Just Another Reason That We Should Have Stayed Out of Iraq

[michaelr]

Turkey launches large-scale attack on Kurdish militants - media
11:07 | 06/ 06/ 2007



ANKARA, June 6 (RIA Novosti) - The Turkish army is conducting the largest military operation against Kurdish separatists in the south-east of the country in the past few years, local media reported Wednesday.

According to the Turkish Cihan news agency, the operation, involving about 50,000 troops, armored vehicles and combat aircraft, is targeting Kurdish militants in 11 provinces in southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq.

"Three F-16 Falcon fighter-bombers...have carried out bombing raids on militant positions of terrorist group the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in northern Iraq," the agency said. "Artillery deployed at the border [with northern Iraq] has delivered 'pinpointed' strikes at designated targets."

Observers are not ruling out the possibility that the current operation will precede a full-scale invasion into northern Iraq, where up to 3,500 PKK separatists, poised to commit terrorist attacks in Turkey, are reportedly based.

Turkish foreign minister Monday defended his country's right to move into neighboring Iraq to destroy separatist bases after a suicide attack, which occurred at a Turkish checkpoint on June 4, killed at least eight soldiers and left six wounded in the latest in a series of terrorist attacks allegedly carried out by Kurdish militants.

Over 40,000 people have been killed in Turkey since 1984 when the PKK started its fight for an ethnic Kurdish state in the southeast of the country. Its charismatic leader Abdullah Ocalan has been imprisoned since 1999 on charges of terrorism narrowly escaping the death penalty because the EU, whose membership Turkey is seeking, has long lobbied against capital punishment.

Since the 2003 U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Turkish separatist Kurds have received increasing, if unacknowledged, support from those living in the three neighboring provinces of oil-rich northern Iraq, whose population has sought autonomy from Baghdad and where local Peshmerga militia formally took over security functions from U.S. forces earlier this month.

Ethnic Kurds have also been actively driving for autonomy in eastern parts of Syria. The borders between the three countries are still unsecured.

[DrWho]

Every negative thing that happens as a result of war is not more a reason to stay out than every positive thing is a reason to stay in. The ends don't justify the means any more than the reverse.

You only go to war after other options have failed. So if we had waited,say, 12 years or more for Saddam to comply, and lots of un sanctions had failed and we had reason to believe that be might be close to accomplishing his spoken goals of hurting the us - then we would go to war.

[top gun]

I don't know if everybody noticed but this last group of terrorists that were supposedly planning that bombing at JFK... NONE OF THEM from Iraq, Iran or any place even close.

I had posted this prediction previously as to what I believed would start happening and as an example of how misguided the train of thought is that the war on terror is the war in Iraq.

There are large groups like this in at least 12 different countries... and we're bogged down Nation Building in Iraq. The truth is (and this isn't some conspiracy theory about why we went to war) that if it weren't for Iraq having the world's 2nd largest oil reserves... we would not be spending all this time there. We'd be acting a lot more like Iraq was Africa.

[michaelr]

Every negative thing that happens as a result of war is not more a reason to stay out than every positive thing is a reason to stay in. The ends don't justify the means any more than the reverse.

You only go to war after other options have failed. So if we had waited,say, 12 years or more for Saddam to comply, and lots of un sanctions had failed and we had reason to believe that be might be close to accomplishing his spoken goals of hurting the us - then we would go to war.

I agree 100%. We as a nation should practice a little discipline. We should have given the weapons inspectors a bit more time. I only hope that, as a country, we don' treat Iran like Iraq. That would be a big mistake!

[Sadistic Savior]

We should have given the weapons inspectors a bit more time.

10 years wasnt enough?

Maybe if Saddam had cooperated the first 16 or 17 times, there would have been no need for an invasion. 10 years is very patient IMO. We should have invaded after the 3rd or 4th time he interfered with inspectors.

A complete record of his interference is available here on the UN's website - http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronology.htm -

I only hope that, as a country, we don' treat Iran like Iraq.

Oh, I agree. We definitely should not wait 10 years with Iran like we did with Iraq. We should act much sooner if they refuse to cooperate.

Just Another Reason That We Should Have Stayed Out of Iraq - Turkey launches large-scale attack on Kurdish militants

Why is that a reason to stay out of Iraq? Are you saying our defense policy should center around placating Turkey? Gimme a break.

Regardless of what obnoxious actions Turkey might commit in the future, we were correct to go into Iraq. The alternatives were worse. And you cant make policy in hindsight.

[drippinhun]

Saddam worked with our CIA and had been in various capacities since the late 1950s.

[9sublime]

Give the weapons inspectors more time? You really think those weapons wouldn't have been destroyed by now, even though they didn't exist in the first place.

[Sadistic Savior]

Saddam worked with our CIA and had been in various capacities since the late 1950s.

Irrelevant even if true. Whether the threat was of our own making or not, Saddam was still a threat. Saddam was still an oppressive despot. We were correct to remove him either way.

The fact that our government made a mistake in supporting him in the 50s does not mean we were wrong to correct that mistake now.

[michaelr]

10 years wasnt enough?

Maybe if Saddam had cooperated the first 16 or 17 times, there would have been no need for an invasion. 10 years is very patient IMO. We should have invaded after the 3rd or 4th time he interfered with inspectors.

A complete record of his interference is available here on the UN's website - http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronology.htm -



Oh, I agree. We definitely should not wait 10 years with Iran like we did with Iraq. We should act much sooner if they refuse to cooperate.



Why is that a reason to stay out of Iraq? Are you saying our defense policy should center around placating Turkey? Gimme a break.

Regardless of what obnoxious actions Turkey might commit in the future, we were correct to go into Iraq. The alternatives were worse. And you cant make policy in hindsight.
Yea, I just bet if he gave up those pesky WMD we wouldn't be there. Oh wait...he didn't have any!

[michaelr]

The fact that Saddam was a bad guy is not relevant. The fact that brain dead Americans still think that life after Saddam is better is just plain ignorant. 3500 plus troops dead, multiply that by eight and you get the wounded. Almost 400 billion wasted. 650,000 dead Iraqi's. I can't even count the war crimes. Troops on their fourth, and for some, fifth tour. Our country divided. Turkey now attacks Iraq, fighting spreads all over the middle east. No end in sight! ****ing funny how some people say life is better after Saddam. Strike that, it's ****ing SAD!

[Sadistic Savior]

Yea, I just bet if he gave up those pesky WMD we wouldn't be there. Oh wait...he didn't have any!

If there werent any, then why did he burn documents? Why wouldnt he let us look?

You were willing to simply take his word for it?

The fact that Saddam was a bad guy is not relevant. The fact that brain dead Americans still think that life after Saddam is better is just plain ignorant. 3500 plus troops dead, multiply that by eight and you get the wounded. Almost 400 billion wasted. 650,000 dead Iraqi's.

In exchange for a zero chance that Saddam would give nukes or nuke technology to our enemies. Yeah, thats a fair trade.

Where are you getting the 650,000 Dead Iraqi figure from?

No end in sight! ****ing funny how some people say life is better after Saddam.

I think it is. And so do most Iraqis. This poll is dated March 2007:

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece


This one is dated June 2007. Dont know if it is the same poll.

A Better Life
Poll: Most Iraqis Ambivalent About the War, But Not Its Results

March 15— A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.

[...] On a personal level, seven in 10 Iraqis say things overall are going well for them — a result that might surprise outsiders imagining the worst of life in Iraq today. Fifty-six percent say their lives are better now than before the war, compared with 19 percent who say things are worse (23 percent, the same). And the level of personal optimism is extraordinary: Seventy-one percent expect their lives to improve over the next year.

(On the US Invasion)

Was right 48%
Was wrong 39

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

The Iraqis themselves seem to think things are better.

[michaelr]

If there werent any, then why did he burn documents? Why wouldnt he let us look?

You were willing to simply take his word for it?



In exchange for a zero chance thaqt Saddam would give nukes or nuke technology to our enemies. Yeah, thats a fair trade.

Where are you getting the 650,000 Dead Iraqi figure from?



I think it is. And so do most Iraqis. This poll is dated March 2007:




This one is dated June 2007. Dont know if it is the same poll.



The Iraqis themselves seem to think things are better.
Look, he didn't have weapons. The gas that he used on the Kurds was supplied by the US, your poll is dead wrong. Here is a poll from today, A New York Times and CBS News poll found that 61 percent of Americans believe the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq; only 35 percent believe the invasion was the right policy. Almost two-thirds want the U.S. to set a timetable for withdrawal, with only 34 percent opposed. (http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=11096) I guess that you don't remember the tables of docs and CDs before the war, one to many beers hey? I guess that in 2000 when this whole administration said that Iraq has no weapons, they were wrong. I guess the fact that we found no weapons means nothing to you. This war is a war of aggression and as such it's illegal. Bush needs to be held accountable, JAILED for his crimes.
I wonder if you went over there and served, if not than maybe you could support the war by doing just that. I imagine that you have not and will not, but I bet you cannot buy enough American flags from Wal-Mart that were made in China, YEA SUPPORT THE TROOPS.

[Sadistic Savior]

Look, he didn't have weapons.

We had no way of knowing that at the time. His interference with inspectors (and burning of documents) made it reasonable to assume he was lying.

We cannot make policy in hindsight.

I guess that in 2000 when this whole administration said that Iraq has no weapons, they were wrong.

We had no way of knowing for sure because he would not let us look. We were correct not to take his word for it.

This war is a war of aggression and as such it's illegal.

Sue us.

Bush needs to be held accountable, JAILED for his crimes.

Good luck with that.

None of Bush's "crimes" would have been possible without our collective consent. Do you want to jail the majority of Americans as well?

I wonder if you went over there and served, if not than maybe you could support the war by doing just that.

Does the fact that I am not a cop mean I am not allowed to have an opinion on crime either?

I bet you cannot buy enough American flags from Wal-Mart that were made in China

I've never owned a flag actually.

[michaelr]

We had no way of knowing that at the time. His interference with inspectors (and burning of documents) made it reasonable to assume he was lying.


Bush interfered with the inspectors when he kicked them out. He had to because he knew that Iraq had no weapons, can't let that info get out.
I'm glad that you said that Bush's crimes were a result of the collective, you right there and they should all pay. I recomend a 30 minute walk in down town Bagdad!
I do have a flag and it proudly says "Made in the USA"
"Sue us", hey are you one of them government plants...just kidding.

[Sadistic Savior]

Bush interfered with the inspectors when he kicked them out.

He didnt withdraw them until Saddam had made it clear he would not end his interference. After the 15th or 16th time, it was reasonable to assume Saddam had no intention of permitting inspections without interference.

He had to because he knew that Iraq had no weapons

If Iraq had no weapons and was not trying to obtain them, why did he interfere in inspections at all?

I'm glad that you said that Bush's crimes were a result of the collective, you right there and they should all pay.

Then why do you only direct your blame at Bush?

I do have a flag and it proudly says "Made in the USA"

Ah, well then, you must be a patriot.

[michaelr]

He didnt withdraw them until Saddam had made it clear he would not end his interference. After the 15th or 16th time, it was reasonable to assume Saddam had no intention of permitting inspections without interference.

I would have a problem with inspectors interfering with my sovereignty.

If Iraq had no weapons and was not trying to obtain them, why did he interfere in inspections at all?
I didn't say he did, but he did need to make his neighbors believe that he either was trying, or had them. If they realized just how weak he was, we would not be talking about this.


Then why do you only direct your blame at Bush?

He lied, congress didn't do their job. I blame them all.

Ah, well then, you must be a patriot.
I do love my country

[Sadistic Savior]

I would have a problem with inspectors interfering with my sovereignty.

Then why agree to inspectors at all?

I didn't say he did, but he did need to make his neighbors believe that he either was trying, or had them. If they realized just how weak he was, we would not be talking about this.

We had no way of knowing for sure if that was his motive, or if he was actually covering up a weapons program. We were correct to assume the worst.

Me: Then why do you only direct your blame at Bush?

He lied

What did he lie about specifically? Can you give me a quote where he said something he knew was false?

[michaelr]

What did he lie about specifically? Can you give me a quote where he said something he knew was false?

Sam Hussien, 911

[Sadistic Savior]

So you do not have an actual quote that shows he lied?

[michaelr]

Doubts, dissent stripped from public version of Iraq assessment
By Jonathan S. Landay
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.

As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies.

The stark differences between the public version and the then top-secret version of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate raise new questions about the accuracy of the public case made for a war that's claimed the lives of more than 500 U.S. service members and thousands of Iraqis.

The two documents are replete with differences. For example, the public version declared that "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" and says "if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade."

But it fails to mention the dissenting view offered in the top-secret version by the State Department's intelligence arm, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as the INR.

That view said, in part, "The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."

The alternative view further said "INR is unwilling to ... project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening."

Both versions were written by the National Intelligence Council, a board of senior analysts who report to CIA Director George Tenet and prepare reports on crucial national security issues. Stuart Cohen, a 30-year CIA veteran, was the NIC's acting chairman at the time.

The CIA didn't respond officially to requests to explain the differences in the two versions. But a senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained them by saying a more candid public version could have revealed U.S. intelligence-gathering methods.

Last week, Tenet defended the intelligence community's reporting on Iraq, telling an audience at Georgetown University that differences over Iraq's capabilities "were spelled out" in the October 2002 intelligence estimate.

But while top U.S. officials may have been told of differences among analysts, those disputes were kept from the American public in key areas, including whether Saddam was stockpiling biological and chemical weapons and whether he might dispatch poison-spraying robot aircraft to attack the United States.

Both documents have been available to the public for months. The CIA released the public version, titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," in October 2002, when the Bush administration was making its case for war. The White House declassified and released portions of the NIE's key findings in July 2003.

Knight Ridder compared the documents in light of Tenet's speech and continuing controversy over the intelligence that President Bush used to justify the invasion last April. There are currently seven separate official inquiries into the issue.

What that comparison showed is that while the top-secret version delivered to Bush, his top lieutenants and Congress was heavily qualified with caveats about some of its most important conclusions about Iraq's illicit weapons programs, those caveats were omitted from the public version.

The caveats included the phases "we judge that," "we assess that" and "we lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD (weapons of mass destruction) programs."

These phrases, according to current and former intelligence officials, long have been used in intelligence reports to stress an absence of hard information and underscore that judgments are extrapolations or estimates.

Among the most striking differences between the versions were those over Iraq's development of small, unmanned aircraft, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles.

The public version said Iraq's UAVs "especially if used for delivery of chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents - could threaten Iraq's neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and the United States if brought close to, or into, the US Homeland."

The classified version showed there was major disagreement on the issue from the agency with the greatest expertise on such aircraft, the Air Force. The Air Force "does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents," it said. "The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability."

There was substantial difference between the public version of the estimate and the classified version on the issue of Iraq's biological weapons program.

The public version contained the alarming warning that Iraq was capable of quickly developing biological warfare agents that could be delivered by "bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland."

No such warning that Iraq's biological weapons could be delivered to United States appeared in the classified version.

In a section on chemical weapons, the top-secret findings said the intelligence community had "little specific information on Iraq's CW (chemical weapons) stockpile." That caveat was deleted from the public version.

The classified report went on to say that Iraq "probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents - much of it added last year."

"Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents," said the public report.

Deleted from the public version was a line in the classified report that cast doubt on whether Saddam was prepared to support terrorist attacks on the United States, a danger that Bush and his top aides raised repeatedly in making their case for war.

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington with a stronger case for making war," the top-secret report said.

Also missing from the public report were judgments that Iraq would attempt "clandestine attacks" on the United States only if an American invasion threatened the survival of Saddam's regime or "possibly for revenge."

[Sadistic Savior]

So is that a "no"?

[michaelr]

I don't want to get this confussed as spam.
The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism
Bring 'em On! (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm)
A List of Bush LIES on Iraq (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/27_lies.html)
Bush Administration Lies for War (http://www.iraqwar.org/adminlies.htm)



Exposing Bush and His "Techniques of Deceit" (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0302/S00061.htm)

BushAdmin, Not CIA, Said Iraq Was An IMMINENT Threat (http://bushwatch.org/wmd.htm)

I could go on all day. Lets not forget that HE HAD COLLIN POWELL and OTHERS LIE FOR HIS SORRY ASS

[Sadistic Savior]

I could go on all day.

You dont need to go on all day. You just need to post a single quote showing Bush deliberately lied about something. I dont understand why that is so difficult if it is so obvious.

Lets not forget that HE HAD COLLIN POWELL and OTHERS LIE FOR HIS SORRY ASS

1) Prove that they lied.

2) Prove that they lied because Bush told them to lie.

Your accusation isnt correct by default.

[michaelr]

I just gave you a whole list.
Powell lied. An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.
(http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html)
Of course he knew this was a lie the brits sold them to Iraq.

[michaelr]

Bush lied about the yellow cake, he saw wilsons report.

[Sadistic Savior]

I just gave you a whole list.

I didnt ask for a whole list. I asked for a specific quote. You have not yet posted a specific quote, you have posted links to liberal propaganda.

Powell lied.

You technically havnt shown that either. But I didnt ask about Powell. I asked about Bush.

Bush lied about the yellow cake, he saw wilsons report.

Please post the quote where he you believe he lied about Yellowcake.

[OPGhostdog]

[quote=Michaelr] I wonder if you went over there and served,
if not than maybe you could support the war by doing just that.
I imagine that you have not and will not, but I bet you cannot
buy enough American flags from Wal-Mart that were made in China,
YEA SUPPORT THE TROOPS

Right On with the Right ons Michaelr. I enjoy reading all of your
posts, but I really enjoyed the one with the above quote in it.
That gets next to me too. Whenever someone signs on here
typing smack, and never have left their neighborhood.

People are always good at expressing their opinions about what
someone else should do, and all they do is sit back and read the
newspapers (America's big form of paragenda) watch the 6 o clock
news. Then they come on here like they just left Iraq or the Middle
East.

Our troops need to be home with their families and friends. I am
blessed to have my Son and Daughter (both) home after serving
two years in Iraq, and they both told me that what we see nightly
is completely different over there.

In closing, I can't understand why the American government only
tell what they want us to know, and after retiring from the Army
in 1974 with 3 years of Viet Nam liisted in my Army data GOD
really do need to bless America..America needs help.

Sadistic Savior remids me of another person on another website
who ask more questions then give answers. I feel that whenever
anyone is rejected from serving for the Country. The Salvation
Army needs soldiers. ROTFLMBAO

BRING OUR SONS & DAUGHTERS HOME.

[michaelr]

[quote=Michaelr] I wonder if you went over there and served,
if not than maybe you could support the war by doing just that.
I imagine that you have not and will not, but I bet you cannot
buy enough American flags from Wal-Mart that were made in China,
YEA SUPPORT THE TROOPS

Right On with the Right ons Michaelr. I enjoy reading all of your
posts, but I really enjoyed the one with the above quote in it.
That gets next to me too. Whenever someone signs on here
typing smack, and never have left their neighborhood.

People are always good at expressing their opinions about what
someone else should do, and all they do is sit back and read the
newspapers (America's big form of paragenda) watch the 6 o clock
news. Then they come on here like they just left Iraq or the Middle
East.

Our troops need to be home with their families and friends. I am
blessed to have my Son and Daughter (both) home after serving
two years in Iraq, and they both told me that what we see nightly
is completely different over there.

In closing, I can't understand why the American government only
tell what they want us to know, and after retiring from the Army
in 1974 with 3 years of Viet Nam liisted in my Army data GOD
really do need to bless America..America needs help.

Sadistic Savior remids me of another person on another website
who ask more questions then give answers. I feel that whenever
anyone is rejected from serving for the Country. The Salvation
Army needs soldiers. ROTFLMBAO

BRING OUR SONS & DAUGHTERS HOME.

I got to say that your post showed allot of emotion. I am so happy that your children are home, may they never me made to kill or be killed. God Bless

[Sadistic Savior]

Whenever someone signs on here typing smack, and never have left their neighborhood.

So if I had said that I was in the military, whether or not I really was, you would have accepted my argument. Is that what you're saying?

People are always good at expressing their opinions about what someone else should do, and all they do is sit back and read the
newspapers (America's big form of paragenda) watch the 6 o clock
news. Then they come on here like they just left Iraq or the Middle East.

My arguments would have the same merit whether I was in the military or not. You would not have accepted my arguments either way, even if I had claimed to be a veteran. Thats why credentials mean nothing on an anonymous forum.

Our troops need to be home with their families and friends.

They have a job to do and are doing it. America's military is 100% voluntary...not a single soldier was conscripted. Every single one joined the military by choice.

I doubt most soldiers in the Middle East could say the same.

In closing, I can't understand why the American government only tell what they want us to know,

Perhaps your son and daughter are only telling you what you want to hear. Either way, what leads you to believe their opinions are the same as the majority of the military?

[OPGhostdog]

So if I had said that I was in the military, whether or not I really was, you would have accepted my argument. Is that what you're saying?



My arguments would have the same merit whether I was in the military or not. You would not have accepted my arguments either way, even if I had claimed to be a veteran. Thats why credentials mean nothing on an anonymous forum.



They have a job to do and are doing it. America's military is 100% voluntary...not a single soldier was conscripted. Every single one joined the military by choice.

I doubt most soldiers in the Middle East could say the same.



Perhaps your son and daughter are only telling you what you want to hear. Either way, what leads you to believe their opinions are the same as the majority of the military?

You can't tell me how My Son and My
Daughter felt after serving in Iraq. I hope that I do not have to
lower myself to your level. So until you serve somewhere..it can
be in the Girl Scouts Just go somewhere and be productive instaed
of shooting off at the mouth about things you know nothing about.

[michaelr]

Why don't you take your ass over there, and stop being such
a online pain in the ass? You can't tell me how My Son and My
Daughter felt after serving in Iraq. I hope that I do not have to
lower myself to your level. So until you serve somewhere..it can
be in the Girl Scouts Just go somewhere and be productive instaed
of shooting off at the mouth about things you know nothing about.

I'm glad that you came back on this guy, I can't believe what he or she said about your children. The audacity of some people just kills me.

[OPGhostdog]

I'm glad that you came back on this guy, I can't believe what he or she said about your children. The audacity of some people just kills me.

Michaelr, The killing part is all this clown does is post negative bs,
and NEVER offer a solution. Well Sadistic Savior, you have stepped
way over your limits bad mouthing my kids after they served in a
War. While you are sitting on your ass being a real pain.

I gave you a warning earlier that I am not the one to be f**ked
with, and you choose to continue your ****. Well I am also one
person who don't mind getting banned for believing in what I do.

9Sub, don't you think that Sadistic Savior has overstepped his
limits? and I hope you did not think that I was going to take his
negative message about my Son & Daughter with a smile just
because we are on a machine.

[USMC the Almighty]

I'm glad that you came back on this guy, I can't believe what he or she said about your children. The audacity of some people just kills me.

It's likely that I missed something, but from what I read he didn't seem to cross the line. All he said was that their opinions might not reflect the majority opinion.

[USMC the Almighty]

9Sub, don't you think that Sadistic Savior has overstepped his
limits? and I hope you did not think that I was going to take his
negative message about my Son & Daughter with a smile just
because we are on a machine.

If you are looking for moderator action, please send a PM with the link to what you believe to be the offending post and we'll look into it.

[OPGhostdog]

If you are looking for moderator action, please send a PM with the link to what you believe to be the offending post and we'll look into it.

Thank you Sir, and its on its way.

[michaelr]

It's likely that I missed something, but from what I read he didn't seem to cross the line. All he said was that their opinions might not reflect the majority opinion.

This would have ruffled my feathers; Perhaps your son and daughter are only telling you what you want to hear. My opinion anyway.

[OPGhostdog]

This would have ruffled my feathers; Perhaps your son and daughter are only telling you what you want to hear. My opinion anyway.

Michaelr, Your opinion is right, and its seems to me that what
he posted is being justified in USMC reply to you before USMC
suggestion that I submit a report.

[quote=USMC The Almighty] It's likely that I missed something, but from what I read he didn't seem to cross the line. All he said was that their opinions might not reflect the majority opinion.

I am not trying to make no big deal, but what he stated is a big
deal to me when it comes to my family, and this punk is claiming
his statement as an opinion? Get Real.

[USMC the Almighty]

Guys -- do me a favor and hold back on anymore posting regarding this topic until a decision has been made.

[Sadistic Savior]

Why don't you take your ass over there, and stop being such a online pain in the ass?

You mean I cant do both?

You can't tell me how My Son and My Daughter felt after serving in Iraq.

I can question. You are obviously biased...it is reasonable to suspect that they might be reluctant to tell you something you dont want to hear.

In any event, support for the war has been consistently higher among military personel than the civilian population. I have yet to see any poll that indicates otherwise.

So until you serve somewhere..it can
be in the Girl Scouts Just go somewhere and be productive instaed
of shooting off at the mouth about things you know nothing about.

Why do you let my opinions bother you so much if they dont matter?

I'm glad that you came back on this guy, I can't believe what he or she said about your children. The audacity of some people just kills me.

I know. How dare I.

Michaelr, The killing part is all this clown does is post negative bs, and NEVER offer a solution.

I've offered several solutions actually. Can you be more specific on what you are refrencing?

Well Sadistic Savior, you have stepped way over your limits bad mouthing my kids after they served in a War.

Oh no. Not that.

I hope you did not think that I was going to take his negative message about my Son & Daughter with a smile just because we are on a machine.

How exactly did I insult your son and daughter?

This would have ruffled my feathers; Perhaps your son and daughter are only telling you what you want to hear. My opinion anyway.

Too bad I cant be banned for ruffling feathers.

I have yet to actually insult anyone even once on this forum. But I've been called an asshole at least 3 times, among other minor insults.

[top gun]

They have a job to do and are doing it. America's military is 100% voluntary...not a single soldier was conscripted. Every single one joined the military by choice.

I think it's a little late to be playing this game don't you? The whole world knows that Bush was told that the whole WMD, yellow-cake story was a lie and he kept right on giving the speeches quoting the previous bad information. It's been all over the mainstream media... 60 Minutes... newspapers... everywhere.

The was never any connection between 911... Bin Laden or any of that stuff and Iraq. Everyone knows that now too.

Just because we have a volunteer Army doesn't mean that gives our leaders the green light to play loose and fast with the truth. My best friends son Scott is over there right now on his second tour... plus he's done one in Kuwait during this mess. He's an Army Ranger and a Staff Sergeant.

They do their job as ordered. They look out for each other and they try to help the overall situation as best they can. But the regular ground soldier (not the Generals or the lifers looking towards future promotion) but the regular infantry soldier will tell you... It's a Civil War. We're never going to be able to get a real handle on it. We can play Whack A Mole and put down uprisings here and there and try to limit our casualties. That's it.

They're more than ready to come home but they're such good guys they don't like the idea of leaving their brothers in harms way either.

They're the ones in the spot. Bush put them there and you'd do them proud by not acting like it's just their job... they volunteered... like it's working at FedEx or something. They're dieing because or president is stuck on stupid and won't let them redeploy.:mad:

[michaelr]

I think it's a little late to be playing this game don't you? The whole world knows that Bush was told that the whole WMD, yellow-cake story was a lie and he kept right on giving the speeches quoting the previous bad information. It's been all over the mainstream media... 60 Minutes... newspapers... everywhere.

The was never any connection between 911... Bin Laden or any of that stuff and Iraq. Everyone knows that now too.

Just because we have a volunteer Army doesn't mean that gives our leaders the green light to play loose and fast with the truth. My best friends son Scott is over there right now on his second tour... plus he's done one in Kuwait during this mess. He's an Army Ranger and a Staff Sergeant.

They do their job as ordered. They look out for each other and they try to help the overall situation as best they can. But the regular ground soldier (not the Generals or the lifers looking towards future promotion) but the regular infantry soldier will tell you... It's a Civil War. We're never going to be able to get a real handle on it. We can play Whack A Mole and put down uprisings here and there and try to limit our casualties. That's it.

They're more than ready to come home but they're such good guys they don't like the idea of leaving their brothers in harms way either.

They're the ones in the spot. Bush put them there and you'd do them proud by not acting like it's just their job... they volunteered... like it's working at FedEx or something. They're dieing because or president is stuck on stupid and won't let them redeploy.:mad:

Really good post, I'm givin a litle green here.

[Sadistic Savior]

I think it's a little late to be playing this game don't you?

What game is that?

The whole world knows that Bush was told that the whole WMD, yellow-cake story was a lie and he kept right on giving the speeches quoting the previous bad information.

"The whole world" might be assuming that...

It's been all over the mainstream media...

The same mainstream media that is dominated by liberals who are hostile to Bush to begin with. Yeah, I am sure they gave him a fair shake.

Just because we have a volunteer Army doesn't mean that gives our leaders the green light to play loose and fast with the truth.

Being wrong or having a strong opinion doesnt make him a liar. I have yet to see evidence that he said anything that he knew to be false.

But the regular ground soldier (not the Generals or the lifers looking towards future promotion) but the regular infantry soldier will tell you... It's a Civil War.

1% of the population fighting the other 99% is not a Civil War. Sorry.

And I dont accept you as an interpreter for the average soldier.

We're never going to be able to get a real handle on it. We can play Whack A Mole and put down uprisings here and there and try to limit our casualties. That's it.

I do not share your pessimism. And in any event, the alternatives are worse.

They're the ones in the spot. Bush put them there and you'd do them proud by not acting like it's just their job...

It is their job though. I didnt force them to sign up.

More than that, I believe the vast majority would agree with me that it's their job.

they volunteered... like it's working at FedEx or something.

In a sense it is. They chose a job that carries high risk. Most likely it was because they wanted to defend their nation. It might have been simply because they wanted money for college. But either way, they signed up of their own free will, knowing the potential consequences.

To me it seems demeaning to them to say they are fighting for nothing, or that they are merely puppets of the Bush administration.

[michaelr]

To me it seems demeaning to them to say they are fighting for nothing, or that they are merely puppets of the Bush administration.

You are right here, it is very demeaning and very wrong! I am a vet, I would give my life for my country, not for Iraq!

[Beetle Bailey]

You dont need to go on all day. You just need to post a single quote showing Bush deliberately lied about something. I dont understand why that is so difficult if it is so obvious.



1) Prove that they lied.

2) Prove that they lied because Bush told them to lie.

Your accusation isnt correct by default.

This must be the new standard for excellence of leadership in America. Just try and prove that our leaders lied. Particularly when the constantly shifting rational undermines any small credibility they had. Pretty low standards for a democracy. It's what we get for having such small expectations.

[top gun]

Sadistic Savior;12770]What game is that?

The whole yellow-cake, WMD, the terrorists came from Iraq game. You can't swing a dead cat and not hit 2 or 3 things that created this series of events.

"The whole world" might be assuming that...

You can put wings on a pig my friend... but that don't make him an eagle! The world doesn't have to assume anymore. It's just not a big secret.

The same mainstream media that is dominated by liberals who are hostile to Bush to begin with. Yeah, I am sure they gave him a fair shake.

Come on my friend... please don't do that. You know there are many, many Republicans that have said the exact same things the media has. Maybe the neo-cons in the way out there talk radio market might not want to come to the reality of the moment yet but it's certainly no conspiracy of the "media".

It's not a fair shake or an unfair shake. The truth is the truth. I don't get swayed by the far Right or Left... they're often too radical in the views for me. I find being moderate helps locate the ideas that are the most practical. We need to work together.

Being wrong or having a strong opinion doesnt make him a liar. I have yet to see evidence that he said anything that he knew to be false.

Bush Now Says What He Wouldn’t Say Before War: Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11
President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his “freedom agenda” and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. “Nothing,” Bush defiantly answered. Watch it.

To justify the war, Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with “continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

Vice President Cheney cited “evidence” cooked up by Douglas Feith and others to claim it was “pretty well confirmed” that Iraq had contacts with 9/11 hijackers.

More generally, in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the administration encouraged the false impression that Saddam had a role in 9/11. Bush never stated then, as he does now, that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11. Only after the Iraq war began did Bush candidly acknowledge that Iraq was not operationally linked to 9/11.

1% of the population fighting the other 99% is not a Civil War. Sorry.

It's a Civil War my friend. I know somebody on the ground there right now. Even the Pentagon is now saying it. There's other things going on also... but it's not really up for debate anymore... there is definately a Civil War going on there.

And I dont accept you as an interpreter for the average soldier.

Again... I'm not just pulling this stuff out of thin air. I've talked with soldiers that have been there on multiple tours in that region. I've even visited some down at Fort Campbell Kentucky in between tours... Home of the Screaming Eagles.


I do not share your pessimism. And in any event, the alternatives are worse.

You have that right. I hope as time goes by you reconsider. We need to work together.


It is their job though. I didnt force them to sign up.

No you did not. They still deserve a fair shake. They didn't get that going in with poor armor and a pack of lies. They're not getting that with our current policy.

More than that, I believe the vast majority would agree with me that it's their job.

I think if you look at the polls only about 30% continue to support the "war". And I know from attending a meeting of theirs that the large national group "Military Families Speak Out" don't agree.

Military Families Speak Out is an organization of people opposed to the war in Iraq who have relatives or loved ones currently in the military or who have served in the military since the buildup to the Iraq war in fall of 2002. Our membership currently includes over 3,400 military families, with new families joining daily. If you have family members or loved ones in the military and you are opposed to this war, JOIN us by sending an e-mail to us at mfso@mfso.org

Support Our Troops, Save Our Troops
De-Fund the War
Fund a Safe and Orderly Withdrawal from Iraq and Care for Our Troops as They Return

Click here to download MFSO Memorial Day Statement
MEMORIAL DAY BETRAYAL:
CONGRESS ABANDONS OUR TROOPS BY EXTENDING FUNDING FOR IRAQ WAR

In a sense it is. They chose a job that carries high risk. Most likely it was because they wanted to defend their nation. It might have been simply because they wanted money for college. But either way, they signed up of their own free will, knowing the potential consequences.

I think this has been addressed. I don't believe you are really as heartless as you might appear. These are peoples sons and daughters. They deserve to be treated fairly. They are not just disposable because they signed up.

To me it seems demeaning to them to say they are fighting for nothing, or that they are merely puppets of the Bush administration.

There's nothing demeaning about doing the job you've been ordered to do. They won and won quickly on the task Congress approved for the to do. Now it's just Nation Building and their lives should no longer be sacrificed for that. It's going on 5 years now. It's simply their time to come home.

[Beetle Bailey]

What game is that?



"The whole world" might be assuming that...



The same mainstream media that is dominated by liberals who are hostile to Bush to begin with. Yeah, I am sure they gave him a fair shake.



Being wrong or having a strong opinion doesnt make him a liar. I have yet to see evidence that he said anything that he knew to be false.



1% of the population fighting the other 99% is not a Civil War. Sorry.

And I dont accept you as an interpreter for the average soldier.



I do not share your pessimism. And in any event, the alternatives are worse.



It is their job though. I didnt force them to sign up.

More than that, I believe the vast majority would agree with me that it's their job.



In a sense it is. They chose a job that carries high risk. Most likely it was because they wanted to defend their nation. It might have been simply because they wanted money for college. But either way, they signed up of their own free will, knowing the potential consequences.

To me it seems demeaning to them to say they are fighting for nothing, or that they are merely puppets of the Bush administration.

Typical example of what passes for patriotism these days. With feeble equivocation and tortured logic he struggles to come to terms with his own lack of intestinal fortitude. It's so easy to be a cheer leader. Easy to exort others to do your fighting for you. Particularly when you risk or sacrifice nothing. It is painfully apparent that all your military experiance comprises what you have read or seen on TV. Your opinions about people who defend this country are completely irrelevant; as you obviously have no way to put any of it into a real context.

[Castle]

Your opinions about people who defend this country are completely irrelevant; as you obviously have no way to put any of it into a real context.

Humor me and help put all of "it" into context for him. I'm curious as to what direction you're trying to take this.

-Castle

[Sadistic Savior]

This must be the new standard for excellence of leadership in America. Just try and prove that our leaders lied.

The concept of "innocence until proven guilty" is really new to you?

Pretty low standards for a democracy.

I dont consider "innocent until proven guilty" to be a low stanbdard for a democracy. Quite the opposite.

The world doesn't have to assume anymore. It's just not a big secret.

Yeah, no proof necessary eh?

You know there are many, many Republicans that have said the exact same things the media has.

Irrelevant even if true, and for the same reasons. Bush is not guilty merely because they have the opinion that he is guilty.

It's not a fair shake or an unfair shake. The truth is the truth.

And the "truth" just happens to mirror your own opinion. How terribly convenient for you.

I don't get swayed by the far Right or Left...

That has not been my observation so far. But maybe you'll surprise me. I've only been here less than a week after all.

Bush Now Says What He Wouldn’t Say Before War: Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11 President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his “freedom agenda” and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. “Nothing,” Bush defiantly answered. Watch it.

Yeah, I am sure it was completely in context.

Me: It is their job though. I didnt force them to sign up.

No you did not. They still deserve a fair shake. They didn't get that going in with poor armor and a pack of lies. They're not getting that with our current policy.

I disagree. They are fulfilling the obligation they chose to bind themselves to.

As to the government not supporting them enough, I have no argument with that. I agree that they deserve the tools necessary to do their job (such as the armor). I agree they deserve the best medical care. I agree that they should be paid more for what they do.

But either way, they knew what their obligations were when they signed up. They were not lied to.

I think this has been addressed. I don't believe you are really as heartless as you might appear.

Heart is irrelevant. I am merely stating the facts. Whether it is "fair" or not is entirely subjective. But they knew in advance that this was a possibility. They were not decieved. That is my only point.

My position has been consistent on this issue from the beginning. I have always been pro-military. Like most Neo-cons, the one area where I dont mind spending money is on the military...including medical care, pay, and supplies (such as that armor). When it comes to funding the military, neocons are far more in favor of it than the Paleocons, the liberals, or just about anyone else.

These are peoples sons and daughters.

These are grown adults, with their own thoughts. They are not robots that are programmed by the media or by something Bush said. They have their own opinions, their own dreams, their own desires, their own views. It is insulting IMO to imply that they are so weak they can be mind-controlled by the media or the Bush Administration.

I respect them on THAT level. Knowing the consequences, they still chose this high-risk line of work. I respect them the same way I would respect anyone who chose high-risk work.

They are not just disposable because they signed up.

I have never even implied that I see them as disposable.

It's so easy to be a cheer leader. Easy to exort others to do your fighting for you.

Its also easy to give up.

[michaelr]

I think I'll try to get this thread back on track.
Kurds report Turkish, Iranian shelling in northern Iraq; wider conflict feared
Christopher Torchia, Associated Press
Published: Friday, June 08, 2007
ISTANBUL, Turkey — Turkish artillery shelled suspected positions of Kurdish rebels based across the border in northern Iraq on Friday, according to reports. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Turkey that it risked expanding regional tensions with any “robust” move of troops into Iraq.

Turkey has been building up its forces along the border with Iraq, and its leaders are debating whether to stage a major incursion to pursue Kurdish rebels from Turkey who rest, train and resupply at bases in Iraq. Such an operation could ignite a wider conflict involving Iraqi Kurds, and draw in its NATO ally, the United States.

Rice, speaking in New York to a panel of journalists and editors from The Associated Press, said it’s “not good for anybody for a robust move across the border.” She described it as “not good for Iraq and not good for Turkey.”

The statement by Rice suggested Washington has acknowledged that Turkey might conduct limited incursions across the rugged frontier against the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party, also known as PKK.

Iran has also clashed with Iranian Kurd fighters who have bases in remote, mountainous areas of northern Iraq, and Iranian forces reportedly participated in the overnight shelling.

Tension and violence involving Kurds, who have long sought autonomy, have ebbed and surged in the past century in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. In Turkey, Kurds make up about 20 per cent of the country’s population of more than 70 million.

The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, or PUK, the party of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, reported the overnight Turkish and Iranian shelling on its website. Turkish military authorities at the General Staff in Ankara were not immediately available for comment.

Iranian officials in Tehran could not be reached for comment late Friday. Iranian media contained no reports on any shelling, and usually wait several days to report such incidents.

The PUK said artillery shells overnight hit some areas in the Sidikan area in Irbil province, where the borders of Turkey, Iran and Iraq converge, and that nine villages were affected. It was unclear whether there was any degree of co-ordination among Turkish and Iranian gunners.

“Huge damage was inflicted on the area,” the PUK said, citing what it described as an unidentified “source” in the area. “The source said that residents have left their houses, fearing for their lives.”

Lt. Ahmed Karim of the Iraqi border guards force told the AP that seven Turkish shells landed on a forest near Sakta village in the Batous area, but no casualties were reported.

Belgium-based Firat, a pro-Kurdish news agency that Turkey says is a rebel mouthpiece, said Turkish forces shelled areas in Iraq for three hours beginning at 11 p.m. Thursday. It said there were no reports of casualties.

On Friday, Turkey’s military declared its “unshakable determination” to defeat Kurdish rebels, and a fourth soldier died of injuries from a roadside bomb in a new Turkish security zone north of the Iraq border. The bombing Thursday was blamed on Kurdish separatists.

On Wednesday, Turkish security officials and an Iraqi Kurdish official said Turkish soldiers had crossed into Iraq in pursuit of rebels based there. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul denied such a raid took place.

Turkish forces occasionally have pursued Kurdish rebels just across the border, but rarely announce the operations.

© Associated Press 2007

[top gun]

Sadistic Savior;12801]

Like most Neo-cons, the one area where I...

Ok... now I see the problem :(. I'm sorry... I was trying to work toward a reasonable understanding. I now see why that will be impossible.

[Sadistic Savior]

I was trying to work toward a reasonable understanding. I now see why that will be impossible.

Glad I could help to clarify your position.

[Beetle Bailey]

Humor me and help put all of "it" into context for him. I'm curious as to what direction you're trying to take this.

-Castle

I think the intent of my post is pretty obvious. Doesn't really require much interpretation. So I guess "humor" is the right word. Although I don't find this to be a very humorous subject.
The "it" you refer to includes a number of human attributes, sorely lacking in our society these days. "It" includes having a sense of personal responsibility. Having the courage of your convictions, and acting upon them. It means risking everything and possibly sacrificing for what you believe. It means having some real life experiance to be able to put all these qualities into context. Qualities that apparently elude so many neo-con rhetorical warriors. You know. Like the one's posting here.
I wonder how some one like that can honestly question the motives of people who actually serve our country? While having no shame about not serving. It's the kind of glib cynicism that seems to be the standard for morality now. As exampled by our current leaders.
It's almost too funny to watch these guys wriggle and squirm to avoid dealing with the fundemental issue. Which itself is indicitive of neo-con rationale.
If you support the war in Iraq, and are capable of fighting, but won't volunteer to serve; that can only be defined as hypocritical and cowardly. How is that a morally sustainable position? It's not.
People like this just talk about supporting the troops. But they don't really support anything or anyone. They mock the troops. They dishonor the troops. It's the sort of mentality that dishonors all Americans. They are the sort of people not worthy of good people's sacrifice.

[Sadistic Savior]

If you support the war in Iraq, and are capable of fighting, but won't volunteer to serve

So if I refuse to join the police force, does that mean I really dont oppose crime? Your logic makes no sense.

[Beetle Bailey]

So if I refuse to join the police force, does that mean I really dont oppose crime? Your logic makes no sense.

See what I mean?

[Sadistic Savior]

Not really. Clarify.

[USMC the Almighty]

So if I refuse to join the police force, does that mean I really dont oppose crime? Your logic makes no sense.

If you're daughter is having brain surgery, and you're not a brain surgeon, then you don't support the surgeon performing on your daughter. Clearly.

[Beetle Bailey]

I think it's cute when they play dumb. Or, maybe they are not playing. Hard to tell. As if the comparisons with police officers and brian surgeons are in any way relevant. As if these kind of of infantile equivalencies actually address the issue. I don't think these sort of childish rhetorical devices actually fool many people any more. But, going on the assumption that their comments might actually be based on ignorance, I will repeat the point again for their benifit.
If you publically extol the virtues of the war in Iraq. If you exhort others to do your fighting for you. If you are physically and mentally capable of volunteering for military service, but refuse to do so; you can only be described as a hypocrite and a coward. If any one else has any more questions about this point, I will be only too happy to elaborate.

[top gun]

I think it's cute when they play dumb. Or, maybe they are not playing. Hard to tell. As if the comparisons with police officers and brian surgeons are in any way relevant. As if these kind of of infantile equivalencies actually address the issue. I don't think these sort of childish rhetorical devices actually fool many people any more. But, going on the assumption that their comments might actually be based on ignorance, I will repeat the point again for their benifit.
If you publically extol the virtues of the war in Iraq. If you exhort others to do your fighting for you. If you are physically and mentally capable of volunteering for military service, but refuse to do so; you can only be described as a hypocrite and a coward. If any one else has any more questions about this point, I will be only too happy to elaborate.

Mr. Bailey sir... may I take a stab at this one for you? Try and break it down to it's lowest common denominator and see who can do the math?

Everyone talks a good fight when they don't have to back it up!

There... that seems pretty basic... they should get that... :D

[michaelr]

Mr. Bailey sir... may I take a stab at this one for you? Try and break it down to it's lowest common denominator and see who can do the math?

Everyone talks a good fight when they don't have to back it up!

There... that seems pretty basic... they should get that... :D

Well said.

[Castle]

I think the intent of my post is pretty obvious. Doesn't really require much interpretation. So I guess "humor" is the right word. Although I don't find this to be a very humorous subject.
The "it" you refer to includes a number of human attributes, sorely lacking in our society these days. "It" includes having a sense of personal responsibility. Having the courage of your convictions, and acting upon them. It means risking everything and possibly sacrificing for what you believe. It means having some real life experiance to be able to put all these qualities into context. Qualities that apparently elude so many neo-con rhetorical warriors. You know. Like the one's posting here.
I wonder how some one like that can honestly question the motives of people who actually serve our country? While having no shame about not serving. It's the kind of glib cynicism that seems to be the standard for morality now. As exampled by our current leaders.
It's almost too funny to watch these guys wriggle and squirm to avoid dealing with the fundemental issue. Which itself is indicitive of neo-con rationale.
If you support the war in Iraq, and are capable of fighting, but won't volunteer to serve; that can only be defined as hypocritical and cowardly. How is that a morally sustainable position? It's not.
People like this just talk about supporting the troops. But they don't really support anything or anyone. They mock the troops. They dishonor the troops. It's the sort of mentality that dishonors all Americans. They are the sort of people not worthy of good people's sacrifice.
It appears we are both correct with respect to humor here. Your response did humor me but humor is the last word I would use to describe the subject matter.

How clever you are to paint all "neo-cons" with the same venomous brush. I assume grouping most conservatives together in one big ball is your intent as this is the norm on most political boards.

I am curious how you will diminish the positions of those of us that have served our country and are insulted by the defeatist leftist mentality that rains down on all the brave men and women sacrificing for us now. While they have served, they may disagree with you completely. Does that fact preclude them from voicing an opinion as well? Or are they simply dishohorable?

You use words like dishonor, hypocritical and cowardly as if they were always connected to a certain political affiliation. A common mistake but one that so many are comfortable making over and over. You are certainly encouraged by me to express your views whether they come from first hand experience or not. It is unfortunate that you appear to feel differently.

-Castle

[USMC the Almighty]

I think it's cute when they play dumb. Or, maybe they are not playing. Hard to tell. As if the comparisons with police officers and brian surgeons are in any way relevant. As if these kind of of infantile equivalencies actually address the issue. I don't think these sort of childish rhetorical devices actually fool many people any more. But, going on the assumption that their comments might actually be based on ignorance, I will repeat the point again for their benifit.

You have yet to make a point. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over. I am a Marine. You are not. I am fulfilling what I see as a duty (though I received my commissioning before the War). Re-enlistment rates are far surpassing peacetime levels. People are going and staying in the military at a far higher rate since this war began.

But this isn't about you and me. It's about the ideological argument here.

Please point out the inaccuracies in the comparisons.

If you publically extol the virtues of the war in Iraq. If you exhort others to do your fighting for you. If you are physically and mentally capable of volunteering for military service, but refuse to do so; you can only be described as a hypocrite and a coward.

If you are physically and mentally capable of volunterring for police service, and you publicly extol the virtues of stopping crime then you can only be described as a hypocrite and a coward.

Nice logic.

[Sadistic Savior]

As if the comparisons with police officers and brian surgeons are in any way relevant.

Since you obviously do not know what an analogy is, I thought I would help out:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
a·nal·o·gy /əˈnælədʒi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -gies.

1. [U]a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3. Biology. an analogous relationship.
4. Linguistics. a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b. a form resulting from such a process.

5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy

You learn something new every day. I'm here to help.

I will repeat the point again for their benifit.

Your logic will be just as flawed no matter how many times you repeat it.

[Beetle Bailey]

Some pretty pathetic responses here. Although I can't really say I am disappointed. Funny how some people need to create an imaginary straw man to make their world work. I guess that's what comes with the tendency toward knee jerk responses born from eroneous assumptions based on thin logic.
As to my experiance; not open for discussion. I will not talk about that in this forum for several reasons. I feel that to refer to those experiances for the purpose of establishing some petty credibility in a pointless argument with children dishonors the people I served with. It amounts to cheap exploitation.
As to the point. I suppose people will continue to pretend not to understand when an issue makes them uncomfortable.

[Castle]

Ah, another eloquent yet pointless speech designed to inflate ones own ego while avoiding any relevant response.

-Castle

[Sadistic Savior]

Funny how some people need to create an imaginary straw man to make their world work. I guess that's what comes with the tendency toward knee jerk responses born from eroneous assumptions based on thin logic.

Oh the irony.

[USMC the Almighty]

She's yet to make an argument.

[Beetle Bailey]

She's yet to make an argument.

Demonstrates the theory that everything seeks it's own level. I think you have found your's.

[USMC the Almighty]

Demonstrates the theory that everything seeks it's own level. I think you have found your's.

So you're still refusing to debate, instead of just sling insults.

[Beetle Bailey]

So you're still refusing to debate, instead of just sling insults.

Just a matter of perception I guess. I thought it was you who was refusing to debate. You never actually addressed any part of my posts. You just reacted with simplistic analogies(see definition above, provided by resident literary scholar) and pompous platitudes. If you ever have anything the least bit compelling to say I will be happy to debate you.

[drippinhun]

Re-enlistment rates are far surpassing peacetime levels. People are going and staying in the military at a far higher rate since this war began.


Borrowing from China $40,000 per re-enlisting soldier and giving down payment assistance for soldiers who are first-time home buyers doesn't suggest this resigning anomaly is coming from the heart or some mass belief that we are succeeding in Iraq. There has always been a market for mercenaries, especially if the price is right. Cascading the interest payment of that incurred debt onto our children and the unborn is a steep price for this botched Wall Street/Texas Oil Mafia mission.

[Sadistic Savior]

Cascading the interest payment of that incurred debt onto our children and the unborn is a steep price for this botched Wall Street/Texas Oil Mafia mission.

Maybe. But the price of inaction was potentially much higher. And we would not have gotten a second chance.

[drippinhun]

Maybe. But the price of inaction was potentially much higher. And we would not have gotten a second chance.

Care to present your evidence for making such a declaration?

[Sadistic Savior]

Care to present your evidence for making such a declaration?

Saddam's refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors and his documented support of terrorism in the past. Do you dispute either of these facts?

[9sublime]

Refusal to operate doesn't mean he has the weapons. For one who doesn't like to make assumptions, its a bit of a leap. He was playing games, they just backfired on him through an illegal war.

As for supporting terrorism, YOUR GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED HIM. Does that make them terrorists?