Can you support out troops and still be against the war?

[Nammy]

I'd like to know your views on this. It seems there is percentage of Americans who think you can not be against the war and still support the troops?

Does this mean you cant be against what they're fighting for and at the same time hope they all make it home safely?

[saggyjones]

You can support the troops but not their mission if you want them to come home or be sent somewhere else which you believe is more useful. People who say you can't support the troops without supporting their mission are simply using a tactic to try to get more people to support the war.

[USMC the Almighty]

My thoughts in this are here: http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1140&postcount=11

[InterestedParty]

Supporting the troops doesn't end where your political beliefs begin. That is *not* support.

Supporting the troops means you stand behind them 100%. You can't claim to support the troops if you promote rhetoric that puts them in additional danger.

I am not in favor of war. I don't like war. Wars have taken people that I care about. BUT... I will not do anything that causes the job of our men and women fighting in a war more difficult to do.

I will put my personal feelings aside to give the military the support that they deserve. I owe that to them.

I guess a question I have for you and everyone else, do you owe it to them yourselves?

[USMC the Almighty]

Supporting the troops doesn't end where your political beliefs begin. That is *not* support.

Supporting the troops means you stand behind them 100%. You can't claim to support the troops if you promote rhetoric that puts them in additional danger.

I am not in favor of war. I don't like war. Wars have taken people that I care about. BUT... I will not do anything that causes the job of our men and women fighting in a war more difficult to do.

I will put my personal feelings aside to give the military the support that they deserve. I owe that to them.

I guess a question I have for you and everyone else, do you owe it to them yourselves?

My main issue is like I noted in that link -- you don't have to send us goodies, don't need to write us letters, don't even have to fly a flag outside your house or say thank you to us in airports -- just don't make our jobs more difficult than they need to be.

You can be opposed to the war but still support the effort -- that is to say that even if you don't think going in was a good idea, you can still want the troops to succeed on our missions and still want the U.S. to win.

[InterestedParty]

Amen

I don't know how it could be any more clear.

[Nammy]

Well said USMC.

[USMC the Almighty]

Well said USMC.

Thank you, sir. Just a Marine on the ground giving you his thoughts.

[Archangelwolf]

In 1952, a candidate ran for President during an unpopular war. He promised to bring the troops home by Christmas if he was elected. No one dared to question whether Dwight Eisenhower supported the troops or not; and he was elected President twice by landslides.

Yes, we can support our troops and question the validity of keeping them in Iraq. I have done it now for 6 years.

Arch.

[InterestedParty]

In 1952, a candidate ran for President during an unpopular war. He promised to bring the troops home by Christmas if he was elected. No one dared to question whether Dwight Eisenhower supported the troops or not; and he was elected President twice by landslides.

Yes, we can support our troops and question the validity of keeping them in Iraq. I have done it now for 6 years.

Arch.

I'd dare to question whether or not Eisenhower supported the troops. He didn't. For you to continue to declare that he did shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Eisenhower INTENTIONALLY LEFT up to 5000 of our men behind in North Korea and the USSR all because he wanted a "honorable armistice" with the North Koreans, Chinese and Russians. I should know, my Uncle was one of the soldiers left behind.

The 5000 number figure-Read the section titled Investigation in Progress located at

http://aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssc49.html

It is the Senate Select Committee website for POW/MIA's

Eisenhowers role as President during the Korean Conflict is located at

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/AMH...2/chapter8.htm

You will see page numbers for each secton. Scoll down to page 244 and 245.

Finally, read the testimony of Retired Lieutenant Colonel Phillip Corso to the Senate Select Committee on November 10, 1992 where he testifies that along with Eisenhower, he agrees to ignore and hide the fact that there were still known POW's alive and in the custody of the North Koreans and their allies.

Scroll down to Testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Phillip Corso, USA, Ret. about 3/4's of the way down the page.

http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssc49.html

And.... to put the icing on the cake, you should read about the
"sightings" of POW's decades after the Korean Conflict ended.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...2fKorean%20War

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...2fKorean%20War

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...Dwight%20David

How about this;

House Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Statement of Donna Downes Knox
Korean/Cold War Family Association of the Missing

http://www.aiipowmia.com/koreacw/knox.html


I could give you numerous links to access, but these should suffice.

Eisenhower was the worst example you could have used. He was a traitor to the men who servd our country in the 1950's.

[saggyjones]

Supporting the troops doesn't end where your political beliefs begin. That is *not* support.

Supporting the troops means you stand behind them 100%. You can't claim to support the troops if you promote rhetoric that puts them in additional danger.

I am not in favor of war. I don't like war. Wars have taken people that I care about. BUT... I will not do anything that causes the job of our men and women fighting in a war more difficult to do.

I will put my personal feelings aside to give the military the support that they deserve. I owe that to them.

I guess a question I have for you and everyone else, do you owe it to them yourselves?

So you should stop questioning things so soldiers' jobs can be easier? Doesn't that defeat one of the causes they are supposedly fighting for, which is our freedom, and with that comes freedom of speech?

[InterestedParty]

Saggy....

It's clear, you do not support our troops and their lives mean absolutely nothing to you. I get it.

You should be proud of yourself. Something tells me that with an attitude likes yours, you are the only one.

[saggyjones]

Saggy....

It's clear, you do not support our troops and their lives mean absolutely nothing to you. I get it.

You should be proud of yourself. Something tells me that with an attitude likes yours, you are the only one.

You didn't answer my questions, so I'll post them again.

So you should stop questioning things so soldiers' jobs can be easier? Doesn't that defeat one of the causes they are supposedly fighting for, which is our freedom, and with that comes freedom of speech?

[InterestedParty]

You didn't answer my questions, so I'll post them again.

So you should stop questioning things so soldiers' jobs can be easier? Doesn't that defeat one of the causes they are supposedly fighting for, which is our freedom, and with that comes freedom of speech?

It isn't that you should be hindered from questioning anything, it's the manner of how to raise the questions *responsibly* without bringing additional turmoil to the situation and adding to the level of potential harm to our soldiers. I know, I know, you don't care. Saggy, you aren't questioning though. You are projecting your opinion all wrapped up inside that inspiring little quotation you are using. You are playing games with other peoples lives.

The soldiers in the MiddleEast are fighting to remove any threat of terrorism like that which occurred on 9/11 on our soil. They are not there to protect your individual right of freedom of speech. Believe it or not, this is bigger than you.

[MarkVI]

You can be opposed to the war but still support the effort -- that is to say that even if you don't think going in was a good idea, you can still want the troops to succeed on our missions and still want the U.S. to win.


That's what I believe about this issue and with it coming from USMC who is over there fighting for us only reinforces it.

Our troops are there, whether we want them there or not, whether we agree with why they're there or not, or wether we agree how the situation is being dealt with or not. I still want them to succeed in their mission even though I disagree with some of what's been going on.


Perhaps it's ok to question, but to do so respectfully all the while being supportive of the troops. It's not their fault that they want to serve our country, as it's very honorable, but criticizing them in a derisive way is not good.

[USMC the Almighty]

That's what I believe about this issue and with it coming from USMC who is over there fighting for us only reinforces it.

Our troops are there, whether we want them there or not, whether we agree with why they're there or not, or wether we agree how the situation is being dealt with or not. I still want them to succeed in their mission even though I disagree with some of what's been going on.


Perhaps it's ok to question, but to do so respectfully all the while being supportive of the troops. It's not their fault that they want to serve our country, as it's very honorable, but criticizing them in a derisive way is not good.

Very thoughtful post, Mark. One thing -- I'm not currently stationed in Iraq. I'm actually in Quantico, Va.

[MarkVI]

oh, I thought I had previously read that you were.

My fault :o

[USMC the Almighty]

oh, I thought I had previously read that you were.

My fault :o

I have completed two tours in the sandbox and am preparing for another.

[InterestedParty]

USMC....

Please let us know when you get ready to leave... I have a candle waiting to be lit for you my friend.

[yoder]

Our military and civilian population have very different duties and responsibilities.

Our military does not make policy, nor should they, unless we want to end up with a military dictatorship. Our military is there to follow the orders of the civilian leadership, no matter who that may be. Our boys and girls in Iraq are doing the best job they are capable of doing under the circumstances. They need to feel that their efforts are not in vain or else they will lose out of despair and depression. Morale does not suck over there because we are debating the validity of the war over here. Morale sucks over there because they have been put into an impossible situation by our civilian leaders, who then tried to short change them and do the war on the cheap.

On the civilian side our responsibilities are very different. We are here to protect our boys and girls in the military by keeping our civilian leaders in check. It is our duty to make sure our civilian leaders do not use our boys and girls in an immoral, illegal, or ill-conceived war. It is our duty as American citizens to make sure the civilian leadership does not put our boys and girls into harms way for any of those reasons, and if they do, it is our duty and our responsibility to impeach and discipline those who dare misuse and abuse our children that way.

These two different duties and responsibilities are not in conflict with each other, but rather complement each other, as it allows each to do their duty and trust that the other is doing theirs as well. Our boys and girls are there to defend our country from foreign threat to our freedoms. We are here to defend our boys and girls in the military by keeping our civilian leadership in check.

--
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!"
-- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)

[Kiyomori]

If you believe, as I do, that the war is illegal in terms of international law, then the troops are acting illegally and ought to stand trial for war crimes. Guantanamo bay and Abu Ghraid are just the most public examples of atrocities.

Ofcourse America does not recognise the international court. It reserves the right to conduct its own trials in its own military court, far from the public view.

I regret that many brave young Americans are being put to this task, but I do not support them. Perhaps they have been misled, perhaps they have bought all the talk about 'freedom' and 'democracy', whatever their own personal motives for being there I cannot support them.

I have to take question with an America that currently describes its own foreign policy as 'full spectrum dominance'. This is not the syntax of a peaceful nation. This describes a country who wishes to control the rest of the world and is ready to use its strong and powerful military to ensure that goal. I cannot support that goal. It's not good for our planet, it's not good for the internaitonal community and ultimately it will not be good for America.

[USMC the Almighty]

I'm curious why you describe it as an "illegal" war, considering: http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1333&postcount=3

[InterestedParty]

I have to take question with an America that currently describes its own foreign policy as 'full spectrum dominance'.

Full spectrum dominance? This is a new one.

Now where is this coming from? Could you please supply evidence that this is true? Or is this a unsubstantiated accusation on your part?

[Kiyomori]

Have a listen to harold Pineters acceptance speech of the nobel prize for literature in 2005. You can find it on youtube or read a transcript on the nobel website.

Or you could go a little closer to home. Here's an intersting article:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2000/n06022000_20006025.html

[InterestedParty]

Kiyomori...

You have intentionally mischaracterized what 'full spectrum dominance' is for your own political purposes. It may be a bit harsh of me to say that, but had you read the news article from the DoD that you supplied to me you would have known that for yourself. So I have to conclude that you want to twist the truth to suit your way of thinking.

It has nothing to do with foreign policy.

Full spectrum dominance is the goal of the Department of Defense and is related to military campaigns.

Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations. The four capabilities at the heart of full-spectrum dominance are dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics and full-dimensional protection.

[Kiyomori]

"who cares what the rest of the world thinks? I don't elect my President to makes up popular to the rest of the world. I elect him to protect and preserve the interests of this country. Screw France, Russia, China, Germany, and the entire Middle East."

Well one thing I can say to that is that 'the rest of the world' cares what 'the rest of the world thinks.' If America stamps on enough toes 'the rest of the world' will turn against it and then it will have a real problem on its hands. The interests of the American people are not that different from the intersts of 'the rest of the world'. They involve, I would assume, a world where trade continues fluidly, with as little disruption, ie. war, as possible and that world is one that will be habitable for the human species for lifetimes to come. Squandering money on this environmentally damaging (for the whole world) and politically damaging (for the US and UK) war is not a positive step by anyones measure. If America tries to 'screw' France, Russia, China, Germany and the entire Middle East, simultaneously they will, no doubt, join forces and bite back.

Let me compare this, if I may (and I'm sure you'll object, but what the hell, it's a loaded argument already) to a certain German administration who did not succeed with their **** 'the rest of the world' attitude, but managed to cause themselves, and admittedly 'the rest of the world' a lot of strife in the process.

1) what was Saddam's violation of the ceasefire agreement exactly?
2 + 3) as Britain and the US put Saddam in power and sold him all of the weapons he was later tried and executed for using, they would have known perfectly well what his arsenal contained. If we trusted our intel we would have prevented 911, surely. It was all there on a plate.
4) Palestinans are now terroists for resisting the illegal occupation of their land by the Isreali's?
5) We sold Saddam the WMD's. We saw him use them. We knew the 'usel by dates'
6) Surely America has its own training camps on US soil. Presumably these are to counter terroism. Training soldiers to defend your country when it is under threat form a hostile nation must be a soveriegn right, but one the US is prepared to deny any country it feels threatenend by.
7) Calling these nations terroris sponsors is a bit like the the pot calling the kettle black. Especially when you consider the actions of American contra forces in Central America.
8) If that was true why are the US sending surge troops in now... what was it 125,000 extra soldiers? How many years ago did US governement declare this war over? Why are they still fighting then? Really the brilliance of the invasion plan has little to no bearing on the legality of the action.

"the terrorist joined forces with the Sunnis to create the insurgency...they should have seen it coming"

No lets read this article about how America acted illegally according to international law:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm


Coincidentally if you type the word 'illegal' and 'war' into google. This is just the first article to come up. I didn't even have to make it specific to Iraq. The internaitonal community views this action as an illegal one. Nobody is particularly happy with US foreign policy right now and that's why you're now seeing things like America agreeing to sit at the table with Iran over talks about the furutre of the region.

[Kiyomori]

seeing as you don't care what the 'rest of the world' thinks best to read the views of an American expert in international law:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm

[Kiyomori]

Kiyomori...

You have intentionally mischaracterized what 'full spectrum dominance' is for your own political purposes. It may be a bit harsh of me to say that, but had you read the news article from the DoD that you supplied to me you would have known that for yourself. So I have to conclude that you want to twist the truth to suit your way of thinking.

It has nothing to do with foreign policy.

Full spectrum dominance is the goal of the Department of Defense and is related to military campaigns.

Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations. The four capabilities at the heart of full-spectrum dominance are dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics and full-dimensional protection.

Read outside the box here: "defeat ANY adversary" "ALONE or with allies"

The implication here is that it is the goal of the military is to be able to stand alone in combat against a 'full spectrum' of opponents. It is a plan to increase military power to ensure dominance, to have such a large military that they can repel any attack from any opponent using any method.

The actions of the US military during the last fifty or so years shows that the most commonly utilised method is that of pre-emptive strike. Toppling goernments they suspect will not be friendly to their economic interests. These strikes were previously covert in the majority. Now such action is made overtly to preserve Americas interests, and to secure resources, overseas.

The International community is wary about acting against such threatening behaviour because of America's massive nuclear arsenal and because nobody wants to see another conflict like the second world war. At the moment America faces opponents with very little military power and with limited technoligical resources. Nobody wants to see what war will look like between equally matched opponents in the 21st Century. It would be horrific.

[InterestedParty]

Finish the sentence Kiyomori...

and control any situation across the range of military operations.

I choose not to read outside of the box. I am not attempting to create my own interpretation of what it says to justify my political beliefs. Which is exactly what you are doing. Stop trying to twist the meaning. The implication, as you call it, is that Joint Vision 2020 is a plan to insure that the mission of the U.S. military today and tomorrow is to fight and win the nation's wars.

The actions of the US military during the last fifty or so years shows that the most commonly utilised method is that of pre-emptive strike.

This is absolutely not true. Until the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the United States has not been the aggressor in armed conflicts. Exactly which armed conflicts has the United States taken part in where they instigated the fighting?

[saggyjones]

It isn't that you should be hindered from questioning anything, it's the manner of how to raise the questions *responsibly* without bringing additional turmoil to the situation and adding to the level of potential harm to our soldiers. I know, I know, you don't care. Saggy, you aren't questioning though. You are projecting your opinion all wrapped up inside that inspiring little quotation you are using. You are playing games with other peoples lives.

You make absolutely no sense. I am not bringing turmoil to troops with my quote, and there's no point in arguing it more because that's what I believe and I won't be changed.

The soldiers in the MiddleEast are fighting to remove any threat of terrorism like that which occurred on 9/11 on our soil. They are not there to protect your individual right of freedom of speech. Believe it or not, this is bigger than you.

Like I've said numerous times, the Iraqi insurgents aren't terrorists. I support directing our attacks toward Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but fighting the insurgents is simply wasting lives and not really doing anything.

[USMC the Almighty]

Like I've said numerous times, the Iraqi insurgents aren't terrorists. I support directing our attacks toward Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but fighting the insurgents is simply wasting lives and not really doing anything.

You couldn't be much more wrong.

(a) There are terrorists in Iraq. I see the goddamn yellow and black al Qaeda flag virtually every day. So don't tell me you support attacking al Qaeda but don't support the Iraq War.

(b) Even if the insurgents weren't comprised of terrorists we'd still be accomplishing our primary goal: making America safer. Through establishing a democratic gov't we would have an additional ally in the Middle East (the other being Israel) who would further our fight against terrorism. We would, by definition, be shutting down the terror training camps previously operating within Iraq's borders. We'd be preventing a terrorist state from taking hold in the Middle East, potentially with nuclear capabilities.

You just have no clue.

[saggyjones]

You couldn't be much more wrong.

(a) There are terrorists in Iraq. I see the goddamn yellow and black al Qaeda flag virtually every day. So don't tell me you support attacking al Qaeda but don't support the Iraq War.

The Shiite and Sunnis fighting for control of Iraq aren't terrorists. If there are still terrorists in Iraq fine, we should direct our attacks toward them, but fighting the insurgents isn't doing anything.

(b) Even if the insurgents weren't comprised of terrorists we'd still be accomplishing our primary goal: making America safer. Through establishing a democratic gov't we would have an additional ally in the Middle East (the other being Israel) who would further our fight against terrorism. We would, by definition, be shutting down the terror training camps previously operating within Iraq's borders. We'd be preventing a terrorist state from taking hold in the Middle East, potentially with nuclear capabilities.

But we already have a "democracy" there. Iraq is already an ally. Even though the government is simply a puppet and the candidates are selected by our government, it still seems to be in the best interest of the Iraqis. As for the remaining terrorist camps in Iraq, fine, we should attack them. But fighting the insurgents and attempting to keep the peace is fostering anti-American feeling in the citizens (read The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell by John Crawford) and wasting lives.

[John]

Turn the question around, could you be for the war and against the troops? No, that would be ridiculous. Now you know how the question sounds to me. It's said that this is a sneaky way to get people to support an unpopular war. Not so, do you really think anyone is so stupid as to fall for that? That is like saying that those who are part of the leftist wing of the Democratic party are total idiots!.

I remember when the war began.."1000's of Body Bags" were the mantra of the anti war crowd and then when that turned out to not be the case , they immediately began the chant, what's the exit strategy?, we support the troops and not the continued presence in Iraq". This has been the drum beat for 4 years. I knew that when I saw a bumper sticker that said, "Support the troops", that that sticker was placed by a leftist or someone who was being fooled by left wing propaganda into believing that all you had to do was say, "support the troops" and that somehow identified you with the patriots in this country. It gave you an out, your conscious was eased. Now the slogan has become to mean more than the original intent. You are being led to believe that the only way to support the troops is to protest for their withdrawal.

Let me give you a personal perspective. I was an enlisted soldier for 6 years, half of which I was on active duty. I was honorably discharged. I received a commission in 1969 upon volunteering for Vietnam. I retired as a Major after 8 1/2 years of active duty and over 20 years in the reserves. Given these credentials let me say that nothing disheartened me more than to read about the protests back home and the lies published in the press about what was happening in Vietnam. Sure we had our Lt. Callies just as we have our Abu Garib (SP?) but for the most part our soldiers, airmen and marines served with distinction and honor. Most of that was forgotten by the press who only cared about scandal. Hating the war and loving the warrior includes what the warrior does. You can not hate electricity and love the lineman. Go ahead, say you support the troops, then do nothing about it but demonstrate. Don't write letters, don't join the USO. Don't say anything good about the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, or of State, and expect me to believe you really care. Go ahead and pray for peace while you hold up defeatists signs, saying to pull out!. Forgive me, but I can not forgive you, then or now.:mad:

[The Founders Intent]

The most important thing is that America wins any war it happens to been in, and that means giving the troops all that they need and supporting their mission.

[Rokerijdude11]

My main issue is like I noted in that link -- you don't have to send us goodies, don't need to write us letters, don't even have to fly a flag outside your house or say thank you to us in airports -- just don't make our jobs more difficult than they need to be.

You can be opposed to the war but still support the effort -- that is to say that even if you don't think going in was a good idea, you can still want the troops to succeed on our missions and still want the U.S. to win.

well then you should be able to accept when someone says they are against the war but support the troops because what they are saying is what you wrote they dont necessarily agree with the war and how its being handled But they do wish the troops well and hope they are victorious and come home un-harmed ........


but most of the right wingnuts and conservatives dont see it that way they say if your against the war your against the troops too


Bollocks

[Rokerijdude11]

Turn the question around, could you be for the war and against the troops? No, that would be ridiculous. Now you know how the question sounds to me. It's said that this is a sneaky way to get people to support an unpopular war. Not so, do you really think anyone is so stupid as to fall for that? That is like saying that those who are part of the leftist wing of the Democratic party are total idiots!.

I remember when the war began.."1000's of Body Bags" were the mantra of the anti war crowd and then when that turned out to not be the case , they immediately began the chant, what's the exit strategy?, we support the troops and not the continued presence in Iraq". This has been the drum beat for 4 years. I knew that when I saw a bumper sticker that said, "Support the troops", that that sticker was placed by a leftist or someone who was being fooled by left wing propaganda into believing that all you had to do was say, "support the troops" and that somehow identified you with the patriots in this country. It gave you an out, your conscious was eased. Now the slogan has become to mean more than the original intent. You are being led to believe that the only way to support the troops is to protest for their withdrawal.

Let me give you a personal perspective. I was an enlisted soldier for 6 years, half of which I was on active duty. I was honorably discharged. I received a commission in 1969 upon volunteering for Vietnam. I retired as a Major after 8 1/2 years of active duty and over 20 years in the reserves. Given these credentials let me say that nothing disheartened me more than to read about the protests back home and the lies published in the press about what was happening in Vietnam. Sure we had our Lt. Callies just as we have our Abu Garib (SP?) but for the most part our soldiers, airmen and marines served with distinction and honor. Most of that was forgotten by the press who only cared about scandal. Hating the war and loving the warrior includes what the warrior does. You can not hate electricity and love the lineman. Go ahead, say you support the troops, then do nothing about it but demonstrate. Don't write letters, don't join the USO. Don't say anything good about the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, or of State, and expect me to believe you really care. Go ahead and pray for peace while you hold up defeatists signs, saying to pull out!. Forgive me, but I can not forgive you, then or now.:mad:

It would largely appear to me ,that your problem lies with the Corporate owned/controlled Media ? thats what i got from your post ........I think pulling out is a STUPID idea and we probably really wont do that...its just talk on the hill



Im ex military as well...but i am mature and educated enough to know the line or difference between right and wrong.......you spent time in country..all these years later your honestly going to tell me that the govt and the top brass handled Ops correctly in Indo-china?????


what your telling me is that the pentagon somehow handled Nam Differently that Iraq? your Blind in my opinion.........


Btw the Americans you are referring to are NOT patriots they are "Patriotic Americans"........the numbers of TRUE American Patriots are far far far less than the silly flag waving american

which most of them dont even realize they are waving what is Known as a "national" flag they arent even TRUE American Flags !!!all of you Flying a 3x5 Flag should familiarize yourselves with U.S. Flag codes..... because theose National flags, are NOT proprtioned correctly!! in other words, they arent american flags at all........ just REPRESENTATIONS OF Such any 3x5,,,,,,4x6,,,,,,2x4,,,,6x8,,,flag is nothing but a Representation of the US flag....... they arent REAL flags



I dont need your forgiveness I served My country proudly too......I LOVE MY COUNTRY ..its MY Government I FEAR...

I support the Troops in theatre as well as anywhere in the world .as they are all my brothers...........I do NOT support the PNAC and its world domination at the blodd of our childrens plans Im sorry

I understand duty and honor and know why our boys and girls do what they do an i wouldnt have it any other way

our problem lies with the crooks at the top of the food chain not with our commanding officers and enlisted men and women

[kobzikov]

The most important thing is that America wins any war it happens to been in, and that means giving the troops all that they need and supporting their mission.

No, the most important thing is that US doesn't start or become involved in any more unnecessary wars.

What concerns giving the troops all that they need, then the current administration clearly has failed the objective and should be impeached, not only because they already failed to provide for the troops, but also because they haven't rectified the shortcomings and supplied the troops with whatever they need, including a clear military objective.

And if you think that we should support their mission whatever it might be then you are out of your mind. I'm not supporting ethnic cleansing, colonization, permanent occupation, propping up dictatorships or anything of such nature if suddenly this or any other administration decided that would be in their interest or in the interest of their corporate friends.

[9sublime]

No, the most important thing is that US doesn't start or become involved in any more unnecessary wars.

And if you think that we should support their mission whatever it might be then you are out of your mind. I'm not supporting... propping up dictatorships

Two things the USA have done enough of already.

[evelyna]

This is more Bush propaganda "If you are not with us-you are against us." I feel sorry for the troops they are being used as targets for the radicals. I feel the gov. is taking advantage by requiring unlimited duty. I support anyone who is used and abused when they think they are doing the right thing.
The country does not treat you right when you are no longer serving their purpose or making them money. Just because it is worse in Cuba, Jamaca or someother remote is no excuse for the USA,

[Grounded]

This is more Bush propaganda "If you are not with us-you are against us." I feel sorry for the troops they are being used as targets for the radicals. I feel the gov. is taking advantage by requiring unlimited duty. I support anyone who is used and abused when they think they are doing the right thing.

Couldn't have said it better.

We need Bush to stop with the BS that he's feeding us.

[not2needy]

How can we hold these young men and women responsible for the misguidence of our govt? They went into the armed forces for various reasons, they knew there was a possibility of war, but i don't think they knew what Bush had in store for them.
I can support them, respect them for doing their jobs, and love them, but i don't have to support Bush's war, it's not their fault.

[Everylyric]

How can we hold these young men and women responsible for the misguidence of our govt? They went into the armed forces for various reasons, they knew there was a possibility of war, but i don't think they knew what Bush had in store for them.
I can support them, respect them for doing their jobs, and love them, but i don't have to support Bush's war, it's not their fault.

Amen to that!

:D

[icono1]

The troops where sent in by Congress at the request of the President et al.. The whole rush to judgment by the American body politic was partially to curry favor with the white house and to individually position themselves as true patriots which, by calculation, would give them an advantage during the next election over any challenger. The soldier by contrast is bound by 'duty' (contract) to go where ordered by the pentagon, which is told by congress where to go, and as such has no 'immediate' politically binding vote, as a block, as to either go or not to go to war. So personally I can support the troops in the field without supporting our govt's policy of war. Our politician's should always be held accountable for what they say and do. Also, if we the people, allow our elected politician's to send in troops to fight an ill advised war, then we the people need to hold the politicians accountable for such a failure of policy and vote them out.

[The Founders Intent]

No you cannot support our troops and not support their mission. They believe in their mission, and they will not respect your half-hearted support.

[TheWaffle]

No you cannot support our troops and not support their mission. They believe in their mission, and they will not respect your half-hearted support.

Support the troops by getting less of them killed. I think most people would respect that kind of support.

[Castle]

Support the troops by getting less of them killed. I think most people would respect that kind of support.

So, if there are fewer deaths overall while ultimately conceding defeat as a result, that is acceptable to you? I wonder how all the soldiers that have made the ultimate sacrifice would interpret your support when they realized their sacrifices were for nothing simply because you didn't have the constitution to see it through. I support the troops and I say that without hesitation because I support their mission as so many did for my brothers in '91.

-Castle

[Sgt Schultz]

No you cannot support our troops and not support their mission. They believe in their mission, and they will not respect your half-hearted support.\

I disagree. There are those in the military who disagree with the mission in Iraq. Not everyone in the military believes in the mission. Don't believe me? Read the letters to the editor in the Stars and Stripes, visit some of the military blogs and forums that people in the military hang out in. But they all put that aside and do their duty to support their fellow troops who are in harms way. That goes for family members and friends of the troops also. That is what is important and that is supporting the troops.

[Dagoth]

I would just end the discussion here sqt schultz holds a good point and what would be the point of arguing any further~

[ramblingwreck]

You can certainly disagree with the war yet support our troops and demand victory.

[USMC the Almighty]

You can certainly disagree with the war yet support our troops and demand victory.

Exactly. What I've been trying to get across this entire thread.

[Rokerijdude11]

Demand a Victory over an Ideology?


can you explain that to us? we waged war against an ideology not a country or peoples..........

there can be NO clear Victory therefore

[USMC the Almighty]

Demand a Victory over an Ideology?


can you explain that to us? we waged war against an ideology not a country or peoples..........

there can be NO clear Victory therefore

It worked against the ideologies of Communism, Fascism, and Nazism.

[Justinian]

Only a disconnected fool who has no idea about the military could say there's a difference between supporting the mission and the man.

[Rockin Mark]

................can you support our country and our troops but not the war





we must not lose !!!



all the troops are our lives blood we need to get some help from IRAQ and OTHER COUNTRYS we SHOULD pull back to the borders of syria and iran ..........that would stop the problems in iraq

[Rokerijdude11]

It worked against the ideologies of Communism, Fascism, and Nazism.

REally?

so your saying to me then.............
that in this world there are NO FASCISTS?

and there are NO Nazis

and there are NO communists?

winning and DEFEATING the IDELOGY means ERADICATING the IDEOLOGY


can you clearly demonstrate the VICTORIES and ELIMINTATION of the idelogies you listed?

NO of course not ......WHY

becuase they are IDELOGIES and they STILL LIVE in the minds of men and women around the globe
In all three instances you have listed we were at war with a COUNTRY not an Ideology and besides all 3 of those ideologies are alive and flourishing in todays world

nice attempt though

[Freethinker]

Shooter Cheney has declared in so many words that HE and JUNIOR are going to hold the troops hostage to get the funding for the occupation for profit.
He has threatened over and over that HE will see to it that if the occupation funding ends THEY WILL be in danger.
Apparently congress has decided to pay the ransom to keep most of them alive.

[Napoleon]

You can't be against the mission and support the people carrying it out. I'm reminded of Joel Stein's article (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)in the LA Times:

"Warriors and wusses
By JOEL STEIN
January 24, 2006

I don't support our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car.

Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.

And I've got no problem with other people -- the ones who were for the Iraq war -- supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken -- and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there -- and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake.

Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach."

The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.

I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful.

After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood.

But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives.

I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.

And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany.

I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book.

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Seriously, the traffic is insufferable."

[top gun]

So, if there are fewer deaths overall while ultimately conceding defeat as a result, that is acceptable to you? I wonder how all the soldiers that have made the ultimate sacrifice would interpret your support when they realized their sacrifices were for nothing simply because you didn't have the constitution to see it through. I support the troops and I say that without hesitation because I support their mission as so many did for my brothers in '91.

-Castle

Supporting the troops means that you wish them the best. You want them to be given an obtainable goal with an exit strategy.

You don't want incompetence and poor planning and misunderstanding of the region by their Commander and Chief. You don't want their vehicles to lack proper armor. And you don't want their tours extended longer & longer.

So the answer is obviously yes... you can support the troops and not support the mission because the mission is not their fault and you truly in your heart want them out of a endless religious Civil War and back home safely with their families.

[USMC the Almighty]

REally?

so your saying to me then.............
that in this world there are NO FASCISTS?

and there are NO Nazis

and there are NO communists?

winning and DEFEATING the IDELOGY means ERADICATING the IDEOLOGY


can you clearly demonstrate the VICTORIES and ELIMINTATION of the idelogies you listed?

NO of course not ......WHY

becuase they are IDELOGIES and they STILL LIVE in the minds of men and women around the globe
In all three instances you have listed we were at war with a COUNTRY not an Ideology and besides all 3 of those ideologies are alive and flourishing in todays world

nice attempt though

Are they still a threat? No, Nazism, Communism, and Fascism are no longer threats. They have been minimized -- marginalized to the point of insignificance. We should strive to do the same with the 21st century ideology of terrorism.

[mysteryman]

I didnt know a jarhead could think,let alone type.

Now,I can say that because I am a retired FMF corpsman,last assigned with the 15th MEU in Nassiriyah Iraq.

As for supporting the troops,ANYTHING that gives our enemies hop,be it calling for our withdrawal,a timetable,or anything that can let the enemy think we are weak is NOT supporting me or my comrades.

You dont need to send me letters and "care packages",but dont say anything against me or my brothers either.
The enemy hears everything the anti-war crowd is saying,and they will use it as a weapon.

[USMC the Almighty]

I didnt know a jarhead could think,let alone type.

Now,I can say that because I am a retired FMF corpsman,last assigned with the 15th MEU in Nassiriyah Iraq.

As for supporting the troops,ANYTHING that gives our enemies hop,be it calling for our withdrawal,a timetable,or anything that can let the enemy think we are weak is NOT supporting me or my comrades.

You dont need to send me letters and "care packages",but dont say anything against me or my brothers either.
The enemy hears everything the anti-war crowd is saying,and they will use it as a weapon.

Glad to have you on board. SEMPER FI, Marine. As for your analysis -- spot on.

[mysteryman]

SEMPER FI Marine.
I was wounded in Nassiriyah during the invasion of Iraq,and the Navy decided they didnt need my services anymore.
I retired as a first Class petty officer (E-6) after almost 20 years of keeping Marines alive.

If they call me,I will go back tomorrow.

[USMC the Almighty]

I have only good things to say about the fleet Marine force. Thank you for your service, Doc.

[Vitiate]

Are they still a threat? No, Nazism, Communism, and Fascism are no longer threats. They have been minimized -- marginalized to the point of insignificance. We should strive to do the same with the 21st century ideology of terrorism.

North Korea isn't a threat? According to our intelligence it is. Putin, if I'm not mistaken is fascist and Hugo Chavez is purportedly fascist as well. You cannot destroy ideologies. It's completey illogical.

Which brings me to another question. Does Fundamental Islam allow for Democracy? Apparently it doesn't, yet we're still fighting a huge population that is fundamentalist. Furthermore, what use is democracy if there is no middle class, a very tiny power elite (US implants), and a large population of the poor who'll vote for anything because they lack the education to understand what democracy is.

In any case, I see this whole 'do you support the troops, but not the war' as completely asinine. This isn't some sort of dichotomy. This is just like me saying that I can't support the well-being of a habitual drug user because they do drugs. Everyone wants to see that their soldiers in arms are safe.

[Vitiate]

I didnt know a jarhead could think,let alone type.

Now,I can say that because I am a retired FMF corpsman,last assigned with the 15th MEU in Nassiriyah Iraq.

As for supporting the troops,ANYTHING that gives our enemies hop,be it calling for our withdrawal,a timetable,or anything that can let the enemy think we are weak is NOT supporting me or my comrades.

You dont need to send me letters and "care packages",but dont say anything against me or my brothers either.
The enemy hears everything the anti-war crowd is saying,and they will use it as a weapon.

They know we're weak, otherwise they would have surrendered at the onset of invasion. I credit your time in service, but I disagree with your statements.

[USMC the Almighty]

North Korea isn't a threat? According to our intelligence it is. Putin, if I'm not mistaken is fascist and Hugo Chavez is purportedly fascist as well. You cannot destroy ideologies. It's completey illogical.

Fair enough -- some would consider N. Korea a threat, but in my eyes, the terrorists of the Middle East pose a much larger threat. Putin is not a fascist, and neither is Chavez.

Have we not successfully destroyed Nazism?



Which brings me to another question. Does Fundamental Islam allow for Democracy? Apparently it doesn't, yet we're still fighting a huge population that is fundamentalist. Furthermore, what use is democracy if there is no middle class, a very tiny power elite (US implants), and a large population of the poor who'll vote for anything because they lack the education to understand what democracy is.

That's exactly what the Redeemers would say about balcks and the 14th/15th Amendments during American Reconstruction. Democracies aren't built in a day.

Everyone wants to see that their soldiers in arms are safe.

But the question is whether you want them to be successful in their mission.

[Sgt Schultz]

But the question is whether you want them to be successful in their mission.

Want and belief that it is possible are two different things.

[dls]

I didnt know a jarhead could think,let alone type.

Now,I can say that because I am a retired FMF corpsman,last assigned with the 15th MEU in Nassiriyah Iraq.

As for supporting the troops,ANYTHING that gives our enemies hop,be it calling for our withdrawal,a timetable,or anything that can let the enemy think we are weak is NOT supporting me or my comrades.

You don't need to send me letters and "care packages",but don't say anything against me or my brothers either.
The enemy hears everything the anti-war crowd is saying,and they will use it as a weapon.
There are a lot of us who totally disagree with the traitorous actions taking place in congress and the senate for that matter.
I firmly believe that you can't have your cake and eat it too. And that's all our politicians try for.
In answer to the topic NO you can't support the troops and talk crap about the mission.

[vyo476]

There are a lot of us who totally disagree with the traitorous actions taking place in congress and the senate for that matter.

Just thought I'd let you know - the Senate is part of Congress.


I firmly believe that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I'm curious - do you believe this is true in all situations?


And that's all our politicians try for.

Nah, they spend a lot of time naming stuff too. :p


In answer to the topic NO you can't support the troops and talk crap about the mission.

Here we agree. For the most part. If someone makes a truly compelling argument I'm still willing to listen.

[vyo476]

North Korea isn't a threat? According to our intelligence it is. Putin, if I'm not mistaken is fascist and Hugo Chavez is purportedly fascist as well. You cannot destroy ideologies. It's completey illogical.

North Korea would be dangerous if someone gave them the means to be, but even the Chinese think they're crazy so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Putin is a communist wannabe and Chavez is a communist - in a country that doesn't pose much of a threat. The latter two are mostly windbags without much shot at accomplishing any of their potentially anti-US goals.


Which brings me to another question. Does Fundamental Islam allow for Democracy? Apparently it doesn't, yet we're still fighting a huge population that is fundamentalist.
These guys might disagree with you: http://www.csidonline.org/


Furthermore, what use is democracy if there is no middle class, a very tiny power elite (US implants), and a large population of the poor who'll vote for anything because they lack the education to understand what democracy is.

Wow. Tell me, what do you know of the American Revolution? The American middle class was tiny during and directly after the Revolution - confined to artisans and shopowners in the cities. Besides that there were the wealthy merchants and the overwhelming majority, the poor, uneducated farmers.


In any case, I see this whole 'do you support the troops, but not the war' as completely asinine. This isn't some sort of dichotomy. This is just like me saying that I can't support the well-being of a habitual drug user because they do drugs. Everyone wants to see that their soldiers in arms are safe.

Be realistic. If all we were hung up on was their safety they wouldn't be "soldiers," would they? The question is whether the mission is worth the sacrifice, and saying it isn't is demeaning to those who believed it was and gave their lives for it, and also gives a morale boost to the people who continue to kill our troops as they near completion of their goal - driving us out of Iraq.

While I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the majority of the Iraqi people wanted us gone these days, I would be surprised if the majority of the Iraqi people want the people currently responsible for murdering civilians and our troops to take over once we're gone. Your thoughts?

[Vitiate]

Fair enough -- some would consider N. Korea a threat, but in my eyes, the terrorists of the Middle East pose a much larger threat. Putin is not a fascist, and neither is Chavez.

Have we not successfully destroyed Nazism?



I wouldn't say we've successfully destroyed it. Some extremely conservative individuals still carry the ideology of nazism, though they don't refer to it as nazism, and they are usually more centralized in the South.



That's exactly what the Redeemers would say about balcks and the 14th/15th Amendments during American Reconstruction. Democracies aren't built in a day.



I can only hope you're right.


But the question is whether you want them to be successful in their mission.

Yes, everyone wants to see their team be successful, but it doesn't always work out that way. Does it mean I can't be behind my troops? Not necessarily.

[Vitiate]

North Korea would be dangerous if someone gave them the means to be, but even the Chinese think they're crazy so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Putin is a communist wannabe and Chavez is a communist - in a country that doesn't pose much of a threat. The latter two are mostly windbags without much shot at accomplishing any of their potentially anti-US goals.


North Korea is dangerous. Having missile capabilities that are trans-pacific is not dangerous? China is the counterweight between the US and North Korea. China has economic ties with both the US and North Korea. Any disturbance with China could tip the scales in one direction and hurt the other.

Fine, they're communists, but they are still fascists. Putin slams oligarchies and his government kills those that speak out. His government has killed numerous journalists for investigating his government.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/08/europe/EU_GEN_Russia_Journalist_Killed_Glance.php
As for Hugo, he takes after his homie Putin, trying to manipulate the government and destroy the articles of their country so that he can remain in power.

Underestimation of any country is the worst thing you can do because it leads us into a quagmire.


These guys might disagree with you: http://www.csidonline.org/

I read some of their stuff. They seem to be moving Sharia Law to a more progressive stance, which is what they want. They're loosening it up so to speak.


Wow. Tell me, what do you know of the American Revolution? The American middle class was tiny during and directly after the Revolution - confined to artisans and shopowners in the cities. Besides that there were the wealthy merchants and the overwhelming majority, the poor, uneducated farmers.


A lot has changed in roughly 300 years. The zeitgeist was completely different and the conditions don't even pale in comparison to those in Iraq. We had a set of founding fathers, generals and scholars. Iraq doesn't have that. They have no one to relate to. They have no heroes.


Be realistic. If all we were hung up on was their safety they wouldn't be "soldiers," would they? The question is whether the mission is worth the sacrifice, and saying it isn't is demeaning to those who believed it was and gave their lives for it, and also gives a morale boost to the people who continue to kill our troops as they near completion of their goal - driving us out of Iraq.


I am being realistic. I do support the troops because I care for my fellow man. Therefore I can say that the mission is not worth their sacrifice. I feel that they are dragged into something that may never end. Does it stop my support for them? No, not at all. If they can get the job done, that's fantastic, but I don't have to support the American oligarchy vision of what it wants in the middle east - which of course is superimposed onto my countrymen who are fighting over there. Supporting issues blindly is not what democracy is all about, and as a civilian, it is my duty to question the visions of our government even during wartime.


While I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the majority of the Iraqi people wanted us gone these days, I would be surprised if the majority of the Iraqi people want the people currently responsible for murdering civilians and our troops to take over once we're gone. Your thoughts?

Such a paradox right? :)

[braecampion]

I think its almost impossible to completely support the troops when you don't support the reason they are over there. They are fighting for a specific reason/cause and if you don't believe in that reason/cause how can you back the troops, its hypocracy at the smallest level. But if you can do it, more power to you.

[michaelr]

I voted yes. I want the troops home, I believe that it is naive to think that this war is just. I was against it from before it started. I am also against us going into Iran, I think that would be foolish. These countries never posed a threat to us, Israel, maybe. Thats their problem. I have 3 sons that and I persuaded them against joining the military to fight a war of aggression. At first they didn't understand, now they thank me.
I have a great fondness for the troops, they are the best of the best. Yet their suicide rates are at an all time high, divorce is also out of control. When they get home they find nothing but grief when dealing with the VA. Their jobs are gone, the gov turns their backs toward them. In my state, the veterans hospitals are a joke, it takes them months to get in, then if they are lucky they receive treatment. The state cannot afford to keep them open as the federal gov cut payments.
I have taken part in protesting this war, and will continue to do so. I have the greatest respect for the troops and only want the best for them. Ask this administration why they have let them down, and when do they plan to give them the support that they deserve.

[OPGhostdog]

Michaelr....Right on with your post. I totally agree with everything
you said. There is a big differences between reading about a War,
and actually fighting in a War.

As a ex-service man I am going to speak from experience, and NOT
from something I learned while watching Chuck Norris or Harrison
Ford. Everyday Most Americans is always posting that they support
our troops, but seem to think that they should stay in Iraq until......
What they die?

In the Middle East our Men & Women is catching pure hell from the
heat. I can understand them having mix emotions towards our gov,
and most is homesick for home. Yet they are keeping the courage
to hang in there regardless, and over here we have people who do
not seem to have the solution to bring them home.

Three more of our troops was killed yesterday, and yet Bush is
planning on sending another 20,000 over to the Middle East.
I am wondering what kind of deal did Bush cut with the Saudia
Royal Family?

In Closing.....BRING OUR TROOPS HOME IN ONE PIECE.

[top gun]

I voted yes. I want the troops home, I believe that it is naive to think that this war is just. I was against it from before it started. I am also against us going into Iran, I think that would be foolish. These countries never posed a threat to us, Israel, maybe. Thats their problem. I have 3 sons that and I persuaded them against joining the military to fight a war of aggression. At first they didn't understand, now they thank me.
I have a great fondness for the troops, they are the best of the best. Yet their suicide rates are at an all time high, divorce is also out of control. When they get home they find nothing but grief when dealing with the VA. Their jobs are gone, the gov turns their backs toward them. In my state, the veterans hospitals are a joke, it takes them months to get in, then if they are lucky they receive treatment. The state cannot afford to keep them open as the federal gov cut payments.
I have taken part in protesting this war, and will continue to do so. I have the greatest respect for the troops and only want the best for them. Ask this administration why they have let them down, and when do they plan to give them the support that they deserve.

I have to agree. I was totally on board with going into Afghanistan to search for Bin Laden after 911. If you attack us and we can prove it or you are stupid enough to admit to it we should hunt you down like a dog and capture or kill you.

But this Iraq thing was just vanity run amuck. Bush didn't like Hussein for several reasons and by God he was going to take him out. He would not wait. He would not go along with the UN (and remember it was their sanctions that Hussein was breaking).

Now we are quagmired down. Brave American lives are lost on a daily basis and our treasury is spending tax money like we have never seen before funding Nation Building.

We must elect a president that has a position to end this occupation. I know some say Ron Paul but he will not be a candidate in the general election. All the other Republican candidates say stay. Vote symbolically up to the general election to make your points. That's very honorable. But if Ron Paul isn't there at the end please help the Democrats in the 08 election... it's our only chance!

[fschmeisser]

Redeploying our troops out of Iraq is the only way to truly support them. Currently, they are playing whack-a-mole trying to remove insurgents from areas, but since they are creating enemies of the families of those they kill, their brothers move back in as soon as our troops move on. This has been going on for years, and things seem to go from bad to worse. Since we do not have the troops (or the money) to hold areas, it is best to ship out.
The highly touted Iraqi army is no help, since they have no allegiance to the imposed "democracy".

[jeffbiss]

1. We are not at war, we are occupying Iraq.
2. Bush lied us into invading.

There is absolutely no connection between wanting to hold this adminsitration accountable for its crimes, unconstitutional behavior, and incompetence and support of our military personnel.

To simply equate support of the "war" with support of our troops requires one to accept that they are simply pawns of the administration in the quest to fulfill their agenda. This mindset has no place in our republic.

True support of our troops would come in the form of an open government that holds those in power accountable for their crimes, unconstitutional behavior, and incompetence. The fundamental question is whether we are a nation of laws or privilege. To simply "support our troops" is to live in a Banana Republic.

[nakedtruth]

In a poll over 70 percent of the troops in Iraq said they wanted the war ended in 2006! It's now 2007 so those numbers probably have only gone up. If we did what the troops wanted we'd bring them home yesterday.

[USMC the Almighty]

In a poll over 70 percent of the troops in Iraq said they wanted the war ended in 2006! It's now 2007 so those numbers probably have only gone up. If we did what the troops wanted we'd bring them home yesterday.

What poll do you speak of? Must've been polling the Desk Force because I don't know any Marines who are advocating surrender. Most, like myself, are upset that there aren't enough troops on the ground to hold the areas that secure and as a result, we have to pay for real estate two and three times. Iraq on the whole is making tremendous progress. It's really only Baghdad that needs securing. Another 50-75k would get the job done.

[USMC the Almighty]

1. We are not at war, we are occupying Iraq.

Wrong. We are at war against AQ and we have liberated Iraq.


2. Bush lied us into invading.

First, you can't prove that he lied. Secondly, if Bush lied then by default so did Hillary Clinton and the rest of Congress.


There is absolutely no connection between wanting to hold this adminsitration accountable for its crimes, unconstitutional behavior, and incompetence and support of our military personnel.

Please expound on exactly what part of the constitution the President has betrayed.

To simply equate support of the "war" with support of our troops requires one to accept that they are simply pawns of the administration in the quest to fulfill their agenda. This mindset has no place in our republic.

The fact of the matter is that the troops are fighting a war. Democrats and Republicans voted to send them to war -- the most serious decision any politician can make is to send members of the military to war. It is extremely disloyal to, if things aren't progressing at the ideal speed for the latte liberals, immediately call for retreat.

If you're going to send us to war, then you support us and our mission until that war is won.

True support of our troops would come in the form of an open government that holds those in power accountable for their crimes, unconstitutional behavior, and incompetence.

No, all that would do is screw up the political process even more. That's the worse possible option for the country and it's servicemen. We need less bureaucracy and politics -- not more.

The fundamental question is whether we are a nation of laws or privilege. To simply "support our troops" is to live in a Banana Republic.

I don't even know what this means.

[jeffbiss]

USMC,

1. We are occupying Iraq. When we invaded Iraq we removed the two things in Iraq the controlled al Qaeda: Saddam and the Baath Party. Iraq was invaded to control the region's oil reserves and had nothing to do with "fighting al Qaeda".

2. Bush lied about the threat Saddam posed. Bush set up a system by which all intelligence that was not in support of invading Iraq was ignored. Hillary and the rest of Congress didn't lie because they were presented with the skewed intelligence.

3. Bush ignores the constitution because he believes in a unitary Executive. For example, his use of ignoring the law through signing statements is unconstitutional. His lying to the American people and Congress is unconstitutional.

4. Our troops are not fighting a war. They are providing security in Iraq. We invaded Iraq and the war ended when we took Baghdad. The Congress should never have allowed Bush the authority that is theirs alone. The constitution grants the authority to declare war to Congress and so Congress has the authority to declare an end to war.

You dont' have a clue about Iraq do you? Retreat from what? From keeping a puppet government in place? From allowing Iraqis to live their own lives? They warned us NOT to inject sectarianism or ethnicity into their politics yet we did because the Bush administration is stupid. What we needed were people who understand Iraq and the region and what we got were ideologues.

5. So, you don't like the tenets on which our republic is founded? You want an authoritarian state? Maybe you should try China. It surprises me that a serviceman would speak against the form of government that the constitution sets forth. We wouldn't be in the situation we currently are in had the American people done their job and enlightened themselves of the facts. Also, Congress saw fit to fall at the feet of a unitary President. Good governance requires smart debate, you call for blind loyalty.

6. If we are a nation of laws then Bush and Cheney would be impeached for his crimes and removed from office. The problem is that with power comes privilege, just as in any Banana Republic, which is why Bush is still President.

[USMC the Almighty]

1. We are occupying Iraq. When we invaded Iraq we removed the two things in Iraq the controlled al Qaeda: Saddam and the Baath Party. Iraq was invaded to control the region's oil reserves and had nothing to do with "fighting al Qaeda".

By what measure was AQI under “control”? Beirut (83), Lockerbie (88), WTC (93), Air Force Housing Complex in SA (96), U.S. embassy in Kenya (98), U.S. embassy in Tanzania (98), U.S. Cole (00), Pentagon/WTC1,2,7/flight 93 (01), Zarqawi, Nidal, Zawhiri…

If you honestly believe that we went there for oil then I shouldn’t even waste my time responding to anything you say.

2. Bush lied about the threat Saddam posed. Bush set up a system by which all intelligence that was not in support of invading Iraq was ignored. Hillary and the rest of Congress didn't lie because they were presented with the skewed intelligence.

First – everyone , Democrats/Republicans, Americans, international forces believed that Saddam posed a threat. How quickly you forget:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weep on stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

there’s plenty more…

3. Bush ignores the constitution because he believes in a unitary Executive. For example, his use of ignoring the law through signing statements is unconstitutional. His lying to the American people and Congress is unconstitutional.

Again, I’d like an Article/Section number of the Constitution that the President has betrayed.

4. Our troops are not fighting a war. They are providing security in Iraq. We invaded Iraq and the war ended when we took Baghdad. The Congress should never have allowed Bush the authority that is theirs alone. The constitution grants the authority to declare war to Congress and so Congress has the authority to declare an end to war.

Not exactly. Congress can end the war because they have the “power of the purse” to use a colonial era term, but if you remember there never was no official declaration of war (which is why Ron Paul voted against it).
The troops won the war against Saddam with the Thunder Run on Baghdad, but we are now engaged in a war against Islamic fascism – and the front for that war right now is Iraq, although it is slowly shifting to Iran and Syria.

You dont' have a clue about Iraq do you? Retreat from what? From keeping a puppet government in place? From allowing Iraqis to live their own lives? They warned us NOT to inject sectarianism or ethnicity into their politics yet we did because the Bush administration is stupid. What we needed were people who understand Iraq and the region and what we got were ideologues.

You really are an idiot. The “stupid” Bush Administration injected sectarianism into the conflict, not AQI/Zarqawi’s Somarra Mosque bombing?

And retreat from what? Retreat from the fledgling democracy that is trying to get on its feet. It wasn’t until 1800 that America really became a viable country. That’s a good 24 years after our Independence. Iraq was given independence in 2003. It’s 2007.

5. So, you don't like the tenets on which our republic is founded? You want an authoritarian state? Maybe you should try China. It surprises me that a serviceman would speak against the form of government that the constitution sets forth. We wouldn't be in the situation we currently are in had the American people done their job and enlightened themselves of the facts. Also, Congress saw fit to fall at the feet of a unitary President. Good governance requires smart debate, you call for blind loyalty.

Where do you get this silly idea from? I don’t want to screw up the failing political process even more for vengeful proceedings and trials of some imaginary “crimes”. When Clinton was being impeached, I remember telling one of my buddies that every president from here on out was going to be brought up on impeachment hearings. Bringing impeachment trials on Bush makes a mockery of the Constitution (specifically Article 2, Section 4). People like you make me think back to the days of Charles Sumner and the Radical Republicans. (Go ahead and Wikipedia him to see if you can make the connection.)

6. If we are a nation of laws then Bush and Cheney would be impeached for his crimes and removed from office. The problem is that with power comes privilege, just as in any Banana Republic, which is why Bush is still President.

You have still yet to substantiate these cries for impeachment.

[jeffbiss]

USMC,

1. You are very confused, as most Bush supporters are. Al Qaeda is one thing and Saddam was another. Saddam controlled al Qaeda because he was a secular leader and a tyrant. By default he controlled al Qaeda.

2. What people believed is of no relevance. We were in the process of actually discovering precisely what, if any, threat Saddam posed. UNMOVIC was allowed back into Iraq on Nov. 27, 2002 and was in the process of inspecting the country for alleged WMDs. Bush couldn't allow them to complete their inspections in the event that they proved Iraq actually had no WMDs so he made an ultimatum for Saddam and sons to leave Iraq, thus forcing UNMOVIC out on March 18, 2003.

3. The Executive branch is supposed to enforce the entire law not just part of it. Bush has chosen to enforce legislation selectively which is unconstitutional. He also illegally and unconstitutionally spied on US citizens, so see the court rulings. The President is not supposed to lie, especially about the reasons to go to war.

4. They have the power of the purse and the authority to declare war and thus to undeclare war. The President is simply the top officer of the military. He can run the military but he has no authority to start or continue conflicts, unless allowed to by Congress.

5. Correct, Bush added sectarianism and ethnicity into the equation. the Iraqis desires for creating a government were ignored. For the most part Iraqis didn't perceive themselves according to sect. They warned us not to parse out power according to sect or ethnicity but we did so we created the environment for the strife we see now.

6. You can't force democracy down a people's throat. What we need to do now is to back out and provide a regional political solution. Our absolute ignorance is precisely why Iraq is the way it is.

7. You seem to like an authoritarian form of government. I don't like what my government is doing and will not support it. I believe that Bush lying about the threat Saddam posed itself is an impeachable offense. I think that Cheney's actions are impeachable. I don't accept the Unitary Executive theory you seem to support because I see that the constitution provides for three co-equal branches and that the Executive is to be held accountable for their crimes.

[Beetle Bailey]

I'd like to know your views on this. It seems there is percentage of Americans who think you can not be against the war and still support the troops?

Does this mean you cant be against what they're fighting for and at the same time hope they all make it home safely?

It is a set up question to begin with. A rhetorical device of the right wing. Many of us have family and friends serving in Iraq, but are not exactly happy about it. So who really supports the troops? Those of us who risk and maybe sacrifice loved one's? Or people who just talk about supporting the troops? You know. Like some of the people who post on this forum. Always happy to have other people do their fighting for them. That way they can sit at home and tell us what a good job we are doing in Iraq.

[USMC the Almighty]

USMC,
1. You are very confused, as most Bush supporters are. Al Qaeda is one thing and Saddam was another. Saddam controlled al Qaeda because he was a secular leader and a tyrant. By default he controlled al Qaeda.

If he did have control as you contend and AQI carried out these attacks under his control -- then we were perfectly justified in going after Saddam as he was the root cause of 9/11.

2. What people believed is of no relevance. We were in the process of actually discovering precisely what, if any, threat Saddam posed. UNMOVIC was allowed back into Iraq on Nov. 27, 2002 and was in the process of inspecting the country for alleged WMDs. Bush couldn't allow them to complete their inspections in the event that they proved Iraq actually had no WMDs so he made an ultimatum for Saddam and sons to leave Iraq, thus forcing UNMOVIC out on March 18, 2003.

Give me a break. They'd been inspecting Saddam's weaps since 1997. They had plenty of time so you're not convincing anyone with your "Bush didn't give them enough time to do their job".

3. The Executive branch is supposed to enforce the entire law not just part of it. Bush has chosen to enforce legislation selectively which is unconstitutional. He also illegally and unconstitutionally spied on US citizens, so see the court rulings. The President is not supposed to lie, especially about the reasons to go to war.

Again, point exactly to an aspect of the Constitution that he betrayed. I've asked you three times and you still refuse to do it. Furthermore, what U.S. citizens (as in give me their names) did he spy on? U.S. troops were using Zawhiri's rolodex to tap phone calls coming from Iraq into the U.S. It would be the height of irresponsibility to not tap these calls.

Lastly, at least try to make a case that the President "lied". Just repeating it over and over again doesn't make it more true.

4. They have the power of the purse and the authority to declare war and thus to undeclare war. The President is simply the top officer of the military. He can run the military but he has no authority to start or continue conflicts, unless allowed to by Congress.

Except that Congress didn't declare war. This is a moot point anyway.

5. Correct, Bush added sectarianism and ethnicity into the equation. the Iraqis desires for creating a government were ignored. For the most part Iraqis didn't perceive themselves according to sect. They warned us not to parse out power according to sect or ethnicity but we did so we created the environment for the strife we see now.

No, not correct. Zarqawi and al Qaeda in Iraq added secterianism into the conflict with the Samarra Mosque bombing in Feb of '06. Now you have the Shia entities of Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon to thank for continuing the secterian violence.

6. You can't force democracy down a people's throat. What we need to do now is to back out and provide a regional political solution. Our absolute ignorance is precisely why Iraq is the way it is.

Approximately 70% of Iraqis turned out to vote in spite of death threats. They love freedom and democracy. We're hardly "forcing democracy down peoples' throats".

As for providing a regional political solution -- I'd like for you to go into the solutions thread and tell me how to do this.

7. You seem to like an authoritarian form of government.

On what basis do you make this accusation?

I don't like what my government is doing and will not support it. I believe that Bush lying about the threat Saddam posed itself is an impeachable offense.

So Clinton and Kerry and Gore were also lying about the threat?

I think that Cheney's actions are impeachable. I don't accept the Unitary Executive theory you seem to support because I see that the constitution provides for three co-equal branches and that the Executive is to be held accountable for their crimes.

Where do you get the idea that all three brances were supposed to be equal? The Founders, wanted the Congress to have the most power, then the President, and the courts to have the least power (because they are appointed, not elected).

And I don't support any "Unitary Executive theory" but I, like Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR think that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary responses. Now I wouldn't go as far with Adams with the Alien and Seiditon Act or Lincoln with the suspension of habeas corpus or sending dissenters to Canadian prisons, or Wilson with the Espionage and Sedition Acts, or FDR with the interment camps -- but all considered, there needs to be one central leader in times of war, as these previous wartime Presidents understood.

You can't have 100 Senators and 435 Representatives, all with different goals and agendas, micromanaging a war. It didn't work in Vietnam and it's not working in Iraq.

There needs to be a clear-cut strategy from the nation's highest military commander -- the President.

[top gun]

USMC,

1. We are occupying Iraq. When we invaded Iraq we removed the two things in Iraq the controlled al Qaeda: Saddam and the Baath Party. Iraq was invaded to control the region's oil reserves and had nothing to do with "fighting al Qaeda".

2. Bush lied about the threat Saddam posed. Bush set up a system by which all intelligence that was not in support of invading Iraq was ignored. Hillary and the rest of Congress didn't lie because they were presented with the skewed intelligence.

3. Bush ignores the constitution because he believes in a unitary Executive. For example, his use of ignoring the law through signing statements is unconstitutional. His lying to the American people and Congress is unconstitutional.

4. Our troops are not fighting a war. They are providing security in Iraq. We invaded Iraq and the war ended when we took Baghdad. The Congress should never have allowed Bush the authority that is theirs alone. The constitution grants the authority to declare war to Congress and so Congress has the authority to declare an end to war.

You dont' have a clue about Iraq do you? Retreat from what? From keeping a puppet government in place? From allowing Iraqis to live their own lives? They warned us NOT to inject sectarianism or ethnicity into their politics yet we did because the Bush administration is stupid. What we needed were people who understand Iraq and the region and what we got were ideologues.

5. So, you don't like the tenets on which our republic is founded? You want an authoritarian state? Maybe you should try China. It surprises me that a serviceman would speak against the form of government that the constitution sets forth. We wouldn't be in the situation we currently are in had the American people done their job and enlightened themselves of the facts. Also, Congress saw fit to fall at the feet of a unitary President. Good governance requires smart debate, you call for blind loyalty.

6. If we are a nation of laws then Bush and Cheney would be impeached for his crimes and removed from office. The problem is that with power comes privilege, just as in any Banana Republic, which is why Bush is still President.

Well here's another person that's got it right!:) Way to lay it out my friend!

[jeffbiss]

1. I reread my statement and it is very confusing. When I say that Saddam controlled al Qaeda I mean that he did not allow their activity in Iraq, not that he was their leader. So, he controlled them through his absolute power. The only region in which an affiliate of al Qaeda operated was in the Kurdish region where Saddam had no control.

2. You get no break on this one. UNMOVIC was inspecting in Iraq while Bush was lying about Saddam's weapons. They were in the process of determining the truth from Nov 2002 to March 2003. What they were not able to accomplish in the past was of no relevance because they were on the ground and inspecting just prior to the invasion.

3. You can't use a general abuse and look it up for yourself?

a) In re to illegal wiretaps: The Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures and the FISA law provides a legal framework for legally surveilling. Bush acknowledged on Dec. 17 that he had ordered the NSA to intercept Americans' communications without seeking judicial approval.

b)In re to signing statements: Article 1 Section 7 states that the President can either sign it or reject it; The President cannot selectively enforce sections of legislation that he signs because it is all or nothing.

c)With re to lying about the threat Saddam posed, you can read pages 4 and 5 Rep. Conyers report "The Constitution in Crisis.

4. Bush did lie. There are more than enough sources out there for you to find that explain how he manipulated and filtered intelligence.

5. Al Qaeda moved into Iraq AFTER we removed Saddam and the Baath Party from power. They were able to use Sunni disenchantment to their advantage but even Iraq's Sunnis don't trust al Qaeda nor would al Qaeda last long in Iraq if we left. Research the Baath Party and you'll understand why.

6. We are forcing the government we want them to have and not one that they would have supported. This is proven by the violence we see. For one, if they loved democracy so much and this met their criteria there'd be no violence and for another democracy can simply be mob rule. The facts on the ground prove that this is not democracy as they want it.

7. Your view that we must follow the leader indicates that you are authoritarian.

8. You should read about our government. The branches were given different authorities but equal power. In fact, the Judiciary was considered the primary defence against the tyranny of the majority because the majority could act through the Legislature and the President yet the Judiciary could strike down legislation deemed uncoanstitutional. You should read James Madison' thoughts on this.

9. The lesson from Vietnam was not about micromanaging a war but that we sought a military solution to a political problem. Iraq is simply another case in which the military was used as the primary tool when regional diplomacy was the correct tool.

[USMC the Almighty]

We're just going in circles here. Maybe if I can find some time, I'll respond.

[John]

I feel the survey was flawed in that the complex question was asked in a very simplistic manner. First of all is the definition of "support our troops".
I saw the phrase first used by the radical left wing 6 years ago and it simply meant that "I am totally against the war and President Bush, but I don't want to be viewed as not supporting the troops as congress did at the end of the Vietnam War". I don't want to be viewed as a Jane Fonda (even though that's exactly what I am). This was at best disingenuous.
As the US involvement in Iraq continued the meaning remained the same but it became embraced by some Republicans and most Democrats and it also became politicized so that those who were anti (fill in the blank) felt more comfortable using the term. It became chic.
How would I have voted? I suppose the same way most of the troops would have voted. It is hard to conceive that many troops on the ground would have voted "Yes". They recognize that support does not mean turning tail and running out in defeat even though most of them want to be back with their families. They believe in duty, honor, mission and at the same time realize what would happen it we suddenly puled out. They do not feel that the only way to truly support the troops is to remove them from harms way. They are not defeatists. Most accept the risk and hope for peace with honor. So ask yourself are you on the same side as the troops? Do you feel as they do? If not how could you have voted, "yes".

[John]

To USMC What you say is sooooo true, detractors just babble on with unsupported allegations, hoping if they throw enough $hit something will stick to the wall.

[John]

I'd like to know your views on this. It seems there is percentage of Americans who think you can not be against the war and still support the troops?

Does this mean you cant be against what they're fighting for and at the same time hope they all make it home safely?
Making it home safely has nothing to do with supporting the troops.

[OPGhostdog]

[quote=John] Making it home safely has nothing to do with supporting
the troops.

The troops must have support from the people here at home
in order to believe in themselves to have the will to make it
back home safely. Knowing that someone is concerned about
your well-being means alot to the troopers, and as a Ex Army
Soldier just to know people is behind you is a uplift.

Hell Yeah I am against the damn war, and I do not like the war
due to the fact that its stupid. However the troops do have my
prayers and support that they will make it back home safe.

USMC the Almighty, I am sure that you're trying to justify your
reasons, but everything Jeffbiss have posted is correct, and its
people like you (who I am starting to think) that we are in this
War for other reasons...that's crap.

EVERYTHING that Jeffbiss stated in his June 28, 2007 5:40 &
his 7:08 PM posts is true, and that's the BIG PICTURE of the
war in Iraq and the Middle East.

[mysteryman]

Hey Lt,
You are beating your head against a brick wall.
Most of these people have their minds made up and dont want to be confused by the facts.

I have been to Iraq,and its probably safe to assume you have.
I know what we are doing is right,and nothing these people say will convince me otherwise.

[OPGhostdog]

So my statement is to you desert Storm and Iraq Warriors.
Desert Storm and the Iraq war is NOWHERE close to being
another Viet Nam war.

However, its good that a few of you made claim to have
gone to Iraq twice (compare to soldiers who went to the
Nams once) Because once was enough to remember a life
time.

The media have made it simple and easy for anyone to
fight in Iraq setting in their living room or den watching
CNN or Fox. In that case I been to the Middle East six
times :D

[vyo476]

1. I reread my statement and it is very confusing. When I say that Saddam controlled al Qaeda I mean that he did not allow their activity in Iraq, not that he was their leader. So, he controlled them through his absolute power. The only region in which an affiliate of al Qaeda operated was in the Kurdish region where Saddam had no control.

5. Al Qaeda moved into Iraq AFTER we removed Saddam and the Baath Party from power. They were able to use Sunni disenchantment to their advantage but even Iraq's Sunnis don't trust al Qaeda nor would al Qaeda last long in Iraq if we left. Research the Baath Party and you'll understand why.

These two statements contradict each other. Just thought I'd point that out.

[Rokerijdude11]

So my statement is to you desert Storm and Iraq Warriors.
Desert Storm and the Iraq war is NOWHERE close to being
another Viet Nam war.

However, its good that a few of you made claim to have
gone to Iraq twice (compare to soldiers who went to the
Nams once) Because once was enough to remember a life
time.

The media have made it simple and easy for anyone to
fight in Iraq setting in their living room or den watching
CNN or Fox. In that case I been to the Middle East six
times :D

there are startling Political similarities between Nam and Iraq but thats where it ends your comments about how many tours someone served show your total ignorance of what is the reality of war

there is absolutly NO COMPARISON between The fighting in the Jungles and rice paddies and places like Hue and what is occuring in Iraq this also portrays your ignorance in an unbecoming manner

in short you really dont know what the f^ck you are talking about.............there happens to be a large number of nam vets with as many as 3 and four tours in country..........your ignorance is appalling

[Napoleon]

These two statements contradict each other. Just thought I'd point that out.

No they don't. An Al Qaeda affiliate, in this case Ansar al-Islam, and Al Qaeda itself are not the same thing. Ansar-al Islam was a KURDISH terrorist group which orchestrated car bombings in Baghdad and whose members were hunted by Saddam's regime. Unfortunately, Saddam couldn't root out the organization because of the northern no-fly zone.

[USMC the Almighty]

The only region in which an affiliate of al Qaeda operated was in the Kurdish region where Saddam had no control.

The thing is, this statement is not true.

[Rokerijdude11]

prove it

[USMC the Almighty]

prove it

al Zarqawi, abu Nadal, Zawahiri, my own two eyes

[Rokerijdude11]

sorry buddy your own two eyes account for Sh^t when it comes to proof in a setting like this............thats all the proof you have?

[USMC the Almighty]

sorry buddy your own two eyes account for Sh^t when it comes to proof in a setting like this............thats all the proof you have?

No, there's plenty more proof but I have to give it to you in small doses or else you will get overwhelmed.

[Rokerijdude11]

yeah ok pal

[Napoleon]

al Zarqawi, abu Nadal, Zawahiri, my own two eyes

1. Zarqawi was operating in conjunction with Ansar al-Islam which committed acts of terrorism AGAINST Saddam's regime and was based in the Kurdish territories.

2. Abu Nidal is believed to have been assassinated by Saddam's regime in August of 2002.

3. Saddam's regime had no ties to al-Zawahiri.

[USMC the Almighty]

1. Zarqawi was operating in conjunction with Ansar al-Islam which committed acts of terrorism AGAINST Saddam's regime and was based in the Kurdish territories.

This is false. Ansar al-Islam, the al Qaeda cell formed in June 2001 that operated out of northern Iraq before the war, as you noted, was attacking Kurdish enemies of Saddam, not working with them.

2. Abu Nidal is believed to have been assassinated by Saddam's regime in August of 2002.

I was referring to the Abu Nidal extremist group.

3. Saddam's regime had no ties to al-Zawahiri.

Ayman al-Zawahiri met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing is that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda.

And these aren't the only links, there are plenty others. Salman Pak, south of Baghdad where at least some of the 9/11 hijackers trained with their Boeing 707.

There's also Hussein's documented contact with Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines, before and after the Zamboanga City bombing.

It is also confirmed that Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer working at the Iraqi embassy, in Prague five months before the hijacking.

Not to mention that there is also some evidence linking Saddam and bin Laden (Farouk Hijazi)...

[Napoleon]

This is false. Ansar al-Islam, the al Qaeda cell formed in June 2001 that operated out of northern Iraq before the war, as you noted, was attacking Kurdish enemies of Saddam, not working with them.

That is false and not what I noted. Ansar al-Islam formed in December of 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam and the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan. It was based in the Kurdish territories, targeted Saddam's regime, and repeatedly called for his deposition.

I was referring to the Abu Nidal extremist group.

The ANO has never killed an American and Saddam's regime assassinated Abu Nidal so your point is moot.

Ayman al-Zawahiri met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998.

So? As has been repeatedly pointed out, nothing came from it.


More disturbing is that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda.

I've never seen any evidence of this.

Salman Pak, south of Baghdad where at least some of the 9/11 hijackers trained with their Boeing 707.

An allegation which has never been proven.

It is also confirmed that Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer working at the Iraqi embassy, in Prague five months before the hijacking.

Proven to be a myth YEARS ago.

Not to mention that there is also some evidence linking Saddam and bin Laden (Farouk Hijazi)...

Hogwash.

[bokile]

Where is my tax money:D :D

[OPGhostdog]

there are startling Political similarities between Nam and Iraq but thats where it ends your comments about how many tours someone served show your total ignorance of what is the reality of war

there is absolutly NO COMPARISON between The fighting in the Jungles and rice paddies and places like Hue and what is occuring in Iraq this also portrays your ignorance in an unbecoming manner

in short you really dont know what the f^ck you are talking about.............there happens to be a large number of nam vets with as many as 3 and four tours in country..........your ignorance is appalling


Well Mr Know it all ass...War is War..Damn the Political similanties.
You the one who don't know **** about the Viet Nam war besides
what you read or seen on the comedy channel. First I know that
you first off don't know the term of Tour of Duty.

Secondly, I see why most of these posters talk about your dumb
ass, and that's because you think you know everything and know
nothing. The many months that I have been on this site. I (NOW)
see why people dog your dumb ass.

In the future if your facts isn't together don't post your non-sense
bull**** to me, and I shall do likewise unto you Dork.

[9sublime]

OPGhostdog, I'm going to have to give you a warning for the two personal attacks on Roker, here and in the tribute thread. I don't want this discussion degenerating into a slagging match, and the Roker Palerider thread doesn't need to turn quite so aggressive.

Hope you understand,

Jack.

[Rokerijdude11]

Well Mr Know it all ass...War is War..Damn the Political similanties.
You the one who don't know **** about the Viet Nam war besides
what you read or seen on the comedy channel. First I know that
you first off don't know the term of Tour of Duty.

Secondly, I see why most of these posters talk about your dumb
ass, and that's because you think you know everything and know
nothing. The many months that I have been on this site. I (NOW)
see why people dog your dumb ass.

In the future if your facts isn't together don't post your non-sense
bull**** to me, and I shall do likewise unto you Dork.
Nice

well first of all i'm entirely aware, of the tour of duty, and what it encompasses........I also happen to know alot, lot more about the fetid Jungles, of Nam that you seem to think. However i have no need to explain myself to the likes of yourself. and so i won't


the statement was made that you thought that the guys in Nam didn't do more than a single tour of duty?......thats just plain Incorrect....... there were MANY who did several in country tours ......

your pretty angry aren't you? I seem to find that alot in todays youth? interesting by-product, of corporate controlled America i suppose?


Patriots are always scorned in the beginning ......
i understand and accept this

[BigRob]

I'd like to know your views on this. It seems there is percentage of Americans who think you can not be against the war and still support the troops?

Does this mean you cant be against what they're fighting for and at the same time hope they all make it home safely?

Imagine a sporting event. There are two teams. All of the fans sit on the sidelines and boo loudly. They say oh, we support the players, we simply hate the game. Its ridiculous, and the booing obviously has a negative impact on those that are the ones playing the game.

You can sit there and say I support the troops but not the war, but your very action of not supporting the war undermines what the troops are doing. I have no problem with people who do not support the war, but do not pretend that you are doing some big thing by pretending to support the troops.

[Popeye]

You can sit there and say I support the troops but not the war, but your very action of not supporting the war undermines what the troops are doing. I have no problem with people who do not support the war, but do not pretend that you are doing some big thing by pretending to support the troops.

That's just the old right wing argument that being against the war undermines the troops. Actually, being against the war helps the troops, as the more people against the war, the faster they'll come home.

[vyo476]

Actually, being against the war helps the troops, as the more people against the war, the faster they'll come home.

What if they don't want your help? What if what they want most is to be allowed to do their jobs? Most of the people in the military I know are of the opinion that these "We'll help you by bringing you home!" things are asinine. If you're going to force your brand of "help" on them...how are you any better than Bush, trying to force democracy on Iraq?

If you want to take them out of Iraq for other reasons, okay, that's legit - as soldiers of the United States of America they've agreed to be the living instruments of our country and they'll do what the country tells them to do. But don't start talking about how we need to get out of Iraq "for the troops" - it's hypocritical.

[BigRob]

That's just the old right wing argument that being against the war undermines the troops. Actually, being against the war helps the troops, as the more people against the war, the faster they'll come home.

I suppose you think that those who spit on US troops coming home from Vietnam and called them "baby killers" and avidly against the war were really troop supporters?

It doesnt matter how many people are against the war at this point, Bush is not going to pull out anyone, he had made that clear.

Also, a large portion of the troops actually want to be in Iraq, and want to finish the job that was started, so how does it support them and their ideas to demand for their return home? It undermines what they are thinking, and does not in any way support them. If you support the troops you should support what the majority of them want, which is to finish the job that was started and make the sacrifice of the other soldiers not in vain. So how does demanding that they return home support what a portion of the troops even want?

[Popeye]

I suppose you think that those who spit on US troops coming home from Vietnam and called them "baby killers" and avidly against the war were really troop supporters?



Considering what happened at My Lai and other places, some of the troops obviously were baby killers. As for being spit on, that's primarily a right wing myth, fostered by conservative outlets like Fox News.

[BigRob]

Considering what happened at My Lai and other places, some of the troops obviously were baby killers. As for being spit on, that's primarily a right wing myth, fostered by conservative outlets like Fox News.

Of course, its all a myth, seeing as how it happened to people I know. Must be a Fox conspiracy.

There will always be bad seeds in the bunch, but that does not make all soldiers evil, no one bothered to make that distinction however. You also avoided the other question I posed.

[Popeye]

.

There will always be bad seeds in the bunch, but that does not make all soldiers evil, no one bothered to make that distinction however. You also avoided the other question I posed.

Bad seeds? same goes for anti war protesters,not all of them are evil either. As for the soldiers in Iraq wanting to finish the job, if that's the case I don't support them.

[BigRob]

Bad seeds? same goes for anti war protesters,not all of them are evil either. As for the soldiers in Iraq wanting to finish the job, if that's the case I don't support them.

Well thats fine, I accept that, just know that you do not support the majority of the troops then.

[PoliticalGrrrl]

Of course a person can be against the war and still support the troops. I can't believe a few of the opinions shared in this thread. :eek: :mad:

Two of my friends lost their sons in Iraq - one about a year ago (October 17) and the other, just the other day. I live in a military town and I don't know of many *military families* that support the ongoing debacle that is the WoT. Is that to say they don't support their LOVED ONES serving?

Hell no. To say otherwise is insultive and ignorant.

[r0beph]

The war in iraq is not the war on terror politicalgrrrl, well it wasn't, considering saddam had no patience for anything outside his regime going on in his country. We are in a supposed war on terror, yet, we created the terror in iraq...how is this logical? On the other hand while I despise everything going on in iraq, I'm pretty supportive of the going ons in afghanistan, we do need to be there, we went there to FIND Bin Laden, which was acceptable at the time. I'm still confused as to why the hell Iraq is associated in ANYONES mind with 9/11, the war on terror, or anything even slightly resembling that. Iraq was a completely different situation and had nothing to do with the war on terror. We shouldn't have gone into iraq...Plain and simple...Now we're there we need to do something, and what is going on right now, is not that something. It's a big mess, a debacle, a ****storm, and nothing is going as it should. It's becoming a moneypit, an oil pricing expounder, and a get rich scheme for amoral commercial entities. It's disgusting that Americans can support that.

[ArmChair General]

I'd like to know your views on this. It seems there is percentage of Americans who think you can not be against the war and still support the troops?

Does this mean you cant be against what they're fighting for and at the same time hope they all make it home safely?

I was against Hitler's wars, but I still supported the Nazi's.

:rolleyes:

[ArmChair General]

My main issue is like I noted in that link -- you don't have to send us goodies, don't need to write us letters, don't even have to fly a flag outside your house or say thank you to us in airports -- just don't make our jobs more difficult than they need to be.

You can be opposed to the war but still support the effort -- that is to say that even if you don't think going in was a good idea, you can still want the troops to succeed on our missions and still want the U.S. to win.



No, you ****ing retards.

1. If I am against guns, I'll also be against those guns' bullets.
2. If I were against Hitler, I would also be against his Nazis.
3. And if I am against this WAR, I am not going "Support those who are fighting in it"!!! Goddamn! It's only people as ignorant and mis-educated as modern USA citizens, who would even think to, straight-faced, say something as ILLOGICAL as "If you don't support the war, at least support the troops"!


:rolleyes:

[ArmChair General]

So you should stop questioning things so soldiers' jobs can be easier? Doesn't that defeat one of the causes they are supposedly fighting for, which is our freedom, and with that comes freedom of speech?

Inclusion is an American Mandate.

And no intolerance...will be tolerated.

ALL HAIL THE GREAT (and spine-less) SATAN!

The only thing that matters to these philistines is whether they're convincing in their continuous deception (most American's are ****ing pussies who stand for nothing; and hence, they stand, impeccably, for "the American way").

[ArmChair General]

So, if there are fewer deaths overall while ultimately conceding defeat as a result, that is acceptable to you? I wonder how all the soldiers that have made the ultimate sacrifice would interpret your support when they realized their sacrifices were for nothing simply because you didn't have the constitution to see it through. I support the troops and I say that without hesitation because I support their mission as so many did for my brothers in '91.

-Castle

Obviously these soldiers' sacrifice doesn't amount to much, considering how hostile the climate of our culture is for anyone who argues against the current "givens"...

[ArmChair General]

Of course a person can be against the war and still support the troops. I can't believe a few of the opinions shared in this thread. :eek: :mad:

Two of my friends lost their sons in Iraq - one about a year ago (October 17) and the other, just the other day. I live in a military town and I don't know of many *military families* that support the ongoing debacle that is the WoT. Is that to say they don't support their LOVED ONES serving?

Hell no. To say otherwise is insultive and ignorant.

said like a typical, brainwashed, spineless American.

[r0beph]

No, you ****ing retards.

1. If I am against guns, I'll also be against those guns' bullets.
2. If I were against Hitler, I would also be against his Nazis.
3. And if I am against this WAR, I am not going "Support those who are fighting in it"!!! Goddamn! It's only people as ignorant and mis-educated as modern USA citizens, who would even think to, straight-faced, say something as ILLOGICAL as "If you don't support the war, at least support the troops"!


:rolleyes:

I think you're wrong here. In fact, I know you're wrong. Guns and Bullets are integral, bulllets without guns, aren't very useful, nor are guns without bullets. As for hitler, there's a slight difference between being against someone who calls for mass torture and murder of unarmed civilians while all the time KNOWING DAMN WELL they're civilians, and then supporting those who are willing to carry out such a malicious act. The problem with this is that I don't support Hitler and at the same time I don't support the Nazis, but then that is expected because they both represent the exact same thing. Soldiers do not represent this war, they are in the war because they are soldiers, but would be soldiers, war or not.

I don't support our actions in Iraq, I DO support our actions in Afghanistan, in fact I feel that we're doing TOO much in Iraq while we're laxing in Afghanistan.

This all aside as stated before, a soldier is a soldier, war or not, I do support those soldiers here AND abroad.

__________________
I wonder why we cant use pics on sigs?
http://www.maj.com/gallery/robeph/forumimages/haha.jpg

[ArmChair General]

I think you're wrong here. In fact, I know you're wrong.

Actually, I'm correct.

Guns and Bullets are integral, bulllets without guns, aren't very useful, nor are guns without bullets.

Wars without soldiers to fight them wouldn't be much use either....

As for hitler, there's a slight difference between being against someone who calls for mass torture and murder of unarmed civilians while all the time KNOWING DAMN WELL they're civilians, and then supporting those who are willing to carry out such a malicious act. The problem with this is that I don't support Hitler and at the same time I don't support the Nazis, but then that is expected because they both represent the exact same thing. Soldiers do not represent this war, they are in the war because they are soldiers, but would be soldiers, war or not.

You don't know any better.

All soldiers are ALL mindless pawns and it is ILLEGAL for them not to be.

And we're not just talking jail-time, because if any of the mindless pawns steps out of line, it is punishable up to death, under several statutes of the UCMJ.

EXAMPLE (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#885.%20ART.%2085.%20DESERTION)

Unfortunately (I think), we almost never hear of such harsh punishments being enacted. Not only because the rare instances are suppressed... but, also, most military personnel are too cowardly to take any stand, and risk the punishment.


This all aside as stated before, a soldier is a soldier, war or not, I do support those soldiers here AND abroad.

Then you also support their actions, which include the wars they fight.

[vyo476]

I think we should all ask ourselves what this whole, "Do you support the troops?" thing really means.

For me, the whole "Do you support the troops?" thing is purely psychological.

When you sign up to be a soldier, you sign up to be a willing tool of the United States, for use especially in times of need. You forfeit your right to outwardly protest the actions of your superiors, except in times of absolute extremity, because to be able to do so would be counterproductive; that's what civilians are for anyway. You do not have a choice in where you are sent or who you are told to kill.

When someone asks if you support the troops, they mean to ask if you're planning on spitting on them when they get back and calling them "baby-killers." Had this been a "justified" war, with the support of the public, they'd have come home to ticker-tape parades and the general trappings of complete heroism. As this is not a "justified" war in the eyes of the public, what they are doing over there has a stigma attached to it. For them, though, there must be no difference between these two types of war. War is war. It is what they do. It is no more pleasant to kill a random stranger when the public thinks he deserves it than when the public thinks he does not.

When they return to America, many will no longer be soldiers, and all will be reintroduced to our society (which has different rules and customs from the life of the combat soldier). They will be returning to family and friends who have not had the same depth of experiences they have had. When they see a bumper sticker that says, "I support the troops!", to them it says, "We still love you. We know the government made you do something terrible. But we still love you."

[palerider]

We know the government made you do something terrible. But we still love you."

Like dogs who are trained to fight but really aren't responsible for their actions? I am sure that they appreciate your condescending love now as much as I appreciated it when I returned from viet nam.

I signed up for what I did and went into it with my eyes open as do the vast majority of soldiers today. They signed up and went because they felt that it was the right thing to do, not because the government "made them do something terrible".

The vast majority of soldiers who are in iraq and afghanistan today are there because they want to give the people there the chance to live a life of freedom rather than a life of opression under some dictator's thumb.

[Popeye]

Like dogs who are trained to fight but really aren't responsible for their actions? I am sure that they appreciate your condescending love now as much as I appreciated it when I returned from viet nam.

I signed up for what I did and went into it with my eyes open as do the vast majority of soldiers today. They signed up and went because they felt that it was the right thing to do, not because the government "made them do something terrible".

The vast majority of soldiers who are in iraq and afghanistan today are there because they want to give the people there the chance to live a life of freedom rather than a life of opression under some dictator's thumb.

Who are you kidding? The vast majority in Vietnam were draftees. Poor and minority draftees at that.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, you have a great many soldiers who were already members of the military when 9/11 broke. Since then they have been deployed, redeployed, and redeployed, and redeployed. No WMDs and no staying at home, I bet they're loving it.

[palerider]

Who are you kidding? The vast majority in Vietnam were draftees. Poor and minority draftees at that.

And once again, you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that most of what you believe is based on false information. Your world view is based on lies popeye. What does that say about you?

The truth is that 1/3 of those who fought in Vietnam were drafted. The rest were volunteers.

86% of those who died in Vietnam were white. 12.5% were black, a smaller number than their actual percentage of the population at the time. The balance were "other".

76% of the those sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds, not poor, and 75% had family incomes above the poverty level, 23% had fathers with professional, managerial, or technical occupations, 79% of the men who served in Vietnam had a high school education or better. A higher percentage than that of the general population at the time. Compare that to 63% of Korean vets who had completed high school upon separation from the service and an even lower number as you go back through WWII and WWI.

Furthermore, if you came from a family that was more well to do than average, your chances of dying were elevated above those of the average draftee since they tended to be pilots or infantry officers.

You just gobble up whatever people tell you if it fits your already skewed beliefs. It is clear that you rarely, if ever, actually research anything on your own, you just parrot whatever the leftist d'jour tells you to say.

Go learn something popeye. Your neverending stream of uninformed, mistaken, and simply wrong BS has long since lost any "endearing" appeal that it might once have had.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, you have a great many soldiers who were already members of the military when 9/11 broke. Since then they have been deployed, redeployed, and redeployed, and redeployed. No WMDs and no staying at home, I bet they're loving it.

Since you aren't the sort who serves, you really aren't in a position to say what "they" think and feel are you?

[Popeye]

And once again, you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that most of what you believe is based on false information. Your world view is based on lies popeye. What does that say about you?

The truth is that 1/3 of those who fought in Vietnam were drafted. The rest were volunteers.

86% of those who died in Vietnam were white. 12.5% were black, a smaller number than their actual percentage of the population at the time. The balance were "other".

76% of the those sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds, not poor, and 75% had family incomes above the poverty level, 23% had fathers with professional, managerial, or technical occupations, 79% of the men who served in Vietnam had a high school education or better. A higher percentage than that of the general population at the time. Compare that to 63% of Korean vets who had completed high school upon separation from the service and an even lower number as you go back through WWII and WWI.

That 76% were from lower income families tells you something right there. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and other current Republicans can tell you all about avoiding the draft through the National Guard or college deferments.

You're right, draftees were a minority of the total US armed forces. In the Army, though, they accounted for almost 90% of the infantry riflemen. Can anyone say front lines? Thusly, draftees accounted for more than half of Army battlefield deaths. Sounds to me, as if draftees were used as nothing more than cannon fodder.



Since you aren't the sort who serves, you really aren't in a position to say what "they" think and feel are you? Are you ready to apply the same logic to the current administration?

[Popeye]

Since you aren't the sort who serves, you really aren't in a position to say what "they" think and feel are you? So, I guess you would say these Republicans are in no position to know what "they think and feel" either.

Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom Delay: did not serve.
Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
Jeb Bush: did not serve.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Vin Weber: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Douglas Feith: did not serve.
Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
Richard Shelby: did not serve.
Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
Christopher Cox: did not serve.
Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he couldcampaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate..
B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
Phil Gramm: did not serve.
Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
John M. McHugh: did not serve.
JC Watts: did not serve.
Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem" although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback.
Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
George Pataki: did not serve.
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
George Felix Allen- no mention of service in official bio
Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army

[palerider]

That 76% were from lower income families tells you something right there. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and other current Republicans can tell you all about avoiding the draft through the National Guard or college deferments.

Lower middle class isn't poor popeye. You were wrong so just give it up. You bought the lie and repeat it just like so many others of your type do. It would only have taken you 10 seconds to learn the truth, but you were oh so much more comfortable with the lie.



So if you aren't the type of person who volunteers to serve, you might get stuck with the crappiest job. What is your point?

[QUOTE=Popeye;25985 Are you ready to apply the same logic to the current administration?

I don't know. Are they sitting back in their arm chairs on the thanksgiving holiday complaining, spreading a lie about GI's, painting them as poor unfortunates who simply had no choice but to go into the military? I condemn anyone who is doing such a thing. Of course, those who are doing such a thing are going to be dems or rinos aren't they?

By the way, today's military is 100% volunteer and the best educated military we have ever had regardless of how stupid people like you think that they must be to actually want to defend their country.

[palerider]

So, I guess you would say these Republicans are in no position to know what "they think and feel" either.

Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom Delay: did not serve.
Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
Jeb Bush: did not serve.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Vin Weber: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Douglas Feith: did not serve.
Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
Richard Shelby: did not serve.
Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
Christopher Cox: did not serve.
Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he couldcampaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate..
B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
Phil Gramm: did not serve.
Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
John M. McHugh: did not serve.
JC Watts: did not serve.
Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem" although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback.
Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
George Pataki: did not serve.
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
George Felix Allen- no mention of service in official bio
Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army

Would you like a similar list of democrats? Of course, it would be larger. Then there is the fact that the people on this list aren't speaking out against the military, and they aren't pretending to know what the people in the military think about what they are doing like the dems out there who do it day and night 24/7

By the way, being the sort who doesn't serve and as a result, has no idea about how either the military or the reserves and guard operate, perhaps you should leave bush off your list. He satisfied his requirements. The documentation is all available for anyone who is interested in the truth rather than spreading malicious rumors.

[Popeye]

Would you like a similar list of democrats? Of course, it would be larger The list is "larger" all right, but not in the way you would like to think.

Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g . Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star &
Bronze Star, Vietnam. Paraplegic from war injuries.
Served in Congress.
Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam,
DFCs, Bronze Stars,and Soldier's Medal.
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart,
Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
Chuck Robb: Vietnam
Howell Heflin: Silver Star
George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and AirMedal with 18

[USMC the Almighty]

I don't know where you got your list from but not all of those individuals are supporters of the Iraq War.

At any rate, what does a handpicked list of 15 random people prove?

[Popeye]

I don't know where you got your list from but not all of those individuals are supporters of the Iraq War.

At any rate, what does a handpicked list of 15 random people prove?

You're right, that last list got away from my point, so I deleted it. The list of Republican office holders that didn't serve, as opposed to the list of Democrats who did, is my point. Those Republicans refused to put their own lives on the line, but they can't wait to send others, that's my point as well.

[USMC the Almighty]

You're right, that last list got away from my point, so I deleted it. The list of Republican office holders that didn't serve, as opposed to the list of Democrats who did, is my point. Those Republicans refused to put their own lives on the line, but they can't wait to send others, that's my point as well.

2 things:

(1) What does choosing whether or not to serve in the military 40 years ago have anything to do with whether or not supporting the current war in Iraq?

(2) I've never been a brain surgeon. Does that mean I can't support the brain surgeon operating on my cousin?

[palerider]

You're right, that last list got away from my point, so I deleted it. The list of Republican office holders that didn't serve, as opposed to the list of Democrats who did, is my point. Those Republicans refused to put their own lives on the line, but they can't wait to send others, that's my point as well.


You, typical of most liberals don't seem to be able to separate your emotions from the reality. You suggest that the republicans "can't wait" to send others when the reality is that they recognize the necessity to confront an enemy that simply won't go away if we ignore it.

[Popeye]

You, typical of most liberals don't seem to be able to separate your emotions from the reality. You suggest that the republicans "can't wait" to send others when the reality is that they recognize the necessity to confront an enemy that simply won't go away if we ignore it.

Yeah, like the "necessity to confront an enemy", in Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11. Meanwhile, the man, we were told, was behind 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, is free to make tapes laughing at our incompetence. Where's the "necessity" there?

[palerider]

Yeah, like the "necessity to confront an enemy", in Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11. Meanwhile, the man, we were told, was behind 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, is free to make tapes laughing at our incompetence. Where's the "necessity" there?

"Laughing" from some of the most wretched ratholes in the afghan mountans. "Laughing" from cold and miserable caves because he dare not show is face to more than a select few individuals in the entire world. Impotent laughter is all he has left. His resources have been squandered, his very best people have been killed, he is hated by his own native people, and his reputation is circling the drain.

He poured his money, weapons, and people into iraq and there he still sits in some sh!t hole in afghanistan because he has been effectively driven from every neighborhood in baghdad. He is laughing because he has nothing else. His organization is scrambling to form some, hideouts equal in wretchedness to his own, in the hamrin mountains while some small number of them remain. Even their former insurgent allies have turned on them.

His status in the muslim world has dropped off the map because he has failed in iraq. His funding is dwindling because he has no success to show unless you call killing fellow muslims success. Iraq has become a grave yard for his best and brightest.

His laughter is impotent and hollow, and has the ring of panic and only those who can rightfully claim the title of true idiot believe he is laughing at "our" incompetence from the miserable little sh!t hole he hides in and calls home these days.

[Popeye]

"Laughing" from some of the most wretched ratholes in the afghan mountans. "Laughing" from cold and miserable caves because he dare not show is face to more than a select few individuals in the entire world. Impotent laughter is all he has left. His resources have been squandered, his very best people have been killed, he is hated by his own native people, and his reputation is circling the drain.

He poured his money, weapons, and people into iraq and there he still sits in some sh!t hole in afghanistan because he has been effectively driven from every neighborhood in baghdad. He is laughing because he has nothing else. His organization is scrambling to form some, hideouts equal in wretchedness to his own, in the hamrin mountains while some small number of them remain. Even their former insurgent allies have turned on them.

His status in the muslim world has dropped off the map because he has failed in iraq. His funding is dwindling because he has no success to show unless you call killing fellow muslims success. Iraq has become a grave yard for his best and brightest.

His laughter is impotent and hollow, and has the ring of panic and only those who can rightfully claim the title of true idiot believe he is laughing at "our" incompetence from the miserable little sh!t hole he hides in and calls home these days.
Certainly, I would assume, he's not enjoying his previous living standards, but he is still free. The worst terrorist attack, on US shores, in history, and the man responsible for it has yet to be brought to justice. Indeed, the Bush administration would rather spend billions deposing a secular dictator and chase phantom WMDs than do it's duty.

Do you even care if Bin Laden is captured anymore? Or are you like other war supporters, altering and changing positions, in an attempt to defend the current reality of Bush administration ineptitude?

[palerider]

Do you even care if Bin Laden is captured anymore? Or are you like other war supporters, altering and changing positions, in an attempt to defend the current reality of Bush administration ineptitude?

The man is in a prison of his own making, living in far worse conditions than he would were we to capture him. Daily, he sees his situation become worse and worse. No less than 45 of his leaders were killed or captured in october alone, the bulk of those turned in or captured by muslims. At this point, I personally prefer to see him live like a scared dog as opposed to the life of relative luxury that people like you would provide him should he ever be captured alive.

And by all means, continue to claim that we are losing the war. Claim it even in the face of victory. Claim it even as the insurgent's ability to cause fear and chaos dwindles. Claim it even in the face of tens of thousands returning home because the violence has fallen off so much. Claim it even in the face of the vast majority of the country living normal lives. Claim it even in the face of 98% of the violence (what little of it there is left) happening within a 50 mile radius of baghdad. It identifies you for what you are.

[Popeye]

The man is in a prison of his own making, living in far worse conditions than he would were we to capture him. Daily, he sees his situation become worse and worse. No less than 45 of his leaders were killed or captured in october alone, the bulk of those turned in or captured by muslims. At this point, I personally prefer to see him live like a scared dog as opposed to the life of relative luxury that people like you would provide him should he ever be captured alive.

As I suspected, you are attempting to justify the Bush administration's failure to capture the architect of 9/11. You really don't know how comfortable Osama may or may not be, you're just going on Bush administration inspired assumptions. What you're really saying is, it's okay with you that the mass murderer of thousands remains free. It's just all about politics isn't it? Who cares about justice. I wonder if the familys of the WTC dead would agree with you.

It's been 2260 days since President Bush said he would get Osama bin Laden "Dead Or Alive." And that's just fine by you. Who cares how he's living, he's free. I don't know about you, but I'd rather spend my time hiding than lose my freedom. How can you attempt to justify such a monumental failure?

[palerider]

As I suspected, you are attempting to justify the Bush administration's failure to capture the architect of 9/11. You really don't know how comfortable Osama may or may not be, you're just going on Bush administration inspired assumptions. What you're really saying is, it's okay with you that the mass murderer of thousands remains free. It's just all about politics isn't it? Who cares about justice. I wonder if the familys of the WTC dead would agree with you.

I am not attempting to justify anything. That is your department. Let me ask you, exactly how would you go about capturing a man who has gone to ground in an area so remote that a large percentage of the habitants have never even heard of a telephone?

We had a means to track him down and were closing on him. Perhaps you were unaware, or maybe it is a case of deliberate selective amnesia. We were monitoring and tracking him via his satellite phone activity, but you and yours informed him on the front page of the ny times, so his one real time link with the technological world dried up almost immediately. Now tell me how you would go about finding him after you made him aware that any real time communication with the outside world could be a mortal threat.

[Popeye]

I am not attempting to justify anything. That is your department. Let me ask you, exactly how would you go about capturing a man who has gone to ground in an area so remote that a large percentage of the habitants have never even heard of a telephone? Somehow, I think if we had used just a portion of the manpower and billions wasted in Iraq, there is a good chance he would now be in custody.

We had a means to track him down and were closing on him. Perhaps you were unaware, or maybe it is a case of deliberate selective amnesia. We were monitoring and tracking him via his satellite phone activity, but you and yours informed him on the front page of the ny times, so his one real time link with the technological world dried up almost immediately. Now tell me how you would go about finding him after you made him aware that any real time communication with the outside world could be a mortal threat.

Oh, I see, it's the NY Times and the liberals fault that Bin Laden hasn't been captured. That reach is a new low, even for you palerider. Bush is the president, the buck stops with him, period.

It's now been 2261 days since President Bush said he would get Osama bin Laden "Dead Or Alive."

[USMC the Almighty]

Bush is the president, the buck stops with him, period.

That's a pretty stupid philosophy and it is not only hypocritical (because you surely wouldn't apply the same principle to Clinton) but it demonstrates a major issue with people's view on the role of government.

I'm not talking about just the war here but there are 513,000 elected officials in this country. The President is just one (albeit an important one) in this whole system. Why is he the only one to blame when things don't go perfectly?

Secondly, since he is the most powerful man in the country, a lot accountability ultimately does fall on him but his job could be made a hell of a lot easier if the press and this country's liberals would throw him a bone once in a while.

The whole "they're doing it for ratings" argument can't even work for the NY Times because everytime they splash another major tool in tracking terrorists all over the front page, they lose a large percentage of readers. (In the last six months, their daily circulation was down 4.51% to about a million readers (1.5 million on Sunday). To put it in perspective, the Drudge Report has 16 million readers a day.)

The only possible explanation that could be put forth for this is that they hate President Bush so much that they are willing to aid the terrorists in order to make him look bad.

[palerider]

Oh, I see, it's the NY Times and the liberals fault that Bin Laden hasn't been captured. That reach is a new low, even for you palerider. Bush is the president, the buck stops with him, period.

If that is how you really believe things are, then lets move back, to the time when clinton passed on a handcuffed and gift wrapped osama.

It's now been 2261 days since President Bush said he would get Osama bin Laden "Dead Or Alive."

Care to make a guess as to how many "wanted dead or alive" criminals have not been found? If this is the best you have, then, as usual, you have nothing but a silly appeal to emotion.

And yes, when you tell a hunted man that his satellite phone conversations are being monitored and his capture is eminent, then you are left with little alternative but to accept the responsibility of your actions. He stopped all real time communication with the outside world.

So I am still waiting for your plan.

[Popeye]

That's a pretty stupid philosophy and it is not only hypocritical (because you surely wouldn't apply the same principle to Clinton)The same kind of hypocrisy applies to you. If Clinton were president, the right wing would be harping, no end, on his failure to capture Bin Laden. Instead, as you have demonstrated, we get justifications for this historic failure.

I'm not talking about just the war here but there are 513,000 elected officials in this country. The President is just one (albeit an important one) in this whole system. Why is he the only one to blame when things don't go perfectly? The right wing never has any trouble giving Bush credit for perceived successes, should not the reverse be true?

Secondly, since he is the most powerful man in the country, a lot accountability ultimately does fall on him but his job could be made a hell of a lot easier if the press and this country's liberals would throw him a bone once in a while. "Throw him a bone"? Don't you really mean, gloss over one of the most dismal presidencies in modern history?

The whole "they're doing it for ratings" argument can't even work for the NY Times because everytime they splash another major tool in tracking terrorists all over the front page, they lose a large percentage of readers. (In the last six months, their daily circulation was down 4.51% to about a million readers (1.5 million on Sunday). To put it in perspective, the Drudge Report has 16 million readers a day.)

Thats ridiculous. Print media circulation is down uniformly. Daily circulation for reporting papers in the six-month period ending in September is down about 2.5% while Sunday is closer to 3.5%.

Several major papers have suffered declines in daily circulation of over 7%, including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Miami Herald and The Dallas Morning News. I'm sure you've noticed that several of those are hardly bastions of liberalism.

You know full well, that the decline in the circulation of the print media is not due to the outing of administration terrorist tracking tools. Many people are preferring to get their news on line, thats all.

[USMC the Almighty]

The same kind of hypocrisy applies to you. If Clinton were president, the right wing would be harping, no end, on his failure to capture Bin Laden. Instead, as you have demonstrated, we get justifications for this historic failure.

Make no mistake about it. I extremely upset about the fact that bin Laden is still alive (though I don't think he's 'laughing' about it). What I was trying to say is that the fact that bin Laden is still alive is not 100% the fault of the President. The left wing certainly has been anything but helpful in capturing bin Laden, dating back to the Clinton Administration.


The right wing never has any trouble giving Bush credit for perceived successes, should not the reverse be true?

What does the 'right wing' have to do with anything? I said your position "demonstrates a major issue with people's view on the role of government" and that is they only focus on 1 person out of all 513,000 elected officials.

"Throw him a bone"? Don't you really mean, gloss over one of the most dismal presidencies in modern history?

By throw him a bone I mean don't keep splashing crucial tools used to catch terrorists all over the front pages of our newspapers.

Thats ridiculous. Print media circulation is down uniformly. Daily circulation for reporting papers in the six-month period ending in September is down about 2.5% while Sunday is closer to 3.5%.

Several major papers have suffered declines in daily circulation of over 7%, including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Miami Herald and The Dallas Morning News. I'm sure you've noticed that several of those are hardly bastions of liberalism.

We're getting away from the important things here but which of these papers would you argue are not liberal? The AJC officially supported Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Anyone who has every read something from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel can cleary discern that it is overwhelmingly liberal. The op-ed pages of the San Diego Tribune are clearly liberal. The Miami Herald and Dallas Morning News are both two of the most consistenly liberal newspapers in the country.


You know full well, that the decline in the circulation of the print media is not due to the outing of administration terrorist tracking tools. Many people are preferring to get their news on line, thats all.

I understand your point but when you look at the numbers, most glaringly after the NY Times bewilderingly exposed the terrorist financial tracking tools, you cannot argue that people did not drop their susbscriptions out of anger at the paper's blatant treason.

[Popeye]

Make no mistake about it. I extremely upset about the fact that bin Laden is still alive (though I don't think he's 'laughing' about it). What I was trying to say is that the fact that bin Laden is still alive is not 100% the fault of the President. The left wing certainly has been anything but helpful in capturing bin Laden, dating back to the Clinton Administration. Well, at least you're upset that bin Laden still lives. It may not be 100% Bush's fault, but as the president it's his job to accept responsibility.



What does the 'right wing' have to do with anything? I said your position "demonstrates a major issue with people's view on the role of government" and that is they only focus on 1 person out of all 513,000 elected officials. That "1 person out of all 513,000 elected officials" is number one on the totem pole. He's like a football QB, too much credit when things go right, too much blame when they don't, but that's the job Bush wanted.



By throw him a bone I mean don't keep splashing crucial tools used to catch terrorists all over the front pages of our newspapers. Don't you mean you expect the news media to employ a form of self censorship? The news outlets were already way too deferential to this administration leading up to the war in Iraq. Never questioning dubious assertions, such as WMD or the real immediacy of the supposed threat Saddam posed.



We're getting away from the important things here but which of these papers would you argue are not liberal? The AJC officially supported Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Anyone who has every read something from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel can cleary discern that it is overwhelmingly liberal. The op-ed pages of the San Diego Tribune are clearly liberal. The Miami Herald and Dallas Morning News are both two of the most consistenly liberal newspapers in the country.The Dallas Morning News and the San Diego Tribune endorsed Bush in 2004. According to the list I got, the AJC did endorse Kerry, but endorsed Bush in 2000. The point is, that no definitive conclusions can be drawn, the print media is just dying a slow death. I personally, still enjoy reading the newspaper the old fashion way, hopefully the loss in readership will level off somewhat.



I understand your point but when you look at the numbers, most glaringly after the NY Times bewilderingly exposed the terrorist financial tracking tools, you cannot argue that people did not drop their susbscriptions out of anger at the paper's blatant treason. Calling the NY Times treasonous is a bit much, don't you think? This is America, first amendment and all, remember?

The NY Times loss of print subscriptions is, as previously mentioned, reflected throughout the print media world. However, visits to their website are up. Maybe there were a few right wing reactionaries who canceled their subscriptions, but, in the pursuit of truth, you can't hope to please everybody.

[palerider]

Calling the NY Times treasonous is a bit much, don't you think? This is America, first amendment and all, remember?

The first amendment is not a suicide pact. Knowing a thing does not give one (even the press) the right to repeat it. Especially something as important as the means by which someone like bin laden might be tracked to ground.

[Popeye]

The first amendment is not a suicide pact. Knowing a thing does not give one (even the press) the right to repeat it. Especially something as important as the means by which someone like bin laden might be tracked to ground.

bin Laden should have been captured a long time ago if the Bush administration had remained focused on the job at hand. Instead, they made their choice, Saddam was more important than Osama. Attempting to shift blame, to the press, doesn't change that.

[USMC the Almighty]

bin Laden should have been captured a long time ago if the Bush administration had remained focused on the job at hand. Instead, they made their choice, Saddam was more important than Osama. Attempting to shift blame, to the press, doesn't change that.

bin Laden should have been captured long before 9/11 by the Clinton Administration (really falls on Sandy Berger) but I doubt you'd be willing to look past your partisanship. I agree, bin Laden should have been captured by Bush. You won't find many military arguing that what happened in the mountains of Tora Bora was not a fatal and costly error.

What you're still not getting is this: yes, Bush deserves some blame for not capturing bin Laden but so does the media. When every tool Bush is using to track terorrists and bin Laden is splashed onto the front page of the Times, it gets pretty difficult to (a) get people to trust you and (b) keep coming up with new ways to gather intel.

[Bunz]

Jarhead, how ultimately does the media share a responsibility? Are you suggesting that the worlds most wanted man not make the front page?

Clinton holds some blame, but Bush is the leader who said he would catch him and hasnt come through. It isnt necessarily lack of effort. But ultimately and you probably know this better than most. When the ship sinks, for whatever reason, it is the skipper who assumes the blame.

[palerider]

bin Laden should have been captured a long time ago if the Bush administration had remained focused on the job at hand. Instead, they made their choice, Saddam was more important than Osama. Attempting to shift blame, to the press, doesn't change that.

Explain to me how the action in iraq has hindered the action in afghanistan? Are you suggesting that we should have just flooded afghanistan with the troops that would have gone to iraq and set them in the mountains wandering about looking for bin laden?

That is what it would have been because the left was announcing our methods of tracking him cia the press as quickly as the democrat leadership could leak the information.

[palerider]

Jarhead, how ultimately does the media share a responsibility? Are you suggesting that the worlds most wanted man not make the front page?

There is no doubt that the man would make the front page. It is treasonous, however, to announce to him via the front page the methods we are using to track him to ground.

There is no doubt that bin laden is an enemy of the US. There is also no doubt that telling him what methods were being used to track him was aiding him in a very big way. Aiding the enemies of one's country is treason. Simple as that. The press so hated bush and so wanted to punish him that they were willing to commit treason against their country to do it.

[Popeye]

Explain to me how the action in iraq has hindered the action in afghanistan? Are you suggesting that we should have just flooded afghanistan with the troops that would have gone to iraq and set them in the mountains wandering about looking for bin laden? Might not have been a bad idea, bin Laden would have been captured, lives lost in Iraq saved, billions not wasted in Iraq. Of course, Iraq has the oil, Bush was keeping his eye on the real prize.

That is what it would have been because the left was announcing our methods of tracking him cia the press as quickly as the democrat leadership could leak the information. If anything was leaked to the press, it's the fault of the source, not the press for printing it. This is not the old Soviet Union, or Putin's Russia, for that matter.

In case you're keeping count, it's been 2262 days since President Bush said he would get Osama bin Laden "Dead Or Alive."

[palerider]

If anything was leaked to the press, it's the fault of the source, not the press for printing it. This is not the old Soviet Union, or Putin's Russia, for that matter

So now we have a treasonous democrat leadership leaking the methods by which we were tracking bin laden and a treasonous press for printing it. Which do you believe we should go after first?

[USMC the Almighty]

Jarhead, how ultimately does the media share a responsibility? Are you suggesting that the worlds most wanted man not make the front page?

Clinton holds some blame, but Bush is the leader who said he would catch him and hasnt come through. It isnt necessarily lack of effort. But ultimately and you probably know this better than most. When the ship sinks, for whatever reason, it is the skipper who assumes the blame.

I understand Bunz, but what possible reason could there be for printing a story about our terrorist finance tracking program or that we are tracking him via satellite phone. There is absolutely no reason.

I could understand their thinking behind printing the story on the NSA wiretapping because they wanted to make Bush look bad at any cost, but the other two don't even fall under this category.

[Bunz]

So now we have a treasonous democrat leadership leaking the methods by which we were tracking bin laden and a treasonous press for printing it. Which do you believe we should go after first?

I could understand their thinking behind printing the story on the NSA wiretapping because they wanted to make Bush look bad at any cost, but the other two don't even fall under this category.
Both of my right wing pals on here want to blame the media for printing News that was told to them. You know it is interesting that the only person ever to get in trouble for anything close to classified information was Scooter Libby. I have little doubt that he is simply a patsy for a larger target but that is for another thread.

I will say this, when it comes to a story that cites a confidential source as the basis for the story I generally pay it less attention. I am one who thinks despite the freedom of the press there still needs to be accountability. If the media are not willing to disclose thier sources publicly than it isnt worth anything. If an informant leaks something that is being done that is questionable in terms of legality then whistle blower protection needs to be in place. If they leak something that is classified then they need to be held accountable.

The thing is that both sides play the media and the media plays right back. This isnt a GOP Vs. Dem issue, this is a corrupt party system versus the American people.

[PLC1]

Support the troops. Throw them a great welcome home party.

[Dr House]

Yes.

You'd have to be real cruel to hope they get hurt, even if you don't support what they're doing.

On the other hand, my compassion for them is limited, given they volunteered to serve. They took the risk, so they must take responsibility for the consequences. If we still had a draft, I would support them completely (from the safety of an apartment in Santo Domingo, of course, I won't serve if I can help it).

-Dr House :cool: