Troops halp Jon Carry in Irak

[FlyingKiwi]

Got this from a friend.

Kinda sums up how the pillock is viewed in certain circles.

It was initialy posted on a USAF Undergound Forum.

This is a true story.....Check out this photo from our mess hall at the US Embassy yesterday
morning. Sen. Kerry found himself all alone while he was over here. He
cancelled his press conference because no one came, he worked out alone
in the gym w/o any soldiers even going up to say hi or ask for an
autograph (I was one of those who was in the gym at the same time), and
he found himself eating breakfast with only a couple of folks who are
obviously not troops.

What is amazing is Bill O'Reilly came to visit with us and the troops at
the CSH the same day and the line for autographs extended through the
palace and people waited for two hours to shake his hand. You decide who
is more respected and loved by us servicemen and women!"

Again I say..."GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!!"


UPDATE: My blog-friend Scott Johnson at the famous Powerline Blog has linked to this post here with a classic title: "Troops halp Jon Carry in Irak".

UPDATE 2: Michelle Malkin has linked to the post on her great site with some follow up links. Thanks Michelle.

[lvwrench]

Kiwi; I noticed that he does not have a bottle of Heinz ketchup on the table. What's up with that? Actually he is sitting alone because he forgot to shower and use underarm deoderant. Either that or he cut the cheese and nobody wants to tell him he stinks. ;)

[doughesson]

Not even the officers wanted anything to do with him?I know he was excluded from the cool kids' table but the math club/chessclub/scienceclub nerds couldn't have felt sorry for him either?

Hey,John,ya reap what you sow,dude.

[OlieCan]

To be fair, Bush and kerry both Suck.

This country is goin nowhere.

[doughesson]

To be fair, Bush and kerry both Suck.

This country is goin nowhere.

If you haven't voted in any Presidential elections,why not?
One of the reasons this country is going south is that the President is having to fend off sniping attacks over things that a President approved of by the media would get a pass for,instead of keeping his mind on the job at hand.

[WaterbryVTfire]

If you haven't voted in any Presidential elections,why not?
One of the reasons this country is going south is that the President is having to fend off sniping attacks over things that a President approved of by the media would get a pass for,instead of keeping his mind on the job at hand.

Nice call Doug....I couldn't agree more.

[DaSharkie]

John Kerry is not worthy of carrying these guys' seabags to put on a plane.

He will get the same respect back that he gives men and women in uniform - which is apparently none.

Thankfully he will not be President. And GWB is not the best guy out there either.

300,000,000 men and women in this country, and this lot is the best we can come up with? We deserve the government we elect.

[KBRfiredog]

the visit you're talking about was at the base im at. i've only been here for 2 months and Kerrys visit from what i hear was about 1 1/2 years ago. i really dont think that he got the cold shoulder on purpose. although he is a well known person i probaly wouldn't have recognized him if i saw him alone in the gym. as for the press conferece i dont know why people wouldn't have showed up unless they couldnt get out of work. people work their as*ess off 7 days a week out here so im sure it was tough for people to get out there to the conference. for the breakfast thing, ive seen a few important people in the palace chow hall but im not gonna go up and bother them while they're eating...


this is just the way i interpreted that story. for all i know i could be way off....

[scfire86]

John Kerry is not worthy of carrying these guys' seabags to put on a plane.

He will get the same respect back that he gives men and women in uniform - which is apparently none.

Sort of the same way I feel about Barbara Bush's comments that she isn't going to let little things like body counts ruin her day.

Kerry may have stuck his foot in his mouth. But he served his country honorably. He went to Vietnam not once, but twice. Albeit one of those tours was spent on a ship that was offshore.

Where was Bush during all those years? Oh yeah, he was getting drunk in Texas and Alabama when he bothered to show up at all.

[ERAngel]

Kerry may have stuck his foot in his mouth. But he served his country honorably. He went to Vietnam not once, but twice. Albeit one of those tours was spent on a ship that was offshore.

Where was Bush during all those years? Oh yeah, he was getting drunk in Texas and Alabama when he bothered to show up at all.

So you want a man who lied about his purple hearts to be commended and have pats on the back? Sorry...go read..

http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/08_august/082504_kerry_purple_heart.htm

I would'nt of shaken his hand nor given him the time of day. Bush was put in office by the majority vote, he had to clean up the mess that Ole I didn't inhale Clinton left behind. No one will ever agree on this very heated issue, there will never be a president who everyone will like as there will always be something we don't agree on or don't like.

[doughesson]

John Kerry is not worthy of carrying these guys' seabags to put on a plane.
He will get the same respect back that he gives men and women in uniform - which is apparently none.
Thankfully he will not be President. And GWB is not the best guy out there either.
300,000,000 men and women in this country, and this lot is the best we can come up with? We deserve the government we elect.

I agree that Kerry isn't fit to lick the b***s of any E-2 over there now.
But I do think that Bush is better than the alternative.If you've read "Dereliction(sp?) of Duty"by LTC Robert Patterson,you'll see what I mean.According to him,WH staffers wouldn't acknowledge simple "Good Mornings"from uniformed officers,expected AF 1 to be turned around because the First Daughter couldn't keep up with her schoolbooks in her senior year of high school,and treated the Presidential physician like a Pullman porter,expectiung him to tote luggage.
You're right.We DO desrve the government that we elect.That's the beauty of the democratic process.Sometimes we elect some real foul balls and other times we elect people that have to clean up their mess for us.

[scfire86]

text deleted by the author.

[scfire86]

So you want a man who lied about his purple hearts to be commended and have pats on the back? Sorry...go read..

http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/08_august/082504_kerry_purple_heart.htm
I guess in your world a mere lieutenant in the Navy has the power to do all that. Medals were granted to him via the regulations in place at the time. Even some of his detractors have recanted their stories. And like I said. He was in Vietnam. Bush got a special detail while in the NG to work on a state senator's campaign. Something I'm sure was available to all those who were drafted.

I would'nt of shaken his hand nor given him the time of day. Bush was put in office by the majority vote, he had to clean up the mess that Ole I didn't inhale Clinton left behind. No one will ever agree on this very heated issue, there will never be a president who everyone will like as there will always be something we don't agree on or don't like.
Yes. Eight years of peace and prosperity with a balanced budget is now considered a mess to clean up.

And just in case you forgot. Bush was put in office by a majority of electoral votes. He got fewer popular votes than Gore. And as an incumbent he received a whopping 2.5% more than his next nearest challenger. The lowest margin of victory for an incumbent since I think Warren Harding.

Please point me to one aspect of his presidency that can now be considered a success. Fiscal policy is a nightmare. And our foreign policy is a nightmare.

Pity the president (regardless of the party) that has that mess to clean up.

[ThNozzleman]

So, having their asses handed to them in the recent elections, the righties are now resorting to swiftboating John Kerry again. Pathetic.
What is amazing is Bill O'Reilly came to visit with us and the troops at
the CSH the same day and the line for autographs extended through the
palace and people waited for two hours to shake his hand. You decide who
is more respected and loved by us servicemen and women!"
No, what is pathetic is that a chickenhawk piece of crap like O'Reilly is lauded, while a decorated combat veteran is dumped on for daring to speak his mind about a stupid war that killed milions and achieved nothing. How many need to die in Iraq before you people realize how bad you screwed up? Millions? It's headed that way, thanks to you and your support for the idiot-in-chief and his greedy minions.

Sooo...that's all you have in light of the complete fiasco that is the right-wing agenda in Iraq? Beating up on Kerry?
Goddamn, you guys are WEAK. But, hey; I guess that if it makes you feel better about yourselves, go for it.

[ThNozzleman]

And like I said. He was in Vietnam. Bush got a special detail while in the NG to work on a state senator's campaign. Something I'm sure was available to all those who were drafted.

C'mon, now SC...protecting all that Texas oil from the Vietcong was a very important job! :p

[DaSharkie]

I dislike Kerry for a number of reasons - and not one of them has to do with his service in Viet Nam. Only with him allowing it to be used to brow beat people.

I lived in Massachusetts all of my life until 2.5 years ago and he has done nothing for the state. Nothing.

He is a decorated veteran, and to throw it at people as he and his campaign did in 2004 disgusts me. You served your country, I couldn't care less about whether you were active duty, reserve, National Guard, or Coast Guard. You did what many men and women have done - you volunteered to serve. Thank you, our Nation is better because of it. Do not throw it in my face as if it makes you so great and wonderful and for that matter alone you deserve my vote.


And while the Republicans did lose the majority in both houses - I would hardly call it having asses handed to us. Many of these incoming Democrats do not exactly follow the spoon-fed party line and it ought to be interesting to see how many of these freshman Dems wag the dog. Nancy Pelosi is going to have to walk very carefully to avoid stepping in it with them.

The Republicans deserved to lose - they got hungry with power. Just as the Democrats did in 1994 and they were summarily dismissed. Either way, it does not matter who is in control of either house - they don't give a damn about any of us.

And Nozz....... Please tell me where you get the figure that millions have been killed in Iraq? Less than 3,000 U.S. deaths, another few hundred international forces. Last figure I have heard was MAYBE 50,000 Iraqi deaths. Explain to me how you got millions?

Not busting your stones, just calling you on what I think is a tremendously mis stated statistic.


Either way, John Kerry has screwed the pooch with his own party, the people of this country, and he has no one to blame but himself.

His actions upon his return to the United States from Viet Nam and his many statement about the men and women serving in the armed forces have caused me to dislike him. He has made his lot in life, and now he must deal with it. And so must the Demcratic party as a whole.

[GodSendRain]

Well, to be fair, ThNozzle never actually said that millions have already died. I can understand his concern, however. At a rough estimate, provided by http://www.icasualties.org/, about 800 to 900 U.S. troops are killed per 365 days in Iraq, so, provided that the death rate would stay about the same, provided that there would be occasional spikes in violence and particularly rare but extraordinarily costly attacks on coalition forces, it would take an alarming 1,111 years for U.S. military deaths to reach one million. (1 million deaths / 900 deaths per year = 1,111 years) :eek:

This is the kind of statistic that the Republicans don't want the American people to hear.

There are also estimated numbers (with reported minimum and maximum death tolls) of Iraqi deaths since the war began.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
The two major causes of innocent [which the website makes no guarantee that all those killed were in fact innocent] deaths appear to be gunfire and car bombs (there is an option to view the list in a one-page format, it makes for easier reading). Gunfire is a two-way conversation, so there is undoubtedly shared responsibility between coalition forces and insurgents for the cause of death, but the last time I checked, car bombing isn’t a drill our troops learn in boot camp. So, do I feel sorry for the [estimated maximum reported as of the latest update] 57,707 Iraqis killed in the war? Just as much as the next guy who can still find it in himself to sleep at night. Do I believe that Americans are to blame for most of these deaths? Nah.

And I'm not trying to belittle the U.S. military death toll in Iraq, but seriously, on Iwo Jima, between 6,000 to 7,000 servicemen died for an island that is less than 1/8 the size of Washington, D.C., in battle that lasted about 35 days. A lot of people have what I call the Post-Vietnam Bad News Media Syndrome. I’m just not exactly sure we should cut and run the next time CNN airs news of another car bomb attack. I for one am sick of this “Milestone” bullcrap that News networks are throwing up on the TV screen, as if there should be some correlation between the number of deaths on September 11th and military lives lost in the war on terror. We live in a day in age where the tone of the media determines whether a conflict is won or lost.

So what do we do about these deaths? We make sure that they aren’t in vain. That isn't going to happen by "Staying the Course" or "Tuck-tailing and bailing." And, like DaSharkie, I don’t think anyone in Washington, D.C. (in any party) at this time has the potential to make things better. I’m hoping in 2008 we will see some candidates who have what it takes.

[scfire86]

And I'm not trying to belittle the U.S. military death toll in Iraq, but seriously, on Iwo Jima, between 6,000 to 7,000 servicemen died for an island that is less than 1/8 the size of Washington, D.C., in battle that lasted about 35 days.
While I know what you are trying to say. The analogy breaks down in that we were never attacked by Iraq. And though it took several years to admit, even Bush now concedes that oil was a factor in starting this war.

[scfire86]

I lived in Massachusetts all of my life until 2.5 years ago and he has done nothing for the state. Nothing.


Sharkie. What did you expect him to do? MA is a donor state. Kerry has been in the minority party for most of his senate career.

I was under the impression that conservatives wanted their electeds to be obstructionists on fiscal matters since that is the primary use of taxation.

Something repubs claimed to have the higher ground but we now realize they were more corrupted by power than any dem could ever imagine.

[DaSharkie]

Sharkie. What did you expect him to do? MA is a donor state. Kerry has been in the minority party for most of his senate career.

I was under the impression that conservatives wanted their electeds to be obstructionists on fiscal matters since that is the primary use of taxation.

Something repubs claimed to have the higher ground but we now realize they were more corrupted by power than any dem could ever imagine.

I expect him to represent the people of Massachusetts.

As a politician, he has rarely introduced a bill - including the time since the '04 election when he had all of his fanciful "plans" to solve the nation's ills.

I will say that he brought the Big Dig to Massachusetts (along with the equally incompetant Ted Kennedy) for which the nation's taxpayers have been soaked for $14+ billion.)

If he was trying to be fiscally responsible, he would have opted for a reduction in federal taxation to shift the burden to state and local governments.

And actually, Kerry has been in the minority and majority for equal amounts of time if I recall. And either way, you can still have an effect on the way things are done - albeit with limitations.

He has been a poor senator, and would likely have been a poor President - although the bar has not exactly been set too high given the shananigans of the most recent 2 Presidents.

And the Republicans blew their chance at showing that they knew what was right the past several years by allowing their power to corrupt themselves. Hence they lost "control" of both houses of Congress - and rightfully so. In the process they accomplished something else politicians love to do - they alienated more voters who have become more upset at the process and who will likely give up voting because they are all crooked. This makes it easier to be elected because you have to convince fewer people.

Either way, you and I will be no better off with the bunch of twits that now sit in Congress. Nothing changes.

[scfire86]

Either way, you and I will be no better off with the bunch of twits that now sit in Congress. Nothing changes.
I have to agree with on this one. I've come to the belief that obstruction is a good thing.

I guess I am just puzzled why there is such harsh acrimony against someone like Kerry in regards to the troops but never a word of vitriol against conservatives when they disrespect the troops.

[FlyingKiwi]

To the blinking eye.

I posted this because I happen to think it was funny. And a real reflection of the people that do the business when people that talk a lot fail.

Here is another one for you.

[scfire86]

To the blinking eye.

I posted this because I happen to think it was funny. And a real reflection of the people that do the business when people that talk a lot fail.

Here is another one for you.

It's funny. But I don't understand the second sentence. Dems have shown they are not afraid to use military force.

[scfire86]

I agree that Kerry isn't fit to lick the b***s of any E-2 over there now.
But I do think that Bush is better than the alternative.If you've read "Dereliction(sp?) of Duty"by LTC Robert Patterson,you'll see what I mean.According to him,WH staffers wouldn't acknowledge simple "Good Mornings"from uniformed officers,expected AF 1 to be turned around because the First Daughter couldn't keep up with her schoolbooks in her senior year of high school,and treated the Presidential physician like a Pullman porter,expectiung him to tote luggage.
You're right.We DO desrve the government that we elect.That's the beauty of the democratic process.Sometimes we elect some real foul balls and other times we elect people that have to clean up their mess for us.

Only problem with Patterson's claims? His public comments don't quite correlate with the claims in his books. And no one (even his own peers) have ever authenticated any of his allegations.

But if you want to believe his clearly partisan claims, go right ahead.

[jasper45]

Dems have shown they are not afraid to use military force.


Now that is a funny statement.

[DaSharkie]

I have to agree with on this one. I've come to the belief that obstruction is a good thing.

Obstruction is a good thing, but when it hampers decent legal reform and passage it is done for no other reason than selfishness.

I guess I am just puzzled why there is such harsh acrimony against someone like Kerry in regards to the troops but never a word of vitriol against conservatives when they disrespect the troops.

Excellent point. Probably because one side only the press exposure on that.

Mr. Kerry's comments extend back to before him testifying before congress equating every man and woman in Southeast Asia with Ghengis Khan.

[scfire86]

Now that is a funny statement.
How funny are the folks who were bombed during the campaigns in the Balkans? Or those don't count. Even funnier? The 50,000+ Americans who died in Vietnam.

I can see how you would think that statement is hilarity in real time.

[doughesson]

Only problem with Patterson's claims? His public comments don't quite correlate with the claims in his books. And no one (even his own peers) have ever authenticated any of his allegations.
But if you want to believe his clearly partisan claims, go right ahead.

So,Clinton never got caught fooling around with someone he wasn't married to?I don't think that's partisan.

[doughesson]

It's funny. But I don't understand the second sentence. Dems have shown they are not afraid to use military force.

Yeah,when it benefits them politically.Otherwise,they think the military and reserves is an emergency public works department and get all bent out of shape when they are called up for their primary mission:being a deployable reserve to the active military combat and support units.

[scfire86]

So,Clinton never got caught fooling around with someone he wasn't married to?I don't think that's partisan.

Oh...I thought we were talking about Patterson's claims that Clinton let Bin Laden get away. Something important. I didn't realize your face was still stuck in Clinton's pants.

Shh...the adults are talking. I'm sure you can find a group of boys in junior high that might feign interest in someone else's sex life.

[scfire86]

Yeah,when it benefits them politically.Otherwise,they think the military and reserves is an emergency public works department and get all bent out of shape when they are called up for their primary mission:being a deployable reserve to the active military combat and support units.

Blah, blah, blah....blah, blah. More whack job soundbites. Try to come up with something original if you can.

[jasper45]

I can see how you would think that statement is hilarity in real time.


It's funny how you choose to spin everything. I tell you what, why don't you come on up and have a talk with a couple of guys with whom I work, who served under your beloved democrats, and how their rules of engagement caused needless casualties, by leaving them unable to defend themselves.
One even goes back to the Viet Nam war you referenced.

I wasn't making a joke about US military deaths under democratic leadership, and for you to say so is an insult that you can stick. It is also an insult you had no right to make. Pathetic.

The hilarity was the statement you made; sure, the democrats have proven capable of putting our military in harms way, they just don't let them defend themselves.

[ThNozzleman]

I tell you what, why don't you come on up and have a talk with a couple of guys with whom I work, who served under your beloved democrats, and how their rules of engagement caused needless casualties, by leaving them unable to defend themselves.

Damn...don't tell all the WW2 vets that served under Roosevelt and Truman. Just how far do you want to take your stupid talking points? Remember; it was the neocon bastards YOU support that told soldiers that they were going to war with what they had, not what they needed. So much for support from the Rethuglicans, huh?
Blah, blah, blah....blah, blah. More whack job soundbites. Try to come up with something original if you can.
How can they, when they let Hannity and Limbaugh think for them? :p

[ThNozzleman]

Oh, yeah; I always get a laugh out of the righties...all they have left these days is Clinton's penis. Pathetic. :rolleyes:

Clinton did it! Clinton did it! :p

[jasper45]

don't tell all the WW2 vets that served under Roosevelt and Truman.



What exactly are you trying to say? You make absolutely no sense. I was talking about the ones who I know, in my experience. I never brought up WWII, in fact, I never brought Viet Nam up, another poster did.
Here, this is the exact quote from post #27, for your convienience.
Even funnier? The 50,000+ Americans who died in Vietnam.

The conversation that was taking place, before you stuck yourself in the middle of it, was in regard to post #23. If you have any doubt about the limits that certain democrats have put on the ROE for our troops in harms way, dating back to the mid 1960’s, you are either blinded by partisanship, or ignorant. Which is it?



it was the neocon bastards YOU support that told soldiers that they were going to war with what they had, not what they needed. So much for support from the Rethuglicans, huh?


Yes, I supported them then, and I support them now; and no, Sean didn’t tell me to. You’re a real class act.
Stupid talking points? That’s a good one; there once was time when I would actually take the time to read your posts, and even think about what you would write. Never again. In fact, there is absolutely nothing you have to say that I need or want to hear, ever again.

Bye now…

[scfire86]

What exactly are you trying to say? You make absolutely no sense. I was talking about the ones who I know, in my experience. I never brought up WWII, in fact, I never brought Viet Nam up, another poster did.
Here, this is the exact quote from post #27, for your convienience.
Anecdotes don't exactly make for a point. I know people who fought in both places who say they never had a problem being able to defend themselves. Who to believe? Your anecdotes? Or mine?

The conversation that was taking place, before you stuck yourself in the middle of it, was in regard to post #23. If you have any doubt about the limits that certain democrats have put on the ROE for our troops in harms way, dating back to the mid 1960’s, you are either blinded by partisanship, or ignorant. Which is it?
Really? The dems did all that. All by themselves? I sincerely doubt that. Were repubs ever in office during the years you mention? Since 1968 (that's 36 years) the dems have only been in the presidency for 12 of them (that's a third of the time, significantly less than half).

Yes, I supported them then, and I support them now; and no, Sean didn’t tell me to. You’re a real class act.
Please tell me you don't actually believe anything Hannity or Limbaugh have to say on military options. Both ran the other way when they had the opportunity to serve. Much like O'Reilly who has troops lining up around the block to sign autographs. O'Reilly is especially humorous given his pecadilloes. He settled out of court fighting the exact same charges he pilloried Clinton just several years earlier. It doesn't surprise that O'Reilly and Limbaugh are conservative spokespersons. Hypocrites to the nth degree.

[jasper45]

Really? The dems did all that. All by themselves? I sincerely doubt that. Were repubs ever in office during the years you mention?

Well, I don’t remember ever saying anything as such. I simply made a remark to your statement that democrats aren’t afraid to use the military. No more, no less.
I never mentioned anything about Viet Nam, you did. My ‘anecdote’, as you put it, flew fighters during the Viet Nam war. In his words, his ability to protect himself was controlled from D.C. Again, his words, and not mine,his service time in country was 1967. As you so aptly put it in many other posts, the buck stops at the top, or doesn’t it?
The other time I was referencing was Somalia, 1993. There were very strict rules of engagement laid out for our Marines who were there, and they took casualties because they were in a war zone, without an ability to defend themselves.
There was time when the democrats were smart with the military. There was a time when they made a decision to go to war, that they would let the military experts handle that job.

The only reason I posted, was because of your exalting the democrats as the saviors of us all.

Please tell me you don't actually believe anything Hannity or Limbaugh have to say on military options.

Where did I ever say that I did listen to them? If I think that most of congress doesn’t have a clue with using the military, why would I think that talk show hosts would?
I don’t care what they say, and I absolutely don’t care what those two think. They don’t represent me, and they certainly don’t think for me. Just because I describe myself as a conservative, that doesn’t mean I have to listen to them.
When it comes to military options, the only people who have a valid opinion, are those who actually served.

It doesn't surprise that O'Reilly and Limbaugh are conservative spokespersons.

Really, they are? I guess I miss where they post on the RNC web site.
I guess that makes Ward Churchill a spokesman for you then? It doesn’t surprise me that Ward speaks for all liberals.

[scfire86]

Really, they are? I guess I miss where they post on the RNC web site.
I guess that makes Ward Churchill a spokesman for you then? It doesn’t surprise me that Ward speaks for all liberals.
Does Ward Churchill have a nationally syndicated talk show that is frequented by GOP leaders such as the Prez, VP, SecDef, House Speaker (at least in the last 12 years) and numerous other GOP leaders?

Interesting how you attempt to make an analogy with a loony bird member of academia. And needless to say, it failed.

[jasper45]

Interesting how you attempt to make an analogy with a loony bird member of academia. And needless to say, it failed.

The president and others appear on other talk radio programs, as well. I know I've seen the president interview with Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, as well as others. That is part of the job, making interviews and TV spots.
I have also seen Ward Churchill embraced by many in the left wing, including Air America.

The only one who failed here, is you.

[ThNozzleman]

Bye now…
Fine...run along home before you miss any more Fox "News." It's obvious that your arguments here are about as successful as your neocon heroes' efforts in Iraq. How do you sleep at night??
The only one who failed here, is you.
I think you need to reassess the debate. Like your beloved president, you have now moved into the realm of desperation.
The conversation that was taking place, before you stuck yourself in the middle of it, was in regard to post #23. If you have any doubt about the limits that certain democrats have put on the ROE for our troops in harms way, dating back to the mid 1960’s, you are either blinded by partisanship, or ignorant. Which is it?

Which recent Democrat president has gotten 3,000 of our troops (along with several hundred thousand civilians) killed in an illegal invasion of a nation that was no threat what-so-ever to us? Please do tell us...we'd all like to hear the answer. Which Democratic president sent these troops into harm's way without the proper gear, telling them that you'll use what you have, not what you need? I mean, you said you were not talking about WW2, or even Vietnam. I'll answer for you; nobody. So, I ask you...who is really putting our troops in harm's way without the proper equipment? Who is sending them to die for neocon pipe dreams and money? Who sent them into occupation of a nation of 26+ million with nowhere near the manpower they needed? That's right...your man Bush, and his idiotic neocon minions. So, just keep singing your praises of the neocon fools in the White House...you're only making yourself look stupid. Thankfully, most Americans have finally seen the light and accepted the truth. How many more troops must die before YOU get a clue??

[scfire86]

The president and others appear on other talk radio programs, as well. I know I've seen the president interview with Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, as well as others. That is part of the job, making interviews and TV spots.
I have also seen Ward Churchill embraced by many in the left wing, including Air America.

The only one who failed here, is you.
Really? Has Churchill been made an honorary member of Congress like what was done for Limbaugh in 1994? Little did we know how much he really fit in with the class of GOP's he helped bring to DC.

One can only imagine the hue and outcry the conservatives would have if the dems made a thrice divorced, drug addicted, draft dodger an honorable member of Congress.

Give this one up. It's a dog with fleas.

[ThNozzleman]

One can only imagine the hue and outcry the conservatives would have if the dems made a thrice divorced, drug addicted, draft dodger an honorable member of Congress.

Don't leave off "habitual liar" from your list.

[lvwrench]

Nozz meet 86; 86 meet Nozz. It appears that you two must be from the same mold and neither one of you are perceptive to changing than any other from the opposite side. What really interests me though is that both of you manage to ilicite constant responses to your responses when the more prudent would just let the matter die out rather than continue to attempt a pointless argument. Response over and thread dead. Have a great new year.

[jasper45]

Little did we know how much he really fit in with the class of GOP's he helped bring to DC.


You really need to get off of your high horse. I have never said that republicans are superior to democrats. It just gets tiring with you implying that democrats ARE superior to republicans.
Besides, why would democrats have to give honorary congressional positions to draft dodgers, liars, sexual predators, and lets not forget murderers, when they have plenty of all the above actively serving now? Give me a break, you really are starting to sound silly.

The only ‘dog with fleas’, is your attitude.

[DaSharkie]

Which recent Democrat president has gotten 3,000 of our troops (along with several hundred thousand civilians) killed in an illegal invasion of a nation that was no threat what-so-ever to us? Please do tell us...we'd all like to hear the answer. Which Democratic president sent these troops into harm's way without the proper gear, telling them that you'll use what you have, not what you need? I mean, you said you were not talking about WW2, or even Vietnam. I'll answer for you; nobody. So, I ask you...who is really putting our troops in harm's way without the proper equipment? Who is sending them to die for neocon pipe dreams and money? Who sent them into occupation of a nation of 26+ million with nowhere near the manpower they needed? That's right...your man Bush, and his idiotic neocon minions. So, just keep singing your praises of the neocon fools in the White House...you're only making yourself look stupid. Thankfully, most Americans have finally seen the light and accepted the truth. How many more troops must die before YOU get a clue??

To address part of your point Nozz, I do recall that Bill Clinton and the DOD at the time refused to supply and arm the folks in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993 (although intiated action took place under Bush 41) and this was partly to blame for the loss of 18 Warriors in one night.

If we want to go back further, Jimmy Carter had a doomed plan in Desert 1 while attempting to go into Iran - although he did step up to the plate and accept responsibility for the plan's failure and death of many Warriors.

Going back even further, John F. Kennedy escalated troop deployments to Viet Nam for advisor status. (Though many feel that he was on the verge of removing troops due to what he saw was going to be a failure.) And the "Whiz Kids" under the buffoon that is/was Robert McNamara who replaced exceptional weaponry to be carried by Soldiers and Marines (the M-14) with the M-16 which has been decried for over 40 years now as a relatively ineffective weapon. Proving the point is the recent removal of M-14s from storage by the Marine Corps for unit deployment in Iraq due to the inadequacy of the 5.56mm round.

Regarding FDR, a decent President overall. Respected even more so by having active-duty serving sons in combat. One of his sons served in the Marine Raiders (http://www.usmarineraiders.org/cos.html) hardly a REMF position. :p


The military has had pathetic weaponry and equipment for years under both parties. The HMMWV has a pathetic 96hp diesel engine. Was never designed to be protective against much of anything - except maybe rain.

Bradley Fighting Vehicle has had armor issues for years and issues related to its multi-function purpose (See the novel and movie "Pentagon Wars")

The one that kills me most is the issue about body armor. You are going to have to choose what you want the most protection against: bullets or shrapnel. Flak jackets protect against shrapnel. They are two different trajectories and are extremely difficult and expensive to make to do both jobs.

[jasper45]

DaSharkie,

Very good post, and nice job in saying a lot of things I was attempting to. The fact is that our military is the best equipped and most functional that it has ever been. The true fact is that the hummer was never designed to be an armored vehicle, but it is better equipped than the jeep of old.
The body armor our military is issued is among the most advanced ever, yet it is as you say: ballistic protection, or shrapnel protection. There hasn’t been a development yet, to protect against both with the same unit. Even the armor our police wear isn’t truly effective against knife use.

When you compare how our military went to war, with the tools they have, with the protective items they have, including body armor, they are the best equipped of all time. To suggest otherwise is nothing more than a sound bite for a political position. Twenty years from now, I’m quite sure we will look back at today’s combat forces, their equipment, and marvel at the improvements. Go back twenty or more years now, and consider the improvements of today.
All of this happens despite congress, and our lowest bid process, not to mention both sides executing their pork barrel politics.

[scfire86]

You really need to get off of your high horse. I have never said that republicans are superior to democrats. It just gets tiring with you implying that democrats ARE superior to republicans.
Besides, why would democrats have to give honorary congressional positions to draft dodgers, liars, sexual predators, and lets not forget murderers, when they have plenty of all the above actively serving now? Give me a break, you really are starting to sound silly.

The only ‘dog with fleas’, is your attitude.

Jaspar. We liberals don't campaign on platforms of morality, virtue, or family values. So we're allowed to be reprobates.

But since you opened the door. Please detail for us which current members of the Dem delegation to Congress are draft dodgers, liars, sexual predators and murderers.

This should be fun.

[ThNozzleman]

To address part of your point Nozz, I do recall that Bill Clinton and the DOD at the time refused to supply and arm the folks in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993 (although intiated action took place under Bush 41) and this was partly to blame for the loss of 18 Warriors in one night.

I would hardly compare one failed military mission to kidnap someone to invading Iraq. I especially would not lay the blame for the tactics used to carry out the mission at Clinton's feet. And you're right...he inherited the entire mess from Bush Senior. At least he had the sense to get the hell out of there before it became what we have today in Iraq. Somalia is yet one more example of our years of meddling in other nations' affairs.
If we want to go back further, Jimmy Carter had a doomed plan in Desert 1 while attempting to go into Iran - although he did step up to the plate and accept responsibility for the plan's failure and death of many Warriors.

Again, you are attempting to compare a failed hostage rescue attempt to the neocon mess in Iraq. There is no comparison.
Going back even further, John F. Kennedy escalated troop deployments to Viet Nam for advisor status. (Though many feel that he was on the verge of removing troops due to what he saw was going to be a failure.) And the "Whiz Kids" under the buffoon that is/was Robert McNamara who replaced exceptional weaponry to be carried by Soldiers and Marines (the M-14) with the M-16 which has been decried for over 40 years now as a relatively ineffective weapon. Proving the point is the recent removal of M-14s from storage by the Marine Corps for unit deployment in Iraq due to the inadequacy of the 5.56mm round.
Comparing Iraq to the problems experienced by the introduction of a new weapon is quite a stretch, I'm afraid...and blaming it on Kennedy is just ridiculous. War profiteers (like Colt) are always ready to push new equipment/weapons, whether it's ready or not. Whatever it takes to make a buck. Your attempt to connect this issue to Kennedy and his policies doesn't carry water in the least, and it pales compared to what that neocon fool Rumsfeld told soldiers to their faces when they asked why they didn't have the equipment they needed.
Regarding FDR, a decent President overall. Respected even more so by having active-duty serving sons in combat. One of his sons served in the Marine Raiders (http://www.usmarineraiders.org/cos.html) hardly a REMF position.

I agree. He handled a real threat (the Nazi war machine) the way it had to be handled. Again, no comparison to Bush's lies about Iraq, and the ensuing fiasco there.
The military has had pathetic weaponry and equipment for years under both parties. The HMMWV has a pathetic 96hp diesel engine. Was never designed to be protective against much of anything - except maybe rain.

Exactly...but we can't blame the shameless acts by hucksters who are willing to sell anything to the military to make a buck on any one president.

[jasper45]

REP. ALBERT BUSTAMANTE (D-TX): Convicted in 1993 of racketeering and accepting an illegal gratuity.

REP. MEL REYNOLDS (D-IL): In 1995 was convicted of having sex with a minor and obstructing justice.

REP. MARY ROSE OAKAR (D-OH): Charged with seven federal felonies related to financial-disclosure irregularities (1998).

REP. MARIO BIAGGI (D-NY): In 1988 he was convicted of obstructing justice, tax evasion, conspiracy, extortion, and accepting bribes.


Here is just a few, but let’s not forget about the distinguished Senator Kennedy, or the esteemed Gary Condit, or even Robert Byrd’s past.
Your right though, just because you don’t run on a platform of morality, or family values, that certainly gives you the ability to do whatever you want.

Once again, I never said that republicans are superior to democrats; you’re the one who seems to think that there is nothing wrong with the democratic party, and seem to imply that they are somehow superior.
They have just as many slime bags, criminals, and ‘chicken hawks’ as you claim republicans have. They are every bit as crooked, and dirty, and full of indiscretion as their republican counterparts.
Somehow, though, you don’t see that.

In any event, here is just a few names with a (D) next to it, now quit wasting my time.

[DaSharkie]

I would hardly compare one failed military mission to kidnap someone to invading Iraq. I especially would not lay the blame for the tactics used to carry out the mission at Clinton's feet. And you're right...he inherited the entire mess from Bush Senior. At least he had the sense to get the hell out of there before it became what we have today in Iraq. Somalia is yet one more example of our years of meddling in other nations' affairs.

It was ONE failed action set in place because of a President's lack of fortitude to commit the appropriate resources to the task. He allowed numerous requests for additional manpower and resources to be denied by his administration and the DOD.

Clinton, in this case, deserves as much blame for the failure of the mission in Somalia as you lay at Bush's feet. He was C-in-C at the time and he consciously made decisions that directly and indirectly resulted in the death of men on the field of battle.

And George W. Bush sent troops into Somalia in March of 1992 as part of UN mandate for humanitarian aid. The mission evolved then into the pursuit of Somali warlords. Clinton was C-in-C for 10 months when the 18 Rangers and Delta Operators were dead. How long afterwards do you wait before it becomes Clinton's fault?

Bill Clinton and his DOD refused repeated request for additional troops, aircraft, and AC-130 Spectre gunships for support. Those requests and the failure to listen to the troops on the ground and their commanders place the blame clearly and totally at his feet.

Part of the "entire mess" was his, as he made it. You cannot parlay the blame.

If you ask the remaining men and women of Task Force Ranger, to a man they did not leave willingly. They wanted to carry out the mission - from all accounts noted - but were not allowed to. Many, dare I say most, accounts from men and women in Iraq echo the same sentiment, they want to do their job and establish the nation.



Again, you are attempting to compare a failed hostage rescue attempt to the neocon mess in Iraq. There is no comparison.

A failed rescue attempt that cost several men their lives. It was a poorly planned operation. Your contention that it does not compare is inapplicable regardless of how many actions are involved.

Comparing Iraq to the problems experienced by the introduction of a new weapon is quite a stretch, I'm afraid...and blaming it on Kennedy is just ridiculous. War profiteers (like Colt) are always ready to push new equipment/weapons, whether it's ready or not. Whatever it takes to make a buck. Your attempt to connect this issue to Kennedy and his policies doesn't carry water in the least, and it pales compared to what that neocon fool Rumsfeld told soldiers to their faces when they asked why they didn't have the equipment they needed.

I did not blame Kennedy, Kennedy escalated troop involvement beyond what Ike initiated in 1957. And LBJ escalated it even more. You asked for Democratic actions and I gave them to you.

And Robert McNamara - being the bufoon that he is - pushed the military into accepting the M-16 against their wishes. Kept pushing the matter. And while serving as JFK and LBJ's Secretary of Defense continued pushing involvement without adapting techniques and allowing the man on teh ground to fight a war as it needs to be fought.

Although, in the 1990s McNamara made it all better when he said that he was sorry for doing something he was against. It is OK when 58,000+ men and women died in combat under a Democratic President, but not a Republican. Many of the same "comparisons" that folks make now about Iraq and Viet Nam go way beyond combat losses.

The same situation about equipment presents itself in every combat action. You make things work and some things you have or need you get and some you don't. You may not like it, but that is how things have gone for centuries. I don't like it either.

I agree. He handled a real threat (the Nazi war machine) the way it had to be handled. Again, no comparison to Bush's lies about Iraq, and the ensuing fiasco there.

He handled a threat, that had not attacked the nation - unlike Japan which actually had. But then again, many say that he knew we were going to be attacked and allowed it to happen. Others say that we pushed Japan to attack us by cutting off oil and steel.

Then again, Japan made the Germans look like common hoodlums. But that is OK apparently.

Exactly...but we can't blame the shameless acts by hucksters who are willing to sell anything to the military to make a buck on any one president.

No, but we can blame the bidding process for unacceptable equipment pushed by members of congress that have components from every damned state in the union just to please constituents and corporation. Then when they are not effective in combat - where they are designed to be used.

You cannot have it both ways. Deaths at the hands and the decisions of Democrat are just as bad as deaths at the hands and decisions of Republicans.

You can deflect blame all you wish, but it does nothing to bolster your argument.

[scfire86]

Here is just a few, but let’s not forget about the distinguished Senator Kennedy, or the esteemed Gary Condit, or even Robert Byrd’s past.

I guess you're not big in the comprehension department. I asked:

Please detail for us which current members of the Dem delegation to Congress are draft dodgers, liars, sexual predators and murderers.
None of those you listed are current members.

But let's get to others. You mentioned Condit....gone. What's interesting about Condit is that honorary congressman Limbaugh would call him Gary Con-did-it on his radio show. Claiming he had proof Condit was guilty of the murder of Chandra Levy. Of course we know in retrospect it was yet another example of Limbaugh's blowhard accusations that gets conservative into a lather despite the falseness of his claims. But no one is ever going to accuse dittoheads of being diligent enough to check facts for themselves. I always like the dittoheads who claim Limbaugh has a 98.3% correct factor. When I ask where they get that stat they say they heard it on his show. Tell me that's not worth a chuckle.

Byrd's past. Byrd has expressed repeatedly his regrets over his affiliation with the KKK and detailed how it was a mistake he's made. I guess you haven't heard him express his regret. And btw, affiliation in the KKK isn't a sexual predator, murderer, draft dodger or a liar. Byrd has never denied any part of his past. Unlike many conservatives.

Same with Kennedy. That horse has been beat dead. The people of MA apparently feel differently about since they keep re-electing him. And despite the claims of liberals not supporting the military, Kennedy (as opposed to many of his detractors) served his country when he was of age. Unlike folks like conservative icons, Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Reilly. Two of whom managed to avoid military service during the Vietnam era.

I guess it's to much for so called "compassionate" conservatives to believe the sincerity of one's pentinence if they have a "D" after their name.

Keep trying. This is fun.

[FlyingKiwi]

Give a Dog a bone and he will chew it for life.

Teach him how to catch the animal and his pack will live. :rolleyes:

Or something like that anyway.

[scfire86]

Clinton was C-in-C for 10 months when the 18 Rangers and Delta Operators were dead. How long afterwards do you wait before it becomes Clinton's fault?

Same with Bush and 9/11. I've heard conservatives continually blame Clinton for 9/11 even though Bush had been in office over 8 months when it happened.

So how long does one have to wait before it becomes Bush's fault?

[ThNozzleman]

You cannot have it both ways. Deaths at the hands and the decisions of Democrat are just as bad as deaths at the hands and decisions of Republicans.
My point is that you're comparing a couple of missions that went wrong and resulted in several U.S. deaths with an invasion and the resulting occupation that has resulted in hundreds of thousands killed, including 3000 plus U.S. troops. Clinton was smart enough to realize a lost cause when he saw it...not so for the neocon fools who are currently in charge today. There is no way that any rational person would compare these incidents and conclude they are "just as bad" as the current Iraq situation and the foolish notions that got us involved there. The neocon wet dreams of world conquest are exclusively a Republican issue.

[DaSharkie]

Same with Bush and 9/11. I've heard conservatives continually blame Clinton for 9/11 even though Bush had been in office over 8 months when it happened.

So how long does one have to wait before it becomes Bush's fault?

I have always said that there is responsibility that lies with both administrations. For the first 6 - 12 months there is a rather large spin-up period and it takes everyone a while to get things going and sift through the information.

To think otherwise is rediculously foolish.

[DaSharkie]

My point is that you're comparing a couple of missions that went wrong and resulted in several U.S. deaths with an invasion and the resulting occupation that has resulted in hundreds of thousands killed, including 3000 plus U.S. troops. Clinton was smart enough to realize a lost cause when he saw it...not so for the neocon fools who are currently in charge today. There is no way that any rational person would compare these incidents and conclude they are "just as bad" as the current Iraq situation and the foolish notions that got us involved there. The neocon wet dreams of world conquest are exclusively a Republican issue.

I understand where you were going Noz, but the same things can be said of both, and that is all that I am trying to make a point over.

I disagree with you on Somalia. The mission was (to a point) appropriate. It was not prosecuted appropriately at many levels. I do not think that it was a lost cause. And up until the loss of those men, he was fully prosecuting the mission - as he should have done.

I think one of poor decisions (in hindsight of course) was the withdrawal of troops before the completion of the mission. 1) the current state of Somalia, and 2) many with a much better understanding of things than you or me feel that it showed the Islamic fundamentalists that if you bloody the nose enough we will leave.

Sadly this is true.

[scfire86]

I have always said that there is responsibility that lies with both administrations. For the first 6 - 12 months there is a rather large spin-up period and it takes everyone a while to get things going and sift through the information.

To think otherwise is rediculously foolish.

As I believe regarding Clinton and Somalia. There is responsibility that lies with Clinton and his predecessor. And speaking of Mogadishu. I remember the outrage over the handling of the incident that killed 18 US troops (and wounded about 75 others) and the subsequent firing/resignation of SecDef Aspin within weeks of that episode. It was Aspin who refused to allow the proper support equipment to be used in Somalia (tanks, armored vehicles and AC-130 Spectre gunships). Bush on the other hand finally decided to fire (oops accept the resignation of) Rumsfeld years after the debacle of Iraq became apparent. The war in Iraq was pre-emptive. Rumsfeld's comment about going to war with the "army you have, not the one you want" would be applicable when you have been attacked. That wasn't the case with Iraq. And in ignoring the recommendations of the Pentagon we are in a disaster of our own making with a Hobson's choice for bringing it to resolution.

[DaSharkie]

As I believe regarding Clinton and Somalia. There is responsibility that lies with Clinton and his predecessor. And speaking of Mogadishu. I remember the outrage over the handling of the incident that killed 18 US troops (and wounded about 75 others) and the subsequent firing/resignation of SecDef Aspin within weeks of that episode. It was Aspin who refused to allow the proper support equipment to be used in Somalia (tanks, armored vehicles and AC-130 Spectre gunships). Bush on the other hand finally decided to fire (oops accept the resignation of) Rumsfeld years after the debacle of Iraq became apparent. The war in Iraq was pre-emptive. Rumsfeld's comment about going to war with the "army you have, not the one you want" would be applicable when you have been attacked. That wasn't the case with Iraq. And in ignoring the recommendations of the Pentagon we are in a disaster of our own making with a Hobson's choice for bringing it to resolution.

My understanding is that the decision did not end strictly with Aspin. In either case, one must listen to those with boots on the gound. Otherwise you end up with situations like these.

And Rumsfeld is a buffoon. Much like McNamara, and many other twits in government.

It is the 19 y/o PFC or Lance Coolee that suffers for the ill conceived notions of those higher in the chain of command - civilian or military.

[ThNozzleman]

I think one of poor decisions (in hindsight of course) was the withdrawal of troops before the completion of the mission. 1) the current state of Somalia, and 2) many with a much better understanding of things than you or me feel that it showed the Islamic fundamentalists that if you bloody the nose enough we will leave.

We cannot continue to go into these nations and expect our military to solve their problems. It has nothing to do with "completing the mission." These things are exercises in futility from the very beginning...just like the current actions in Iraq. The neocons are attempting to gain control of these nations and their resources at any cost, whether by military might or coercion, just like has occured in that part of the world for nearly a hundred years. As for your "bloody nose" statement, I have most often found that it is eschewed by armchair warriors who use our soldiers as an extension of their own egos. These people are far from intellectuals, and could care less how many people die, so long as "Team Red, White, and Blue" wins the game.
If we don't want our nose to continue to be bloodied, we need to quit sticking it where it doesn't belong.

[ThNozzleman]

And Rumsfeld is a buffoon.
Then, why in the world would you support the policies and ideas of a buffoon for so long? It was obvious from the beginning that this whole thing was a neocon sham, and that these losers were pumping the American people from day one. Iraq was no threat to anyone. Rumsfeld (and the rest of Bush's administration) are LIARS. We MUST refuse to let our leaders put our people in harm's way for such snow jobs in the future, regardless of how hurt and angry we are at the time. Just like in the past, nothing good will ever come from it. WMD? Mushroom clouds? 9/11 connections? Vast, organized global terror organizations that are poised to take over the world?
All lies and scams from day one.

[scfire86]

My understanding is that the decision did not end strictly with Aspin. In either case, one must listen to those with boots on the gound. Otherwise you end up with situations like these.
I haven't seen anything that substantiates that claim other than blow hard conservative pundits like those heard on AM radio.

And Rumsfeld is a buffoon. Much like McNamara, and many other twits in government.
Interesting how this is now an attitude of conservatives since he's been fired.

[SSTONER]

Then, why in the world would you support the policies and ideas of a buffoon for so long? It was obvious from the beginning that this whole thing was a neocon sham, and that these losers were pumping the American people from day one. Iraq was no threat to anyone. Rumsfeld (and the rest of Bush's administration) are LIARS. We MUST refuse to let our leaders put our people in harm's way for such snow jobs in the future, regardless of how hurt and angry we are at the time. Just like in the past, nothing good will ever come from it. WMD? Mushroom clouds? 9/11 connections? Vast, organized global terror organizations that are poised to take over the world?
All lies and scams from day one.

Everything is a conspiracy theroy with you. The fact is Somalia is the only ones so far to get the war on terror right.

Although that fight may not be over it was certainly an impressive military movement.

Seems this is a global problem after all.

[ThNozzleman]

Everything is a conspiracy theroy with you.
Awesome job of addressing my point! :rolleyes:

[Stewart46]

Then, why in the world would you support the policies and ideas of a buffoon for so long? It was obvious from the beginning that this whole thing was a neocon sham, and that these losers were pumping the American people from day one. Iraq was no threat to anyone. Rumsfeld (and the rest of Bush's administration) are LIARS. We MUST refuse to let our leaders put our people in harm's way for such snow jobs in the future, regardless of how hurt and angry we are at the time. Just like in the past, nothing good will ever come from it. WMD? Mushroom clouds? 9/11 connections? Vast, organized global terror organizations that are poised to take over the world?
All lies and scams from day one.Wow, if that is what you really believe we are in far worse shape than I thought. If you think for one second that Iraq was no threat and what we are doing over there is wrong then you are very mistaken. Our methods or tactics may not always work as planned but at least we aren't sitting on out hands doing nothing. It would only have been a matter of time until we heard from Saddam again.

I just wish that the media would focus on the good things that are going on instead of gloom and doom. Maybe that is what the people want to see. Sticking our head in the sand and ignoring the world won’t work.

[ThNozzleman]

Wow, if that is what you really believe we are in far worse shape than I thought. If you think for one second that Iraq was no threat and what we are doing over there is wrong then you are very mistaken.
Ok..remind us again of just how Iraq was such a threat to us?? Do we have to go through this again? After every excuse used to invade Iraq has been proven to be a lie, you still think this way? People like YOU are the reason we are in the mess we are...not me.
I just wish that the media would focus on the good things that are going on instead of gloom and doom. Maybe that is what the people want to see. Sticking our head in the sand and ignoring the world won’t work.
Right. It's the media's fault. Maybe you should make a list of the "good things" that are worth the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
The fact is Somalia is the only ones so far to get the war on terror right.
Now THAT'S funny. I suppose the last minute action by Bush Senior in Somalia had nothing to do with oil, either? :rolleyes:

[scfire86]

Wow, if that is what you really believe we are in far worse shape than I thought. If you think for one second that Iraq was no threat and what we are doing over there is wrong then you are very mistaken. Our methods or tactics may not always work as planned but at least we aren't sitting on out hands doing nothing. It would only have been a matter of time until we heard from Saddam again.

George HW Bush didn't depose Saddam when US forces were at the brink of Baghdad. As a result, the Islamist factions which now run freely in Iraq were kept under control by Saddam. They (and their pro-Iran leanings) were a huge threat to Saddam's secular government, something Poppy and his men knew but which the current President apparently didn't think would be an issue.

Does this mean I think Saddam was a great guy? Of course not, but strongmen in otherwise lawless societies have been around since the dawn of time, and the US has supported plenty of them.

I just wish that the media would focus on the good things that are going on instead of gloom and doom. Maybe that is what the people want to see. Sticking our head in the sand and ignoring the world won’t work.
Like what? A thousand good things (whatever they may be) are overshadowed by one bad thing when it is your loved one being killed by a foreign invader.

I do see a very interesting relationship in the media's reporting. Until we invaded Iraq there was rarely any reports about the numbers of military personnel killed in that country. After we invaded is when the negative reporting on killed and wounded began.....hmmmmmm......conspir acy? You be the judge.

[Stewart46]

People like YOU are the reason we are in the mess we are...not me.

:rolleyes:
I really have no idea what your solution to the problem might be and will not even begin to try and figure it out.

I hope you take the time to be involved by voting and sending letters or e-mailing your elected officials with your opinion. If not just whining and stirring the pot on a forum isn't doing anybody any good.

I forget sometimes that the freedom of speech thing can really piss you off especially when you know they are full of crap. Good luck nozzle I bit on this one and won't make that mistake again.

[DaSharkie]

We cannot continue to go into these nations and expect our military to solve their problems.

Totally agree with that. We can send food adn humanitarian aid - but this is not the job of the Armed Forces - except maybe the Coast Guard. Of course using our C-130s and such to deliver the aid is OK, but why we send military forces into every freaking country's civil war is beyond me.

As for your "bloody nose" statement, I have most often found that it is eschewed by armchair warriors who use our soldiers as an extension of their own egos. These people are far from intellectuals, and could care less how many people die, so long as "Team Red, White, and Blue" wins the game.

No armchair warrior here. Just want the friggin' politicians to get their fat, grubby mitts out of the way and let the people who fight wars fight them without so many PC restricitions and dog-and-pony shows. If you are going to deploy military assets in harms way, then you let them fight the enemy (whoever it may be) with the gloves off. You cannot hamstring these guys and expect to accomplish your goals.

If we don't want our nose to continue to be bloodied, we need to quit sticking it where it doesn't belong.

Quite true. But everyone wants to be a hero and save everyone's ills while ignoring those same ills in our own nation. Not calling for Socialism here, just saying that peopel who want to cure the world's ills need to look a bit closer to home before calling to do so abroad.

[DaSharkie]

I haven't seen anything that substantiates that claim other than blow hard conservative pundits like those heard on AM radio.

Even if you do not havea report stating such, do you honestly believe that this topic NEVER came up at a daily White House intelligence briefing?

Interesting how this is now an attitude of conservatives since he's been fired.

No, this has been my attitude all along. A political hack and career beaurocrat has no place in a position like that. Just my opinion. I have said that he was an idiot many times here, it is not a new revelation on my part.


As for Nozz's question about why I followed Rumsfeld, I did not follow Rumsfeld. I believed, and still do feel, that Iraq had been a supporter of terrorist operations for a decade or two. I have stated that numerous times, we just disagree on what a supporter of terrorism is apparently.

And I still don't think that Iraq had anything to do 9/11. Never did feel that way. I may be wrong, but I do not recall anyone in the administration stating such either. I do recall them stating that there will be more 9/11s if we do not combat terrorism where ever it may be.


But Nozz, I feel the need to make an observation here - not to start an argument, just an observation over the past few years. You seem to put the utmost faith in the Democratic party and that they are not as corrupt as the Republicans. In many posts I have noticed this. I am just curious about this.

[DaSharkie]

Right. It's the media's fault. Maybe you should make a list of the "good things" that are worth the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.


That is not what he is saying. But you do not see too many good stories coming out of Iraq. Are we to believe that this is truly the case?

This is one of the major complaints made by troops coming home, no one hears about the reconstruction and humanitarian issues.

If you are going to report the news, you need to do a complete job of it. I think that this is one of the reasons why news viewership and newspaper readership is down (poor reporting - not necessarily the Iraq issue.)

[doughesson]

Now that the Dems are taking over Congress(their words,not mine),and getting appointments to higher positions on the intel committees,why aren't they braying about how the Republicans knew all along that Iraq didn't have any WMDs and such?
Are they learning that while Iraq does or does not have any WMD,the indications WERE that they did?
And why isn't anyone understanding that if a country is suspected of having nukes or CBR weapons but not allowing inspections,that just like a gun owner not allowing the police to serve a search warrant,tey can NOT afford to just let him go on his merry way?

[doughesson]

Totally agree with that. We can send food adn humanitarian aid - but this is not the job of the Armed Forces - except maybe the Coast Guard. Of course using our C-130s and such to deliver the aid is OK, but why we send military forces into every freaking country's civil war is beyond me.



Quite true. But everyone wants to be a hero and save everyone's ills while ignoring those same ills in our own nation. Not calling for Socialism here, just saying that peopel who want to cure the world's ills need to look a bit closer to home before calling to do so abroad.

Bullet 1:Since the military was used in the 90s as a relief agency,you'd think the people that supported that"mission"would be trumpeting that the troops are building more than they are fighting.Why not?Mainly because the media that wanted the armed services to be a world wide Salvation Army(but without the God part)don't like the President that's ordered them in to rebuild Iraq after taking out Saddam Hussein.

Bullet 2:Oprah Winfrey comes to mind here.She built a $40 million dollar school in Africa,which is a good thing.But there are schools here in her own country that could use the same benfits as well.

[ThNozzleman]

I really have no idea what your solution to the problem might be and will not even begin to try and figure it out.
My solution?? Who said I have a solution to this mess? Don't look to people like me for solutions, when we didn't cause the situation in the first place.
I forget sometimes that the freedom of speech thing can really piss you off especially when you know they are full of crap. Good luck nozzle I bit on this one and won't make that mistake again.
I'm full of crap? Heh, heh...while guys like you were busy waving the flag and sending our people off to die for the last three years, I called the follys and fearmongering of the neocons for what they are...absolute bull.
Are they learning that while Iraq does or does not have any WMD,the indications WERE that they did?

Hogwash. There were NO positive indicators that Iraq had WMD when the invasion happened. The only "indications" were the lies, twisted stories, and scare tactics of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the rest of the neocon PNAC thugs.
And why isn't anyone understanding that if a country is suspected of having nukes or CBR weapons but not allowing inspections,that just like a gun owner not allowing the police to serve a search warrant,tey can NOT afford to just let him go on his merry way?
More righty cop outs. We have enough nukes to wipe out the world several times over. We have NO right telling ANY other nation that they can't have them, too. That's called "hypocrisy." And as is well known to anyone who cares to see the truth, there were no indicators that Iraq fell into this category. The ol' "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" bit is nothing but a neocon smoke screen. Besides, why invade a nation like Iraq based on wild tales of "aluminum tubes" and "yellow cake", when there are so many other nations that are KNOWN to have nukes to be conquered and smashed under the boot of American supremacy? I mean, besides the oil in Iraq, of course.
That is not what he is saying. But you do not see too many good stories coming out of Iraq. Are we to believe that this is truly the case?

Yes. Again, what "good stories" are worth the hundreds of thousands dead there? Schools? Hospitals? All the other Fox News happy hour crap? Iraq had all that before we starved them out for ten years and blew their country into oblivion.
If you are going to report the news, you need to do a complete job of it. I think that this is one of the reasons why news viewership and newspaper readership is down (poor reporting - not necessarily the Iraq issue.)
If the media had done a proper job of covering this from the start (before the invasion), we would not be there in the first place. They went along willingly with the lies because war sells. The corporate media (especially Fox, blatant right-wing schills that they are) are nothing but profiteers, just like the many corporations soaking up our taxdollars in Iraq, now. There was no real journalism to be found on television; only red, white, and blue "you're with us, or you're with the terrorists", in your face drama, spouted on a daily basis by talking bubble-heads during slickly produced sessions full of sidebars and those stupid, neverending chyrons.
I miss the days when Walter Cronkite used to read from a piece of paper.

[scfire86]

Even if you do not havea report stating such, do you honestly believe that this topic NEVER came up at a daily White House intelligence briefing?

It may very well have. I don't know for sure. And a plausible scenario is the President trusted the advice he was getting to be the right course of action.

But when it turned out poorly, the President did what any executive would do in a similar situation....."your fired."

[jasper45]

Bullet 2:Oprah Winfrey comes to mind here.She built a $40 million dollar school in Africa,which is a good thing.But there are schools here in her own country that could use the same benfits as well.

Yes, but at least the people in Africa will be appreciative of her gift. This is completely different from the 'entitlement attitude' that is so prevalent in this country.
Those people will be truly grateful for what she gave them.

[ThNozzleman]

Bullet 2:Oprah Winfrey comes to mind here.She built a $40 million dollar school in Africa,which is a good thing.But there are schools here in her own country that could use the same benfits as well.
Winfrey has directly and indirectly raised/donated millions of dollars for education in America. Nobody (including you) can accuse her of ignoring problems here.

[scfire86]

Now that the Dems are taking over Congress(their words,not mine),and getting appointments to higher positions on the intel committees,why aren't they braying about how the Republicans knew all along that Iraq didn't have any WMDs and such?

I'm thinking they may be inclined to look for solutions going forward. A "troop surge" isn't the answer. And despite the counsel of those we task with such matters, the pResident seems determined to ignore that advice again.

[doughesson]

Winfrey has directly and indirectly raised/donated millions of dollars for education in America. Nobody (including you) can accuse her of ignoring problems here.


So,where,good Sir is she getting press for building a school here in the US?Chicago's a big enough news center that if she did anything of the sort there,it'd be on the news soon enough.

[doughesson]

Hussein was under UN orders since 1992 to open his borders for unrestricted inspections of any and all weapons facilities.Since he did not do so,do you think that the world should have gone away and left him be?Do you think the cops would walk away from YOUR house if you refused to let them serve a warrant to see if YOU had any weapons you weren't supposed to?
As to the nukes and having used them,if the history I was taught was accurate,they were developed and used during a Democratic administration.Maybe we should keep a closer watch on them.
If this war was about oil,do you really think that we'd be paying $2.199 a gallon here in Memphis for dino-juice?I think we'd be able to watch the sand dunes collapse as we sucked that country dry.



The UN seemed to look the other way while Hussein sold oil beyond what he was "supposed" to and used the money not for the purpose that the US agreed that Iraq could sell oil for:food for children.When the truth on how that worked came out,the UN sure didn't like it because their incomptence was revealed at the same time.


Lessee,when the war was building up,I didn't have cable so I don't know what Fox was reporting and NBC was the only channel that came in good enough at 5 o'clock.They were reporting what the government said like it was the truth,which everyone thought it was at the time.
CNN and NBC both had reporters freely walking around Iraq saying that Hussein wasn't a bad guy and it wasn't until after they left the country that some of them said they reported what they did out of fear for their own safety.If Hussein wasn't such a bad guy,why didn't the reporters feel they could speak their minds like they do here in the US?

[scfire86]

CNN and NBC both had reporters freely walking around Iraq saying that Hussein wasn't a bad guy and it wasn't until after they left the country that some of them said they reported what they did out of fear for their own safety.If Hussein wasn't such a bad guy,why didn't the reporters feel they could speak their minds like they do here in the US?

Conservatives like to keep spouting this myth that liberals believed Hussein was some type of Albert Schweitzer. No one I know has ever believed that. But his secular government kept the religous extremists in check. Something even Bush's father understood. Now the son has removed Hussein (and now forever with his execution) the zealots have been turned loose. And it is unlikely they will ever be contained.

Bush made it clear in numerous stump speeches this war is about oil. And the reason you're paying that much in Memphis for dino-juice is because the oil companies know you'll pay it and not bitch too much about it.

[doughesson]

Bush made it clear in numerous stump speeches this war is about oil. And the reason you're paying that much in Memphis for dino-juice is because the oil companies know you'll pay it and not bitch too much about it.

Since I still ride a bicycle for most of my transport needs,the only real use I have for oil is to lube the chain and wheels.
Which speeches are you talking about?Like I said previously,I didn't have cable 3 years ago so if NBC or CBS had heard President Bush breathe one word about this being for lower oil prices,it would still be getting brayed about at 6 o'clock.

[ThNozzleman]

Hussein was under UN orders since 1992 to open his borders for unrestricted inspections of any and all weapons facilities.Since he did not do so,do you think that the world should have gone away and left him be?
There were various inspections leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Nothing was ever found. The neocons knew there were no WMD. It was all a scam to start a war they'd wanted for years.
Do you think the cops would walk away from YOUR house if you refused to let them serve a warrant to see if YOU had any weapons you weren't supposed to?

Weak analogy. A closer one would be the cops searching your house for years and not finding anything, and then blowing it up anyway, killing half of your family.
If this war was about oil,do you really think that we'd be paying $2.199 a gallon here in Memphis for dino-juice?I think we'd be able to watch the sand dunes collapse as we sucked that country dry.
The neocons seek oil for power and profit. They do not care about how much YOU have to pay for it. :rolleyes:

[scfire86]

Since I still ride a bicycle for most of my transport needs,the only real use I have for oil is to lube the chain and wheels.
Which speeches are you talking about?Like I said previously,I didn't have cable 3 years ago so if NBC or CBS had heard President Bush breathe one word about this being for lower oil prices,it would still be getting brayed about at 6 o'clock.

I'm not sure what your transportation needs have to do with anything.

Bush made it quite clear (and I'm sure you could find one on YouTube if you looked) while campaigning in Colorado, in Nebraska, in Florida, in Kansas turning this into a platform plank.

He said:

"You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources,and then you can imagine them saying, 'We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following.'"
Those aren't very big lines to read between.

[FlyingKiwi]

What is this background grinding noise that I keep hearing?

Oh, wait, yup, its over there.

Some people chewing on a bone.

[ChicagoFF]

Hey SC and nozzle - did you see we attacked Somalia today? When is the war mongering US gonna stop this war for camel s#hit? I'm sick of the administration using terrorism to justify us stealing all the camel s#it in Somalia. I suppose Haliburton will get the mud hut reconstuction contract too. All the Republicans are getting rich off this war! :rolleyes:

[scfire86]

Hey SC and nozzle - did you see we attacked Somalia today? When is the war mongering US gonna stop this war for camel s#hit? I'm sick of the administration using terrorism to justify us stealing all the camel s#it in Somalia. I suppose Haliburton will get the mud hut reconstuction contract too. All the Republicans are getting rich off this war! :rolleyes:
It's Bush's version of 'Wagging the Dog.'

[ThNozzleman]

Hey SC and nozzle - did you see we attacked Somalia today? When is the war mongering US gonna stop this war for camel s#hit? I'm sick of the administration using terrorism to justify us stealing all the camel s#it in Somalia. I suppose Haliburton will get the mud hut reconstuction contract too. All the Republicans are getting rich off this war!
You think there are no oil interests in Somalia?? Heh, heh..you're even more daft than I previously thought.
The only "camel s#hit" on this thread is between your ears.

[scfire86]

You think there are no oil interests in Somalia?? Heh, heh..you're even more daft than I previously thought.


Good pull Nozz. I had forgotten about oil exploration in that part of the world. A quick Google search reveals a plentitude of articles written about oil exploration and who holds the concession rights.

[ChicagoFF]

You mean we are going to steal their oil just like we did to Iraq?

[GodSendRain]

Hey SC and nozzle - did you see we attacked Somalia today?

Well, it should have been done in 1998 following the embassy bombings, but . . .

[ChicagoFF]

you're even more daft than I previously thought.

Daft? DAFT??? Jesus, what are you, 80 years old?

[ThNozzleman]

You mean we are going to steal their oil just like we did to Iraq?
Steal? We have control of it, which is what Bush & Co. wanted. The majority of Iraqis want to retain control of their oil resources, which have been nationalized since 1972. Not gonna happen. Keep your eyes on the PSA's as western oil companies jockey to take over the oil fields, costing Iraq billions of dollars in future revenues. It's a wet dream come true, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, and billions of our tax dollars.
It's all about the money and power for the sleazeball neocons and their buddies in the oil industry.

[ThNozzleman]

Well, it should have been done in 1998 following the embassy bombings, but . . .
What the hell for? So our people could be stuck there for years, dying on a daily basis for nothing, too? :rolleyes:

[ChicagoFF]

This is incredible! Where are we storing all this stolen oil? Texas probably, so all of President bush's friends can get rich, right? I can't wait until the press gets ahold of this!

[ThNozzleman]

This is incredible! Where are we storing all this stolen oil? Texas probably, so all of President bush's friends can get rich, right? I can't wait until the press gets ahold of this!
Man, you just keep making one relevant post after another. Good job! :rolleyes:

[ThNozzleman]

Daft? DAFT??? Jesus, what are you, 80 years old?
Daft \Daft\ (d[.a]ft), a. [OE. daft, deft, deft, stupid; prob.
the same word as E. deft. See Deft.]
1. Stupid; foolish; idiotic; also, delirious; insane; as, he
has gone daft.
Sums you up perfectly.

[scfire86]

You mean we are going to steal their oil just like we did to Iraq?

I think you would be naive to think this isn't a consideration in foreign policy.

[ChicagoFF]

I think you would be naive to think this isn't a consideration in foreign policy.

I do believe! I'm just wondering if we have the tanker capacity to transport all the stolen Somali oil on top of the millions of barrels of stolen Iraqi oil! I guess we may have to use foreign flag carriers to help out - thats a lot of loot to ship home! Those bastard Republicans!

[ChicagoFF]

Daft \Daft\ (d[.a]ft), a. [OE. daft, deft, deft, stupid; prob.
the same word as E. deft. See Deft.]
1. Stupid; foolish; idiotic; also, delirious; insane; as, he
has gone daft.
Sums you up perfectly.

I know the definition, gramps. I was just questioning it's use in 2007. Unless you are 80 years old or a hillbilly, it has fallen out of favor. I guess I'm just daffy.

[scfire86]

I do believe! I'm just wondering if we have the tanker capacity to transport all the stolen Somali oil on top of the millions of barrels of stolen Iraqi oil! I guess we may have to use foreign flag carriers to help out - thats a lot of loot to ship home! Those bastard Republicans!

What's your point? You're trying to be funny and failing (flailing) miserably.

[GodSendRain]

What the hell for? So our people could be stuck there for years, dying on a daily basis for nothing, too? :rolleyes:


Umm, no.

So that the terrorists don't get the impression that Democrats (i.e. Clinton) roll over and play dead (which he basically did) when Al-Qaida attacks U.S. embassies (you know, those diplomatic, non-threatening buildings).

Here's a really daft theory to entertain your mind:

Maybe if Al-Qaida senses enough weakness in American resolve, they'll give up killing innocents and donate their training and weapons funds to build non-islamic-fundamentalist schools for Somali male and female children, complete with Western culture appreciation classes! They might even invite you to give lectures on Freedom of Speech (provided, of course, that you not mention anything the clerics don't want you to say, because they'll tickle you with feathers as punishment)

But go on living in irrational fear of the U.S. government and the wild conspiracies you have reiterated time and time again.

[scfire86]

Umm, no.

So that the terrorists don't get the impression that Democrats (i.e. Clinton) roll over and play dead (which he basically did) when Al-Qaida attacks U.S. embassies (you know, those diplomatic, non-threatening buildings).

I guess we have a different view of the past. I remember every time Clinton went after Al Qaeda it was conservatives who criticized him as "wagging the dog" and tilting opinion against his desire to use further strikes. Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) got up on the floor of the US Senate and pronounced these actions as Clinton's pursuit of something "unimportant." Try and get your facts from something other than drugboy Limbaugh's daily three hour blathering.

Do you think that went unnoticed? And maybe Al Qaeda realized it was the President's own citizenry who were unwilling to pursue them? And do you think they were emboldened, or put in to a state of fear regarding our reactions?

[ChicagoFF]

What's your point? You're trying to be funny and failing (flailing) miserably.
No, I'm a true believer now! You have convinced me. Just tell me where the neocons are hiding all the stolen oil so I can spread the word!!!!

[ThNozzleman]

Maybe if Al-Qaida senses enough weakness in American resolve, they'll give up killing innocents and donate their training and weapons funds to build non-islamic-fundamentalist schools for Somali male and female children, complete with Western culture appreciation classes! They might even invite you to give lectures on Freedom of Speech (provided, of course, that you not mention anything the clerics don't want you to say, because they'll tickle you with feathers as punishment)

Give up your noble pipe dreams. Our government is only concerned with these issues to the extent of how it affects access to the oil. Period.
But go on living in irrational fear of the U.S. government and the wild conspiracies you have reiterated time and time again.
"Wild conspiracies?" Good grief, man...everything I ever stated about the invasion of Iraq is true. There is NO disputing it. In light of the lies and disaster that is the neocon plan in Iraq, you want to suddenly bring Somalia back into the forefront as if it doesn't have anything to do with big oil, either?? Please.

[ThNozzleman]

I know the definition, gramps. I was just questioning it's use in 2007. Unless you are 80 years old or a hillbilly, it has fallen out of favor. I guess I'm just daffy.
My mistake. I must run with a more intelligent lot than you. In your interest, I'll attempt to dumb it down in the future and use words you're used to hearing on cartoons in the afternoon.

[scfire86]

No, I'm a true believer now! You have convinced me. Just tell me where the neocons are hiding all the stolen oil so I can spread the word!!!!

Same place as Saddam's WMD's.

[DaSharkie]

Nozz may not fear the U.S. Government, but I do not think that he trusts the U. S. government.

I don't trust the government to do anything for me, least of look out for what is best for me as a citizen, taxpayer, or individual.


For years - decades - our individual liberties have been stripped away by politicians, beaurocrats and hacks at all levels of government and be members of both parties.

Clinton, Charles Schumer, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry wanted to take away the individual right to firearms ownership.

The current administration wants to open mail without a warrant, listen in on your phone calls, and do away with due process on U. S. citizens merely suspected of doing something that the government does not wish them to do.

And you may say that it is all in the fight for the war on terror, but the government has a history of abusing those powers that it has. And the next President may not agree with your views and will have the same powers to do as he wishes.

Not conspiracy, just the way life goes. Beware what you wish for.

[scfire86]

Nozz may not fear the U.S. Government, but I do not think that he trusts the U. S. government.

Great points Sharkie. All of them.

[ThNozzleman]

Nozz may not fear the U.S. Government, but I do not think that he trusts the U. S. government.
I trust the system to work as it should. But how could anyone trust our government after what they've done in Iraq? And while I wouldn't call how I feel "fear" (more like extreme concern), the things this administration has done and would like to do ought to frighten the hell out of anyone. I think the thing that bothers me most is the complete lack of real journalism in mass media. The press is supposed to be there as a watchdog against our government, regardless of the situation...and they have failed miserably.
Screw Strauss and his "noble lies"...give me the truth, any day.

[DaSharkie]

I trust the system to work as it should. But how could anyone trust our government after what they've done in Iraq? And while I wouldn't call how I feel "fear" (more like extreme concern), the things this administration has done and would like to do ought to frighten the hell out of anyone. I think the thing that bothers me most is the complete lack of real journalism in mass media. The press is supposed to be there as a watchdog against our government, regardless of the situation...and they have failed miserably.
Screw Strauss and his "noble lies"...give me the truth, any day.


You know Nozz, I just fear them. Some people get so drunk with power - in both parties - that it is downright frightening.

And people are so blinded and easily led that many do not realize where it is going.


And your point about the media is dead on. Hardly anyone in media makes any effort to cover up their biases in their reporting and coverage of events - regardless of where those biases are based. Once again, people blindly follow. Doesn't matter whether it is Fox News, CNN, CBS news, or whatever.

It is quite sad.

[ThNozzleman]

You know Nozz, I just fear them. Some people get so drunk with power - in both parties - that it is downright frightening.

I tell you what frightens me...the recent surge in nationalistic fervor that sends our troops around the world to die for neocon conquests, oil, and power. What frightens me is someone giving more commitment and credence to a piece of cloth, than to the paper and laws that really guarantee our freedom and individual rights. What frightens me is the mob rule attitude of the red state "patriots" who think dissenters are just lucky to be allowed to live here. What frightens me is people who worship a pile of two-thousand year old ramblings of barbarians, instead of using common sense. What frightens me is that to be arrested and held indefinitely or spied on, you merely need to be conveniently labeled as a "terrorist" by the Bush Administration. What frightens me is a press (complete with all thier red, white, and blue over sensationalized productions and Old Glory lapel pins) who cowtow to popular opinion and beat the drums of war to make a buck, instead of being an unbiased observer.
And people are so blinded and easily led that many do not realize where it is going.

And it's led us into a quagmire of death and pain that NO amount of bullets and bombs will EVER solve.

[Stewart46]

OK noz, have you ever been in the military?

[ChicagoFF]

I tell you what frightens me...the recent surge in nationalistic fervor that sends our troops around the world to die for neocon conquests, oil, and power.

I know what you mean! If you ever tell us where all this oil is, we can talk to the senators and congressmen from the states where it being stored and get them to expose the truth! And as for "conquests" - shame on all those Americans building houses and settlements on our new territory that we stole from others. We should return our "conquests" to the people if Iraq!!! Keep up with your fight for truth and reason!

[ThNozzleman]

OK noz, have you ever been in the military?
Absolutely irrelevant.

[Stewart46]

Just as I thought.

[DaSharkie]

Just as I thought.

But he is correct.

If a person has not served in the military, is their opinion any less relevant?

If a person has not served in the military, is their right to free speech to be curbed?

[doughesson]

Maybe it was becayuse only when Clinton was nearing a court date that he ordered military action and stopped it as soon as attention had been drawn away from what he was testifying about that we called it wagging the dog.Besides,there was a movie that came out during that time a President did such things to draw attention from his problems.Is that art imitating life or the other way around?
The people might not have wanted action for political gains but still,the President speaks for the country.What has people thinking that this country is weak is that the press pumps up stories about protests and disaffection for President Bush that foreign leaders come to address the UN and say nearly word for word what they see on the American news reports.
They think that that's how EVERY American thinks about the President and it ain't necessarily so.


I guess we have a different view of the past. I remember every time Clinton went after Al Qaeda it was conservatives who criticized him as "wagging the dog" and tilting opinion against his desire to use further strikes. Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) got up on the floor of the US Senate and pronounced these actions as Clinton's pursuit of something "unimportant." Try and get your facts from something other than drugboy Limbaugh's daily three hour blathering.

Do you think that went unnoticed? And maybe Al Qaeda realized it was the President's own citizenry who were unwilling to pursue them? And do you think they were emboldened, or put in to a state of fear regarding our reactions?

[scfire86]

Maybe it was becayuse only when Clinton was nearing a court date that he ordered military action and stopped it as soon as attention had been drawn away from what he was testifying about that we called it wagging the dog.
And you know this how? Could you detail for us your time in the administration or National Security Council that would prove your claim that action was ordered at the times you mention.

And should the press not report on the segment of our populace that DOESN'T approve of the president's actions?

[ChicagoFF]

And you know this how? Could you detail for us your time in the administration or National Security Council that would prove your claim that action was ordered at the times you mention.

Are you directing this question to our pal nozz about the war for oil thing?

[scfire86]

Are you directing this question to our pal nozz about the war for oil thing?

Bush already admitted as such during his stump speeches during the last election. I don't have to point nozz anywhere.

[ThNozzleman]

If a person has not served in the military, is their opinion any less relevant?
He knows this...it's just a typical last resort statement made when one has nothing else of value to offer to a debate.
Bush already admitted as such during his stump speeches during the last election.
Now, SC...don't confuse him with facts. We know this invasion was all about the WMD...I mean, the terrorist connections...no, wait...the...uh...mushroom clouds? Oh, no...wait, I know; it was the imminent threat to the U.S. No? Damn...I know it was about something! :confused: :rolleyes:

[ChicagoFF]

Bush already admitted as such during his stump speeches during the last election. I don't have to point nozz anywhere.

Cool! President Bush admitted we invaded Iraq to steal their oil? Please post the audio or transcript so that I can spread the good news. This is gonna be a bombshell as soon as you post the links!!!! I can hardley wait!

[scfire86]

Cool! President Bush admitted we invaded Iraq to steal their oil? Please post the audio or transcript so that I can spread the good news. This is gonna be a bombshell as soon as you post the links!!!! I can hardley wait!

Bush made it quite clear (and I'm sure you could find one on YouTube if you looked) while campaigning in Colorado, Nebraska, Florida, and Kansas turning this into a platform plank.

He said:

Quote:
"You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources,and then you can imagine them saying, 'We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following.'"

Those aren't very big lines to read between.

[Dalmatian190]

1) He was referring to current conditions, not pre-invasion.

2) I'm pretty sure you'll find the basic National Policies handed Bush when he entered office...that were handed to Clinton...that were handed to Dad...that were handed to Reagan...and so on somewhere back to being drafted by Nixon & Kissinger put one of the trigger points for the U.S. committing substantial military force was to preserve free flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf due to it's impact on the Global Economy.

That's one major reason stuff feel into line so quickly after Saddam invaded Kuwait the first time -- he had crossed a line in the sand he hadn't even realized had already been drawn in U.S. & allied foreign policy.

No matter how bungled they handled the aftermath, there's a clear distinction between the reasons for going to war and the reason's military force is still being used in this case. Because of the political bungling, the military has become a butt plug on a whole bunch of crap at the moment.

[ChicagoFF]

Bush made it quite clear (and I'm sure you could find one on YouTube if you looked) while campaigning in Colorado, Nebraska, Florida, and Kansas turning this into a platform plank.

Hmmm, that sounds like it was after the war was going. I was looking for all the quotes before we went in saying we were invading to steal their oil. (also, you never told me where we are storing all the stolen oil so I can write the senators and reps from that state to demand we return it to Iraq)

[scfire86]

Hmmm, that sounds like it was after the war was going. I was looking for all the quotes before we went in saying we were invading to steal their oil. (also, you never told me where we are storing all the stolen oil so I can write the senators and reps from that state to demand we return it to Iraq)
Great. This is what's called "moving the goal line." Sorry if you are now backpedaling.

Oil doesn't do anyone any good if it's sitting in the ground. But you knew that.

And like I answered already. The stolen oil is being hidden right next to Saddam's WMD's.

[scfire86]

1) He was referring to current conditions, not pre-invasion.
And I'm sure that consideration wasn't given any credence than those we were spoon fed to support the invasion of Iraq.

2) I'm pretty sure you'll find the basic National Policies handed Bush when he entered office...that were handed to Clinton...that were handed to Dad...that were handed to Reagan...and so on somewhere back to being drafted by Nixon & Kissinger put one of the trigger points for the U.S. committing substantial military force was to preserve free flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf due to it's impact on the Global Economy.

Really? How about you point me to said points that are 'trigger points' for invading sovereign nations.

I don't remember any of that dialogue in the lead up to the war.

[ChicagoFF]

Great. This is what's called "moving the goal line." Sorry if you are now backpedaling.Thats cool, just get me the quotes from any time saying we went to war to steal the oil. I've already told all my friends that undeniable proof is on the way, so if you could get me the quotes and supporting material quickly, I'd appreciate it.

Oil doesn't do anyone any good if it's sitting in the ground. But you knew that.I know! Good point! Thats why I'm sure since we went to war for their oil there is no way we left in in the ground. Eagerly waiting to hear what we did with it all.

[scfire86]

Thats cool, just get me the quotes from any time saying we went to war to steal the oil. I've already told all my friends that undeniable proof is on the way, so if you could get me the quotes and supporting material quickly, I'd appreciate it.
Same as the WMD's.

I know! Good point! Thats why I'm sure since we went to war for their oil there is no way we left in in the ground. Eagerly waiting to hear what we did with it all.
Apparently you don't know how these types of Ops work. Do some reading on the Teapot Dome Scandal. Then you might understand.

[SSTONER]

Bush made it quite clear (and I'm sure you could find one on YouTube if you looked) while campaigning in Colorado, Nebraska, Florida, and Kansas turning this into a platform plank.

He said:

Quote:


Those aren't very big lines to read between.

Good god man..thats what your basing your "conspiracy theroy" on?

I think you have read a bit much in to that statement - but then again i guess its more fun to run around thinking we are in this strickly for oil.

We havent taken control of any oil fields or p