Good News Out of Iraq [Archive] - House of Politics

Truth-Bringer

04-08-2007, 02:09 PM

Unfortunately though there is a lot of not so good news coming out of Iraq:

War in Iraq Spurs Massive Migration

"Nearly 2 million Iraqis -- about 8 percent of the prewar population -- have embarked on a desperate migration, mostly to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16967176

Professionals Fleeing Iraq As Violence, Threats Persist

Exodus of Educated Elite Puts Rebuilding at Risk

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, January 23, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD -- The office of Iraq's most eminent cardiologist is padlocked. A handwritten sign is taped on his wooden door in the private clinic in Baghdad: Patients of Dr. Omar Kubasi should call him in Amman, Jordan.

There, Kubasi, 63, spends his days sitting at a cafe with other physicians and professionals from Iraq. Frustrated, he watches from afar as the medical education system he helped set up during his 36-year career slowly disintegrates. His teaching doctors are fleeing the country in fear. Younger physicians are looking for other countries to train in. Even patients are leaving, no longer confident in the care they can get in Iraq.

"I think it's part of the plan for the country's destruction," Kubasi said by telephone. "The situation in the last six months has gotten so bad, we couldn't continue."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012201112.html

Doctors Under Fire in Iraq

by Aaron Glantz with Salam Talib

Until two weeks ago, Ali Falah worked as an emergency room doctor in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk. The city, which is ethnically mixed but dominated by two Kurdish militias, has been the scene of increased sectarian violence. Most doctors left the city earlier this year after one physician was gunned down inside the emergency room.

Falah says lately he's often been the only doctor on the floor of an emergency room that receives 80 patients a day. Falah says he was ready to hang on and continue working, but two weeks ago someone dropped a note off at his home in a Shi'ite section of Kirkuk.

"They threw a letter in the house saying the residents who are Shia have to leave the city," he says. "Otherwise, they said, 'What will happen, will happen.' So most of the people left. Me also."

Falah says that was the last straw. He left for the southern province of Amara, where he's living near his fiancée's family. He's given up medicine, saying it's too dangerous, and is working for a company. He won't say which type.

http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=9719

Doctors Fleeing Iraq

Associated Press | November 22, 2006

VIENNA, Austria - Iraq's top doctors are under threat and are fleeing the country, leaving hospitals in the hands of medical students or junior physicians, an Iraqi lawmaker said Wednesday.

Doctors have been kidnapped and killed since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 that toppled ex-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, said Dr. Rajaa al-Khuzai, an obstetrician who is an elected member of the Iraqi National Council.

"They have been targeted since the fall of the regime," she told The Associated Press during a visit to Austria. "Some of them have been kidnapped and found dead in the streets, some have been released after paying a ransom."

She also told reporters earlier Wednesday that Iraqi hospitals face a shortage of medicines and are in dire need of new equipment.

"We were promised, or we believed, that we would have many new hospitals being built, and many health centers ... but none of this has been done," she said. "No hospitals have been built so far; only some of the hospitals have been serviced."

"So if you want to see a good ophthalmologist in Baghdad, you'll never find one. If you want a good gynecologist ... you'll never find one," she said. "The health services are very bad."

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,119420,00.html?ESRC=iraq.RSS

Everylyric

04-08-2007, 02:39 PM

At least Iraq is improving...

USMC the Almighty

04-08-2007, 03:51 PM

Very true. No one's saying that Iraqi is going swimmingly, but the least I expect from the intellectually honest is to acknowledge when things are improving.

TheWaffle

04-08-2007, 06:30 PM

Very true. No one's saying that Iraqi is going swimmingly, but the least I expect from the intellectually honest is to acknowledge when things are improving.

Four years later and things are still "improving." Yet in most of Iraq the situation hasn't changed much since major combat operations ceased

I'm sure some people will tell you things are improving. But not a lot of people are up for another decade of improving. Especially when that includes the risk of being killed in a blast whenever they go to the market.

USMC the Almighty

04-08-2007, 06:57 PM

Four years later and things are still "improving." Yet in most of Iraq the situation hasn't changed much since major combat operations ceased

I'm sure some people will tell you things are improving. But not a lot of people are up for another decade of improving. Especially when that includes the risk of being killed in a blast whenever they go to the market.

Guerrila wars take an average of eleven years. This stuff takes time. Look at how long of Germany "improving" it took before we removed our troops. Over 50 years, we still had people in Germany.

Look at the amount of time it took for the U.S. to blossom into a functioning democracy. We declared our independence in 1776 and it wasn't until 1801 that we really became a bona fide republic. It takes times (generations) to rebuild a country from scratch.

It's sad really, when people become so partisan-driven that they actually don't want America to succeed.

TheWaffle

04-09-2007, 06:44 PM

Guerrila wars take an average of eleven years. This stuff takes time. Look at how long of Germany "improving" it took before we removed our troops. Over 50 years, we still had people in Germany.

Look at the amount of time it took for the U.S. to blossom into a functioning democracy. We declared our independence in 1776 and it wasn't until 1801 that we really became a bona fide republic. It takes times (generations) to rebuild a country from scratch.

It's sad really, when people become so partisan-driven that they actually don't want America to succeed.

Do you think I like turning on the news and hearing about the hundred people killed in a market blast. Do you think I enjoy hearing about the soldiers and civilians killed everyday because of people like you? People who act before they take the time to stop and think. Do really think that I get a kick out of how much more dangerous the world is now after this mistake? I don't like the fact that people out there want to kill my family. I don't like that they are targeting my friends in the armed forces. I don't like the fact that if they had their way that my people in Israel would be eradicated. And I especially don't like the fact that every day and in every way you give them more and more followers with your ignorance, your bigotry, and your warped vision of patriotism.

I am tired of people believing that people hate America just because they criticize the government. It's people like you who took the approach that just because I didn't want a war in the first place then I must hate our soldiers, right? Because I didn't want to send them to a foreign country to die I must hate them right? No. It is sad when people become so partisan-driven that they are actually willing to have tens of thousands of people die in an effort to try and prove that they were right in the first place. People like you disgust me.
You believe in all the tenets of the regime that we toppelled in Iraq, you just don't know it. You support a single party system, you support torture, you support the government having the right to do what it feels like, you support militarism over education, and you have no care for human life. Now you tell me what seperates you from the Baathists...

Fact checks: We were not in Germany as part of a rebuilding mission our troops remained there because of the fear of an imminent Soviet attack, not as part of nation-building. Secondly Germany was the first to create the war.

Also contrary to what you guys think I don't believe in a withdrawl from Iraq. I think that would be an awful idea. But how about instead of doing nothing as "Fearless Leader" seems to be preoccupied with how about trying a real change, how about you stop lying about the reality, and how about you stop throwing away the lives of our service men and women.

It bothers me greatly that our troops are still not being taught the language. It bothers me that four years later our government still won't pay for our soldiers body armor after granting repeated tax breaks to people who make over a million a year.
And it bothers me greatly that rather than listening to reason our Command in Chief prefers to believe that stupidity is the better part of valor.

USMC the Almighty

04-10-2007, 02:42 AM

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but don't let that get in the way of your lunatic ranting.

And you speak of my "ignorance"? Haha, when were you last in Iraq?

TheWaffle

04-10-2007, 10:17 AM

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but don't let that get in the way of your lunatic ranting.

And you speak of my "ignorance"? Haha, when were you last in Iraq?

When were you last in Germany?

Just because I've "been" to Denmark doesn't make me an expert on their politics and economy. And where exactly is it that I don't know what I'm talking about? See that's your problem is that rather then address and contend with others opinions and viewpoints you simply try to discount them by repeating your "I'm in the marines and so I'm right rhetoric."

Secondly my entire argument is based on experience and logic, how exactly is it that my argument isn't based on anything but the truth.

And yes you are ignorant. You draw connections where none exist, Iraq-Germany, Saddam-9/11. In the words of FDR "Repetition of a falsity does not make it true." And I hope you realize that it is your partisanship not mine that is causing America to fail in this war. It is by failing to listen to the ideas of others that got us into this mess, and as long as that continues people are going to keep on dying.

vyo476

04-10-2007, 12:14 PM

Okay, Mr. Waffle. Calm down. Really. Calm the **** down and stop throwing accusations around. You don't know USMC the Almighty and making generalizations about him based on a singular political opinions is entirely uncalled for. You should be ashamed about escalating a simple discussion into a finger-pointing, name-calling argument; by doing so you're greatly devaluing your own argument. Remember, when you argue, you're trying to convince someone of something, and if all you're doing is pissing them off then you're not going to get anywhere.

Secondly, to Mr. USMC the Almighty: Yes, progress and improvement are showing in Iraq. But is it enough and more importantly will it ever be enough? Democracy goes against religious and cultural beliefs that have been firmly entrenched in the Middle East, an extremely xenophobic region, for hundreds of years. Do you suppose that we'll ever make enough progress that enough people in Iraq will feel like fighting and dying for their democratic rights when we, outsiders, are the ones who brought those rights and by their heritage they don't trust us anyway? I'm not committing myself one way or the other on that argument right now because frankly, I don't know the Iraqi people.

And then there is Mr. Waffle's argument about how long the Iraqis will want to keep this up as well. The American people have grown extremely weary of this war and we're all the way over here in North America. How must the Iraqis feel about this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070410/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_shiite_discontent

That's just one of several news articles making the rounds lately that express the discontent of the Iraqi people with how things are being run. Many of them want us gone and once the people of a nation declare that they want a foreign army to leave, remaining would turn that foreign army from one of domestic assistance into one of occupation. We'd be going back to Cold War politics if we stated our intent to protect democracy in Iraq and then ignored the will of the majority of its people.

But yes...the situation has improved. It may have improved as much as it ever will. It may improve more if we stay or it may grow worse. One thing is for sure - if the Shiites turn against us fully than we'll have turned Iraq into Iran. And who wants that?

TOGU

04-10-2007, 03:10 PM

I don't see America failing this war.

We can only fail if we pull out. The Iraqi government itself strongly desires a continued US military presence.

Despite the daily news of attacks, overall violence has been decreasing since the surge, and most of the country outside of Baghdad and Anbar is relatively peaceful, with less crime than many major American cities. Baghdad itself is not much worse than Johannesburg.

I am not saying that Iraq is safe or secure, and we still have much work to do. Yet to constantly repeat the notion of 'failure' is highly counterproductive, unhelpful, and unfair.

USMC the Almighty

04-10-2007, 03:32 PM

Do you think I like turning on the news and hearing about the hundred people killed in a market blast. Do you think I enjoy hearing about the soldiers and civilians killed everyday because of people like you?

People like me? Typical blame-America first nonsense.

People who act before they take the time to stop and think.

What is this a referrence to?

Do really think that I get a kick out of how much more dangerous the world is now after this mistake?

Wrong. The world is not yet any better off or worse off. You see, when we went into Afghanistan, all the terrorists fled to Iraq. When we went to Iraq all the terrorists are now fleeing to Syria. So we have secured about 2 out of probably 10 countries that are established safe-havens for terrorists. We won't be safe until every country's terrorists population is neutralized and they don't have anywhere left to flee to.

I don't like the fact that people out there want to kill my family. I don't like that they are targeting my friends in the armed forces. I don't like the fact that if they had their way that my people in Israel would be eradicated.

I'm with you here.

The only thing is, we have different philosophies on how to protect ourselves. I choose action, while you choose appeasement. Think "I hold in my hand this piece of paper..." the men of Munich, Clinton and Somalia...

Appeasement only encourages.

And I especially don't like the fact that every day and in every way you give them more and more followers with your ignorance, your bigotry, and your warped vision of patriotism.

First, how am I ignorant or a bigot? I would love to see you back this up.

Second, I disagree with your premise that I am giving them more followers.

I am tired of people believing that people hate America just because they criticize the government. It's people like you who took the approach that just because I didn't want a war in the first place then I must hate our soldiers, right? Because I didn't want to send them to a foreign country to die I must hate them right? No. It is sad when people become so partisan-driven that they are actually willing to have tens of thousands of people die in an effort to try and prove that they were right in the first place. People like you disgust me.

People like you disgust me. No backbone, no stomach for the fight. We can only thank God that people with your logic weren't around during WW2.

You, sir, represent the capitulationist wing of the Democratic party.

You believe in all the tenets of the regime that we toppelled in Iraq, you just don't know it. You support a single party system,

False. I'm against political parties period. Read Washington's 1796 Farewell Address for my arguments.

you support torture,

False. I support coerced interrogation, as it is proven to work and doesn't create any long-term pain. Methods like sleep depravation, water boarding, barking dogs, etc.

I certainly don't support cutting off fingers, shooting out knee caps, or any of those methods the Islamic Facists use.

you support the government having the right to do what it feels like,

False. Do you really want me to create a list of the things I believe the gov't does not have the right to do?

It'd be easier for me to tell you what I think the gov't should do.

Provide a standing army, secure our borders, ensure national security, and infrastructure. Everything else like education should be left up to the states.

you support militarism over education,

Hahaha. WHAT? Please support this statement with some factual information.

and you have no care for human life.

This is the biggest piece of bull**** you've said thus far. The military shows people the real value of human life. You, sir, are the ignorant one.

Now you tell me what seperates you from the Baathists...

Everything.

It bothers me greatly that our troops are still not being taught the language.

Quite honestly, it's not our job to speak their language. It shouldn't be our job to rebuild the country. If I had my way, we'd hire private industries, corporations, etc. to rebuild Iraq and let the soldiers do their job -- go get the terrorists in Iran and Syria.

It bothers me that four years later our government still won't pay for our soldiers body armor after granting repeated tax breaks to people who make over a million a year.

First, the government designates more than enough money to the DOD. They decide what to do with the money, not the President.

Second, the military is far better equipped now than it was under Clinton.

Third, all tax cuts, by definition will benefit the rich more than the poor because the rich pay the most taxes. If you have someone who doesn't pay an taxes, then of course a tax cut won't benefit him. But if you have someone who pays 55% of their income, and you cut spending, then of course they are going to receive the best relief. And they should.

And it bothers me greatly that rather than listening to reason our Command in Chief prefers to believe that stupidity is the better part of valor.

Where do you get this crazy idea from?

USMC the Almighty

04-10-2007, 03:38 PM

When were you last in Germany?

Just because I've "been" to Denmark doesn't make me an expert on their politics and economy. And where exactly is it that I don't know what I'm talking about? See that's your problem is that rather then address and contend with others opinions and viewpoints you simply try to discount them by repeating your "I'm in the marines and so I'm right rhetoric."

You're missing the point. My job is to secure Iraq, I think I know a little better than you do how stuff on the ground is progressing.

Secondly my entire argument is based on experience and logic, how exactly is it that my argument isn't based on anything but the truth.

Hahahahaha.

And yes you are ignorant. You draw connections where none exist, Iraq-Germany, Saddam-9/11. In the words of FDR "Repetition of a falsity does not make it true." And I hope you realize that it is your partisanship not mine that is causing America to fail in this war. It is by failing to listen to the ideas of others that got us into this mess, and as long as that continues people are going to keep on dying.

If you refuse to apply history to modern-day situations, then what good is it? Why bother even teaching it. We should learn from how the Reconstruction of Germany proceeded. We'd prefer to have it turn out like it did post-WW2. If we pull out, then it will look like WW1 where a power vacuum will leave room for a fanatic like Hitler and the Nazis to seize power (look at Hezbollah in Lebanon -- eerily similar situation).

And I don't think I ever drew a Saddam-9/11 connection. I drew a al-Qaeda-9/11 connection, and an al Qaeda/Iraq connection. Don't make stuff up.

Koios

04-10-2007, 06:02 PM

Remember to keep your cool guys....

Rokerijdude11

04-13-2007, 08:41 PM

United States Marine Corps.........................

A "DEPARTMENT" of the United States Navy............not even theyre own branch of military!!!! they work for the Navy...I read the first page, and part of the first response on this page, i am not surprised too see The usual Offhanded callousness ,displayed by brainwashed partisan drones!!! you wanted waffle to calm down

because he handed this silly Grunt his ass, in a pink friggin basket !!!!Waffle ..rock on!! you nailed it dead nuts These guys here are so partisan, its pathetic !!!They are unable to think for themselves,they must have been from the ritalin group of children...

They are like Gumby dolls, posable for any occaision!! The manner in which they attacked you waffle, clearly shows that you have handed them theyre ass!! they are now in damage control mode, i enjoyed your well spoken, educated, ass whoopin very much!!

Nice job

Rokerijdude11

04-13-2007, 10:39 PM

No Im sorry........... I shouldnt have been so offensive ..........i did enjoy your post

i apologise for flaring up at the rest of you

USMC the Almighty

04-14-2007, 03:17 PM

USMC the Almighty

04-14-2007, 03:24 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/surge_results_are_visible.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9316646
http://www.timesleader.com/news/20070402_02iraq_nw_ART.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/why_its_working_____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu. htm?page=0
http://www.webloggin.com/abc-news-report-iraq-surge-working-congressional-report-democrats-still-seek-surrender/
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2411393.ece
http://wizbangblog.com/2007/03/13/the-iraq-surge-is-working.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040501453.html?nav=hcmodule
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258381,00.html
http://tbirdblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/troop-surge-working.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickRuffini/2007/02/24/shhhh_the_surge_is_working
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLywXaXhB8M
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1812859/posts
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530529.ece
http://www.iowavoice.com/2007/02/14/troop-surge-may-already-be-working/
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=567

Great news...

Truth-Bringer

04-14-2007, 03:50 PM

Okay, Mr. Waffle. Calm down. Really. Calm the **** down and stop throwing accusations around. You don't know USMC the Almighty and making generalizations about him based on a singular political opinions is entirely uncalled for.

One thing I will add is that USMC the Almighty has something called INTEGRITY. We disagree on foreign policy, but as a Libertarian I will say that NEVER have I been treated with such respect by a Republican who was also a member of the military.

You people could learn a little about manners from him, especially you, pale rider. That is, if you have enough integrity to even consider it...

Truth-Bringer

04-14-2007, 03:58 PM

Things in Iraq are certainly improving. I'm sorry that you are so partisan that you refuse to acknowledge any good news out of Iraq.

Here of course, we disagree. All of the news out of Iraq is not bad, but what's the bottom line? The bottom line is that it's not working and there's no end in sight. We can't afford 10 more years of this:

2 time Bush voter says our worst fears about Iraq have come true

"My Name Used to Be #200343"

By David Phinney, IPS News. Posted April 7, 2007.

An American former Navy soldier and private contractor imprisoned and tortured in Iraq by the U.S. military and falsely accused of "aiding terrorists" warns that our worst fears about Iraq have come true.

A year ago, Donald Vance learned what its like to be falsely accused by the U.S. military of aiding terrorists. He was held without charge for more than three months in a high-security prison in Iraq, and interrogated daily after sleepless nights without legal counsel or even a phone call to his family.

On Wednesday, the former private security contractor was honored for his ordeal in Washington and for speaking out against the incident. At a luncheon at the National Press Club, Vance received the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling, an award named in memory of Army helicopter gunner Ron Ridenhour who struggled to bring the horrific mass murders at My Lai to the attention of Congress and the Pentagon during the Vietnam War.

Vance was joined by former president Jimmy Carter, who won a lifetime achievement award, and journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran of The Washington Post who was recognised for his recent book, "Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone".

As hundreds at the luncheon finished their lobster salad, Vance, a two-time George W. Bush voter and Navy veteran, recounted the events of his imprisonment and the grief of his fiancé and family. They did not know if he was alive or dead, he said. They were already making inquiries to the U.S. State Department on how to ship his body home.

He then drew a wider circle around his ordeal to include the countless others who have been held falsely without charge and denied normal legal constitutional protections under law. "My name used to be 200343," Vance said recalling his prisoner ID. "If they can do this to a former Navy man and an American, what is happening to people in facilities all over the world run by the American government?"

Rest of article at:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/50191

Iraqi Insider: Missteps soured Iraqis on U.S.

By CHARLES J. HANLEY

NEW YORK (AP) -- In a rueful reflection on what might have been, an Iraqi government insider details in 500 pages the U.S. occupation's "shocking" mismanagement of his country - a performance so bad, he writes, that by 2007 Iraqis had "turned their backs on their would-be liberators."

"The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order," Ali A. Allawi concludes in "The Occupation of Iraq," newly published by Yale University Press.

Allawi writes with authority as a member of that "new order," having served as Iraq's trade, defense and finance minister at various times since 2003. As a former academic, at Oxford University before the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq, he also writes with unusual detachment.

The U.S.- and British-educated engineer and financier is the first senior Iraqi official to look back at book length on his country's four-year ordeal. It's an unsparing look at failures both American and Iraqi, an account in which the word "ignorance" crops up repeatedly.

First came the "monumental ignorance" of those in Washington pushing for war in 2002 without "the faintest idea" of Iraq's realities. "More perceptive people knew instinctively that the invasion of Iraq would open up the great fissures in Iraqi society," he writes.

What followed was the "rank amateurism and swaggering arrogance" of the occupation, under L. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which took big steps with little consultation with Iraqis, steps Allawi and many others see as blunders:

- The Americans disbanded Iraq's army, which Allawi said could have helped quell a rising insurgency in 2003. Instead, hundreds of thousands of demobilized, angry men became a recruiting pool for the resistance.

- Purging tens of thousands of members of toppled President Saddam Hussein's Baath party - from government, school faculties and elsewhere - left Iraq short on experienced hands at a crucial time.

- An order consolidating decentralized bank accounts at the Finance Ministry bogged down operations of Iraq's many state-owned enterprises.

- The CPA's focus on private enterprise allowed the "commercial gangs" of Saddam's day to monopolize business.

- Its free-trade policy allowed looted Iraqi capital equipment to be spirited away across borders.

- The CPA perpetuated Saddam's fuel subsidies, selling gasoline at giveaway prices and draining the budget.

Rest of article at:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_INSIDERS_ACCOUNT?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Three Iraqi journalists killed in three days in Baghdad

Reporters Without Borders today condemned the murder of three Iraqi radio and TV journalists - two of them women - in separate incidents in the capital in the past three days.

“Journalists are no longer just collateral victims of the war,” the press freedom organisation said. “They are also often carefully chosen targets, and this has been so for some time, but three journalists killed in three days is too much. The total number killed since 2003 now stands at 158.”

Reporters Without Borders added: “We again call on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government to do everything possible to protect journalists and to prosecute those who persecute them. The work of the media in war-torn Iraq is vital, and everything possible must be done to protect it.”

Rest of article at:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=21623

Gee, why didn't they just take along an armed contingent of helicopters, troops and tanks like McCain did?

Rokerijdude11

04-15-2007, 11:04 AM

USMC -- The MEN's department of the USN. You're ridiculous, Roker. I went through and refuted his entire argument point by point.

Things in Iraq are certainly improving. I'm sorry that you are so partisan that you refuse to acknowledge any good news out of Iraq. I wonder if you and the rest of the liberals would rather see the U.S. lose because it would aid them politically.

Nice ok then ill retract my apology and you can......
you know the rest actually im not partisan at all i dont belong to either party or any party actually i have voted 3rd party for many elections now but am not a ferverent supporter of the party i voted for either I vote for the principle and for whom best represents the MOST of my sentiment

have a nice day

Rokerijdude11

04-15-2007, 12:24 PM

USMC the Almighty

04-16-2007, 09:05 AM

Im not a Liberal?

I know that. I wasn't calling you a liberal, but I was rather asserting that your stance on the Iraq War is aligned with that of liberals.

Truth-Bringer

04-16-2007, 04:10 PM

I know that. I wasn't calling you a liberal, but I was rather asserting that your stance on the Iraq War is aligned with that of liberals.

I can't speak for Rokerijdude, but my stance as a libertarian is not aligned with the liberals. The Democrats simply want to play Republican-lite on defense. That won't work. We need a fundamental change in foreign policy. We need a return to the original foreign policy of non-interventionism:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html

This is what interventionism brings:

"In 1953, Iran had a democratic government. This is a very jarring thing for us to realize now because we are not used to seeing the word "Iran" and the word "democracy" in the same sentence. The fact is, however, that Iran was developing a long, rocky but democratic path in the early 1950s. For reasons which my book explains in great detail, the United States decided, in the summer of 1953, to go in and overthrow that democratic government. The result of that coup was that the Shah was placed back on his throne. He ruled for 25 years in an increasingly brutal and repressive fashion. His tyranny resulted in an explosion of revolution in 1979 the event that we call the Islamic revolution. That brought to power a group of fanatically anti-Western clerics who turned Iran into a center for anti-Americanism and, in particular, anti-American terrorism.

The Islamic regime in Iran also inspired religious fanatics in many other countries, including those who went on to form the Taliban in Afghanistan and give refuge to terrorists who went on to attack the United States. The anger against the United States that flooded out of Iran following the 1979 revolution has its roots in the American role in crushing Iranian democracy in 1953. Therefore, I think it’s not an exaggeration to say that you can draw a line from the American sponsorship of the 1953 coup in Iran, through the Shah’s repressive regime, to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the spread of militant religious fundamentalism that produced waves of anti-Western terrorism."

From: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/07/29_kinzer.html

TheWaffle

04-16-2007, 04:23 PM

I was rather asserting that your stance on the Iraq War is aligned with that of liberals.

I just want to clarify that I personally do not believe in an "America Fails" strategy. Nor do I believe of pulling out. I think we need a change in strategy, that is all.

Rokerijdude11

04-16-2007, 05:38 PM

I know that. I wasn't calling you a liberal, but I was rather asserting that your stance on the Iraq War is aligned with that of liberals.

au cointreaue my military compadre im actually partially liberal on the war on iraq partly conservative and a smattering of independent i share views from all sides of the complex issue that is the Iraq war and the war on terror

Rokerijdude11

04-16-2007, 05:46 PM

What i believe is what I know .....we are NOT waging a war in Iraq.... we are on a police mission again. As usual we are NOT allowed to engage the enemy under certain T.O.E. rulings... thus Tying the hands behind the back. When will we ever learn? war is an ugly thing, when one takes the initiative to do so, they should be entirely aware of all that encompass's WAR...this limited engagement crap, and policing, training, and assisting, has ALWAYS just gotten thousands of young American men and women KILLED

Here and in many other lil god foresaken hell holes... we are Not being allowed to decisevly achieve the objective, which is TOTAL victory, and the Placement of yet another puppet Democracy...

Pulling out is not an option look what happened the last time we pulled out, Todays leaders should have payed closer attention to Patton, and learned what it is to be warriors .pulling out would be catastrophic on many levels what we need is to quit dancing the political correct dance and get to the business of war

I mean isnt that why we went to begin with?

USMC the Almighty

04-16-2007, 05:49 PM

USMC the Almighty

04-16-2007, 05:50 PM

I just want to clarify that I personally do not believe in an "America Fails" strategy. Nor do I believe of pulling out. I think we need a change in strategy, that is all.

I know it's a difficult question, but what do you believe the strategy should be.

USMC the Almighty

04-16-2007, 05:51 PM

Rokerijdude11

04-16-2007, 05:56 PM

I can't speak for Rokerijdude, but my stance as a libertarian is not aligned with the liberals. The Democrats simply want to play Republican-lite on defense. That won't work. We need a fundamental change in foreign policy. We need a return to the original foreign policy of non-interventionism:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html

This is what interventionism brings:

"In 1953, Iran had a democratic government. This is a very jarring thing for us to realize now because we are not used to seeing the word "Iran" and the word "democracy" in the same sentence. The fact is, however, that Iran was developing a long, rocky but democratic path in the early 1950s. For reasons which my book explains in great detail, the United States decided, in the summer of 1953, to go in and overthrow that democratic government. The result of that coup was that the Shah was placed back on his throne. He ruled for 25 years in an increasingly brutal and repressive fashion. His tyranny resulted in an explosion of revolution in 1979 the event that we call the Islamic revolution. That brought to power a group of fanatically anti-Western clerics who turned Iran into a center for anti-Americanism and, in particular, anti-American terrorism.

The Islamic regime in Iran also inspired religious fanatics in many other countries, including those who went on to form the Taliban in Afghanistan and give refuge to terrorists who went on to attack the United States. The anger against the United States that flooded out of Iran following the 1979 revolution has its roots in the American role in crushing Iranian democracy in 1953. Therefore, I think it’s not an exaggeration to say that you can draw a line from the American sponsorship of the 1953 coup in Iran, through the Shah’s repressive regime, to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the spread of militant religious fundamentalism that produced waves of anti-Western terrorism."

From: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/07/29_kinzer.html

little side bar i was floating around in the I.O., on board one of our Carriers ,when all of this was actually Going down. I was in region in 79-80.....I know fairly well what happened and why..

Its too late for Non-Interventionaisim, as we are absolutly
intervening already.......... To change policy mid-stream, would be of no benefit to any of those who have something at stake here ....The reality is, this is all a part of a MUCH larger picture than Just the United States, so it actually sort of redundant to say what WE, should do because, we alone are not in charge of those decisions.

If you wage war, you must have a CLEAR, and DEFINITE, plan of achieving Victory, and what will happen after said war? And the re-building plan .. While the best PLAN would have been, to NEVER HAVE GONE AT ALL!!! but alas its too late we are there and what to do?

Achieve Victory, lay out the plans for what comes next, and then see them through..................but then thats the RUB, "THEY" dont want you to KNOW the plans ............

Truth-Bringer

04-16-2007, 06:37 PM

Its too late for Non-Interventionaisim, as we are absolutly
intervening already.......... To change policy mid-stream, would be of no benefit to any of those who have something at stake here ....The reality is, this is all a part of a MUCH larger picture than Just the United States, so it actually sort of redundant to say what WE, should do because, we alone are not in charge of those decisions.

It's never too late to change a bad policy. I'm not saying, and have never said, that we shouldn't have a strong military. We should have a strong national defense. What I'm saying is that the military should only be used defensively and our foreign policy should be noninterventionism, the original U.S. foreign policy:

"The United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. If the United States took up all foreign affairs, it would become entangled in all the wars of interest and intrigue, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own soul." -President John Quincy Adams

The threats and dangers that most Neocons fantasize about are all the result of the actions of the U.S. overseas.

Al qaeda declared jihad because:
(1) the U.S. supplies weapons to and gives military aid to the Zionists in Israel
(2) the U.S. keeps military bases on ground in Saudi Arabia that they consider sacred
(3) and that the sanctions in Iraq (and now the occupation) are hurting the Iraqi people

Keep on doing these things, and you'll make yourself a terrorist target. Get out of their territory and stay out of their business, and they'll forget about you and would probably be open to a dialog.

They don't hate us for our "wealth" and "freedom." That's just sheer propaganda. THAT'S what you have to be gullible to believe at this point (not that I'm saying you do believe Bush's "argument" about that point - just that the general public believes it).

But there is no true threat. There is no true threat because we are the cause of much of the bad blood - the CIA's overthrow of a democratically elected leader in Iran in the fifties was a spark to much of this. The CIA's own declassified documents, which you can see in the documentary "Why We Fight" specifically stated that the U.S. should expect "blowback" from that action. "Blowback" meaning violent, life-threatening actions. Obviously the CIA feared that the Arabs would think retaliatory action was justified. The CIA has created many enemies for us:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

Certainly, our initiation of force in the region on the behalf of British Petroleum was not justified. Certainly our initiation of force against any nation that isn't directly attacking us or declaring war against us isn't justified. Certainly, America has committed many atrocities which were not justified. They're all detailed here:

Why do they hate us -

http://www.chaostan.com/whydotheyhateus.html

As far as protecting our "rights" and "freedom" go, Bush has done nothing but restrict our rights and slowly take away more of our freedoms.

There's a reason the Founding Fathers warned us about domestic enemies of the Constitution - and Bush is definitely a domestic enemy of the original intent of the Constitution:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debt and taxes and armies are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people...
[There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and....degeneracy of manners and morals....No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -- James Madison

...Continual warfare as in the neverending "war on terror"... hello, anybody awake out there in America?

Now, why I say an invasion of the U.S. won't happen if we declare neutrality:

First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.

Rokerijdude11

04-16-2007, 06:45 PM

Im not saying its not too late to change policy overall

just too late to effect any real change of the current situation they have found themselves in a bad spot and getting out isnt going to be as easy as a policy change in my opinion

TVoffBrainOn

04-17-2007, 10:31 AM

Former Reagan Pentagon official Lawrence Korb, "Do not believe anyone who tells you things are getting better"
http://zedc3test.techprogress.org/issues/2007/04/red_zone.html

Troop deaths up 21%
http://www.thevictoriaadvocate.com/428/story/39584.html

TheWaffle

04-17-2007, 09:54 PM

I know it's a difficult question, but what do you believe the strategy should be.

Initially I thought that once the official operations had closed we should immediately have begun instructing our troops in the language. Even now this should be done. I think it was you who said it wasn't your job to learn their language. But in reality when armed men bust into your home your frightened enough without them speaking a foreign language. It just creates an extra barrier between our troops and the Iraqi people. Even if they learned the basics of the culture or had regular instruction to learn the basic language it could do a lot for swaying how the public perceives our troops.

The biggest thing is understanding how the Iraqis perceive us. And when we do things like construct a massive Embassy in the middle of their city, put our HQs in Saddam's old Palaces, drive around the city in Bradley fighting vehicles as if it's nothing out of the ordinary. All these things have profound effects on the people in Iraq. I mean if it has come to the point where we need focus groups or something like that than by all means get focus groups together and learn what the Iraqi people are thinking.

The fact that the Iraqi people still are lacking basic necessities like power and plumbing in some cities doesn't make much of a difference. In a lot of the cities outside of Baghdad it is difficult for the basic populous to side with us when for a great majority of the people we have not done much to change their lives.

The reality is that when a person drives down the street and sees an 18 year old kid behind a 50 caliber machine gun on a humvee it's unnerving. I remember feeling nervous one time in Italy seeing a member of the Caribineri behind an assault rifle that was pointed at the street. We need to integrate Iraqi leadership into our command posts so that it is not a question of the American post over there and the Iraqi one over here. We need Iraqi police who look like police not soldiers. And in the major population centers we need less American flags, replacing the flag on that humvee with an Iraqi flag and having it manned by Iraqi soldiers in itself makes a huge difference. Small things need to be dummed down. Stop flying military helicopters over the cities, stop driving military vehicles in the city.

Finally I think that along with the language idea we need continued training for the troops, continued instruction to ensure empathy with the Iraqi people instead of anger.

rmarin

04-20-2007, 01:30 PM

Initially I thought that once the official operations had closed we should immediately have begun instructing our troops in the language. Even now this should be done. I think it was you who said it wasn't your job to learn their language. But in reality when armed men bust into your home your frightened enough without them speaking a foreign language. It just creates an extra barrier between our troops and the Iraqi people. Even if they learned the basics of the culture or had regular instruction to learn the basic language it could do a lot for swaying how the public perceives our troops.

The biggest thing is understanding how the Iraqis perceive us. And when we do things like construct a massive Embassy in the middle of their city, put our HQs in Saddam's old Palaces, drive around the city in Bradley fighting vehicles as if it's nothing out of the ordinary. All these things have profound effects on the people in Iraq. I mean if it has come to the point where we need focus groups or something like that than by all means get focus groups together and learn what the Iraqi people are thinking.

The fact that the Iraqi people still are lacking basic necessities like power and plumbing in some cities doesn't make much of a difference. In a lot of the cities outside of Baghdad it is difficult for the basic populous to side with us when for a great majority of the people we have not done much to change their lives.

The reality is that when a person drives down the street and sees an 18 year old kid behind a 50 caliber machine gun on a humvee it's unnerving. I remember feeling nervous one time in Italy seeing a member of the Caribineri behind an assault rifle that was pointed at the street. We need to integrate Iraqi leadership into our command posts so that it is not a question of the American post over there and the Iraqi one over here. We need Iraqi police who look like police not soldiers. And in the major population centers we need less American flags, replacing the flag on that humvee with an Iraqi flag and having it manned by Iraqi soldiers in itself makes a huge difference. Small things need to be dummed down. Stop flying military helicopters over the cities, stop driving military vehicles in the city.

Finally I think that along with the language idea we need continued training for the troops, continued instruction to ensure empathy with the Iraqi people instead of anger.

I do not want to be impolite but I think you should have studied a little history before going there. 1917 and the British in Iraq

www.theabsenteeballot.com

Conservative Politica

04-20-2007, 09:28 PM

Do you think I like turning on the news and hearing about the hundred people killed in a market blast. Do you think I enjoy hearing about the soldiers and civilians killed everyday because of people like you? People who act before they take the time to stop and think. Do really think that I get a kick out of how much more dangerous the world is now after this mistake? I don't like the fact that people out there want to kill my family. I don't like that they are targeting my friends in the armed forces. I don't like the fact that if they had their way that my people in Israel would be eradicated. And I especially don't like the fact that every day and in every way you give them more and more followers with your ignorance, your bigotry, and your warped vision of patriotism.

I am tired of people believing that people hate America just because they criticize the government. It's people like you who took the approach that just because I didn't want a war in the first place then I must hate our soldiers, right? Because I didn't want to send them to a foreign country to die I must hate them right? No. It is sad when people become so partisan-driven that they are actually willing to have tens of thousands of people die in an effort to try and prove that they were right in the first place. People like you disgust me.
You believe in all the tenets of the regime that we toppelled in Iraq, you just don't know it. You support a single party system, you support torture, you support the government having the right to do what it feels like, you support militarism over education, and you have no care for human life. Now you tell me what seperates you from the Baathists...

Fact checks: We were not in Germany as part of a rebuilding mission our troops remained there because of the fear of an imminent Soviet attack, not as part of nation-building. Secondly Germany was the first to create the war.

Also contrary to what you guys think I don't believe in a withdrawl from Iraq. I think that would be an awful idea. But how about instead of doing nothing as "Fearless Leader" seems to be preoccupied with how about trying a real change, how about you stop lying about the reality, and how about you stop throwing away the lives of our service men and women.

It bothers me greatly that our troops are still not being taught the language. It bothers me that four years later our government still won't pay for our soldiers body armor after granting repeated tax breaks to people who make over a million a year.
And it bothers me greatly that rather than listening to reason our Command in Chief prefers to believe that stupidity is the better part of valor.

It bothers me greatly that you really do believe the liberal rhetoric you spew and you don't have a clue about this war, about our troops, about why they fight for freedom and liberty, about why they are willing to give it everything, about winning and victory. It bothers me that you don't see the real enemy. The real enemy is not George W. Bush. I could pick apart your words and tell you some real truth but quite honestly, you were so busy telling the person you wrote this to how stupid they are and how everything is their fault..blah, blah, blah. You liberals and the enemy have so much in common. You want the United States of America to lose.

I am the mother of a soldier and lady, my son is at war because he wants to serve and he wants to win. My son is at war for his country. He believes in service. He believes in Freedom and liberty. He believes in victory.

You on the left would serve yourselves so much better if you were to say WE ARE ALL AMERICANS! WE ARE TRULY SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS AND THEIR MISSION AND WE ARE IN THIS TO WIN!! Our troops deserve full funding with no stipulations, no time lines, no astronomical earmarks. Our troops are at war, in harm's way 24/7. They deserve the BEST from us and they deserve our support in what they are doing. If this country would unite and throw itself TOGETHER at this war, the war would be won and our troops could come home. Plain and simple.

TheWaffle

04-21-2007, 09:49 AM

It bothers me greatly that you really do believe the liberal rhetoric you spew and you don't have a clue about this war, about our troops, about why they fight for freedom and liberty, about why they are willing to give it everything, about winning and victory. It bothers me that you don't see the real enemy. The real enemy is not George W. Bush. I could pick apart your words and tell you some real truth but quite honestly, you were so busy telling the person you wrote this to how stupid they are and how everything is their fault..blah, blah, blah. You liberals and the enemy have so much in common. You want the United States of America to lose.

I am the mother of a soldier and lady, my son is at war because he wants to serve and he wants to win. My son is at war for his country. He believes in service. He believes in Freedom and liberty. He believes in victory.

You on the left would serve yourselves so much better if you were to say WE ARE ALL AMERICANS! WE ARE TRULY SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS AND THEIR MISSION AND WE ARE IN THIS TO WIN!! Our troops deserve full funding with no stipulations, no time lines, no astronomical earmarks. Our troops are at war, in harm's way 24/7. They deserve the BEST from us and they deserve our support in what they are doing. If this country would unite and throw itself TOGETHER at this war, the war would be won and our troops could come home. Plain and simple.

See here's the thing. You didn't read my post. If you did you would realize that my intention is to do what is best for our soldiers and for our country.

I don't believe that I said George Bush is the enemy. I believe that I said he is hindering our progress in Iraq by standing by strategies that do not work. What he is doing is just bad as those who are calling for a pull-out from Iraq.

And I agree that our soldiers need funding, hence why I said it disgusted me that our soldiers didn't have body armor.

As far as us liberals are concerned I hope you realize that we never wanted to divide our country. You yourself just said in your post "You liberals and the enemy have so much in common. You want the United States of America to lose." This is exactly what is wrong with our country. People get this idea in their head that because people like me oppose an invasion we must hate the troops, and naturally because we want a change of strategy in Iraq we must want America to lose. And what you need to realize is that this is not a partisan issue. It's not Republican vs Democrat or liberal vs conservative. I honestly could not care less how George Bush looks coming out of this war. It really doesn't matter to me; give the whole administration Medals of Freedom for all I care. What I do care about is that I want this job done right and I don't want my children thirty years from now fighting in wars that began here.

The schism in our nation took place in every school, every office, and every neighborhood. When my fellow students accused me of supporting terrorists because I thought the war was a bad idea they voiced their lack of interest in a unified nation. When Donald Rumsfeld said that 'being against the invasion means that you want America to fail.'

I don't know how much of this thread you actually read, but my post was in response to another member saying that I wanted America to fail. His post was in response to one of mine in which I called for a change of policy because unfortunately for us our troops need more than just our support. They need intelligent leadership and they need effective long term strategies.

The thing that I am fighting for is a quite different from what most people aim for. You can't look only at the war we are fighting now, you need to look at the wars we will be fighting 50 years from now. With our current strategy and attitude we will be fighting many more wars in the future.

Truth-Bringer

04-21-2007, 10:40 AM

You on the left would serve yourselves so much better if you were to say WE ARE ALL AMERICANS! WE ARE TRULY SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS AND THEIR MISSION AND WE ARE IN THIS TO WIN!!

Like we were "supporting our troops" and "trying to win" in Vietnam?...yeah, right:

"Norman Cousins - best known for his book Anatomy of an Illness - also wrote The Pathology of Power:

"The attachment to total power in our time not only has not served the purposes of national security but threatens to bring about a basic change in the kind of balanced relationship between government and people that is the central feature in the political architecture of the American Constitution-makers. No aspect of this threat is more apparent than the way genuine national security requirements have been allowed to serve as the occasion for an assault on the wealth of the American people. The chapters that follow summarize the reports of public and private investigators - reports documenting the loss amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars, through waste, bribery, kickbacks, circumvention of competitive bidding, flawed weapons systems, and sheer incompetence in the military program."

Cousins tells the story of "the M-16: a rifle that couldn't." He describes how the Vietcong, after winning a firefight, would strip the dead American bodies of "everything useful - boots, canteens, knives, grenades, rations, and so on. Even relatively outmoded rifles of World War II were eagerly snatched up. Yet the Vietcong disdained the M-16s, leaving them behind on the ground." Cousins then quotes from an article on the M-16 by James Fallows in the June 1981 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. The article includes quotes from various letters from American infantry soldiers in Vietnam:

"Our M-16s aren't worth much... Out of 40 rounds I've fired, my rifle jammed about 10 times... These rifles are getting a lot of guys killed because they jam so easily... " "The weapon has failed us at crucial moments... as many as 50 percent of the rifles fail to work." "During this fight... I lost some of my best buddies. I personally checked their weapons. Close to 70 percent had a round stuck in the chamber, and take my word it was not their fault."

Cousins then describes the development of the M-16, which started with the M-14 rifle. The M-14 had a major drawback in that its recoil during automatic fire was so violent that it bucked and jolted, and was difficult to aim. Weapons designer Eugene Stoner invented the AR-15 rifle as a solution. It was manufactured by the Armelite Corporation. It fired high-impact .22-caliber bullets, and was much lighter than the M-14 which used .30-caliber bullets. As a result a soldier with an AR-15 could carry three times as much ammunition as one with an M-14. The AR-15 was virtually jam-proof. It was a dream weapon. The Green Berets and the paratroopers requested and got them.

But in the early 1960s the Army Material Command falsified tests to "prove" that the M-14 was superior to the AR-15. They blocked the general issuance of the AR-15. The top brass considered Armelite an "outside" company. The Army ordinance "experts" decided to redesign the AR-15. Among other "bells and whistles," they introduced a new pattern of spiral grooving in the barrel. They changed the gunpowder in the ammunition. The end-result was a disaster, called the M-16 rifle. It overheated and jammed, both in tests and on the battlefield. In 1967 the House Armed Services Committee investigated the M-16. Their verdict included that "The failure... of officials with authority in the Army to... correct the deficiencies... borders on criminal negligence."

Cousins also writes:
"In 1966, [Rear Admiral Gene] La Rocque was asked by the secretary of the Navy, Paul Nitze, to head a task force of ten senior officers to study the Vietnam War and make recommendations for action. The question put to them: "What should the U.S. do?"

The team went to Vietnam. "We looked at all the options for completing the war, "La Rocque recalled. "It became obvious that we were wasting kids without really knowing why. There were no real goals. And that was what I told General [William] Westmoreland, 'You're spending $90,000 a day... and you don't really know why.'" After nine months of research, the group concluded that there was no way they could win the war in Vietnam, and advised Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara accordingly."

These are just two samples from three pages of Cousins's book.

From: http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/rape9.shtml

Rokerijdude11

04-22-2007, 08:05 AM

anyone who has been saddled with one of these Crap weapons knows exactly how true the article is.........the M-16 Sux plain and simple

Conservative Politica

04-22-2007, 11:09 AM

See here's the thing. You didn't read my post. Yes, I read it. If you did you would realize that my intention is to do what is best for our soldiers and for our country. Soldiers don't need a liberal pacifist saying what's best for them. Soldiers are soldiers. They break things. They kill people. They fight. That is their job. They joined up knowing this was their job. They volunteered..all of them. They want to finish their job and that means VICTORY. What is best for our country is not for us to leave Iraq. What is best for our country is you and your ilk to get behind them and support their mission. That is "support," not cutting off their money, not throwing alot of stipulations onto our military on their training, deployments and equipment, not making timelines for defeat, not throwing in a billion dollars of earmarks to bribe other senators to vote for the bill.

I don't believe that I said George Bush is the enemy. I believe that I said he is hindering our progress in Iraq by standing by strategies that do not work. This surge is working and it has only begun. Of course, you all don't want it to go on further because it will work and then George Bush and the country will have victory. What he is doing is just bad as those who are calling for a pull-out from Iraq.

And I agree that our soldiers need funding, hence why I said it disgusted me that our soldiers didn't have body armor. No, you said that because you wanted to say look, our soldiers don't have body armor. The plain, simple truth is..our troops do have body armor. My son told me after his first tour that they were all well-equipped. He is on his second tour and he tells me they are all still well-equipped. That was a lie the liberals put forward to put down Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. You bought it and it sounds good to you because it is rhetoric for our troops to not be there. It's a lie.

As far as us liberals are concerned I hope you realize that we never wanted to divide our country. You yourself just said in your post "You liberals and the enemy have so much in common. You want the United States of America to lose." This is exactly what is wrong with our country. People get this idea in their head that because people like me oppose an invasion we must hate the troops, and naturally because we want a change of strategy in Iraq we must want America to lose. And what you need to realize is that this is not a partisan issue. It's not Republican vs Democrat or liberal vs conservative. I honestly could not care less how George Bush looks coming out of this war. It really doesn't matter to me; give the whole administration Medals of Freedom for all I care. The Commander-in-Chief, during a time of war, was called a Nazi, dumb, idiot, loser, liar, and so many more. Yeah, sure..it's not D vs R. The whole thing is D vs R. Your members called our troops nazis, cold blooded killers, said they terrorized Iraqi women and children in the dead of night, said if they don't go to college they're stupid and will end up in Iraq as a soldier. See, I don't care if you want to walk away from your D vs R, but you spout all the rhetoric so you are a D and you are not fooling me by trying to pretend there is something larger here than politics.

What I do care about is that I want this job done right and I don't want my children thirty years from now fighting in wars that began here.
And you are the moral arbitrator for strategy? Here's the fact..here's the reason..you all believe THERE IS NOTHING WORTH DYING FOR. Our troops know that freedom, liberty and the US are worth dying for. If you are worried about your children, then you should support our troops winning now because the enemy will follow our troops home and you will have much words than VA Tech in this country.
The schism in our nation took place in every school, every office, and every neighborhood. When my fellow students accused me of supporting terrorists because I thought the war was a bad idea they voiced their lack of interest in a unified nation. When Donald Rumsfeld said that 'being against the invasion means that you want America to fail.'

I don't know how much of this thread you actually read, but my post was in response to another member saying that I wanted America to fail. His post was in response to one of mine in which I called for a change of policy because unfortunately for us our troops need more than just our support. They need intelligent leadership and they need effective long term strategies.
So, there you go. George Bush is not intelligent. Gen Patreas is not intelligent. Do you think you are the intelligent one above them? You are nothing more than a pacifist who thinks that is a strategy.

The thing that I am fighting for is a quite different from what most people aim for. You can't look only at the war we are fighting now, you need to look at the wars we will be fighting 50 years from now. With our current strategy and attitude we will be fighting many more wars in the future.

So, if you think cutting and running is not defeat and you think redeployment to Okinawa is not defeat, what exactly is defeat? When the Islamofacists kill your granny and your baby and celebrate as they do it, will you get it then? Will you get that our troops must be allowed to finish this instead of allowing it to come here?

Nevermind. It's useless. I'm wasting my time. You'd better go out and purchase, a koran, some burkas and a prayer rug because that's where you are headed.

Conservative Politica

04-22-2007, 11:11 AM

oh..and one more thing. If you knew anything about our troops, you would know that many of them are learning arabic, especially our special forces. That was mentioned in your first epistle I answered first.

Truth-Bringer

04-22-2007, 11:41 AM

that my intention is to do what is best for our soldiers and for our country.

Good intentions will not make an irrational policy work. There's an old saying - "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Good intentions in and of themselves, are not necessarily moral or ethical.

Soldiers are soldiers. They break things. They kill people. They fight. That is their job.

No, their job is supposed to be to defend the United States and the Constitution. Their job is supposed to be purely defensive. Pre-emptive wars aren't defensive. Iraq was not a threat to invade us.

They joined up knowing this was their job. They volunteered..all of them.

Many of them were persuaded to join because of the G.I. Bill or other benefits they'd receive - while the threat of death and dismemberment was severely downplayed. Regardless, they didn't join up to fight an unwinnable war against a country that was never a threat to invade the U.S.

They want to finish their job and that means VICTORY.

The type of "victory" you're talking about is impossible due to the following reasons:

http://www.henrymadisonresearch.com/bulletin-060105.html

What is best for our country is not for us to leave Iraq.

In your unproveable opinion.

What is best for our country is you and your ilk to get behind them and support their mission.

I've just shown you evidence that the government betrayed its own soldiers and subjected them to a higher chance of death simply for the sake of allowing political cronies in the military industrial complex to their "spoils". If the soldiers can't trust their leaders, who can they trust? Who can we trust? Seems like there's a disconnect. It's evident there's a problem, unless you're a braindead drone hanging on all of master Bush's words...

Here's the fact..here's the reason..you all believe THERE IS NOTHING WORTH DYING FOR.

Oh, I believe there are things worth dying for, but not the things your master Bush wants. It is not the job of the U.S. soldier to fight and die for the alleged freedom of Iraq. It is not the job of the U.S. taxpayer to pay to give the Iraqis alleged freedom. If the Iraqis want freedom THEN THEY SHOULD STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR IT.

you need to look at the wars we will be fighting 50 years from now.

Oh, boy, let's plan ahead and keep the "fun" going forever... As we've already been warned:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -- James Madison

So, if you think cutting and running is not defeat and you think redeployment to Okinawa is not defeat, what exactly is defeat?

The only true defeat would be unconditional surrender.

When the Islamofacists kill your granny and your baby and celebrate as they do it, will you get it then? Will you get that our troops must be allowed to finish this instead of allowing it to come here?

Nevermind. It's useless. I'm wasting my time. You'd better go out and purchase, a koran, some burkas and a prayer rug because that's where you are headed.

Christ I wish you guys would stop with your neverending fearmongering. As I posted earlier, no one can invade us for the following reasons:

First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.

vyo476

04-22-2007, 02:37 PM

Soldiers don't need a liberal pacifist saying what's best for them. Soldiers are soldiers. They break things. They kill people. They fight. That is their job. They joined up knowing this was their job. They volunteered..all of them. They want to finish their job and that means VICTORY.

What they want is not the key issue. When they joined up they became a part of the United States Armed Forces, the point of which is to defend America. In essence they became a part of an instrument, and instrument guided by the principles of the Constitution and the will of the people of the United States as expressed through their choice of Head of State and Commander in Chief (that's Mr. Bush). Members of the armed forces are still people but they are not a majority; they still have votes in regards to where and what the mission of the US Armed Forces is, but those votes do not override the votes of American citizens like you and me. Handing full control of the Army over to the Army would create a Roman political structure where military officials skilled at killing the enemy would ascend to positions of political power more suited to diplomats. Unless the assumption is that killing is preferable to negotiating, as I can never tell with neocons like yourself.

Basically: Waffle and Truth-Bringer and all of us have our opinions. You have yours and we'll respect that, so long as you at least attempt to respect ours. Dissent keeps this country free at least as much as really big guns do.

TheWaffle

04-22-2007, 03:28 PM

Soldiers don't need a liberal pacifist saying what's best for them. What is best for our country is you and your ilk to get behind them and support their mission. That is "support," not cutting off their money, not throwing alot of stipulations onto our military on their training, deployments and equipment, not making timelines for defeat, not throwing in a billion dollars of earmarks to bribe other senators to vote for the bill.

You obviously did not read a thing I wrote. I clearly stated that a pull out was not the correct course of action. You keep failing to address what I say and instead you address me based on your conception of what "Liberals" believe. I don't want to cut off their money. I don't want a timeline. And your remark about billions in bribes is pure slander. The fact of the matter is that the government has and continues to shortchange the soldiers in many ways. For instance we have truck drivers for American contracted companies being paid four times what we pay our soldiers. We have

I don't believe that I said George Bush is the enemy. I believe that I said he is hindering our progress in Iraq by standing by strategies that do not work. This surge is working and it has only begun. Of course, you all don't want it to go on further because it will work and then George Bush and the country will have victory. What he is doing is just bad as those who are calling for a pull-out from Iraq.

Um...I distinctly remember writing that I don't care how Bush looks after this war. I do care how our country is.

No, you said that because you wanted to say look, our soldiers don't have body armor. The plain, simple truth is..our troops do have body armor. My son told me after his first tour that they were all well-equipped. He is on his second tour and he tells me they are all still well-equipped. That was a lie the liberals put forward to put down Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. You bought it and it sounds good to you because it is rhetoric for our troops to not be there. It's a lie.

So you mean to tell me that the abundance of reports from CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and even the Pentagon itself reporting that in the first 3 years of the war almost 300 of the deaths of American soldiers could have been prevented had they been equipped with adequate body armor, or in some cases any armor at all. And what about the thousands of families who had to purchase the body armor that their soldiers wear. In the early part of the war it reached points where 25% of our active duty troops had no body armor. And how about the humvees that were destroyed by IEDs, surely it was just happenstance that the armored humvees could take the hits and survive while the unarmored humvees would be completely destroyed right? The Vietnam era m-16 scandal is a perfect example of how the actions of the government are not always in the best interests of our soldiers.

As far as us liberals are concerned I hope you realize that we never wanted to divide our country. You yourself just said in your post "You liberals and the enemy have so much in common. You want the United States of America to lose." This is exactly what is wrong with our country. People get this idea in their head that because people like me oppose an invasion we must hate the troops, and naturally because we want a change of strategy in Iraq we must want America to lose. And what you need to realize is that this is not a partisan issue. It's not Republican vs Democrat or liberal vs conservative. I honestly could not care less how George Bush looks coming out of this war. It really doesn't matter to me; give the whole administration Medals of Freedom for all I care. The Commander-in-Chief, during a time of war, was called a Nazi, dumb, idiot, loser, liar, and so many more. Yeah, sure..it's not D vs R. The whole thing is D vs R. Your members called our troops nazis, cold blooded killers, said they terrorized Iraqi women and children in the dead of night, said if they don't go to college they're stupid and will end up in Iraq as a soldier. See, I don't care if you want to walk away from your D vs R, but you spout all the rhetoric so you are a D and you are not fooling me by trying to pretend there is something larger here than politics.

He was called dumb, idiot, and loser all before the war. He's not the smartest Command in Chief we've had but it bothers me when people criticize his speech difficulties; I've had to speak in front of hundreds of people and I know how hard it can be to form your ideas and sentences. And I don't care how he pronounces Nuclear. None of that matters. I do believe that liar has been proven in the time since, however. But then again I would be impressed if you found a president who didn't have to lie in the course of his job. As for Nazi that was generally in response to his "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" argument. Not to mention his surpression of political dissent as seen through the Valerie Plame incident. Also his unjustified invasion of a country. I have never called him a Nazi, whereas you have called me a terrorist. Take a look at yourself before you pass judgment.

And you are the moral arbitrator for strategy? Here's the fact..here's the reason..you all believe THERE IS NOTHING WORTH DYING FOR. Our troops know that freedom, liberty and the US are worth dying for. If you are worried about your children, then you should support our troops winning now because the enemy will follow our troops home and you will have much words than VA Tech in this country.

Um...I do support the troops. I have good friends in the armed forces. I don't believe I ever said I didn't support them. I think that's something you just made up to try and give creedence to your argument. And if by saying that I believe there is nothing worth dying for you mean that it is not worth dying to "liberate" a nation should have taken it upon itself to rebel as opposed to directing our resources to improving the lives of the impoverished and the ill here in America. Or how about helping the people of the world who can't fight for themselves. For instance how about those dying in the dozens of countries with more oppressed minorities, or more domineering regimes. There are people far more in need, the sad fact is that our government has connections with several of them.

So, there you go. George Bush is not intelligent. Gen Patreas is not intelligent. Do you think you are the intelligent one above them? You are nothing more than a pacifist who thinks that is a strategy.

Again you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say. But let us look back to the beginning of the invasion where Bush ignored the advice of the military and the Generals in the Pentagon. He was the one who thought that he was more intelligent then everyone else. I just don't understand your approach. It is in no ones best interest to ignore the reality of the situation. And to continue with your ranting about how we should all "SUPPORT THE TROOPS" means absolutely nothing. If everyone stops what they are doing and just believes really hard it's not suddenly going to make everything better. I don't know maybe that's what you think, but I prefer to be grounded in reality.

So, if you think cutting and running is not defeat and you think redeployment to Okinawa is not defeat, what exactly is defeat? When the Islamofacists kill your granny and your baby and celebrate as they do it, will you get it then? Will you get that our troops must be allowed to finish this instead of allowing it to come here?

Again you paid no attention to what I said. I don't know how many times I have to say it before you get it through your thick skull "A PULL-OUT OF IRAQ IS THE WRONG COURSE OF ACTION!"

Nevermind. It's useless. I'm wasting my time. You'd better go out and purchase, a koran, some burkas and a prayer rug because that's where you are headed.[/B]

Ok so now you are just a racist bigot. Are you really going to infer here that Islam is the problem or that being associated with Islam makes you a terrorist? Or are you actually saying that you think Muslims are going to invade. Also in case you were not familiar Iraq did not force women to wear burkas before the war. It is also rhetoric exactly like that, which gets people believing Christianity as the enemy, and is what gives grounds to what the radicals preach. Criticizing the government is not aiding terrorism, rhetoric like that, which you just spouted, does however.
I've gotten in some heated arguments here and almost everyone on the opposing side has put forth solid arguments but you're post here is just ridiculous. You did not respond to what I wrote, you responded to what you wanted to believe I wrote. You basically had a page long argument between yourself and some imaginary opponent.

Truth-Bringer

04-23-2007, 02:53 PM

Did anybody catch the coverage from Iraq on 60 minutes last night? WOW!!!! They interviewed several people in Baghdad - the line for gasoline was several miles long. One man said he had waited as long as 3 days to fill up his tank before.

It's 4 years after the invasion and these people still can't get gas... WHERE IS ALL THE DAMN OIL GOING???????

It didn't look like things were improving much at all from that report. The family they interviewed was only leaving the house to take their kids to school - and they said that was really too dangerous.

Rokerijdude11

04-23-2007, 02:55 PM

the most Ironic part of that expose was the part about the Doctor that we Risked troops to go in and save in Bagdhad then 2 weeks later we just turned him loose

yeah Iraq really looks like we have improved theyre way of life dosent it?

Rokerijdude11

04-23-2007, 03:02 PM

They want to finish their job and that means VICTORY. [/B]

Please do explain to us Readers How exactly is it that they are to Achieve"VICTORY" against an "IDEOLOGY" you cannot
Defeat a an ideology it lives in the minds of men and women it does not have a culture nor a country it is loosely defined it wears no uniforms it comes and goes like the wind

you cannot achieve victory over an ideology

vyo476

04-23-2007, 04:01 PM

Please do explain to us Readers How exactly is it that they are to Achieve"VICTORY" against an "IDEOLOGY" you cannot
Defeat a an ideology it lives in the minds of men and women it does not have a culture nor a country it is loosely defined it wears no uniforms it comes and goes like the wind

you cannot achieve victory over an ideology

Well, yes, you can. People are capable of changing their minds. It's whether or not we're going about this whole Iraq thing in a way that'll do that, or even if we have a strong enough case to do so, that's the question.

Rokerijdude11

04-23-2007, 04:14 PM

your missing the Point
yes peoples minds can be changed............Terrorism is an Ideology that is as old as mankind.It does Not alone live in the minds of Afghanis,or Muslims, or Jews, or catholics, or gentiles, or russians.......Terrorism has NO nationality

It crosses ALL societal and geographical boundaries it lives in the mind of the very rich, and it lives in the minds of the very poor. the educated.....Un-educated.... etc etc etc. there is no defined structure or Defined Ideology it is as fleeting as ones thoughts

one day ordinary citizen going about routine life the next day rogue Killer, living in a cave in tora bora training to sliegh the infedel........or perhaps in an Irish pub Plotting the next London Bombing......or in a grass hut in mindinoa Phillipines training with PI guerillas to overthrow the govt

Terrorism isnt definable ...no way to Achieve a Victory over an intangable item as Terrorism is....you may get some muslims to "change theyre minds" even if you get ALL of them to change theyre minds YOU STILL HAVE NOT eliminated or defeated Terrorism as an ideology it will continue to prevail throughout time

there is no attainable defeat here im sorry your mistaken

vyo476

04-23-2007, 05:29 PM

I think I see what you're saying. We can't defeat "terrorism," only "terrorists." Clever. I agree with that; and I wish I could say that our goal in Iraq was simply to defeat a group of terrorists and not "terrorism" as a whole. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush has managed, through his general lack of communications skills, to make "terrorism" our target, so yeah...I suppose you're right.

There is a way to defeat "terrorism" and that is to not be afraid. We might "eliminate" it but we'd be beating it.

Still, with the appropriate change of course I still think something we could all call a victory could come out of Iraq. Win their hearts and minds and all that - although I'll admit that I haven't the faintest clue how to go about doing that.

drippinhun

05-28-2007, 01:25 AM

I have been and could easily become a "terrorist" if provoked. If someone seriously harms a member of my family. I'm going after their family first.

You can't defeat the feelings within one's mind. And murdering more fellow countrymen in Iraq is not the prescription to get these acts of retaliation and tribal pride to stop.

lipmonkey

05-28-2007, 03:29 AM

If there is good news or progress in Iraq I'm sure as hell not reading about it, other than bull**** reports from the government, both ours and theirs.:confused:

jb_1430

05-28-2007, 06:49 AM

Rokerijdude11

05-28-2007, 12:26 PM

what a pointless ideology you have

to wage a war that you know you cannot win

pointless and arrogant

USMC the Almighty

05-28-2007, 12:27 PM

what a pointless ideology you have

to wage a war that you know you cannot win

pointless and arrogant

You don't have to eliminate the ideology -- you simply have to defeat it to the point of "threatlessness". That is, I would argue, a win.

Rokerijdude11

05-28-2007, 01:03 PM

you cannot achieve that with terrorism
it is being demonstrated daily as they use 35 dollar IED's to F^ck up our troops on a daily basis

jb_1430

05-28-2007, 04:12 PM

what a pointless ideology you have

to wage a war that you know you cannot win

pointless and arrogant

What part of "same way you win", did you not understand? Annihilation and elimination of the enemy isnt required for a "win" in war. MARK

USMC the Almighty

05-28-2007, 04:14 PM

you cannot achieve that with terrorism
it is being demonstrated daily as they use 35 dollar IED's to F^ck up our troops on a daily basis

Sure you can. It doesn't happen within one generation. Most of the time you have to kill the current generation that perpetrates the ideology while concurrently making the specific ideology unappealing to the next generation.

A perfect example would be the IRA in Ireland. The next generation was simply convinced that the IRA was not the way to go and they had better options, thus the fighting stopped. The same must be done w/ Islamic Fascists.

ArmChair General

05-28-2007, 04:20 PM

Same way you win against Fascism, Communism, Imperialism etc. They still exist. The ideology will never surrender or sign a treaty. Best we can hope for is for it to whither and fade.
I would rather wage war against it, as opposed to accepting it, allowing it to achieve its goals and encouraging its use. Even if it can never be eliminated.
MARK

The way you fight 'terrorists' is with intelligence, police, and special forces if necessary. You don't invade and occupy other nations to fight terrorism.

Up until 9/11 the OK City bombing was the largest "terrorist' attack on American Soil. Who should we have invaded to stop that from happening.

What Roker is saying, is that there will always be 'terrorists'. They are basically criminals. So our response should be to stop a criminal threat. Not to invade and occupy other nations.

Furthermore, when dealing with a terrorist threat, "Hearts and Minds," meaning propaganda and morale, are more important than military superiority.

ArmChair General

05-28-2007, 04:39 PM

Sure you can. It doesn't happen within one generation. Most of the time you have to kill the current generation that perpetrates the ideology while concurrently making the specific ideology unappealing to the next generation.

A perfect example would be the IRA in Ireland. The next generation was simply convinced that the IRA was not the way to go and they had better options, thus the fighting stopped. The same must be done w/ Islamic Fascists.

Even the IRA understood that it was about Hearts and Minds. It took em nearly 20 years to perfect it once they wised up and stopped blowing up their own neighborhoods and focused on London instead.

They realized that killing innocent Civies wasn't helping their cause. So what'd they do? They started calling in the bomb threats a couple hours before they were supposed to go off.

That way they could damage the rich peoples infrastructure, but with no bloody bodies for the Brits to post in the newspapers.

Anyways, your premise is off. PIRA cells were operating in every big English city and the Special Branch just wasn't catching them. As long as the supply of fertilizer held out, the PIRA was sitting pretty. If they'd wanted to, they could have put no warning bombs all over the London transit system and killed tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of commuters. But that wasn't the idea. They were taking it slow and soft, annoying the Brits to death instead.

The cost to the Brits in money, embarrassment and nerves was just getting out of hand. When Tony Blair was elected in early 1997, he went to Belfast and met with the PIRA leadership. A few months later, after months of schmoozing from Clinton, the PIRA declared a ceasefire.

In fact the 'next generation' that your talking about were English-raised, so they didn't have that giveaway Belfast accent. They were classic urban guerrilla material: disciplined, young guys who held day jobs and didn't talk. And they'd still be blasting bombs today if Blair and Clinton hadn't talked with em and came to an agreement.