depend on where we were in the kidnapping chain once it was determined we were missing. Here is how it goes: criminal gangs grab you and sell you up to Baathists in Fallujah, who will in turn sell you to Al Qaeda. In turn, cash and weapons flow the other way from Al Qaeda to the Baathisst to the criminals. My friend Georges, the French journalist snatched on the road to Najaf, has been missing for a month with no word on release or whether he is still alive.

America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard
units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being
murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.

As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that
almost all projects have come to a halt. After two years, of the $18
billion Congress appropriated for Iraq reconstruction only about $1 billion or so has been spent and a chuck has now been reallocated for improving security, a sign of just how bad things are going here.

Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage
and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq?

Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for
insecurity. Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.

I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad.

Then I went to see an Iraqi scholar this week to talk to him about
elections here. He has been trying to educate the public on the importance of voting. He said, "President Bush wanted to turn Iraq into a democracy that would be an example for the Middle East. Forget about democracy, forget about being a model for the region, we have to salvage Iraq before all is lost."

One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.

The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months
while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the
government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war.

I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in
the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree
elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

-Farnaz
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I think it's obvious why neither of the candidates will come out and say that we've already lost this war. Some of the retired Genrerals will though. Google "Anthoni Zinni Tom Clancy", "Lt. Gen. James T. Conway" ( or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16309-2004Sep12.html)
or the Middle East Intelligence analyst who found herself in the Office of Special Plans, Ltc. Karen Kwaitkowski.



I completely understand the need to maintain a sharp fighting force. However, the truth is the truth, and you can only hide it for so long. This doesn't become any kind of real issue in a just war.

As a jarhead, you have been the modern minuteman; the first line of defense and I salute you. I am saddened that our political leaders have done this to us. But you are right; this is not a conversation the troops in Iraq need to be engaging in. It's one we need to be engaging in.



YEAH!



You would Have to ask:

From: [Wall Street Journal reporter] Farnaz Fassihi
Subject: From Baghdad

Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under
virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference.

Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second.

It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it April
when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when
Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began
spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a
foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.

Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?' they reply: 'the situation is very bad."

What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the
country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of
landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them.

Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.

A friend drove thru the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday. He said young men were openly placing improvised explosive devices into the ground. They melt a shallow hole into the asphalt, dig the explosive, cover it with dirt and put an old tire or plastic can over it to signal to the locals this is booby-trapped. He said on the main roads of Sadr City, there
were a dozen landmines per every ten yards. His car snaked and swirled to avoid driving over them. Behind the walls sits an angry Iraqi ready to detonate them as soon as an American convoy gets near. This is in Shiite land, the population that was supposed to love America for liberating Iraq.

For journalists the significant turning point came with the wave of abduction and kidnappings. Only two weeks ago we felt safe around Baghdad because foreigners were being abducted on the roads and highways between towns. Then came a frantic phone call from a journalist female friend at 11 p.m. telling me two Italian women had been abducted from their homes in broad daylight. Then the two Americans, who got beheaded this week and the Brit, were abducted from their homes in a residential neighborhood. They were supplying the entire block with round the clock electricity from their generator to win friends. The abductors grabbed one of them at 6 a.m. when he came out to switch on the generator; his beheaded body was thrown back near the neighborhoods./CONTINUED BELOW

WSJ reporter Fassahi's e-mail to friends /2
9/29/2004 2:47:12 PM

The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it-baathists, criminals, nationalists and Al Qaeda-are cooperating and coordinating.

I went to an emergency meeting for foreign correspondents with the military and embassy to discuss the kidnappings. We were somberly told our fate would largely depend on where we were in the kidnapping chain once it was determined we were missing. Here is how it goes: criminal gangs grab you and sell you up to Baathists in Fallujah, who will in turn sell you to Al Qaeda. In turn, cash and weapons flow the other way from Al Qaeda to the Baathisst to the criminals. My friend Georges, the French journalist snatched on the road to Najaf, has been missing for a month with no word on release or whether he is still alive.

America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard
units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being
murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.

As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that
almost all projects have come to a halt. After two years, of the $18
billion Congress appropriated for Iraq reconstruction only about $1 billion or so has been spent and a chuck has now been reallocated for improving security, a sign of just how bad things are going here.

Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage
and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq?

Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for
insecurity. Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.

I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad.

Then I went to see an Iraqi scholar this week to talk to him about
elections here. He has been trying to educate the public on the importance of voting. He said, "President Bush wanted to turn Iraq into a democracy that would be an example for the Middle East. Forget about democracy, forget about being a model for the region, we have to salvage Iraq before all is lost."

One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.

The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months
while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the
government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war.

I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in
the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree
elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

-Farnaz
How can you expect our leaders to come out and say the war is lost? And where do you get the information that it is? Tell that to the guys still fighting and dying over there. People, mainly the media, have been throwing out terms like "quagmire" since this thing started. It's war. It's bad. People die. What war other than desert storm has been precise, clean, and completely agreed upon? This is not an overnight process. Neither is restoring order to that country. Does nobody in this country have the balls to stand for anything anymore? If we abandon these people now who takes power? And what would our troops have died for? We did the same thing in desert storm.( Although we were stopped by the UN). Saddam was able to chase down and brutally kill unarmed Kurds AS WE WATCHED. As far as the story you printed, no offense but personally I think it's B.S. Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed to be stopped. Period. Does that non iraqi reporter speak for ALL the people of iraq? or the surrounding countries? And if you know anything about Saddams history, then you would understand why he would get the majority of the vote as you quoted. Because he would kill those dumb enough to not vote for him. He has held "elections" before and this was the case. Not a single vote against him. You might be saddened that "our political leaders have done this to us", but I for one am glad we had the balls to do SOMETHING, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna admit a defeat in the war with so relatively little time spent fighting it, ESPECIALLY while we've still got people over there fighting it.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
First, this is really and genuinely uncool. It's what we see every day on the campaign trail and it is simply banal and evil.
I advise readers to study this technique of evil and recognize it when you see it.

NEVER NEVER NEVER put up with this.

INFOHAZARD
Your problem is you need to lighten up a little. You said pick one and gave options...I picked one and said "I picked a winner" jokingly (get the pun?). You come back and say "no, you picked a loser" to attack me for picking one of your suggested choices. So, given your lack of sense of humor, and the fact that you attacked me for responding (kindly and civily) post, I had some fun with your post. Get over it.

Remember everybody, recognize this evil when you see it --> :twisted: <-- me :p never, never put up with me!!
:think:
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
That's funny- it was 90% last year. I'd be interested in the source of your stats. But you are right - a person in uniform is not to speak out against the Commander-in-Chief for obvious reasons, plus you've got to account for cognitive dissonace and peer pressure. This is only healthy and appropriate when you are on the batlefield.
It was a 4:1 ratio, Bush. here's the link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm

Why must a person in uniform always agree with the current commander in chief? What are your obvious reasons???? Peer pressure? Please....cognitive dissonance is the only valid reason you have of the three. People do like to convince themselves that what they're doing / have done is / was the right thing to do... But they you're assuming that 75% of the military is just a bunch of morons who follow orders like robots and think that they're incapable of doing anything wrong...

I'd like to see the 90% numbers anywhere, excluding immediately after 9/11 or Iraq invasion....
It sure is easy to say that when you weren't there, and you've only heard what's been told to you.
I could say the same thing to you!!
He was there and he did risk his life for you. You know what? He's entitled to his opinion just as your cousin is.
agreed
Yes, we were grossly undermanned to go in there ourselves.
That wasn't the issue, the issue was our means of attacking them w/out being slaughtered in the mountains of Tora Bora. We weren't grossly undermanned...we had (I believe) somewhere between 15 and 20 thousand men in Afghanistan at the time...
But why was that? War on the cheap? We lost Osama. I promise you,
Gee...that's kinda obvious.
the Warlords would sell their own mothers for the right price, but they were NEVER going to let us get Osama.
Now that's a contradictory statement. So they would sell their mothers for the right price to anybody EXCEPT when it comes to UBL???
Never, because they respected him a lot more than they respected us. Osama and the warlords went waaaay back.
......... ????????? ...........

The commander and chief does not control what our troops do on the ground? If that's the case, he's incompetent.
He can definately make decisions that impact everything, but military officers make the military decisions.
I would advise you to look up a certain 4-star, head of the US Army named Shinseki. He told them it would take "several hundred thousand" troops to maintain the peace after the war and did Dubya give it to him? No. He fired him. If only he had listened.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm
I would advise you to look up a General Tommy Franks....what's your point. All people are entitled to their opinions. Even generals. I don't expect that "every" military officer supports Bush, nor would I expect that they all had to in order to prove that he is a competent commander-in-chief.
I believe you...
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Nice collaboration of quotes...too bad I'm having a hard time finding any reliable source for these quotes. The only place I find these are citationless Bush hating websites...funny, none of them have a links and this quote could not be found when I googled it in the news section...Even if they are true....I'd love to see the whole quote of this before it was Michael Moored:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Can anyone help?
He's not an idealogue.
Well, we're all entitled to our opinions, whether or not one will ignore the lessons of the past and the facts of the present.

Yeah, you telling me to think. Right.
Well, I've given up by now.

"I'm the war president" -G.W. Bush

"I want to be the peace President." - G.W. Bush

"We are more safe, more secure." - G.W. Bush

"We are a nation in danger." - G.W. Bush
Now these quotes prove exactly nothing.

Basically, he said I'm tough but I don't want to exercise my power. I'd rather be peaceful. And we're in danger, but we're safer now than we were not too long ago...what's wrong with that? Trying as hard as you can to portray Bush as a flip-flopper, if you can only come up with this and the quotes above which I cannot find reliable sources for, it's horribly sad.

My advice is to quit going to GOP operatives to find out where Kerry is coming from. I think they are a tad biased, and unfortunately, they occupy something close to a critical mass of media niches.
I don't go to GOP operative's websites for my information. I read news articles and try to ignore the journalists bias. I listen to talk radio (fav. guy is http://www.johnziegler.com), watch multiple sources of news (CNN, CBS, FOX, etc) and even from people like yourself who provide me with new facts (well, when they have facts).

Once again, I could ask you to heed your own advice though, except change GOP and replace it with Crazy Liberal.
Our nation has always been split between the Puritan fascists and the Deist/Unitarian Founding Fathers.
I like Zel Miller's quote better:

"It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps - the wimps and the warriors,"
(http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/30/224539.shtml) Note: That is a real, reliable source for a quote...
I grieve over the political war being waged right now to turn this into a single-party nation. Our nation is very ill, but perhaps the fever is about the break.
Another of the few areas we agree on.
INFOHAZARD
a.k.a. HAZARDOUSINFO :p (I know, it's very immature and EVIL :twisted: of me....)
Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. -Thomas Jefferson
If that quote is supposed to further a leftist, socialist, agenda, it doesn't do so very well. Here is the entire quote:

"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potato as an article of food. Government is just as fallible, too, when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the Inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. ... Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
-- Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia," 1787"

This was said in the spirit of limiting government intervention into our lives!!! Not, pushing for universal healthcare. ROFLMAO!! :hammer:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36b74d1d2994.htm
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1310.htm
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr4_quotes.html
 
Last edited:

INFOHAZARD

Member
Awards
0
How can you expect our leaders to come out and say the war is lost? And where do you get the information that it is?
You misread me about our leaders. I didn't say I expected them to say the war is lost. Quite the contrary.



Tell that to the guys still fighting and dying over there. People, mainly the media, have been throwing out terms like "quagmire" since this thing started. It's war. It's bad. People die.

Of course the Bush Administration was tossing out terms like "Cakewalk" before the war, and genuinely believed we would be welcomed with open arms. I am interested in finding out what you would consider a quagmire to be if this is not one? The main body of our ground troops are tied down there while countries all over the world are taking bold steps they would not have dared do if we weren't otherwise in dispose.



What war other than desert storm has been precise, clean, and completely agreed upon? This is not an overnight process. Neither is restoring order to that country.

That's not what the Administration said before the war. It seems to me that we've created another Lebanon, which 20 years later is only now starting to pick up the pieces. We do not have the means to fix it. The Brits did the same thing in Baghdad in the early 20th Century. They were there to liberate tie locals from the Ottomans. It was the beginning of the end of their empire. You can find Lawrence of Arabia's reports on the subject on the web.


Does nobody in this country have the balls to stand for anything anymore? If we abandon these people now who takes power? And what would our troops have died for? We did the same thing in desert storm.( Although we were stopped by the UN).
While it would have been beyond the UN mandate to oust Saddam, we stopped ourselves.

In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to invade, George Bush Sr. said, "whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous." http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/a19990303bush.htm


In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago, again George Bush, Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."



Saddam was able to chase down and brutally kill unarmed Kurds AS WE WATCHED. As far as the story you printed, no offense but personally I think it's B.S. Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed to be stopped. Period. Does that non iraqi reporter speak for ALL the people of iraq? or the surrounding countries? And if you know anything about Saddams history, then you would understand why he would get the majority of the vote as you quoted. Because he would kill those dumb enough to not vote for him. He has held "elections" before and this was the case. Not a single vote against him. You might be saddened that "our political leaders have done this to us", but I for one am glad we had the balls to do SOMETHING, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna admit a defeat in the war with so relatively little time spent fighting it, ESPECIALLY while we've still got people over there fighting it.
His killing of kurds and Shiites with (initially) helicopters happened because of the bad call at the negotiation table at the end of the war by (I think) Swartzkopf who allowed the helos.

Truth be known, I'm agnostic about when to pull out troops. It's a question of whether there are some kinds of strategic gains to be made by playing for time.

Nevertheless it is my belief that the big winner here is Iran (who wudda guessed that the NeoCon's daling, Chalabi was a spy for Iran?), to some degree the Kurds (which have stuck by us, but whom we have kept from getting their true own homeland because that would be a threat to Turkey), oh, and let's not forget that Al Qada is winning. They are playing a very long-term game, my friend. They have all the time in the world.

Time will tell.

INFOHAZARD
 

INFOHAZARD

Member
Awards
0
The reason the quote is hard to find is that the statement commonly attributed to him is not exactly right, although it's just enough to not get picked up by a search engine.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html




Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did. ....


Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

-------------------------------------------------------

And we still keep going on Orange Alert...
Bush evidently had his sites set on other targets by this time. Big, big mistake. Always finish the job before going on to another. Now Al Qeda and others are killing American Soldiers in Iraq.

And as for the warlords, I'd recommend "Through Our Enemy's Eyes" and the new one by the CIA expert on Bin Laden before 911. He had to publish anonymously because of a requirement made by his employer.

I was engaging in a little obvious hyperbole with regards to their mothers Sheesh), but the warlords respect and trust bin Laden more than any other single man, including (or perhaps especially) each other. They purposefully led us astray in those mountains. Sometimes soldiers get killed. We have a long tradition of "tunnel rats." Too bad we didn't do what it took.



As for Tommy Franks, he's the guy who predicted the demise of the US Constitution. He was the commander of CENTCOM. Shinseki was his BOSS. Further, Shinseki was the one canned for telling the truth and being right, not kissing political ass like Franks. I want Shinseki covering my 6 any day over a weasel like Franks. If the Administation had listened, we would not have been in this mess, or at least a more managable one.

And 20K soldiers wasn't enough to keep the peace in Afghanistan either. The death toll of Americans is escalating there as well.

INFOHAZARD
 

INFOHAZARD

Member
Awards
0
Note my comment on the fabrication of the quote AND the Michael Mooring of the original quote :p Just as I suspected.


Reality is that thing that does not go away
when you choose to ignore it - Philip K. Kick

People who actually read and who actually think will make up their own mind who has the stronger argument. Your spinning it does not make it so.
AH, on to another thread for me.

INFOHAZARD
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
....Further, Shinseki was the one canned for telling the truth and being right, not kissing political ass like Franks. ....

INFOHAZARD
I wasn't even going to respond to this post, but I just noticed this part. ROFLMAO. He never was canned! His term was up! That's just liberal BS scare tactics and you buy into them. Do the "research" that's a word you should try to remember from now on.

As far as him being Franks' BOSS...well, I had a boss at HomeTown Buffet once, does that make him better than be because he was my boss? The president is Shinseki's BOSS...Not only that, but I cannot?

Plus, how do you undermine a man like Franks' credibility?

"As he did later in Iraq, General Franks crafted a plan for Afghanistan that was daring and innovative. He managed to do in Afghanistan with 10,000 troops what the Soviet Union had failed to accomplish with 100,000. In fact, in no small measure he was successful, I believe, precisely because he understood the difference between doing it with 10,000 and doing it with 100,000." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAH/is_2003_Oct_8/ai_109354254

What's so wrong with his prediction of the demise of the constitution? Isnt' that happening at this very moment? I may not agree with the word "demise", but his general idea is correct. It will be a different constitution if things keep going the way they are with judges whose opinions influence their interpretations of the constitution too much, and with organizations like the ACLU using these judges to further their now ridiculous agenda.
 

INFOHAZARD

Member
Awards
0
I wasn't even going to respond to this post, but I just noticed this part. ROFLMAO. He never was canned! His term was up! That's just liberal BS scare tactics and you buy into them. Do the "research" that's a word you should try to remember from now on.

As far as him being Franks' BOSS...well, I had a boss at HomeTown Buffet once, does that make him better than be because he was my boss? The president is Shinseki's BOSS...Not only that, but I cannot?

Plus, how do you undermine a man like Franks' credibility?

"As he did later in Iraq, General Franks crafted a plan for Afghanistan that was daring and innovative. He managed to do in Afghanistan with 10,000 troops what the Soviet Union had failed to accomplish with 100,000. In fact, in no small measure he was successful, I believe, precisely because he understood the difference between doing it with 10,000 and doing it with 100,000." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAH/is_2003_Oct_8/ai_109354254

What's so wrong with his prediction of the demise of the constitution? Isnt' that happening at this very moment? I may not agree with the word "demise", but his general idea is correct. It will be a different constitution if things keep going the way they are with judges whose opinions influence their interpretations of the constitution too much, and with organizations like the ACLU using these judges to further their now ridiculous agenda.


OK, They just named his successor 14 months early, effectively cutting him off at the knees as a commander. They did punish him for "not getting it". And again, you never responded to the fact that he was RIGHT, and they did not listen to him and give him what he needed (that being the point which started the whole argument.)

I didn't say Franks was a poor General (well, except he didn't get OBL becuase he did it on the cheap), Just that he kisses political ass.

Bush has Franks in his court. Kerry has Shinseki, Shalikachvili (sp), Chair of Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert storm, Gen Merril McPeak (Chief of Air Force in the '90's and Bush supporter in 2000). He can't find an intel officer that's not a political appointee who will support him and there is a whole orginaization of high level intelligence retirees who are actively campaingning against him (Veteran Intelligence Professional For Sanity- google Ray McGovern or Greg Thielman).

No high level person actively in their job can act in a partisan fashion, so you have to go with the retirees.

And more truth is leaking out of Iraq. I would never suggest that all military members feel this way, but don't kid yourself that the war is going well. As Phillip K. Dick said, " Reallity is that which doesn't go away when you choose to ignore it."

From Washington Post:

washingtonpost.com
For Marines, a Frustrating Fight
Some in Iraq Question How and Why War Is Being Waged

By Steve Fainaru
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 10, 2004; Page A01

ISKANDARIYAH, Iraq -- Scrawled on the helmet of Lance Cpl. Carlos Perez are the letters FDNY. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York, the Pentagon and western Pennsylvania, Perez quit school, left his job as a firefighter in Long Island, N.Y., and joined the U.S. Marine Corps.

"To be honest, I just wanted to take revenge," said Perez, 20.

Now, two months into a seven-month combat tour in Iraq, Perez said he sees little connection between the events of Sept. 11 and the war he is fighting. Instead, he said, he is increasingly disillusioned by a conflict whose origins remain unclear and frustrated by the timidity of U.S. forces against a mostly faceless enemy.

"Sometimes I see no reason why we're here," Perez said. "First of all, you cannot engage as many times as we want to. Second of all, we're looking for an enemy that's not there. The only way to do it is go house to house until we get out of here."

Perez is hardly alone. In a dozen interviews, Marines from a platoon known as the "81s" expressed in blunt terms their frustrations with the way the war is being conducted and, in some cases, doubts about why it is being waged. The platoon, named for the size in millimeters of its mortar rounds, is part of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment based in Iskandariyah, 30 miles southwest of Baghdad.

The Marines offered their opinions openly to a reporter traveling with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines during operations last week in Babil province, then expanded upon them during interviews over three days in their barracks at Camp Iskandariyah, their forward operating base.

The Marines' opinions have been shaped by their participation in hundreds of hours of operations over the past two months. Their assessments differ sharply from those of the interim Iraqi government and the Bush administration, which have said that Iraq is on a certain -- if bumpy -- course toward peaceful democracy.

"I feel we're going to be here for years and years and years," said Lance Cpl. Edward Elston, 22, of Hackettstown, N.J. "I don't think anything is going to get better; I think it's going to get a lot worse. It's going to be like a Palestinian-type deal. We're going to stop being a policing presence and then start being an occupying presence. . . . We're always going to be here. We're never going to leave."

The views of the mortar platoon of some 50 young Marines, several of whom fought during the first phase of the war last year, are not necessarily reflective of all or even most U.S troops fighting in Iraq. Rather, they offer a snapshot of the frustrations engendered by a grinding conflict that has killed 1,064 Americans, wounded 7,730 and spread to many areas of the country.

Although not as highly publicized as attacks in such hot spots as Fallujah, Samarra and Baghdad's Sadr City, the violence in Babil province, south of the capital, is also intense. Since July 28, when the Marines took over operational responsibility for the region, 102 of the unit's 1,100 troops have been wounded, 85 in combat, according to battalion records. Four have been killed, two in combat.

Senior officers attribute the vast difference between the number of killed and wounded to the effectiveness of armor -- bullet-proof vests, helmets and reinforced armored vehicles, primarily Humvees -- in the face of persistent attacks. As of last week, the Marines had come upon 61 roadside bombs, nearly one a day. Forty-nine had detonated. Camp Iskandariyah was hit by mortar shells or rockets on 12 occasions; 21 other times, insurgents tried to hit the base and missed.
Realities on the Ground

Several members of the platoon said they were struck by the difference between the way the war was being portrayed in the United States and the reality of their daily lives.

"Every day you read the articles in the States where it's like, 'Oh, it's getting better and better,' " said Lance Cpl. Jonathan Snyder, 22, of Gettysburg, Pa. "But when you're here, you know it's worse every day."

Pfc. Kyle Maio, 19, of Bucks County, Pa., said he thought government officials were reticent to speak candidly because of the upcoming U.S. elections. "Stuff's going on here but they won't flat-out say it," he said. "They can't get into it."

Maio said that when he arrived in Iraq, "I didn't think I was going to live this long, in all honesty." He added, "it ain't that bad. It's just part of the job, I guess."

As a reporter began to ask Maio another question, the interview was interrupted by the scream of an incoming rocket and then a deafening explosion outside the platoon's barracks. Pandemonium ensued.

"Get down! Get down!" yelled the platoon's radio operator, Cpl. Brandon Autin, 21, of New Iberia, La., his orders laced with profanity. "Get in the bunker! Get in the bunker now!"

Members of the platoon raced out of their rooms to a 5-by-15-foot bunker, located outside at the end of the one-story building. The dirt-floor room was protected by a low ceiling and walls built out of four-foot-thick sandbags. Once in the bunker, several Marines lit cigarettes, filling the already-congested room with smoke.

"The reality right now is that the most dangerous opinion in the world is the opinion of a U.S. serviceman," said Lance Cpl. Devin Kelly, 20, of Fairbanks, Alaska.

Lance Cpl. Alexander Jones, 20, of Ball Ground, Ga., agreed: "We're basically proving out that the government is wrong," he said. "We're catching them in a lie."

Senior officers said they shared many of the platoon's frustrations but added that it was difficult for low-level Marines to see the larger progress being made across Iraq. Maj. Douglas Bell, the battalion's executive officer, said "one of the most difficult things about the insurgency is identifying the enemy."

Bell said it was frustrating for "every Marine in the battalion" to search for insurgents on a daily basis, only to be attacked repeatedly with bombs and mortars detonated or launched by an invisible enemy. "You want to get your hand around his frigging collar and kick his ass," Bell said. "But they slip away."

Bell said Marines offering dire predictions for Iraq were not taking into account the training of the new Iraqi security forces. He said the installation of the new Iraqi army, Iraqi National Guard and police across the country would lay the foundation for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"That's how we're going to get out of Iraq," Bell said. "That's how America is going to get out of Iraq."

The Marines acknowledged that the elusiveness of the insurgents was frustrating. "You don't really know who you're fighting. You're more or less fighting objects," said Elston, the lance corporal from New Jersey. "You see something on the side of the road. It blows up."

But the Marines said their frustrations run deeper. Several said the Iraqi security forces who are supposed to ultimately replace them were nowhere near ready and may never be.

"They can't take care of themselves," said Lance Cpl. Matthew Combs, 19, of Cincinnati, who added that he didn't think the National Guardsmen "can do anything. They just do what we tell them to do."
The Price of Precaution

The Marines also expressed frustration that they were unable to fight more aggressively because of restraints in the rules of engagement imposed by senior commanders.

The rules, which require Marines to positively identify their target as hostile before shooting, are cumbersome in the face of urban guerrilla warfare, several of them said.

"When we get called out, we'll sit there staging there for an hour," Maio said. "By the time we're ready to move, they're up and gone. A few weeks ago, the Iskandariyah police station was under attack. We staged for damn near an hour before we went out. It's stupid. You have to wait to get approval and all this other stuff."

Kelly, the lance corporal from Alaska, said he understood the need to protect civilians but that the restraints were jeopardizing American lives. "It seems as if they place more value on obeying the letter of the law and sacrificing our lives than following the spirit of the law and getting the job done," he said of his commanders.

Bell said the Marines' frustration was understandable but that it was extremely difficult to make a determination of hostile intent following a roadside bombing that might have been detonated by anything from a remote-controlled toy car to a cell phone. "That's a pretty difficult decision to make for a 19-year-old kid," he said.

Lance Cpl. Jeremy Kyrk, 21, of Chicago, said the insurgents took advantage of the limitations imposed on U.S. troops. "They don't give us any leeway, they don't give us any quarter," he said. "They catch people and cut their heads off. They know our limits, but they have no limits. We can't compete with that."
A Decision to Serve

Perez said the frustrations inherent in the war became apparent almost immediately after he arrived in Iraq in late July. A Colombian immigrant, he said he decided to join the Marine Corps after attending the funeral of a friend who had died in the Sept. 11 attacks. The friend, Thomas Hetzel, was a volunteer firefighter at the Franklin Square & Munson Fire Department on Long Island, where Perez also volunteered.

At the time, Perez was studying criminal justice at Nassau Community College. "While I was at the funeral I was looking at his little daughter cry," he said. "He had a pregnant wife and two kids. I just said, 'All right, this is what I want to do.' "

But Perez said he came to think that war in Iraq was unrelated to his anger. "How do I put this?" he said. "First of all, this is a whole different thing. We're supposed to be looking for al Qaeda. They're the ones who are supposedly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. This has no connection at all to Sept. 11 because this war started just by telling us about all the nuclear warheads over here."

Snyder, who was listening, added: "Pretty much I think they just diverted the war on terrorism. I agree with the Afghanistan war and all the Sept. 11 stuff, but it feels like they left the bigger war over there to come here. And now, while we're on the ground over here, it seems like we're not even close to catching frigging bin Laden."

Perez said he thought that in some ways he was still fighting terrorists "and I can see how they might attack the United States in the future. It's a link, but it's not really based in the same thing."

Perez added that he now believes the primary reason for the U.S. presence is to help the Iraqis. "But they don't seem like they want to be helped," he said. "I've only been here two months, but every time you go out, people give you bad looks and it just seems like everybody wants to shoot you."
Questioning Orders

The frustration of the Marines was evident one afternoon last week as members of the platoon traveled from Forward Operating Base Kalsu back to Camp Iskandariyah. An attack had reportedly taken place in the area, and members of the platoon were asked to leave their Humvees and walk up a road to look for suspicious activity.

Traffic quickly began to pile up: cars packed with families, trucks loaded with animals and vegetables. The line of vehicles would have taken hours to search. An order was suddenly passed for the Marines to search all buses for insurgents or weapons.

"This is what we call a dog-and-pony show," said Kelly, the heavyset, sharp-tongued lance corporal from Fairbanks. He said the operation was essentially a performance for American reporters who were traveling with the Marines. "This is so you can write in your paper how great our response is," he said.

Combs and another Marine boarded a small bus packed mostly with women and children. He walked up the center aisle carrying his M-16 assault rifle, then got off, disgusted.

"We just scared the living [expletive] out of a bunch of people," he said. "That's all we did."

When the Marines returned to their truck, Autin and Kelly began to debate the merits of the American presence in Iraq.

"And, by the way, why are we here?" Autin said.

"I'll tell you why we're here," Kelly replied. "We're here to help these people."

Autin agreed and said he supported the mission.

He added later that it was difficult to wage the battle when American commanders were holding them back.

"We feel they care more about Iraqi civilians than they do American soldiers," he said.

Asked if he was concerned that the Marines would be punished for speaking out, Autin responded: "We don't give a crap. What are they going to do, send us to Iraq?"
 

size

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
The length of some posts in this thread is amazing. :icon_lol:
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
OK, They just named his successor 14 months early, effectively cutting him off at the knees as a commander. They did punish him for "not getting it". And again, you never responded to the fact that he was RIGHT, and they did not listen to him and give him what he needed (that being the point which started the whole argument.)
This is totally a null argument. First off, what is the biggest problem the Iraqi citizens have with the Americans? THEY ARE VIEWED AS OCCUPIERS!! What sense does it make to piss them off more and send more troops in there? If they're seeing troops on every corner there is a very large chance that more people would be "pissed" about that.

Now, how did naming a successor cut him off at the knees??? They DID NOT REPLACE AND OR FIRE HIM! Did he go limp with self -pity? That's all I can think of.
I didn't say Franks was a poor General (well, except he didn't get OBL becuase he did it on the cheap), Just that he kisses political ass.
Franks was never politically active (ie campaigning, etc.) before this election because he beliefs in a cause and a person. People are entitled to their own beliefs and there's nothing wrong with doing something lawful about it.
Bush has Franks in his court. Kerry has Shinseki, Shalikachvili (sp), Chair of Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert storm, Gen Merril McPeak (Chief of Air Force in the '90's and Bush supporter in 2000). He can't find an intel officer that's not a political appointee who will support him and there is a whole orginaization of high level intelligence retirees who are actively campaingning against him (Veteran Intelligence Professional For Sanity- google Ray McGovern or Greg Thielman).
I guess you didn't watch the RNC...there was a scrollling list of 250 generals, admirals, .. that support Bush. I found a link to the story LINK

"Each of us on this platform, along with countless others, including more than 250 retired admirals and generals, whose names you see on the screen behind me, stand united," said retired Gen. P.X. Kelley, former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. "United under the firm conviction that the best way to defend America today is to stand united behind our resolute commander in chief, and re-elect President George W. Bush."
No high level person actively in their job can act in a partisan fashion, so you have to go with the retirees.
And more truth is leaking out of Iraq. I would never suggest that all military members feel this way, but don't kid yourself that the war is going well. As Phillip K. Dick said, " Reallity is that which doesn't go away when you choose to ignore it."
You know, I really like that quote, but I think you should read it yourself for once ;)
From Washington Post:

washingtonpost.com
For Marines, a Frustrating Fight
Some in Iraq Question How and Why War Is Being Waged

By Steve Fainaru
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 10, 2004; Page A01

ISKANDARIYAH, Iraq -- Scrawled on the helmet of Lance Cpl. Carlos Perez are the letters FDNY. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York, the Pentagon and western Pennsylvania, Perez quit school, left his job as a firefighter in Long Island, N.Y., and joined the U.S. Marine Corps.

"To be honest, I just wanted to take revenge," said Perez, 20.

Now, two months into a seven-month combat tour in Iraq, Perez said he sees little connection between the events of Sept. 11 and the war he is fighting. Instead, he said, he is increasingly disillusioned by a conflict whose origins remain unclear and frustrated by the timidity of U.S. forces against a mostly faceless enemy.

"Sometimes I see no reason why we're here," Perez said. "First of all, you cannot engage as many times as we want to. Second of all, we're looking for an enemy that's not there. The only way to do it is go house to house until we get out of here."

Perez is hardly alone. In a dozen interviews, Marines from a platoon known as the "81s" expressed in blunt terms their frustrations with the way the war is being conducted and, in some cases, doubts about why it is being waged. The platoon, named for the size in millimeters of its mortar rounds, is part of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment based in Iskandariyah, 30 miles southwest of Baghdad.

The Marines offered their opinions openly to a reporter traveling with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines during operations last week in Babil province, then expanded upon them during interviews over three days in their barracks at Camp Iskandariyah, their forward operating base.

The Marines' opinions have been shaped by their participation in hundreds of hours of operations over the past two months. Their assessments differ sharply from those of the interim Iraqi government and the Bush administration, which have said that Iraq is on a certain -- if bumpy -- course toward peaceful democracy.

"I feel we're going to be here for years and years and years," said Lance Cpl. Edward Elston, 22, of Hackettstown, N.J. "I don't think anything is going to get better; I think it's going to get a lot worse. It's going to be like a Palestinian-type deal. We're going to stop being a policing presence and then start being an occupying presence. . . . We're always going to be here. We're never going to leave."

The views of the mortar platoon of some 50 young Marines, several of whom fought during the first phase of the war last year, are not necessarily reflective of all or even most U.S troops fighting in Iraq. Rather, they offer a snapshot of the frustrations engendered by a grinding conflict that has killed 1,064 Americans, wounded 7,730 and spread to many areas of the country.

Although not as highly publicized as attacks in such hot spots as Fallujah, Samarra and Baghdad's Sadr City, the violence in Babil province, south of the capital, is also intense. Since July 28, when the Marines took over operational responsibility for the region, 102 of the unit's 1,100 troops have been wounded, 85 in combat, according to battalion records. Four have been killed, two in combat.

Senior officers attribute the vast difference between the number of killed and wounded to the effectiveness of armor -- bullet-proof vests, helmets and reinforced armored vehicles, primarily Humvees -- in the face of persistent attacks. As of last week, the Marines had come upon 61 roadside bombs, nearly one a day. Forty-nine had detonated. Camp Iskandariyah was hit by mortar shells or rockets on 12 occasions; 21 other times, insurgents tried to hit the base and missed.
Realities on the Ground

Several members of the platoon said they were struck by the difference between the way the war was being portrayed in the United States and the reality of their daily lives.

"Every day you read the articles in the States where it's like, 'Oh, it's getting better and better,' " said Lance Cpl. Jonathan Snyder, 22, of Gettysburg, Pa. "But when you're here, you know it's worse every day."

Pfc. Kyle Maio, 19, of Bucks County, Pa., said he thought government officials were reticent to speak candidly because of the upcoming U.S. elections. "Stuff's going on here but they won't flat-out say it," he said. "They can't get into it."

Maio said that when he arrived in Iraq, "I didn't think I was going to live this long, in all honesty." He added, "it ain't that bad. It's just part of the job, I guess."

As a reporter began to ask Maio another question, the interview was interrupted by the scream of an incoming rocket and then a deafening explosion outside the platoon's barracks. Pandemonium ensued.

"Get down! Get down!" yelled the platoon's radio operator, Cpl. Brandon Autin, 21, of New Iberia, La., his orders laced with profanity. "Get in the bunker! Get in the bunker now!"

Members of the platoon raced out of their rooms to a 5-by-15-foot bunker, located outside at the end of the one-story building. The dirt-floor room was protected by a low ceiling and walls built out of four-foot-thick sandbags. Once in the bunker, several Marines lit cigarettes, filling the already-congested room with smoke.

"The reality right now is that the most dangerous opinion in the world is the opinion of a U.S. serviceman," said Lance Cpl. Devin Kelly, 20, of Fairbanks, Alaska.

Lance Cpl. Alexander Jones, 20, of Ball Ground, Ga., agreed: "We're basically proving out that the government is wrong," he said. "We're catching them in a lie."

Senior officers said they shared many of the platoon's frustrations but added that it was difficult for low-level Marines to see the larger progress being made across Iraq. Maj. Douglas Bell, the battalion's executive officer, said "one of the most difficult things about the insurgency is identifying the enemy."

Bell said it was frustrating for "every Marine in the battalion" to search for insurgents on a daily basis, only to be attacked repeatedly with bombs and mortars detonated or launched by an invisible enemy. "You want to get your hand around his frigging collar and kick his ass," Bell said. "But they slip away."

Bell said Marines offering dire predictions for Iraq were not taking into account the training of the new Iraqi security forces. He said the installation of the new Iraqi army, Iraqi National Guard and police across the country would lay the foundation for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"That's how we're going to get out of Iraq," Bell said. "That's how America is going to get out of Iraq."

The Marines acknowledged that the elusiveness of the insurgents was frustrating. "You don't really know who you're fighting. You're more or less fighting objects," said Elston, the lance corporal from New Jersey. "You see something on the side of the road. It blows up."

But the Marines said their frustrations run deeper. Several said the Iraqi security forces who are supposed to ultimately replace them were nowhere near ready and may never be.

"They can't take care of themselves," said Lance Cpl. Matthew Combs, 19, of Cincinnati, who added that he didn't think the National Guardsmen "can do anything. They just do what we tell them to do."
The Price of Precaution

The Marines also expressed frustration that they were unable to fight more aggressively because of restraints in the rules of engagement imposed by senior commanders.

The rules, which require Marines to positively identify their target as hostile before shooting, are cumbersome in the face of urban guerrilla warfare, several of them said.

"When we get called out, we'll sit there staging there for an hour," Maio said. "By the time we're ready to move, they're up and gone. A few weeks ago, the Iskandariyah police station was under attack. We staged for damn near an hour before we went out. It's stupid. You have to wait to get approval and all this other stuff."

Kelly, the lance corporal from Alaska, said he understood the need to protect civilians but that the restraints were jeopardizing American lives. "It seems as if they place more value on obeying the letter of the law and sacrificing our lives than following the spirit of the law and getting the job done," he said of his commanders.

Bell said the Marines' frustration was understandable but that it was extremely difficult to make a determination of hostile intent following a roadside bombing that might have been detonated by anything from a remote-controlled toy car to a cell phone. "That's a pretty difficult decision to make for a 19-year-old kid," he said.

Lance Cpl. Jeremy Kyrk, 21, of Chicago, said the insurgents took advantage of the limitations imposed on U.S. troops. "They don't give us any leeway, they don't give us any quarter," he said. "They catch people and cut their heads off. They know our limits, but they have no limits. We can't compete with that."
A Decision to Serve

Perez said the frustrations inherent in the war became apparent almost immediately after he arrived in Iraq in late July. A Colombian immigrant, he said he decided to join the Marine Corps after attending the funeral of a friend who had died in the Sept. 11 attacks. The friend, Thomas Hetzel, was a volunteer firefighter at the Franklin Square & Munson Fire Department on Long Island, where Perez also volunteered.

At the time, Perez was studying criminal justice at Nassau Community College. "While I was at the funeral I was looking at his little daughter cry," he said. "He had a pregnant wife and two kids. I just said, 'All right, this is what I want to do.' "

But Perez said he came to think that war in Iraq was unrelated to his anger. "How do I put this?" he said. "First of all, this is a whole different thing. We're supposed to be looking for al Qaeda. They're the ones who are supposedly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. This has no connection at all to Sept. 11 because this war started just by telling us about all the nuclear warheads over here."

Snyder, who was listening, added: "Pretty much I think they just diverted the war on terrorism. I agree with the Afghanistan war and all the Sept. 11 stuff, but it feels like they left the bigger war over there to come here. And now, while we're on the ground over here, it seems like we're not even close to catching frigging bin Laden."

Perez said he thought that in some ways he was still fighting terrorists "and I can see how they might attack the United States in the future. It's a link, but it's not really based in the same thing."

Perez added that he now believes the primary reason for the U.S. presence is to help the Iraqis. "But they don't seem like they want to be helped," he said. "I've only been here two months, but every time you go out, people give you bad looks and it just seems like everybody wants to shoot you."
Questioning Orders

The frustration of the Marines was evident one afternoon last week as members of the platoon traveled from Forward Operating Base Kalsu back to Camp Iskandariyah. An attack had reportedly taken place in the area, and members of the platoon were asked to leave their Humvees and walk up a road to look for suspicious activity.

Traffic quickly began to pile up: cars packed with families, trucks loaded with animals and vegetables. The line of vehicles would have taken hours to search. An order was suddenly passed for the Marines to search all buses for insurgents or weapons.

"This is what we call a dog-and-pony show," said Kelly, the heavyset, sharp-tongued lance corporal from Fairbanks. He said the operation was essentially a performance for American reporters who were traveling with the Marines. "This is so you can write in your paper how great our response is," he said.

Combs and another Marine boarded a small bus packed mostly with women and children. He walked up the center aisle carrying his M-16 assault rifle, then got off, disgusted.

"We just scared the living [expletive] out of a bunch of people," he said. "That's all we did."

When the Marines returned to their truck, Autin and Kelly began to debate the merits of the American presence in Iraq.

"And, by the way, why are we here?" Autin said.

"I'll tell you why we're here," Kelly replied. "We're here to help these people."

Autin agreed and said he supported the mission.

He added later that it was difficult to wage the battle when American commanders were holding them back.

"We feel they care more about Iraqi civilians than they do American soldiers," he said.

Asked if he was concerned that the Marines would be punished for speaking out, Autin responded: "We don't give a crap. What are they going to do, send us to Iraq?"
This we can go over a million times. Some hate the way things are going, some love it. Last poll I saw (which I linked to in another discusssin we had) showed that military support of bush was at about 73% to Kerry's 18%, that's a 4 to 1 ratio. So, if Bush was SO BAD, wouldn't that support drop? Or are you saying are military people are idiots who just act like programmed cyborgs??? "must support current commander in chief..uuhhhgghghghgh" (*image the zombie like voice*)
 

INFOHAZARD

Member
Awards
0
I won't quote due to the length, but:

1) You keep ignoring the fact that they did not listen to Shinseki, and we are (arguably) a thousand soldiers deader (and counting) for that snub.

2) Franks is gunning for a cabinet position should Bush get elected- perhaps Powell's or possibly even Rumsfeld's. That's just my opinion, but time may tell.

3) While I'm not going to look it up, I'm sure that among the officers (ie, non-drafted) in Viet Nam, you would have seen similar approval ratings for Johnson right up to the moment he got wise enough not to run again. If you want to argue that Viet Nam was a pretty good idea, don't bother arguing it with me.

The ratings are due to a selection bias (Active Duty are self-selecting, on the whole to be conservative and hawkish) among other things, but the word I've been hearing from the officers who have been over there is that while they are clearly know who the enemy is (well, in principle anyway if not on a crowded street), they are getting angrier and angrier at the command structure. Not to Viet Nam proportions (yet), but it's there. If you want to find out more, check out hackworth.com. He is a soldier's soldier, and he tells it like it is, including the bullshit and mistreatment from the comand.

Mind you I'm a former Field Grade Air Force Officer myself. I got hostile fire pay for 3 years in the Middle East (Incirlik AB, Turkey) . I seen the military do amazing and noble things and I seen it screw-up bad.

I'm treating the nightmares of returning soldiers now about fire fights and car-bomb explosions. I have to let them know that those nightmares may be their most loyal companions for some time to come, based on the Normandy Invasion Vets I care for and the dozens and dozens of Viet Nam Vets.

I keep in active touch with people in the State Department and with other members of the government who would have a reason to know these things. Some of them do reflect your perspective, but their ranks are thinning (due to a chinge of mind, not death, fortunately). I'm sure the poll you cite is accurate wthin its perameters, I'm just telling you what I'm hearing among the people I know.

You a veteran?

But, like I've said a number of times, time will tell. Neither you nor I will.

INFOHAZARD
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I won't quote due to the length, but:

1) You keep ignoring the fact that they did not listen to Shinseki, and we are (arguably) a thousand soldiers deader (and counting) for that snub.
This is an argument made in hindsight! That's why it's a pointless argument! You say "theoretically" we would be better off had we listened to "your general" and I say, maybe, but we'll never find out. Chances are with the way our soldiers are being targeted and hated "for their numbers" we'd have "more dead" IMHO. I.E. Look at what happened in Afganistan w/ our 10,000 soldiers vs. what happened with Russia's 100,000 soldiers. Now, you're operating off of this "more soldiers on the ground is better" attitude, technology is proving that theory "incorrect!" But, in theory, he could be correct, but we will never know!!
2) Franks is gunning for a cabinet position should Bush get elected- perhaps Powell's or possibly even Rumsfeld's. That's just my opinion, but time may tell.
Very possibly, BUT he could just as well gun for a cabinet position under Kerry, could he not???? Now, also, if Franks came out in support of Kerry over Bush that would be absolutely devestating, IMHO, and would be the death of Bush's admin. Bush didn't put a gun to his head and make him support Bush, he had two choices, Kerry or Bush, he chose Bush! In the time he came out in support of Bush Kerry was ahead in the horse race by 6-8 points!! Franks would have made Kerry's election a near certainty. You're igoring the fact that people make their own decisions and have their own minds, you've created this false perception that all of these people in the military and all of Bush's supporters are mindless drones (a traditionally leftist thought) and you've justified that position by their support for Bush.
3) While I'm not going to look it up, I'm sure that among the officers (ie, non-drafted) in Viet Nam, you would have seen similar approval ratings for Johnson right up to the moment he got wise enough not to run again. If you want to argue that Viet Nam was a pretty good idea, don't bother arguing it with me.
I'm not going to justify or tear down the war in Vietnam. I know very little on the subject. All I know is that too many people died and there were too much politics involved in the war, which kept our military from running right through that country. From what I do know, however, the war should not have taken place, especially given the political climate of the time when people were trying to rationalize communism in the state themselves! (Once again, Hollywood was at the forefront of it all, too!)
The ratings are due to a selection bias (Active Duty are self-selecting, on the whole to be conservative and hawkish)
OF COURSE THEY ARE! Should people not have the right to decide whether their ideology is inherently conservative or liberal??? WFT kind of argument was that?
among other things, but the word I've been hearing from the officers who have been over there is that while they are clearly know who the enemy is (well, in principle anyway if not on a crowded street), they are getting angrier and angrier at the command structure. Not to Viet Nam proportions (yet), but it's there. If you want to find out more, check out hackworth.com. He is a soldier's soldier, and he tells it like it is, including the bullshit and mistreatment from the comand.
Don't try to turn this thing into a popularity contest b/c Bush will win this any day. Just b/c "Hackworth" says so does not make it so. This is what I don't get...how can people say "Persons a, ..., z are all wrong because person a1 says so". Another completely ridiculous argument.
Mind you I'm a former Field Grade Air Force Officer myself. I got hostile fire pay for 3 years in the Middle East (Incirlik AB, Turkey) . I seen the military do amazing and noble things and I seen it screw-up bad.
Thanks for your service, but that doesn't make you more correct that I in your political opinions, does it?
I'm treating the nightmares of returning soldiers now about fire fights and car-bomb explosions. I have to let them know that those nightmares may be their most loyal companions for some time to come, based on the Normandy Invasion Vets I care for and the dozens and dozens of Viet Nam Vets.
Noble work, and I feel sorry for those returning soldiers...but I don't see the relevance other than you saying "I do this and I do that, so believe me when I say this!!".
I keep in active touch with people in the State Department and with other members of the government who would have a reason to know these things. Some of them do reflect your perspective, but their ranks are thinning (due to a chinge of mind, not death, fortunately). I'm sure the poll you cite is accurate wthin its perameters, I'm just telling you what I'm hearing among the people I know.
That's great :think: But people tend to surround themselves with similar people, ideology included. Some change their mind for, some change their mind against...
You a veteran?
Nope, I'm not...what does that have to do with anything? I've got family members who served in Vietnam, I've got family who've served in the middle east, and I've got family who served in WWI, WWII...most of them are conservative, but not all...people are all entitled to their opinions. Just because you're a vet, doesn't mean that I should take your political word for anything more than words to be agreed with, disagreed with, disputed, or learned from. So far, I've noticed I've done more of some than the others....

You're a veteran, I'm a genius.... what's the big deal? Mine doesn't make me correct & neither does yours!!
But, like I've said a number of times, time will tell. Neither you nor I will.

INFOHAZARD
We can agree on that one. I'm not some die hard republican, so don't confuse me for one. I'm socially very liberal, fiscally very conservative, and I don't like to take anybody's word. I like to look things up for myself. But, I guess it's hard to be objective about ones self isn't it? I'm a libertarian who happens to believe that our non-intervnetionism policy that is part of our constitution must evolve because this isn't the same world that existed 250 years ago. We can be targeted from across the globe these days and in an instant millions of lives can be lost! I just happen to agree with this president's vision (**** the WMD's I've been saying that since we went in) of peace in the middle east coming through democracy. If Iraq goes democratic, there's a great chance Iran will, too. I disagree with Badnarick's ignorant view that these Islamofacists hate us because of our foreign policy; that's much too howard dean of a position for me. What do they expect, we just let them bomb the hell out of the israelis???? Is that good foreign policy, is that very humanitarian? For a short while, my college time had me turned against the Jews "until I educated myself". The jews are just not going to rollover and die, that's all. The day after they were declared a state 4 (or 5?) arab nations invaded them! What did they do? "Oh those damn zionists!!" **** that...IMHO, I see this war as something to the extent of chest pains. You can chose to ignore it and say "hey if I don't aggrevate it, it'll go away" or you can go out and take care of it! One way may kill you, the ther way you've got a much better chance.
 

INFOHAZARD

Member
Awards
0
This is an argument made in hindsight! That's why it's a pointless argument!
I made it before the invasion as well. So did a lot of other people. I didn't say "theoretically." I said "arguably," which completely changes the meaning. Reasonable people can argue the numbers of deaths differentially. No one with a brain will argue that there would be a large differential.

And it's not pointless; Bush and his neocons trashed conventional wisdom (i.e. lessons from history) to do it their way and they screwed the pooch. The military had developed plans for all the contingencies that came up and the neocons just trashed them.

That also includes trashing the extremely successful "Powell Docterne." There was I time I would have voted Powell for President. I was warned (by an Army Officer) that he was a political whore back in the '90's....
...

I.E. Look at what happened in Afganistan w/ our 10,000 soldiers vs. what happened with Russia's 100,000 soldiers. Now, you're operating off of this "more soldiers on the ground is better" attitude, technology is proving that theory "incorrect!" ...
What the USSR was doing there was very different from what we were doing there, and their priorities are/were somewhat foreign to us.

Believe this or don't. I know it goes against the traditionally told hisory in the west. The person who told me knows a hell of a lot more about the Soviet Union and Afghanistan than you or I ever will:

Once in there, the Soviets quickly retreated from the idea of having a peaceful puppet state to going in there to exploit specific natural resources (USSR was resource rich, but they lacked certain rather mundane things- I'm not sure, stuff for making cement or the like).

As long as they were able to extract the resources, they could give a **** about 30,000 KIA's over 10 years or what ever it was.

Pay no attention to the stories, Afghani fighters simply suck. The Afghani's did NOT kick the Soviet's ass. The Soviets pulled out because they were starting to implode at home, and had to regroup.

I just see it as apples and oranges, comparing us to the Rooskies in Afghanistan.


Very possibly, BUT he could just as well gun for a cabinet position under Kerry, could he not????
Of course he naturally leans towards Bush's ideology. I never meant to imply otherwise. But to get into a cabinet position, he has to kiss ass; those are the rules inside the Beltway.

I would never mean to suggest that things are simply due to one cause.


Just b/c "Hackworth" says so does not make it so.
You clearly have not yet actually given the site a good look over. Yes he has one perspective, and not a total lock on the truth. You seem to be dismissing it out of hand without looking at it.

I'm sure you'll report back next post how you looked it over and then you'll reject it, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

This is what I don't get...how can people say "Persons a, ..., z are all wrong because person a1 says so". Another completely ridiculous argument.
I'm not sure why you seem to think I'm saying that Hack, Zinni, Kwaiatkowski the WSJ reporter talking about Iraq, the soldiers in the Wash. Post article or even myself have a lock on the truth. I want to make it clear that I with to make no such claims.

What I don't understand is why people are such rabid supporters of a man who cannot admit any mistake. The only mistake Bush made was choosing "certain people" for official positions. Hell, that suggests it was really their shortcomings, not his. His only mistake was to trust them. I hear that jive from criminals; everything is always someone else's fault.


Thanks for your service, but that doesn't make you more correct that I in your political opinions, does it?
Noble work, and I feel sorry for those returning soldiers...but I don't see the relevance other than you saying "I do this and I do that, so believe me when I say this!!".
You may give it whatever weight you see fit. You don't know me from Adam. I appreciate your not suggesting that I am blowing smoke up your ass on that. (I know, it's not too late.)



That's great :think: But people tend to surround themselves with similar people, ideology included. Some change their mind for, some change their mind against...
Yep, line officers will have a slightly different viewpoint than medical officers.


Nope, I'm not [a veteran]...what does that have to do with anything? You're a veteran, I'm a genius.... what's the big deal?
Damn, I could be a wealthy man if only I could buy you for what you're worth and sell you for what you think you're worth.

Among many factors, I have found that experiene does count for something. I have learned an immense amount from those who have actually done something in this life. A lot more than from those who have declared themselves geniuses.

One caveat, however. If you graph enthusiasm/energy against judgment you get 4 quadrants.

(Assume/ approximate that Energy/enthusiasm eventually tends to lead to high experience.)

High energy/good judgment is what leaders look for.

The most dangerous of all, however is high energy/bad jugement. Those folks are out there and I would not pay much attention to their opinions, and in fact would strive to vote them out of office.


Are you Mensa? About 98% of Mensa members (with some notable exceptions) are underachieving losers. If you want to be a member of something, try Phi Beta Kappa. That actually says something about someone.


We can agree on that one. I'm not some die hard republican, so don't confuse me for one. I'm socially very liberal, fiscally very conservative, and I don't like to take anybody's word.
I am not some die-hard Liberal. I'm also socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But that leads me to the question ofr what you think about Bush is fiscally conservative (a la balanced budgets and actually conserving something) and what about him is socially liberal? As I recall it was Clinton who finally stopped subsidizing bastard children. You really have me stumped there.

I'm a libertarian who happens to believe that our non-intervnetionism policy that is part of our constitution must evolve because this isn't the same world that existed 250 years ago. We can be targeted from across the globe these days and in an instant millions of lives can be lost!
Have you read the Federalist Papers? I'd recommend it when speaking about the intent of the founding fathers. Hell, our own capital was occupied and burned in 1812.

More to the intervention issue, some things have changed, but the ethics of it is timeless.

Based on "Project for the New American Century" (check out their website) docterne from at least 1998, the people in this administration have seen invading Iraq as a solution to all problems in the Middle East. THis had nothing to do with 9/11.

Add to this corroboration by Richard Clarke, Paul O'Niell, Karen Kwaitkowski, Ray McGovern and others, Bush was looking for a reason to invade Iraq before 9/11. It isn't just that there are people saying it, it pays to note who is saying it. All these people have bona fides
and were high level insiders until they spoke up in disagreement. Most of them were punished for the the fact that they "didn't get it."


There were reports by Colon Powell and Condi Rice (caught on film) in early 2001 stating that Saddam was no threat. Suddently everything changes, including the intel in order to facilitate an invasion, and now it turns out everything is as it originally seemed to be after all.

Know an idealogue when you see one. They have a nasty habit of not being able to admit a mistake.


...IMHO, I see this war as something to the extent of chest pains. You can chose to ignore it and say "hey if I don't aggrevate it, it'll go away" or you can go out and take care of it! One way may kill you, the ther way you've got a much better chance.
Everyone agrees there is a threat to our well-being. You just have to be sure that the cure is not worse than the disease. This intervention is high enthusiasm, poor judgment. Oops, the chest pain was actually a liver abcess, not a heart attack.

We are in a hell of a mess, and we have overextended ourselves badly while much more dangerous enemies (not just Al Qeda) are flanking us because we don't have the military force available to project at them.

Most of the rest of the world is pissed off enough to sit back and let us get what's coming.

BTW: I for one see Israel as an 'interest,' not a friend. That's how they view us.

INFOHAZARD

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events." Sir Winston Churchill
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I made it before the invasion as well. So did a lot of other people. I didn't say "theoretically." I said "arguably," which completely changes the meaning. Reasonable people can argue the numbers of deaths differentially. No one with a brain will argue that there would be a large differential.
Your "theory" was not tested and therefore is not proven, so it remains a theory. As I said, it could be correct...
And it's not pointless; Bush and his neocons trashed conventional wisdom (i.e. lessons from history) to do it their way and they screwed the pooch. The military had developed plans for all the contingencies that came up and the neocons just trashed them.
Trashed conventional wisdom? You mean the same kind of traditional wisdeom we used w/ Nazi Germany and Imperialistic Japan, right? That wasn't wisdom...We sat back and watched Hitler grow a huge army, take over many lands, and waited for Japan to kill 3,000 of our people. Then we had to sacrifice 100,000's more of our peopel because we didn't take out a threat when we saw it. We tried to appease it and let the pussy europeans lead the way.
That also includes trashing the extremely successful "Powell Docterne." There was I time I would have voted Powell for President. I was warned (by an Army Officer) that he was a political whore back in the '90's....
...
That's great; he says he's a whore, I have respect for Powell. Difference of opinion.
What the USSR was doing there was very different from what we were doing there, and their priorities are/were somewhat foreign to us.

Believe this or don't. I know it goes against the traditionally told hisory in the west. The person who told me knows a hell of a lot more about the Soviet Union and Afghanistan than you or I ever will:

Once in there, the Soviets quickly retreated from the idea of having a peaceful puppet state to going in there to exploit specific natural resources (USSR was resource rich, but they lacked certain rather mundane things- I'm not sure, stuff for making cement or the like).

As long as they were able to extract the resources, they could give a **** about 30,000 KIA's over 10 years or what ever it was.

Pay no attention to the stories, Afghani fighters simply suck. The Afghani's did NOT kick the Soviet's ass. The Soviets pulled out because they were starting to implode at home, and had to regroup.
Well, based on the "don't pay attention to the stories" argument, directly following a "didnt' listen to conventional wisdom" argument, I'll say you choose to believe things in a rather selective manner and not quite as objectively.
I just see it as apples and oranges, comparing us to the Rooskies in Afghanistan.
It is, but my point was their 100K troops didn't ruin the hell out of the weak little Afghani army. Tora Bora had something to do with it and the horrendous terrain there, but whatever floats your boat.
Of course he naturally leans towards Bush's ideology. I never meant to imply otherwise. But to get into a cabinet position, he has to kiss ass; those are the rules inside the Beltway.
What about the Kerry supporters, could I not say the same thing about them? Your just making assupmtions. Franks has made no indication that he is going to run for office of any sort (he may do so though), so your guys are just as much ass kissers. Again, you pick and choose when to accept things. How logical is it to say "Franks is doing this b/c I think he wants to run for office, but Shinseki, he's sincere!" without any sort of statement or evicence to support your theory.
I would never mean to suggest that things are simply due to one cause.



You clearly have not yet actually given the site a good look over. Yes he has one perspective, and not a total lock on the truth. You seem to be dismissing it out of hand without looking at it.
I'll take a look at it later, I'm too busy studying to give it a thorough running through ;)
I'm sure you'll report back next post how you looked it over and then you'll reject it, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
:run:
I'm not sure why you seem to think I'm saying that Hack, Zinni, Kwaiatkowski the WSJ reporter talking about Iraq, the soldiers in the Wash. Post article or even myself have a lock on the truth. I want to make it clear that I with to make no such claims.
Ok, I'll take your word on it. You just seemed to imply that (very much so).
What I don't understand is why people are such rabid supporters of a man who cannot admit any mistake. The only mistake Bush made was choosing "certain people" for official positions. Hell, that suggests it was really their shortcomings, not his. His only mistake was to trust them. I hear that jive from criminals; everything is always someone else's fault.
I'm not a rabid supporter of him! Two years ago, I didn't support his decisions and thought the whole world was coming to an end to tell you the truth. I just educated myself and drew my own conclusions which changed my mind.
You may give it whatever weight you see fit. You don't know me from Adam. I appreciate your not suggesting that I am blowing smoke up your ass on that. (I know, it's not too late.)
Well, I don't see any reason for you to make things up, and even if you were, it would be nearly impossible for me to prove you wrong (unless you're saying your a doctor and you don't know something simple, like where the sphenoid bone is located).
Yep, line officers will have a slightly different viewpoint than medical officers.
I'm sure they do.
Damn, I could be a wealthy man if only I could buy you for what you're worth and sell you for what you think you're worth.
Clever saying, but if I learned one thing from American Wedding it would be "A Witty saying proves nothing." --Voltaire ;) You and your quotes inspired that one.

Anyway, if you bought me for what you think I'm worth and sold me for what society thinks I'm worth, you'd make more money :D
Among many factors, I have found that experiene does count for something. I have learned an immense amount from those who have actually done something in this life. A lot more than from those who have declared themselves geniuses.
Yeah, it does...experience in your field. That's what it's worth.
One caveat, however. If you graph enthusiasm/energy against judgment you get 4 quadrants.

(Assume/ approximate that Energy/enthusiasm eventually tends to lead to high experience.)

High energy/good judgment is what leaders look for.
If that's what leaders look for, I know what to seek in others...
The most dangerous of all, however is high energy/bad jugement. Those folks are out there and I would not pay much attention to their opinions, and in fact would strive to vote them out of office.
So would I, that's why John Edwards would have no chance for reelection (funny he doesn't advertise the fact he's not running, eh? I mean, just in case he didn't make VP, you'd think he'd want a backup plan, right :think: )
Are you Mensa? About 98% of Mensa members (with some notable exceptions) are underachieving losers. If you want to be a member of something, try Phi Beta Kappa. That actually says something about someone.
Mensa, the day I have time to sit around and talk about dorky stuff with dorks all day is the day I'm too rich for my own good. I'm a honors student majoring in Chemistry (still have a way to go, though) and I'll be heading out to Medical School afterward...I guess you can call me an underachieving loser...I'm not going for the MD/PhD program....
I am not some die-hard Liberal. I'm also socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But that leads me to the question ofr what you think about Bush is fiscally conservative (a la balanced budgets and actually conserving something) and what about him is socially liberal? As I recall it was Clinton who finally stopped subsidizing bastard children. You really have me stumped there.
I never said I was happy with Bush' spending. Like I said; I'd love to vote Libertarian, but I think Badnarick is just as ignorant when it comes to this war on terror, IMHO, as Ted Kennedy. I could never support him because of that position.
Have you read the Federalist Papers? I'd recommend it when speaking about the intent of the founding fathers. Hell, our own capital was occupied and burned in 1812.

More to the intervention issue, some things have changed, but the ethics of it is timeless.

Based on "Project for the New American Century" (check out their website) docterne from at least 1998, the people in this administration have seen invading Iraq as a solution to all problems in the Middle East. THis had nothing to do with 9/11.
Sounds interesting, I'll check it out.
Add to this corroboration by Richard Clarke, Paul O'Niell, Karen Kwaitkowski, Ray McGovern and others, Bush was looking for a reason to invade Iraq before 9/11. It isn't just that there are people saying it, it pays to note who is saying it. All these people have bona fides
and were high level insiders until they spoke up in disagreement. Most of them were punished for the the fact that they "didn't get it."
Only history will tell, eh?
There were reports by Colon Powell and Condi Rice (caught on film) in early 2001 stating that Saddam was no threat. Suddently everything changes, including the intel in order to facilitate an invasion, and now it turns out everything is as it originally seemed to be after all.
I saw that.
Know an idealogue when you see one. They have a nasty habit of not being able to admit a mistake.
Funny, all the libs say bush has that trait??? I don't see what good it would do him to start naming off his mistakes until he's not in office anymore. Honestly, do you know what would happen to him. Did you hear that, he said he did this and this and he thinks it's a mistake... That's just my take. He admits that he's made mistakes; in his words he said some are little and some were big. He just didnt' go into detail b/c I personally think it's not in anybody but the democrats' best interest.
Everyone agrees there is a threat to our well-being. You just have to be sure that the cure is not worse than the disease. This intervention is high enthusiasm, poor judgment. Oops, the chest pain was actually a liver abcess, not a heart attack.
Poor judgement in this case will only be told by history, not by those with different ideology.
We are in a hell of a mess, and we have overextended ourselves badly while much more dangerous enemies (not just Al Qeda) are flanking us because we don't have the military force available to project at them.
Who, Iran? N. Korea? We'll take care of Iran and we won't worry about N. Korea until they can hit us. That's my .02. If we dont take out Iran, the Jews will bomb the hell out of them, that's for sure. They (rightfully) can give a rats ass about the UN.
Most of the rest of the world is pissed off enough to sit back and let us get what's coming.
Funny, you speak of the French, etc. Right? Well...these french people who are appeasing the hell out of the terrorist have already been in the terrorist scope! The islamic radicals have been trying to influence their politics through terror. They're not safe, and I feel bad when I say they need to experience what's coming their way.
BTW: I for one see Israel as an 'interest,' not a friend. That's how they view us.
They don't need to be friends...we don't need friends. But they sure as hell, IMHO, have every right to defend themselves and even act offensively if it saves a few ppl in the long run.
INFOHAZARD

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events." Sir Winston Churchill
I'm a fan of churchill. Wise man he is. His living family members believe he would be in support of what's going on. I agree with them.

EDIT: I think we're just going in circles here. I think you're a blind fool, you think I'm a blind fool. But, I dont think you're "stupid" ;)
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
As I recall it was Clinton who finally stopped subsidizing bastard children. You really have me stumped there.
Actually that's not true at all. The democrats lost control of the senate because at the all the policies from the Clinton administration were coming from the far left. If you remember that was when Newt was in power and the republicans were pushing the contract with America. Being very politically shrewd Clinton basically stole welfare reform from the republicans. The problem is we are still subsidizing bastard children. Using a typical democrat tactic they simply changed the name of welfare to entitlement programs. In other words the government and people that don't work are entitled to your money.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
I think we need to put Iraq into context. Three thousand people died on 9-11 in the worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States. If I am president I am sure as hell going to do every thing I can to make sure that doesn't happen again. You have intelligence telling us they are possibly have nuclear weapons. We know Iraq was spending money on materials that could have been used to make nuclear weapons. UN inspectors have not been Iraq for some time even tough he was in violation of many UN resolutions. We know that Sadam was bribing the UN, France, Germany , and Russia. In fact If my memory serves me correctly we found French made missiles in Iraq with the year 2002 on them. So the president made the decision to hit Iraq. I personally can't fault him for that. I think there are things we need to do here that are more important such as boarder security, overhauling the INS, and giving local PD the power to deport Illegal. The problem I have is there seems to be a politically correct ideology with the fighting of the war. IE not wanting to hurt anyone's feeling because we bombed a mosk full of people that were shooting at us, if there is a particular town or area that is a problem instead of blowing it up we send in troops to get shot at, and continually letting people like Al-Sadr live elevating him to a hero status. IMO those are the mistakes we made.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
LG Sciences LG Sciences 21
anabolicrhino Politics 1
bpmartyr Post Cycle Therapy 14

Similar threads


Top