Schadenfreude Wrote:

USMC Wrote:

Socko Wiethe Wrote:"We did this for a free and democratic Iraq" somehow is judged credible enough to justify the toll of hundreds of American lives and billions of dollars.

You will never once hear an American in Iraq complain about his mission there. Our boys know they are there, and they believe in their mission.

I personally know for a fact this isn't universally true.

Quote:It is you left wing *****'s that have the problem.  You want another Vietnam?  Keep bitching, b/c that is what you are turning this into with your damn anti bush rallies and movies. 

This will be the inevitable next step in the right wing spin.

Besides all the other arguments made against war, some questioned whether or not the Iraqis would accept democracy very easily. Some of us pointed it that it was an awfully complex situation with Sunnis and Shia and Kurds and what not.

No problem, we were told. Americans will be greeted with open arms and flowers and sweets.

And now that the thing is sort of a mess and appears to be getting worse -- suddenly, its the fault of the Americans who didn't want us in there (instead of the people who got us into this expensive mess in the first place).

Quote:How do you think that makes our men and women in uniform feel?  To see our commander and chief mocked by some fat *** worthless piece of **** who has done nothing for the betterment of his country?  

I support our troops. And I ****ing hate Bush.

And if an anti-Bush movie hurts the feelings of a few of our troops -- then they need to grow a pair.

That's democracy -- the sort of thing they are supposed to be protecting.

first. Most of the opposition in Iraq is not from Iraqi citizens, it is from the people of Syria and Kuwait. Second, a civilian, telling someone who is in HARMS WAY to protect your *** and your freedom to grow a pair is laughable! I never said it would hurt their feelings. My point is, if it is not modivating to our troops, why not STFU and find something that will. Hate bush or not, this thing isn't going away no matter how much some of the left wing toddlers kick and squeal. It won't go away until we do the work. Now, it's time to grab your nuts and do it. Let's get em home. Either way, that would make us BOTH work toward the same goal.

Quote:) the intelligence has been shown to be extremely suspect -

In hindsight yes, but at the time it was the best we had and at the time we didn't have the benefit of hindsight as you now do.

Quote:1if we're going to commit this level of money and manpower, I'd like to be damn well sure.  Just for an example, in 1962 we had damn good photos of Cuba.  For billions of dollars and hundreds of American lives and thousands of foreign lives, I want iron-clad evidence, not crap pieced together and called good.

The problem is your iron clad proof could be a chemical weapons attack on this country. The French wanted more proof as well, and the last time they demanded that it came rolling through Paris waving a Nazi flag.

In a post 9/11 world we cannot wait until we have 100% iron clad proof sitting in our hands. We can't wait for a picture of Saddam or Osama with their picture holding a bottle of racin before we act. We go with what we had and at the time, all intellegence pointed to him having WMD's and still pursuing them. Based on that we acted.

Quote:Cripe, our top source of Iraq intelligence, who we paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to, has turned out to be an Iranian plant.  Are you telling me that we know for a fact that Saddam has manufacturing WMD, but didn't know that Chalabi was also on the take from Iran?

So basically you think that we knew Chalabi was on the take and ignored it just so we could go to war?

And let's be clear, the UN said he had WMD's, our intellegence said he had WMD's, the Clinton administration said he had WMD's, John Kerry said he had WMD's. No one disputes he had them, the question is where are they?

Quote:People ***** about not wanting to be the world's policemen, but then we take action supposedly on a U.N. resolution despite the fact that the U.N. didn't consider the transgressions worthy of tearing down and building back up the transgressor.

No, France, Germany, Russia, who have all be proven to have been on the take from Saddam opposed it as well as the other ten horn dictatorships who fear they might lose their power opposed it.

The UN resolutions were focused on because they made the case for us to do what we did. It had nothing to do with being the world's policemen, it had to do with protecting us and enforcing what the international community had agreed was appropriate action if Saddam didn't comply.

Quote:I want to believe that we can get good intelligence, but the circumstances keeping saying otherwise.

And the question needs to be asked why aren't we getting good intellegence. Part of the blame has to fall on congress for passing a bill that said we couldn't solicit intellegence from "less than reputable" sources or current terrorist informers. We also need to examine how information is fed to our leaders. No one is suggesting that the process isn't broken, I simply don't think it's broken at the Presidential level or ignored by a malicious warmongering President.

Quote:When did the U.S. corner the market on intelligence in this regards?

When did anyone claim we did, and what in your mind makes you think we only used our intellegence. We were not alone in our belief, a fact you and your liberal friends frequently choose to ignore. Tony Blair felt exactly as we did, and HE IS LIBERAL. You seem to easily forget he was a big player in this as well. So either he and Bush were in cahoots this whole time, or both of them saw information that led them to believe we needed to take Saddam out.

Quote:It's arrogant as hell to think that we HAD to do this, especially based on what information was available to everyone.

It's arrogant as hell for you to assume you have a better take on this than Bush and Blair did. You've already drawn your conclusions, you drew them before we ever set foot in Iraq. However the investigation is still going on. We don't know all the facts yet, and objective people realize this.

Schadenfreude Wrote:And especially considering the fact that this war was a clear violation of the UN charter.

I trust you raised that same point when Clinton went into Bosnia right? You did.....right? :rolleyes:

Quote:In a post 9/11 world we cannot wait until we have 100% iron clad proof sitting in our hands.

Amen. I don't care if you are left, right, center, NorthEast, conservative, democrat, etc...this is something EVERYBODY needs to understand and realize this is now the world we live in.

I'd rather take those bastards out first then let them strike again and have us kill them in retaliation.

S&G, once again, you prove that you lack the ability to respond to an argument and attack the speaker instead. You denigrate my service in the Army National Guard but you worship a man who couldn't even fulfill an initial enlistment requirement in the National Guard. Nope, I haven't been shot at yet but I didn't choose my current assignment any more than I chose any of my previous assignments. I would note that the unit in which I spent 15 years is currently somewhere in Iraq so, had I joined a few years later or had I gotten the assignment I wanted rather than the one I did get, I'd be there right now. Then again, I will readily concede that I have no particular desire to get shot at. If called however, I will go without hesitation and I will do what I am told to do to the best of my ability. My guess is that an awful lot of us "weekend warriors" are going to get an invitation to play in the sandbox before it's all over with - especially considering that almost 1/2 of the troops currently in Iraq are "weekend warriors." That's a hell of a lot more than most neo-cons like Dick "other priorities" Cheney, Saxby "bad knees" Chambliss, and Rush "anal cyst" Limbaugh can say.

I will admit my sacrifices have been minimal. I have at least one weekend a month that's not mine although, one year, I went from New Year's Day until Memorial Day and I only had one weekend off from duty. I have missed more than my share of weddings, funerals, birthdays, anniverseries, graduations and, gasp, Marshall football games. The last time I was on State Active Duty for a natural disaster, I got a phone call at 3:00 p.m. and was told to report at 5:00 a.m. the next morning. I don't pretend that these are enormous sacrifices but, if you want to try it some time, do the following for a year: At the beginning of the year, roll a die for each month. Do it however you want but the die will determine what weekend that month doesn't belong to you (although you can exempt major holiday weekends). About a week prior to any major event on a weekend, roll the die again. If it's a 1 or 2, you don't get to go and it doesn't matter what the event is or how much money you've spent or how many plans you've made. Your family can go but you can't. Assuming the die says you can go, you get to roll it again about 3 days prior. If it comes up a 1, you can't go.

I have done this for 18 years because I beleive that the principles set forth in the United States Constitution are more important than my life. They are more important than my family. In fact, they are more important than anything else.

As for any military expertise I might have, I would note that I have successfully completed Infantry Officer Basic Course, Armor Officer Advanced Course, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare Defense School (where I was the distinguished honor graduate), a pile of short courses designed more for administrative purposes than tactical purposes, and I have completed Phase I of Command and General Staff Officer's Course and will begin Phase II in August. (Oh yeah. All of those courses are in addition to my regular duties). And, believe it or not, I actually spend time reading history with a critical eye and I look for different perspectives because I recognize that there is no such thing as an "objective account."

But, call me back when you know the difference between "administrative control", "tactical control", "operational control", "attachments" and "assignments." Or when you can discuss the differences between types of offensive and defensive operations and which types are conducted at tactical and operational levels.

Although some deride the importance of National Guard State Active Duty missions, most of the military responders to any chemical or biological attack on United States soil will be "weekend warriors" trained specifically for that mission and assigned to Civil Support teams. "Weekend warriors" have saved countless lives during natural disasters by setting up shelters and feeding people, by delivering drinkable water to areas that won't have any for weeks, by delivering medicine to those who needed it and who couldn't be reached by any other means, by evacuating those in danger, and by countless other acts. BTW, if you've never been into an area just after a flood, I encourage you to do so. But, if you don't want to do that, just go by your local sewage plant and wade around in the muck for a while. That will give you a decent sense of what floods leave behind.

For the last time, my opposition to our involvement in Iraq has nothing to do with my dislike for Dubya and everything to do with the fact that I believe his reckless actions have seriously jeopardized the long term safety and security of the United States. His little adventure hasn't made us more safe - it's made us less safe. That $300 billion could have been spent on silly little things like port and rail security or, if you like, we could have spent half of that on port and rail security and built tens of thousands of new schools or hired millions of new teachers in this country. Terrorists are a nuisance but they don't threaten our way of life. An uneducated populace does.

When we finally pull out of Iraq, I will be mightily surprised if it doesn't rapidly deginerate into civil war and become a true haven for terrorists. Even more fun is that the country that will have the most influence in Iraq, especially in the southern portion, will be Iran. We will then have spent over half a trillion dollars, over 1,000 lives, and over 6,000 wounded and the only thing we will have accomplished will be to increase Iran's influence in the Middle East. Hardly a salutory outcome if you ask me. Furthermore, although this war won't have the same effect Vietnam did on making us timid, we will be far less willing to make a major committment the next time around and that time might just be in Iran or North Korea where we really do need to face a hard war against countries that can actually pose a threat to the United States.

Last but not least, your very ability to post today is dependent, to a large degree, on "weekend warriors." It was "weekend warriors" that assaulted Omaha Beach. Company A, 116th Infantry Regiment, 29th Infantry Division, Virginia Army National Guard, began June 6, 1944 with slightly over 200 men reporting for duty. On the morning of June 7, 1944, eight were fit for duty and fewer than 30 were still alive. The brunt of the German offensive in the Battle of the Bulge was borne by "weekend warriors" from the 28th Infantry Division, Pennsylvania Army National Guard, just after they had slugged their way through the Hurtgen Forrest. They got slaughtered but they slowed the Germans up enough to allow an effective Allied counterattack. (Their patch is the shape of the Pennsylvania Keystone and, on the Class A uniform, it is red. After Hurtgen and the Battle of the Bulge, it became known as "the bloody bucket" because of the number of casualties). The Union may well have been saved by the actions of "weekend warriors" from Maine and their leader who happened to be a professor of rhetoric and modern languages at Bowdoin College in his civilian life. (Read the account of Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine if you have no clue what I'm talking about).

So, the next time you talk about "weekend warriors" I suggest you read just a bit of history to find out just what those "weekend warriors" have accomplished.

It is a recurring reflection of your total arrogance that you automatically assume you are much better informed than any/everyone who responds to your never-ending litanies of self-designated areas of expertise.

Do you really think that anyone who regularly reads this board has missed out on your obsessive posting of your "military" curriculum vitae? As others have more forcefully stated than I, and for better reasons, save the lectures on freedom for people you're entitled to harangue; I'm not one of them.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:It's arrogant as hell to think that we HAD to do this, especially based on what information was available to everyone.

It's arrogant as hell for you to assume you have a better take on this than Bush and Blair did. You've already drawn your conclusions, you drew them before we ever set foot in Iraq. However the investigation is still going on. We don't know all the facts yet, and objective people realize this.

Quote:

Quote:) the intelligence has been shown to be extremely suspect -

In hindsight yes, but at the time it was the best we had and at the time we didn't have the benefit of hindsight as you now do.

My point wasn't that we now know that it was bad, my point was that it should have obviously not been good enough at the time. Believed to be good - perhaps. Conclusive? Obviously not even close and quickly debunked.

Quote:

Quote:1if we're going to commit this level of money and manpower, I'd like to be damn well sure.  Just for an example, in 1962 we had damn good photos of Cuba.  For billions of dollars and hundreds of American lives and thousands of foreign lives, I want iron-clad evidence, not crap pieced together and called good.

The problem is your iron clad proof could be a chemical weapons attack on this country. The French wanted more proof as well, and the last time they demanded that it came rolling through Paris waving a Nazi flag.

It is such hyperbolic scare tactics that have you blindly following these decisions. Comparing Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda to the Nazi army is laughable

Quote:In a post 9/11 world we cannot wait until we have 100% iron clad proof sitting in our hands.  We can't wait for a picture of Saddam or Osama with their picture holding a bottle of racin before we act.  We go with what we had and at the time, all intellegence pointed to him having WMD's and still pursuing them.  Based on that we acted. 

I'm curious if you believe that this sort of defense strategy should be employed by the rest of the world. If North Korea gets intelligence that the American army in South Korea is developing an invasion plan, should they go ahead and launch their nukes at Seoul? After all, their intelligence tells us that they are under an imminent threat.

No American wants to see the U.S. go through what it did on 9/11. But I'm not willing to start lobbing bombs and rebuilding countries based on our belief that they might have intentions. Pretty soon we'll be throwing people in jail for intending to evade taxes.

Quote:

Quote:Cripe, our top source of Iraq intelligence, who we paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to, has turned out to be an Iranian plant.  Are you telling me that we know for a fact that Saddam has manufacturing WMD, but didn't know that Chalabi was also on the take from Iran?

So basically you think that we knew Chalabi was on the take and ignored it just so we could go to war?

No, that was not my point. My point was that if our intelligence is believed to be so great and trustworthy that we'll go to war over it, doesn't it show that to be a complete farce when we completely miss the Chalabi/Iran tie? Sure, it is hindsight, but it's a clear indication that our intelligence probably isn't nearly as good as we may think it is. At the very least, this should at least show that we do need more clear cut, obvious evidence of something before we go barging into a country with guns blazing.

Quote:And let's be clear, the UN said he had WMD's, our intellegence said he had WMD's, the Clinton administration said he had WMD's, John Kerry said he had WMD's.  No one disputes he had them, the question is where are they? 

Yes, he had them. We know this because the inspectors found the receipts. They also accounted for 99% of them by serial identifiers, with another big scrap pile adding up to the other 1%. What you're telling me is that our old intelligence was recycled and was completely outdated. So no one saw the expiration date on this information?

Quote:

Quote:People ***** about not wanting to be the world's policemen, but then we take action supposedly on a U.N. resolution despite the fact that the U.N. didn't consider the transgressions worthy of tearing down and building back up the transgressor.

No, France, Germany, Russia, who have all be proven to have been on the take from Saddam opposed it as well as the other ten horn dictatorships who fear they might lose their power opposed it.

In the same vein, you'd be perfectly legit in saying that we are on the take from the Saudi's, which is interesting considering many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.

Quote:The UN resolutions were focused on because they made the case for us to do what we did.

Precisely. All the UN resolutions did was give us an excuse.

Quote:It had nothing to do with being the world's policemen, it had to do with protecting us and enforcing what the international community had agreed was appropriate action if Saddam didn't comply.

Why did they decide not to enforce it the same way we did? Because of the iron-clad evidence the U.S. was supposed to have that amounted to bubkus.

Quote:

Quote:I want to believe that we can get good intelligence, but the circumstances keeping saying otherwise.

And the question needs to be asked why aren't we getting good intellegence. Part of the blame has to fall on congress for passing a bill that said we couldn't solicit intellegence from "less than reputable" sources or current terrorist informers. We also need to examine how information is fed to our leaders. No one is suggesting that the process isn't broken, I simply don't think it's broken at the Presidential level or ignored by a malicious warmongering President.

If we knew the process sucked because of new legislation, then why did we rely on what we did get? You're saying that we knew we were potentially going to have substandard information, yet went in with only substandard and refutable evidence. If it is the highest level that makes the final decision, they should damn well know what they're getting.

I'd like to think that the President didn't jump into this because he and his cronies could actually profit from it, I really would. I'm not sure I don't believe that to be the case. But your arguments don't help me. Either Bush was extremely careless or extremely gullible, which either shows him to not be very Presidential or to have been misled by his handlers.

Quote:

Quote:When did the U.S. corner the market on intelligence in this regards?

When did anyone claim we did, and what in your mind makes you think we only used our intellegence. We were not alone in our belief, a fact you and your liberal friends frequently choose to ignore. Tony Blair felt exactly as we did, and HE IS LIBERAL. You seem to easily forget he was a big player in this as well. So either he and Bush were in cahoots this whole time, or both of them saw information that led them to believe we needed to take Saddam out.

Blair felt exactly as we did because Britain largely follows our lead. It's probably going to cost Blair his post.

Quote:

Quote:It's arrogant as hell to think that we HAD to do this, especially based on what information was available to everyone.

It's arrogant as hell for you to assume you have a better take on this than Bush and Blair did. You've already drawn your conclusions, you drew them before we ever set foot in Iraq. However the investigation is still going on. We don't know all the facts yet, and objective people realize this.

Objective people realize that we were told one reason for going to war, and that has proved to be untrue so the reason has been changed and those that challenge the action are being branded as unpatriotic and un-American. Objective people see through the bull****.

Quote:I'd like to think that the President didn't jump into this because he and his cronies could actually profit from it, I really would. I'm not sure I don't believe that to be the case.

I'd really like to believe you're sincere about that, but I tend to doubt it.

The fact is we disagree on what it takes to defend this country. And we will never agree. My arguments would never pursuade you because you have made up your mind. You believe the president is evil and went to war just to get is jollies and make some money. No amount of reasonable argument would change that.

And we don't know that our reasons were, as you say, bunk. We're finding out more and more every day and until we know all we can, I'm holding back my final judgements.

I think we've carried this discussion as far as it can go.

Have a good 4th.

sherman&grant Wrote:

Tulsaman Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:My age group will not fight for a worthless cause.

What generation is that?

The Millenial Generation.

I think that's the "me first" generation. And you need more of those drugs you keep yapping about. All of America can sleep better knowing that you, and those like you, will be hiding in Canada when the time comes to actually do something to protect idiots like you.

AS Jesse Jackson says the truth will set you free or is it Sharpton.
and i have ADHD so i can't serve i thank the lord every day for him giving me that.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

HuskieDan Wrote:2)  People ***** about not wanting to be the world's policemen, but then we take action supposedly on a U.N. resolution despite the fact that the U.N. didn't consider the transgressions worthy of tearing down and building back up the transgressor.  When did the U.S. corner the market on intelligence in this regards?  It's arrogant as hell to think that we HAD to do this, especially based on what information was available to everyone.

And especially considering the fact that this war was a clear violation of the UN charter.

So was Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzogovina. Didn't hear you complaining about that. Of course, me being a staunch Conservative, I could really give a rat's arse about what is in "violation" from an entity that holds human right's violators like Libya, the Sudan, and China in high regard. This is the United States and my father, grandfather, G-grandfather, and, well, we could keep going, fought for it, NOT the United Nations. They hate the US anyway so......."F" 'Em.

Also, I am AGAINST the draft. I didn't want cowards serving next to me when I was in, and I DON'T want cowards serving next to the soldiers I train. Move to Canada? Yep, that's cowardly.

Tulsaman Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:My age group will not fight for a worthless cause.

What generation is that?

The Millenial Generation.

I train your "generation" everyday. Go sell crazy to someone else.

and can you tell me if this is true or not.
the us govenmnent doesn't want people with ADD or ADHD correct and also those on contolled medications. True or false.

Tulsaman Wrote:and can you tell me if this is true or not.
the us govenmnent doesn't want people with ADD or ADHD correct and also those on contolled medications. True or false.

Wrong. ADD and ADHD won't prohibit anyone. Ritalin will. I also think ADD and ADHD are a bunch of horse****. They weren't around when I was young and we didn't have a problem. I think it's a part of your "millenia generation". It's BS. You can't concentrate? Let me see you in front of a Playstation. You're just not interested in the material and these new "teachers" aren't interested in teaching so they want to over-medicate children. It doesn't exist. It isn't a condition. You're just lazy or hyper. That's not directed solely at you, but at ALL people claiming that BS.

Oh, and anyone medicated can concentrate. I have concentrated on the ingrediants of Cheetos for about an hour before smoking weed. Of course, normally, I am not interested in the ingrediants of Cheetos hence my statement about your "millenia generation" not being interested in learning. That's not a condition, that's laziness.

wonder where i put my ritalin at..
and oh yeah i weigh more than 300 pounds too.
and i have attemted suicide a few times too.