Split topic- From the AA board

[bagstacker]

Nope...but I figured you'd spin it that way...it is in the list of acceptable canned responses. That is how I refer to anyone that says that to even think of doing anything other than the quagmire that we are in now is a yella-bellied sissy ostrich with its head in the sand. No...that definitely isn't our soldiers...I was referring to a bunch of people that aren't sacraficing their lives every day but are saying that we must continue to sacrafice the lives of others for "our freedom" (what does Iraq have to do with that??...and don't bring up 9/11 b/c even your supreme ruler responded in a press conference the other day that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11)

So again...don't try to end logical debate by saying that I'm a terrorist or I don't support the troops, etc. It's that dumb-a** rhetoric that has divided this country exponentially over the past 6 years. I am in full support of the troops...THAT is why I think that it is ridiciulous that a drop-out puff soldier is treating our troops like toy soldiers and lining them up wherever for whatever illogical personal/political gains. So I guess I should say that you DON'T support the troops since you are supporting a strategy that we've been told time and time again has no end in sight and that is quickly mounting the casualties (of our soldiers, civilians, and the civilians that we are "defending".) So to use your rhetoric...YOU must be a terrorist and not support the troops due to your arguments.

Oh, the desperation level amongst the wingers is at a fever pitch, but screaming "liberals are traitors who want the terrorists to kill us all!" just isn't working anymore to gin up that terror-hysteria.

The old reliable "talismans of terror" are losing their mojo. I mean, when Ann Coulter is one of their top spokespersons, rational people can only shake their heads in disgust and seek alternatives. Over 70% of Americans know that not only the Iraq war, but the entire BushCo foreign policy is a disaster. I mean, would you even send Bush out for coffee? You just know he'd screw that up too!

It is crystal-clear (to clear thinkers) that the Republicans can't be trusted to handle national security. I don't know anyone who is singing "Kumbaya" around any campfires, but I do know a lot of people who are sure that the Iraq quagmire has made our nation less secure, for one because so much of our military has been invested in what is basically a siege-type of situation, to the point where 55 and 60 year old reservists are being sent to Iraq to fill the gaps.

In short, Bush, Rumsfeld, and company have just about broken our military. We can't afford any more of that kind of "security." Support our Troops - Stop getting them killed and wounded for no good reason while weakening our national security. Their brave sacrifices must not be used just to prop up W.'s failed policies. Remember, W. himself said just the other day that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Support our Troops - stop abusing them with multiple combat tours, stop-loss orders (back-door draft, if they need a draft they should bring it back and stop lying), shoddy equipment, cutting veterans benefits even as the troops are fighting(pure back-stabbing, there) and on and on.

The so-called conservative party has been in power in the white house and both houses of congress for almost 6 years. Result? Failure. Asleep at the wheel on 9/11, Iraq, Katrina(still sleeping), Homeland Security(ha), Budget Deficit, Job Growth, etc.,etc. The corruption is a whole 'nother subject! Failure!

So the only issue is, when are these failures going to be acknowledged and corrected? (hint: it's already happening, eh Tom Delay and Joementum?) Blaming liberals, Bill Clinton(or any part of Bill Clinton B) ), stem cells, gays, etc. for these failures of Republican "leadership" after six years of one-party rule is just pathetic, although typical.

But if it makes the wingers feel better to resort to cheap name calling, let them go ahead, I can take it, and I can dish it out, too They are the ones who have to answer for these failures, and they have a hell of a lot to answer for!

 

[Seatacus]

So the only issue is, when are these failures going to be acknowledged and corrected? (hint: it's already happening, eh Tom Delay and Joementum?) Blaming liberals, Bill Clinton(or any part of Bill Clinton B) ), stem cells, gays, etc. for these failures of Republican "leadership" after six years of one-party rule is just pathetic, although typical.

Again I ask, what's your plan to fight this war????? Don't just complain, show me the plan...

 

[Seatacus]

We fought in Viet-Nam for 17 years and did not win.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I think "We" did not not send troops to Viet Nam until 1965. I just want the facts please....

 

[delldude]

To say that we could be fighting for 30 years or who knows how long is just going to put this country into a tail spin even quicker.

Muslims have a saying about revenge...something like they can wait until their childrens,childrens,children exact revenge.So 30 years is a drop in the bucket.

Qur’an5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.â€￾

The old reliable "talismans of terror" are losing their mojo.

 

[bagstacker]

Again I ask, what's your plan to fight this war????? Don't just complain, show me the plan...

LAW of HOLES: When in a hole, and you need to get out of the hole, the first law of holes is to STOP DIGGING! If your house was burning down, would you want the firefighters to go ahead and put the fire out, or would you want them to wait until you showed them a blueprint for the post-fire reconstruction?

You write as if BushCo had a plan other than endless war/stay the course/be very afraid. Read the part of my post about who has been in charge for six years. When are we going to see THEIR plan? That is, one that doesn't change every few months, when Karl Rove sees some political advantage to be gained, or when the lies become too obvious and grotesque even for this bunch to tell with a straight face.

Also, this administration has taken the attitude that they know it all, and don't need to hear any other ideas. They have practiced pure and ruthless partisanship, overtly politicized 9/11 and the fight against terrorism, worked diligently using one-party rule to squash any reasonable alternatives to their failed policies, and now say, "you have no ideas." What hypocrisy!

As for me, I'm not the president or a general, just a concerned citzen and voter who tries to stay reasonably well informed. I think Congressman JamesJack Murtha of PA has it about right.

There are many alternatives to this failure, but the first step is to rid the body politic of the infection that is the Bush administration and the republican majority in congress. Only then can recovery begin.

Holding responsible parties accountable for their failures is a HUGE part of the solution. How do they answer for these failures, how is anyone supposed to support them? Where is the plan of those in power to make it right? How long should we cling to failed policies that hurt our national security? Good answers require good questions, something else this administration can't seem to tolerate.

Sorry, the Republicans, neo-cons, chickenhawks, 101st Fighting Keyboardists, Joementums, and all their enablers have to answer for all this, and they will!

 

[delldude]

I'm sure if and when the Dem's will offer a very direct and viable plan to stop the crazies of the world from coming here and abroad,killing our innocents,soldiers and economy.I'm sure Kerry,Kennedy and Dean will offer a peaceful solution to the terrorist/idealists that they in turn will stuff down our throats when we drop our guard again.Remember,for the most part this crap was left over from some eight do nothing years of your favorite party.
Heres to you and your ideals!

 

[Seatacus]

I think Congressman James Murtha of PA has it about right.

 

[bagstacker]

I'm sure if and when the Dem's will offer a very direct and viable plan to stop the crazies of the world from coming here and abroad,killing our innocents,soldiers and economy.I'm sure Kerry,Kennedy and Dean will offer a peaceful solution to the terrorist/idealists that they in turn will stuff down our throats when we drop our guard again.Remember,for the most part this crap was left over from some eight do nothing years of your favorite party.
Heres to you and your ideals!

How mature and well-reasoned, Delldude. You've really got to free yourself from that Fox News soundbite loop playing endlessly in your head. And the ever-popular tactic of Iraq=9/11=War on Terror i.e. false conflation is pretty well used up. Didn't you read my posts? Trying to dodge responsibility by blaming Clinton makes you look so, well, weak.

You know, the sad part is that we could still have a fairly unified government, at least in relation to terrorism, if W. and co. hadn't given the finger to half the country and most of the world when they dove recklessly into Iraq. (Which will end up costing us a trillion dollars, speaking of wrecking the economy.)

As you might have read in one of my earlier posts, nobody is singing Kumbaya around here, certainly not me. The issue most Americans have is one of proper allocation of scarce resources to what will be, as you and others rightly point out, an issue that we will be dealing with, and in fact have been dealing with, for a long time.

We are going to need all our tools, military, economic, intelligence, as well as (gasp) diplomatic.(you know, talking to people). We just can't afford endless war. It's way too expensive in very many ways, and how will our stretched military respond when the next threat appears elsewhere? Do you really think that our military can respond right now to a major war, say in Asia, with the bulk of our forces committed to Iraq?

It doesn't make sense to me, and I think it leaves us in a bad position(see North Korea). I think we should play to our strengths, and leave ourselves more options and flexibility to respond. Our military is built for fire and maneuver, not security guard duty.

 

[bagstacker]

Ha Seatacus! Do you know how many of those faux-WWII posters there are of Bush and Company? Don't get me started! It is really telling,however, just how quickly the wingers swift-boat-slimed a decorated, wounded-in-action , Vietnam veteran Marine, to try to score some political points (didn't work, by the way). It worked against Kerry because he was too slow to hurl that s**t right back in their faces and call them out for the scum they are, but Murtha ain't that kind of guy-neither am I

 

[delldude]

Trying to dodge responsibility by blaming Clinton makes you look so, well, weak.

Ahh,read my post...I only blamed the party in control at the time and what I said is documented.(unless of course you are a liberal)

You know, the sad part is that we could still have a fairly unified government, at least in relation to terrorism, if W. and co. hadn't given the finger to half the country and most of the world when they dove recklessly into Iraq.

That great big world you claim they thumbed their noses at also bought into the Saddam has WMD's scenario.(you must have overlooked that,excuse me)

Do you really think that our military can respond right now to a major war, say in Asia, with the bulk of our forces committed to Iraq?

YES
As of August 2006 over 133,000 US personnel and over 17,000 coalition personnel from 22 nations were deployed in Iraq. As of August 3, 2006, the number of troops in the Central Command AOR was officially estimated at 200,000 by General John Abizaid before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Inside the Horn of Africa there were around 1,200 that dedicate or focus themselves on the Horn of Africa. In Afghanistan there were around 22,000.
Currently, there are 499,000 active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists. That's a third less than when the U.S. fought its last big war in the Persian Gulf, in 1991.

It doesn't make sense to me, and I think it leaves us in a bad position(see North Korea). I think we should play to our strengths, and leave ourselves more options and flexibility to respond. Our military is built for fire and maneuver, not security guard duty.

I can agree on that...but in these type ops,it comes down to what we're doing now anyway.Like we can depend on the rest of the world,right?
You saw how quickly Spain showed their cowerdice....lots of the rest of the world turns the same shade of yellow too.

 

[smorzando]

How mature and well-reasoned, Delldude. You've really got to free yourself from that Fox News soundbite loop playing endlessly in your head. And the ever-popular tactic of Iraq=9/11=War on Terror i.e. false conflation is pretty well used up. Didn't you read my posts? Trying to dodge responsibility by blaming Clinton makes you look so, well, weak.

You know, the sad part is that we could still have a fairly unified government, at least in relation to terrorism, if W. and co. hadn't given the finger to half the country and most of the world when they dove recklessly into Iraq. (Which will end up costing us a trillion dollars, speaking of wrecking the economy.)

As you might have read in one of my earlier posts, nobody is singing Kumbaya around here, certainly not me. The issue most Americans have is one of proper allocation of scarce resources to what will be, as you and others rightly point out, an issue that we will be dealing with, and in fact have been dealing with, for a long time.

We are going to need all our tools, military, economic, intelligence, as well as (gasp) diplomatic.(you know, talking to people). We just can't afford endless war. It's way too expensive in very many ways, and how will our stretched military respond when the next threat appears elsewhere? Do you really think that our military can respond right now to a major war, say in Asia, with the bulk of our forces committed to Iraq?

It doesn't make sense to me, and I think it leaves us in a bad position(see North Korea). I think we should play to our strengths, and leave ourselves more options and flexibility to respond. Our military is built for fire and maneuver, not security guard duty.

You're one of those people (too many) who believe we are not at a major intersection that must be crossed straight on. There is no backing off, no walking away from Iraq without dire consequences. If you think it's too expensive and no doubt it is expensive, the costs of leaving will be beyond compare with what will follow. Instead of all the suicide bombers being contained they will be world wide which they already are but they will be out of control because the peaceknicks let go of the leash. Most people don't have a clue what the west is dealing with. It's far more serious than most want to accept or even admit. Walking out of Iraq is exactly what the radicals are waiting for. That would give them freedom to continue their death march as they chant to their God. This is really a spiritual war and if you believe you can deal with the devil and come out ok then you deserve whatever that incorrect spiritual blinded reasoning brings down upon you.

 

[delldude]

Funny since we took IRAQ what happened the "donate your exploding child to allah" program that was so in vogue a few years back?

Qur’an 2:191 “And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter.â€￾

 

[UAL_TECH]

Funny since we took IRAQ what happened the "donate your exploding child to allah" program that was so in vogue a few years back?

Qur’an 2:191 “And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter.â€￾

Saddam is not there to give the $25K per martyr award.

Do I win my purple shoes?
Purple Rain

UT

 

[bagstacker]

Ahh,read my post...I only blamed the party in control at the time and what I said is documented.(unless of course you are a liberal)

Umm, the house has been in republican hands since 1994, the senate for most of that time with a few 1 vote exceptions, so your blame of one party is still off base. At best you can claim a bi-partisan screw-up!

That great big world you claim they thumbed their noses at also bought into the Saddam has WMD's scenario.(you must have overlooked that,excuse me)

Everybody remembers how this all went down, it's all on video and the internets, and if anything survives the Bushco going-out-of-business shredding party in early January, 2009, we'll see how history remembers it...

YES
As of August 2006 over 133,000 US personnel and over 17,000 coalition personnel from 22 nations were deployed in Iraq. As of August 3, 2006, the number of troops in the Central Command AOR was officially estimated at 200,000 by General John Abizaid before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Inside the Horn of Africa there were around 1,200 that dedicate or focus themselves on the Horn of Africa. In Afghanistan there were around 22,000.
Currently, there are 499,000 active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists. That's a third less than when the U.S. fought its last big war in the Persian Gulf, in 1991.

I can't see fighting a two-theater war with those numbers, for the 155,000 you have in Iraq and Afghanistan at any one time, the troops who previously rotated out are undergoing rest,re-supply, training, and general preparation for the next deployment when the current group rotates out, so that leaves not much slack for sustained two-theater operations. As I understand it, two-theater war doctrine calls for an equal amount of troops as there are overseas and/or committed to rotation into that theater to be held in reserve. I have also read that this doctrine is being ignored by the current powers-that-be, so put me down as dubious. Now carrier-based or other types of airstrikes, M.A.U.'s, special forces, and small-unit action wouldn't be a problem.

I can agree on that...but in these type ops,it comes down to what we're doing now anyway.Like we can depend on the rest of the world,right?
You saw how quickly Spain showed their cowerdice....lots of the rest of the world turns the same shade of yellow too.

Ahh, give Spain a break. We still have bases there, they just can't be as out front as we might like. Remember, it's a long game... Dude, it has always been a "coalition of the billing" - once their debt is paid off, they are goners...

 

[bagstacker]

You're one of those people (too many) who believe we are not at a major intersection that must be crossed straight on. There is no backing off, no walking away from Iraq without dire consequences. If you think it's too expensive and no doubt it is expensive, the costs of leaving will be beyond compare with what will follow. Instead of all the suicide bombers being contained they will be world wide which they already are but they will be out of control because the peaceknicks let go of the leash. Most people don't have a clue what the west is dealing with. It's far more serious than most want to accept or even admit. Walking out of Iraq is exactly what the radicals are waiting for. That would give them freedom to continue their death march as they chant to their God. This is really a spiritual war and if you believe you can deal with the devil and come out ok then you deserve whatever that incorrect spiritual blinded reasoning brings down upon you.

Be afraid, Oh be so very, very afraid! Unreasoning fear is crucial to the war effort and not understood by "those people!"

Nevermind the fact that your odds of winning the lottery, being struck by lightning and winning on American Idol, all on the same day, are better than being killed in a terrorist attack. Wave your arms!, run in circles!, that will surely help improve the situation!

Wow, that is like a suicide post! So all-over-the-place, that I don't know where to start, so I won't, except to leave you with one word of advice - "paragraphs"!