1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division

[Secretariat]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102602402_pf.html

'I Don't Think This Place Is Worth Another Soldier's Life'
After 14 months in a Baghdad district torn by mounting sectarian violence, members of one U.S. unit are tired, bitter and skeptical.

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, October 27, 2007; A01


BAGHDAD, Oct. 26 Their line of tan Humvees and Bradley Fighting Vehicles creeps through another Baghdad afternoon. At this pace, an excruciating slowness, they strain to see everything, hoping the next manhole cover, the next rusted barrel, does not hide another bomb. A few bullets pass overhead, but they don't worry much about those.

"I hate this road," someone says over the radio.

They stop, look around. The streets of Sadiyah are deserted again. To the right, power lines slump down into the dirt. To the left, what was a soccer field is now a pasture of trash, combusting and smoking in the sun. Packs of skinny wild dogs trot past walls painted with slogans of sectarian hate.

A bomb crater blocks one lane, so they cross to the other side, where houses are blackened by fire, shops crumbled into bricks. The remains of a car bomb serve as hideous public art. Sgt. Victor Alarcon's Humvee rolls into a vast pool of knee-high brown sewage water -- the soldiers call it Lake Havasu, after the Arizona spring-break party spot -- that seeps in the doors of the vehicle and wets his boots.

"When we first got here, all the shops were open. There were women and children walking out on the street," Alarcon said this week. "The women were in Western clothing. It was our favorite street to go down because of all the hot chicks."

That was 14 long months ago, when the soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, arrived in southwestern Baghdad. It was before their partners in the Iraqi National Police became their enemies and before Shiite militiamen, aligned with the police, attempted to exterminate a neighborhood of middle-class Sunni families.

Next month, the U.S. soldiers will complete their tour in Iraq. Their experience in Sadiyah has left many of them deeply discouraged, by both the unabated hatred between rival sectarian fighters and the questionable will of the Iraqi government to work toward peaceful solutions.

Asked if the American endeavor here was worth their sacrifice -- 20 soldiers from the battalion have been killed in Baghdad -- Alarcon said no: "I don't think this place is worth another soldier's life."

[Tom]

Thank GOD he doesn't speak the for the majority of those who know how impoartant thier mission there is. But then, Sec would never listen to any of them them.

[harnesslover]

Secretariat, I am curious - why do you post this? You trying to change people's minds on iraq? You trying to give the impression that all or most of the soldiers in iraq don't believe in it?

[Suff]

Secretariat, I am curious - why do you post this? You trying to change people's minds on iraq? You trying to give the impression that all or most of the soldiers in iraq don't believe in it?


I'm curious? Are you under the impression that most Military support the war and/or our Governments handling off it?

From the Military Times.. ( and this is a year old and has gotten much worse)



http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php



Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.



And the troops are distancing themselves from Republicans as well.
While Bush fared well overall, his political party didn’t. In the three previous polls, nearly 60 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Republicans, which is about double the population as a whole. But in this year’s poll, only 46 percent of the military respondents said they were Republicans


For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s han dling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, ac cording to the 2006 Military Times Poll.


. I noticed over the years many Pace Advantage members have stood where they think the troops have been. Mostly due to false patriotism and ignorance of the facts,

[JustRalph]

I noticed over the years many Pace Advantage members have stood where they think the troops have been. Mostly due to false patriotism and ignorance of the facts,[/i][/size]

yeah, we are all just a bunch of dumb asses

[harnesslover]

. I noticed over the years many Pace Advantage members have stood where they think the troops have been. Mostly due to false patriotism and ignorance of the facts,



I think you confuse support with blind agreement.

You can support the war efforts without blindly agreeing with every decision that has been made.

This is what absolutely amazes me about Dem thinking. You are not allowed to support the republican president unless you agree with 100% of what he does and says.

Of course, maybe thats why the Dems lose all the time..:lol: :lol:

[46zilzal]

This is what absolutely amazes me about Dem thinking. You are not allowed to support the republican president unless you agree with 100% of what he does and says.


That makes no sense.

[harnesslover]

That makes no sense.

Welcome to the Democratic Mindset. You of all people should be quite familiar with that world.

[46zilzal]

You and the other people can support Mr. Dyslexic to any degree you want. An idiot is an idiot no matter what support of lack thereof, he receives.

[Show Me the Wire]

You and the other people can support Mr. Dyslexic to any degree you want. An idiot is an idiot no matter what support of lack thereof, he receives. (bold font added for emphasis)


You are insightful today. If we can only get the physician to heal thy self. :bang:

[46zilzal]

Ah bur Mr. Brain stem that roars has gotten almost 4,000 killed for nothing. A wonderful legacy.


Being called an idiot is fine if no one dies.

[Tom]

I noticed over the years many Pace Advantage members have stood where they think the troops have been. Mostly due to false patriotism and ignorance of the facts,

And yet they keep on enlisting and re-enliting. I've notice over the years many PaceAdvatange member stand where they think it will benefit thier poltical agendas. Anyting that is negative or would help ensure defeat is embraced by them. Face it, there are some here who would never accept a victory. There is word for them.

[Suff]

yeah, we are all just a bunch of dumb asses

Pretty much, On this issue at least. And a number of others from what I have seen.

Ignorant means lacking in information by the way. Not Dumbass.

In this case, you I assume, and a number of others were assuming that the Majority of Troops support the

1. The War
2. The original Invasion
3. The President
4. The Surge
5. The War management.

PA'rs are wrong. PA'rs were wrong, and PA'rs were perpatrating a myth. Pace Advantage republicans stand against the majority of the troops , and I think its relevant to mention they have supported a strategy that has resulted in a lot of death, and is opposed by the majority of boots on the ground. So yea, that is Dumb Ass, Big time Dumb Ass.

[Tom]

That is probably the most ignorant crap you have ever posted, and that is saying something., Go stand by the POS Mutha - you can bow down and face mecca with him.

[lsbets]

Ralph- you have to take Suff's remarks with a grain of salt - remember his history with the Iraq War and that helps put his feelings in context. It seems to me that you understand the troops a little bit better than our fleet footed friend from Mass.

[skate]

I'm curious? Are you under the impression that most Military support the war and/or our Governments handling off it?




How about the support from "the press" for the Murders of 100,000 USA citizens, since 9/11.:eek: right here in river city, USA.


ITS priority adjustment time.

OR, take a good look time.:mad:


our deaths in Iraq are small time and Not wasted. Killings at Home are vast and wasted.

[46zilzal]

If these people want to put their butts on the line, so be it that regimentation trumps rationality.

[skate]

what support of lack thereof, he receives.


here you go again.:faint: what kind of method do you use to combine words?;)

[46zilzal]

There are a lot of these fellow, who saw things FIRST HAND, who know it is bull shit.
http://www.ivaw.org/user/63
"look around and see what a mess Iraq was. My first thought was that these people lived liked animals. But the longer I was there the more I realized that it was our fault, we destroyed their infrastructure, and didn’t build it back up.

[Suff]

Huh? Right there is the military times poll showing that the Majority of the Troops disagree with the Invasion and the mission. Very clear very simple.

If you don't like it what can I say? TFB I suppose. But try not to be ignorant by posting as if the facts are present. They are, and they are contradictory to the majority of bullshit tossed around by Republicans on Pace Advantage.

Here's another, although whats the difference, you men have lost your way and the truth is pill you have lost your ability to swallow.








US. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War Now



An overwhelming majority (72%) of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows


Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months.

So there you go..... 89% and 82% and 58%. Can you somehow dig deep down inside and find yourself? If so, repeat after me. The Majority of Troops want an exit plan to leave !!
You now have the information, so ignorance is over. Its a lie now when you say you support the troops. You don't.


http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

[Secretariat]

Secretariat, I am curious - why do you post this? You trying to change people's minds on iraq? You trying to give the impression that all or most of the soldiers in iraq don't believe in it?

Not trying to change anyone's mind. Just providing information on an article I found interesting which escaped the mainstream conservative media. I think Suff sufficiently answered the deterioration of troop support for the President's policies in Iraq with his posts.

As to Tom's comment on victory in Iraq, well I beleive victory is possible in Iraq, but not militarily. Victory has to be acheived by the Iraqi people and their government, not by an enforced occupation.

The perception is that it is a only bunch of "liberals" who beleive victory in Iraq is not possible. However, GW's dad's Secretary of State thinks otherwise as well as GW's first appointment to the 911 Commission Henry Kissinger and many other stout Republicans.

"Baker's Panel Rules Out Iraq Victory
By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 12, 2006

WASHINGTON — A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/01/asia/AS-GEN-Japan-Iraq-Kissinger.php

"AP Exclusive: Kissinger says military victory not possible in Iraq
Published: April 1, 2007

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, said Sunday the problems in Iraq are more complex than that conflict, and military victory is no longer possible."

The truth is the GW administration has eschewed the philosophy "speak softly and carry a big stick", and has chosen "beat the hell out of them and hope no one asks questions later."

I beleive victory can be acheived in Iraq, but it will be when Iraqi leaders and peopel take charge of their own country without us needing to occupy the country and break down doors to enforce the country we want. Victory wil be achieled when Iraqis control their own destiny as opposed to us using even the Navy to patrol Iraqi streets (just talked to a sailor who was given that reluctant mission recently).

As GW stated in 2003 -

"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people."

-- President George W. Bush
February 26, 2003

If he had only said, we trust the Iraqi people and their government to make their own successes and endure their own failures. But he didn't.

[Show Me the Wire]

"mainstream conservative media", isn't that an oxymoron?

[lsbets]

Suff, I'm not going to argue polls with you, there is plenty of contradictory evidence to your polls I could point to, but it wouldn't matter a lick to you. But don't lecture people about suppporting the troops, it just doesn't sound right coming from you. But, I can understand why you want a quick exit from Iraq, you'd be able to say you led the way.

[harnesslover]

You and the other people can support Mr. Dyslexic to any degree you want. An idiot is an idiot no matter what support of lack thereof, he receives.

Which pretty much encompasses every single dem candidate you throw out there.

[harnesslover]

Ah bur Mr. Brain stem that roars has gotten almost 4,000 killed for nothing. A wonderful legacy.


Being called an idiot is fine if no one dies.

If you ever learned that doing nothing causes people to die too, you would have a different thought on the clinton years.

[harnesslover]

If these people want to put their butts on the line, so be it that regimentation trumps rationality.
Its called defending a country you are proud of. How would you know what thats like though.

[Tom]

Polls are for strippers and libs.
The fact is, the enlistments and renlistments are the only thing that count.
Not potshots from the back room of a horse board.

[riskman]

It is common knowledge that the supposed benefits of the Iraq war, such as removing weapons of mass destruction, decreasing terrorism, making the U.S. more secure, installing a functioning democracy, etc. have not materialized as told to us by our leaders. They need very little discussion. The Bush team underestimated the war’s costs and difficulties, and it overestimated the benefits. The Bush team thought that the war could be won easily, that they could install a friendly government easily, and that they could exit Iraq rather quickly and go on to their next field exercise in reconstructing the world.(empire) The troops also beleived this.It is now four years later and the troops as well as a majority of Americans are frustrated. America is divided because our leaders did a lousy job--period. Personally, I beleive we have given Iraq a great opportunity. Hussein is history as well as his despicable government. We gave them a shot to decide their own fate, the dedication and blood of our sons and daughters, and a ton of money. It is time to let them solve their own problems.

[46zilzal]

Its called defending a country you are proud of. How would you know what thats like though.
DEFENDING? attacking a foreign country without provocation or, for that matter any good reason. A feeble army on the other side of the globe....The list is mounting on the B.S. that prompted this wasteful and useless war.

Overt and outright lies from the start while the provocation behind 9/11, the fellows responsible, just sit up there, unscathed along the Pakistan/Afghan border plotting who knows what, while hundreds of Iraqi citizens have paid the price for these idiot's "vision" of a new Middle East.

As Robert Baer (former CIA operative in the Middle East) has said on many occasions:"These guys are delusional."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1624993,00.html

"If the Bush Administration continues to feed the American people the same dog's breakfast of bad intelligence, we'll be in Iraq until Bush leaves office. And while we're at it, just maybe in a war with Iran."

or from a more recent article in Time on Iran, he writes:"Strengthening the Administration's case for a strike on Iran, there's a belief among neo-cons that the IRGC is the one obstacle to a democratic and friendly Iran. They believe that if we were to get rid of the IRGC, the clerics would fall, and our thirty-years war with Iran over. It's another neo-con delusion, but still it informs White House thinking.

And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime? An Administration official told me it's not even a consideration. "IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this Administration. There will be an attack on Iran."

[PaceAdvantage]

Here's another, although whats the difference, you men have lost your way and the truth is pill you have lost your ability to swallow.

So there you go..... 89% and 82% and 58%. Can you somehow dig deep down inside and find yourself? If so, repeat after me. The Majority of Troops want an exit plan to leave !! Isn't this akin to asking school children if they'd like to start their summer vacation early? (No, I am not comparing our troops to school children, just providing an analogy that seems to fit here).

I would think a majority of troops would like to leave as soon as possible so that they can get back to their lives and their families.

[delayjf]

The truth is the GW administration has eschewed the philosophy "speak softly and carry a big stick", and has chosen "beat the hell out of them and hope no one asks questions later."

If Kissinger said that, then he doesn't have a clue, The US has from the outset engaged in a limited war. We could have absolutely decimated that country. Maybe he's looking for work, after all he did such a bang up job with the retreat from Vietnam.

[46zilzal]

If Kissinger said that, then he doesn't have a clue, The US has from the outset engaged in a limited war. We could have absolutely decimated that country. Maybe he's looking for work, after all he did such a bang up job with the retreat from Vietnam.

That is a laugher. Tell that to all the DEAD citizens, all the people living along the borders....A cameraman friend, an Iraqi citizen, just this week went to Syria to do a documentary about all the displaced families living in refugee camps (in squalor). He told me it is not far removed from Darfur.

Screw up a country, destroy their infrastructure so that nothing can work and tell us all about how humane the thing is and how great the invaders are. What a bunch of unvarnished bull shit.

[harnesslover]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]DEFENDING? [QUOTE]

Yes, defending.. That is why people join the armed forces.. So that people like you can sit back in your cushy chair and complain on and on about how bad America sucks. A simple 'thank you' to the troops would do just fine. Now go have another donut.

[46zilzal]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060209/news_1n9rebuild.html

But listen to the DICK and thing just keep getting better.

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]DEFENDING? [QUOTE]

Yes, defending.. That is why people join the armed forces.. So that people like you can sit back in your cushy chair and complain on and on about how bad America sucks. A simple 'thank you' to the troops would do just fine. Now go have another donut.

Invading a sovereign nation which NEVER attacked this country (and just happens to have LOTS of oil) on a whim is somehow DEFENDING? Another one living in a dream world.

[harnesslover]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060209/news_1n9rebuild.html

But listen to the DICK and thing just keep getting better.

Damnit, we should have never listened to the Democrats or maybe we wouldn't be over there

"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 | Source (http://web.archive.org/web/20040204225854/www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html)

"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 | Source (http://web.archive.org/web/20040206224935/johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html)

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source (http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/)

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/)

[46zilzal]

Did any of those individuals order an attack on Iraq? Don't think so.

The repeat quagmire of Vietnam is due to a single group of idiots MOST of who signed on with the Project for the New American Century and told the world what they intended to do. It just took 9/11 for them to pull it off and then let the fellows responsible for it, sit back and laugh while these idiots played out their world domination game.

[harnesslover]

Did any of those individuals order an attack on Iraq? Don't think so.

Clinton didn't do anything to anyone ever.. You really don't get it, do you.

[46zilzal]

Clinton didn't do anything to anyone ever.. You really don't get it, do you.
Yes let's go out and bomb loot and pillage. Give me those guns so I can shoot kill and mutilate.....GRRRRRRRRRR!!

Then let's make them lovely Christians.......

Even with the stupid bastards signatures prompted the kind of spending that sent the national debt to record heights.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[Tom]

[QUOTE=harnesslover][QUOTE=46zilzal]DEFENDING?

Invading a sovereign nation which NEVER attacked this country (and just happens to have LOTS of oil) on a whim is somehow DEFENDING? Another one living in a dream world.

How can you call it a soverign nation when he stole it's governement at murdered most of the elected officials? And he did attack us - he fired on US Air force jets. That, dude, is an attack and an act of war. He was a stupid jerk and got what he deserved. He should have been hanged long before the trial started.

[46zilzal]

How many differing countries have SHOT AT U.S. war planes? Nothing happened.

Problem is that trigger happy clowns in that region have done harm to UN-ARMED flights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

"killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children"

But that's okay, they were just some more brown skin people.

These inept idiots did more harm to themselves than anyone else:"Operation Desert Storm ended in 1991, the safety of Kurds who were fleeing from Iraqi persecution from the south became an issue, and Operation Provide Comfort began. This operation essentially created a Northern NFZ to Iraqi military aircraft. The operation provided the Kurdish population with humanitarian aid and reassurance of safe skies. However, this was marred by a friendly-fire incident on 14 April 1994 when two United States Air Force F-15 Eagle fighters mistakenly shot-down two United States Army Blackhawk helicopters killing twenty-six personnel. Operation Provide Comfort officially ended on the 31st of December 1996."

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE]

How can you call it a soverign nation when he stole it's governement at murdered most of the elected officials? And he did attack us - he fired on US Air force jets. That, dude, is an attack and an act of war. He was a stupid jerk and got what he deserved. He should have been hanged long before the trial started.

That government however it evolved, like so many in the world, is the business of Iraqis and NO ONE ELSE.

[harnesslover]

These inept idiots did more harm to themselves

So now you're calling pilots of US air force fighter jets inept idiots?

You've got some serious balls.

[harnesslover]

[QUOTE=Tom]

That government however it evolved, like so many in the world, is the business of Iraqis and NO ONE ELSE.

Oh ok.. I wonder if the Canadian government started to kill innocent Canadian citizens hundreds and thousands at a time if you would not want America to get involved..

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]

Oh ok.. I wonder if the Canadian government started to kill innocent Canadian citizens hundreds and thousands at a time if you would not want America to get involved..
That would be up to Canadian citizens, not me.
That is a very silly proposal as being about as plausible as Bugs Bunny winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his Carrot work.

[harnesslover]

[QUOTE=Tom]

That government however it evolved, like so many in the world, is the business of Iraqis and NO ONE ELSE.

We should pull out the billions we've provided to the UN to help starving economies because F them, its their own problem..

Why do we keep getting involved in trying to help those 'brown skinned' people you keep referring to? F them, its their government's problem.. Right?

[harnesslover]

[QUOTE=harnesslover]
That would be up to Canadian citizens, not me.
That is a very silly proposal as being about as plausible as Bugs Bunny winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his Carrot work.

We'll change it to people living in Canada.

And you dodged the question, how fitting.

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]

We'll change it to people living in Canada.

And you dodged the question, how fitting.
That would be UP to the people who are this countries citizens. PURE and SIMPLE.

I know, keep asking over and over and MAYBE you will get the answer you want!

Yes, is those folks who are citizens of a country who should decide things. Humanitarian aid? fine. Government change? That can only be done by the people who's country it is.

[Greyfox]

[QUOTE=harnesslover]
That would be up to Canadian citizens, not me.
That is a very silly proposal as being about as plausible as Bugs Bunny winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his Carrot work.

Hold it. Didn't they just give a "Loony Toon" character the Nobel Peace Prize? Besides carrots are good for your eye sight. :lol:

[46zilzal]

just for the neocons.

[46zilzal]

or another favorite.

[harnesslover]

[QUOTE=harnesslover]
That would be UP to the people who are this countries citizens. PURE and SIMPLE.

I know, keep asking over and over and MAYBE you will get the answer you want!

Yes, is those folks who are citizens of a country who should decide things. Humanitarian aid? fine. Government change? That can only be done by the people who's country it is.

This is what makes America the greatest country in the world, the fact that we do help those in need, we do get involved when governments kill innocent people, when poor countries need money to help children eat.. That's what we do.

If we never got involved and just sat back and watched, we would be, well, Canada or France.

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]

If we never got involved and just sat back and watched, we would be, well, Canada or France.

TWO of the most civilized countries on earth.

The U.S. has a nasty habit of ostensibly going in to help but has a habit of setting up another "friendly' dictator to help out their own interests: Iran, Chile and many others.

Two more thanks to the BBC: CONGO

Patrice Lumumba, who led his country to independence from Belgium and became its first elected Prime Minister in 1960, was a nationalist assassinated in a CIA-backed operation with the help of Belgian intelligence - and UN connivance - four months after he took office. He was abducted by Congolese rebels and killed in the mineral- rich province of Katanga, which declared independence after Lumumba's election. The order for his assassination came from President Eisenhower. Belgium apologised in March last year for its role in his killing.

INDONESIA

President Suharto came to power in a CIA-backed coup in 1966 which ousted Sukarno, the father of the current President, Megawati Sukarnoputri. The coup followed an abortive putsch in 1965, engineered by the US and Britain, and blamed on Indonesia's Communist Party. Hundreds of thousands of Communist sympathisers were massacred in an army crackdown. State Department historians say the US passed on the names of Communists to the army. The new president offered lucrative mining and oil concessions to Western companies.

or a list of others.http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dictators/Friendly_Dictators.html

[harnesslover]

[QUOTE=harnesslover]

TWO of the most civilized countries on earth.



And least involved when innocent slaughters take place..

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]

And least involved when innocent slaughters take place..
Minding one's own business is an admirable trait. Being a "but-inski" is not.
More than 125,000 Canadians have participated in United Nations and NATO peacekeeping duties throughout the world. That is more Peacekeepers than any other country.
Peacekeepers have helped to make the world a better place in which to live. The Nobel Committee recognized the good work that UN Peacekeepers have been doing by awarding them the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988.

[Tom]

How many differing countries have SHOT AT U.S. war planes? Nothing happened.



A mistake - I say take out anyone who fires on us. Any-friggin-one.

Bang Bang

[Tom]

[QUOTE=harnesslover]
Minding one's own business is an admirable trait. Being a "but-inski" is not.
More than 125,000 Canadians have participated in United Nations and NATO peacekeeping duties throughout the world. That is more Peacekeepers than any other country.
Peacekeepers have helped to make the world a better place in which to live. The Nobel Committee recognized the good work that UN Peacekeepers have been doing by awarding them the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988.

Oh, yeah, where is there peace thanks to Canadian peacekeepers?

[harnesslover]

[QUOTE=harnesslover]
Minding one's own business is an admirable trait. Being a "but-inski" is not.
More than 125,000 Canadians have participated in United Nations and NATO peacekeeping duties throughout the world. That is more Peacekeepers than any other country.
Peacekeepers have helped to make the world a better place in which to live. The Nobel Committee recognized the good work that UN Peacekeepers have been doing by awarding them the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988.

Minding one's own business is not always an admirable trait.
I assume you would stand with your hands in your pockets if you saw a woman being mugged or a child beind abducted? Hell, it's not your problem. Kudos for minding your own business.

[46zilzal]

A mistake - I say take out anyone who fires on us. Any-friggin-one.

Bang Bang
Then Iran would have a big bone to pick with you if they thought the same way.

[Tom]

[QUOTE=Tom]

That government however it evolved, like so many in the world, is the business of Iraqis and NO ONE ELSE.

Then you support the current Iraqi governement?

[Tom]

Then Iran would have a big bone to pick with you if they thought the same way.

"Bring it on!"

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]

Minding one's own business is not always an admirable trait.
I assume you would stand with your hands in your pockets if you saw a woman being mugged or a child being abducted? Hell, it's not your problem. Kudos for minding your own business.
A single, isolated, controllable incident has no comparison to an entire country. Apples vs. engine parts.

[harnesslover]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]

Oh, yeah, where is there peace thanks to Canadian peacekeepers?

Well, certainly not helping in Toronto:

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_16196.aspx

"It's a record the people of Toronto want no part of, but Saturday night brought the city's 71st homicide of 2007, and in the process brought the city even closer to its all-time murder mark."

[Tom]

Time to pull out of Toronto!

[harnesslover]

[QUOTE=harnesslover]
A single, isolated, controllable incident has no comparison to an entire country. Apples vs. engine parts.

So its your duty to get involved in one act of violence on one innocent person, however you should mind your own business when you see thousands of innocent people being killed?

gotcha

[46zilzal]

"Bring it on!"
The world would be a very sorry place if short sighted idiots led the way. Just imagine what you would be paying for gas then.

If you think the Muslim world is nuts now, if an attack went there with their standing army, even the moderates would go nuts.

[46zilzal]

a lot more relevant. http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

The Baltic states were a surprise.

[harnesslover]

a lot more relevant. http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

The Baltic states were a surprise.

But wait, what the hell are the canadian peacemakers doing in toronto?

Shooting people?

[Tom]

:lol::lol::lol:

[Suff]

Isn't this akin to asking school children if they'd like to start their summer vacation early? (No, I am not comparing our troops to school children, just providing an analogy that seems to fit here).

I would think a majority of troops would like to leave as soon as possible so that they can get back to their lives and their families.

The questions involve the strategy of the war.

Tours in Iraq have been, for the most part, one year. So when a soldier responds "I think the UNITED STATES should withdraw in a year, that is what they mean. Not themselves, most of of them answering are leaving in less than a year.

I have no issue with soldiers. My issue is with the chickenhawks on pace-advantage who fancy themselves General Pattons of the message board circuit. All the while using the troops as cover for their own emotional difficulties with life. They think they fool anyone? With there make believe enemies, and sword rattling rants?

I want to stand with then men on the Ground. They overwhelmingly support a withdrawal timetable. I support them. If someone has information to the contrary, then post it. I'd like to read it. I'm not working out any personal failings with the American military. If they say No time table then I say no Timetable.

When I was in Chicago I few months ago, I spent Tim with Jon Stolz and his crew, who run vote vets. I was sitting three seats away from the Soldier who sparked the national story about getting shut down and abused by Jon.

I have the pictures, I just don't feel like resizing them to post. But I was there, and I've been a number of places in search of information.

I'm not like the Pace Advantage Electronic soldiers who get all their talking information through a computer screen and fox news, Rush Limbaugh, and so forth. I don't have to run over to Free Republic and cherry pick comments to paint the scene.

I'm out there doing my own work. I fear nothing. Least of the truth.

The truth is, that our men and women are advising us to get out and many pace advantage members are ignoring them.


Red Sox parade just ended. Life is Good.

[harnesslover]

I'm out there doing my own work. I fear nothing. Least of the truth.



Congratulations. Some of us have jobs and families to take care of.

[skate]

oh oh oh , noooo, i can see it now, Danny Blabber and Suff going up the HILL on "D DAY" asking the troops " ah would you guys rather be Here or at Home?


easiest poll ever taken. results are 100%
even the nazi's prefer prison , than to being on the Hill.

[Secretariat]

It is common knowledge that the supposed benefits of the Iraq war, such as removing weapons of mass destruction, decreasing terrorism, making the U.S. more secure, installing a functioning democracy, etc. have not materialized as told to us by our leaders. They need very little discussion. The Bush team underestimated the war’s costs and difficulties, and it overestimated the benefits. The Bush team thought that the war could be won easily, that they could install a friendly government easily, and that they could exit Iraq rather quickly and go on to their next field exercise in reconstructing the world.(empire) The troops also beleived this.It is now four years later and the troops as well as a majority of Americans are frustrated. America is divided because our leaders did a lousy job--period. Personally, I beleive we have given Iraq a great opportunity. Hussein is history as well as his despicable government. We gave them a shot to decide their own fate, the dedication and blood of our sons and daughters, and a ton of money. It is time to let them solve their own problems.

riskman,

This is a good post. Non-partisan and to the point.

Underestimated the costs though is understating it mildly. GW and Rumsfeld said the entire Iraq occupation would run 50 billion max. It's now in the trillions. Cheney stated we'd be greeting as liberators, and a few years back that we were in the last throes of the war. They've miscalculated every step of the way from WMD's to underestimating the insurgency to the lack of coalition support to the costs of the war. The only people who made money out of this war are the Halliburton and Blackwaters of the world and those who benefit by keeping war perpetual to drive up the cost of oil. Seems to still be working by the threat of war with Iran.

[46zilzal]

Robert Baer has written that the Rutabaga legacy will extend to an armed confrontation with Iran.

Talk about the shit hitting the fan....

[riskman]

riskman,

This is a good post. Non-partisan and to the point.

Underestimated the costs though is understating it mildly. GW and Rumsfeld said the entire Iraq occupation would run 50 billion max. It's now in the trillions. Cheney stated we'd be greeting as liberators, and a few years back that we were in the last throes of the war. They've miscalculated every step of the way from WMD's to underestimating the insurgency to the lack of coalition support to the costs of the war. The only people who made money out of this war are the Halliburton and Blackwaters of the world and those who benefit by keeping war perpetual to drive up the cost of oil. Seems to still be working by the threat of war with Iran.


Imagine this scenario. The U.S. encourages Israel to bomb the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran. Russia attempts to restrain an Iranian response but fails. Iran responds in any of many ways, such as launching missiles on Israel, firing on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, mining the Straits of Hormuz, sending troops into Iraq, or allying its military with Hezbollah and attacking Israel from Lebanon.

The U.S., citing Iran’s aggressions (that will be the story), launches a full-scale attack on Iran designed to devastate the country. This attack has actually been planned by the U.S. for years. Syria is unable to maintain neutrality and quickly becomes a battleground between Iran and Israel.

The price of oil by this point has already soared to $200 a barrel. The U.S. begins to use its strategic reserve and to divert Iraqi production. Russia responds by taking steps to prevent its oil production from reaching the U.S. China responds by cutting off its support of the U.S. Treasury market. Venezuela halts oil shipments to the U.S. The first stages of WWIII are economic warfare designed to cripple the U.S. and halt its war-making capacity.

The U.S., unable to finance its deficits and fund its sovereign debt, is forced into raising interest rates drastically in order to borrow. The Fed is forced to print money. An inflationary spiral occurs. Meanwhile the high interest rates and high oil prices, not to mention the shock of a spreading conflict, drive the U.S. economy into severe decline. The U.S. attempts to raise taxes in order to fund itself, further crippling the economy. Gold soars to $1,500–$2,000 an ounce.

The U.S. attempts to bolster its military forces. The draft is reinstated. The severity of the emergency allows Bush and Cheney to assume emergency powers and begin a dictatorship. Elections are postponed.

The U.S. collapses.

Unfortunately, even if this scenario does not occur, the position of the U.S. is so precarious that any number of other scenarios equally disastrous lie in wait. This country needs urgently to be put in order or it will fall, and especially if it does not terminate its imperial adventures. The very fact that Bush and Cheney (or any major U.S. political officials) gain by starting WWIII is a terrible indictment of our entire political system.

[46zilzal]

IThis country needs urgently to be put in order or it will fall, and especially if it does not terminate its imperial adventures. The very fact that Bush and Cheney (or any major U.S. political officials) gain by starting WWIII is a terrible indictment of our entire political system.
My goodness a rational assessment.

[harnesslover]

Robert Baer has written that the Rutabaga legacy will extend to an armed confrontation with Iran.

Talk about the shit hitting the fan....

Let's send the Canadian Peacemakers over to Iran, wipe them mf'ers off the planet..

[JustRalph]

Ralph- you have to take Suff's remarks with a grain of salt - remember his history with the Iraq War and that helps put his feelings in context. It seems to me that you understand the troops a little bit better than our fleet footed friend from Mass.

:ThmbUp:

[Greyfox]

Imagine this scenario. ....
The U.S. collapses.

.

A very thoughtful assessment, but only one of a plethora of potential futures.
riskman, I mean this with appreciation, you should consider writing a novel based on this scheme. As nature abhors a vacuum, who takes over after the U.S. collapses? China? Cuban refugees? Ants? Chapter 2 Please....

[PaceAdvantage]

If you think the Muslim world is nuts now, if an attack went there with their standing army, even the moderates would go nuts.Dude, it would be over before it began, standing army or not....

[PaceAdvantage]

Unfortunately, even if this scenario does not occur, the position of the U.S. is so precarious that any number of other scenarios equally disastrous lie in wait. This country needs urgently to be put in order or it will fall, and especially if it does not terminate its imperial adventures. The very fact that Bush and Cheney (or any major U.S. political officials) gain by starting WWIII is a terrible indictment of our entire political system.Check back with us in a couple of years....you'll then realize how silly this post truly reads (it's amazing how similar these kinds of posts read on almost all the non-horse boards I frequent that have an off-topic section)

This post, in fact, is right up there with the "White House Perp Walks" posts from a couple of years back....hint: they never materialized, and never will....

[Greyfox]

[QUOTE=PaceAdvantage]Check back with us in a couple of years....you'll then realize how silly this post truly reads QUOTE]

PA. I absolutely 100 % hope that you are right.
In fact, I pray that you are right.
But a knife cuts both ways. Check back in a couple of years...if... and there are a lot of if's out there.....In the meanwhile I support your hope!

[ddog]

Polls are for strippers and libs.
The fact is, the enlistments and renlistments are the only thing that count.
Not potshots from the back room of a horse board.


I get real tired of people saying this and you don't do justice to any of them in saying it.
You don't know for a fact why anyone in general reups anymore than I do.

It doesn't prove anything as to their feelings on the war or for Bush/Cheney, nothing.

I can say that some guys that have reupped have told me why and support for policy was not high on the list for some of them and others thought we should be and stay there for however long it takes.

[JustRalph]

Imagine this scenario. The U.S. encourages Israel to bomb the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran. Russia attempts to restrain an Iranian response but fails. Iran responds in any of many ways, such as launching missiles on Israel, firing on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, mining the Straits of Hormuz, sending troops into Iraq, or allying its military with Hezbollah and attacking Israel from Lebanon.

The U.S., citing Iran’s aggressions (that will be the story), launches a full-scale attack on Iran designed to devastate the country. This attack has actually been planned by the U.S. for years. Syria is unable to maintain neutrality and quickly becomes a battleground between Iran and Israel.

The price of oil by this point has already soared to $200 a barrel. The U.S. begins to use its strategic reserve and to divert Iraqi production. Russia responds by taking steps to prevent its oil production from reaching the U.S. China responds by cutting off its support of the U.S. Treasury market. Venezuela halts oil shipments to the U.S. The first stages of WWIII are economic warfare designed to cripple the U.S. and halt its war-making capacity.

The U.S., unable to finance its deficits and fund its sovereign debt, is forced into raising interest rates drastically in order to borrow. The Fed is forced to print money. An inflationary spiral occurs. Meanwhile the high interest rates and high oil prices, not to mention the shock of a spreading conflict, drive the U.S. economy into severe decline. The U.S. attempts to raise taxes in order to fund itself, further crippling the economy. Gold soars to $1,500–$2,000 an ounce.

The U.S. attempts to bolster its military forces. The draft is reinstated. The severity of the emergency allows Bush and Cheney to assume emergency powers and begin a dictatorship. Elections are postponed.

The U.S. collapses.

Unfortunately, even if this scenario does not occur, the position of the U.S. is so precarious that any number of other scenarios equally disastrous lie in wait. This country needs urgently to be put in order or it will fall, and especially if it does not terminate its imperial adventures. The very fact that Bush and Cheney (or any major U.S. political officials) gain by starting WWIII is a terrible indictment of our entire political system.

There are about a thousand holes in your scenario...............they make for a great movie maybe........but there are tons of reasons why half of what you have written wouldn't happen.................but...............

Let's say it does.............. we get to start over and only the strong survive...........wait a minute....... check that.........only the strong with appropriate arms survive...........

[ddog]

Dude, it would be over before it began, standing army or not....

heard this one before, Iraqi I think they called that one?

[PaceAdvantage]

heard this one before, Iraqi I think they called that one?Yes, and the military campaign between the US and Iraqi forces WAS OVER before it began. I will give you that the Iraqi armed forces were severely crippled from the first go around in the 90s, so they didn't offer much resistance.

With Iran, they won't be as weak, and they have a huge numbers of ground troops, which is why more air power will be used, but the MILITARY result will be the same. A quick march to the capital after air power (and sea power....you quickly forget about our warships and aircraft carriers, which Iran does not have, save for a few submarines) completely dismantles their military complex. Those warships sitting in the Gulf are probably a lot more devastating than you or I can imagine.

You guys still function under some fantasy that the US lost the war in Iraq. When you eradicate a country's (albeit) weak military, take over their capital in record time, dismantle their government and hold new elections, I'd call that winning, wouldn't you?

If we truly were the evil empire that many of you tout, we would have left Iraq high and dry after defeating their military and taking over their capital. But, being the goody goodies that we are, we always stay behind and help try and build back what we have destroyed (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it....)

[delayjf]

The U.S., unable to finance its deficits and fund its sovereign debt, is forced into raising interest rates drastically in order to borrow. The Fed is forced to print money. An inflationary spiral occurs. Meanwhile the high interest rates and high oil prices, not to mention the shock of a spreading conflict, drive the U.S. economy into severe decline. The U.S. attempts to raise taxes in order to fund itself, further crippling the economy. Gold soars to $1,500–$2,000 an ounce.

Whats stopping the US from telling China to go wipe their assess with the bonds they are holding. Not to mention the economic impact to China of a sudden embargo on Chinese goods.

[harnesslover]

Whats stopping the US from telling China to go wipe their assess with the bonds they are holding. Not to mention the economic impact to China of a sudden embargo on Chinese goods.

Cause then they would immediately launch missiles and destroy Taiwan.. And we promised to protect Taiwan if that happens..

The smart thing to do with China is just sit back and wait, their government is a few years away from an overthrow. The gap between rich and poor there is going to absolutely blow up here shortly and that place is going to be a total mess.

[delayjf]

My only point was that if China choose to engage in economic war, we could simply defaut on the debt. If China wants to invade Taiwan and risk US retaliation, so be it.

[harnesslover]

My only point was that if China choose to engage in economic war, we could simply defaut on the debt. If China wants to invade Taiwan and risk US retaliation, so be it.

Agreed, but 2 things that I would have a problem with..

1) Defaulting on debt, like it might be in our own world, is not a good practice to start getting into. You never know what will come up down the road

2) If China did invade Taiwan and we had to retaliate, this would be the only time I would be generally terrified for the simple fact that those f*cks in China running that gov are so crazy, rich and have such disregard for their own people, they could do a lot of damage to the US, financially and physically.

China is one place that I would rather choose to leave alone.

[46zilzal]

It must be the video game culture. I hear idiots debating war as if it occurs in some sort of vacuum. If there is a big one, the shit will really hit the fan.

[harnesslover]

If there is a big one, the shit will really hit the fan.

And you'll be thanking god the US armed forces are in place to protect your ass.

[46zilzal]

And you'll be thanking god the US armed forces are in place to protect your ass.
Only as strong as the idiots at the helm and they are useless warmongering fools.

I hear the same five of six LAME arguments all the time with the people blind to this fool. BE ORIGINAL, think for yourself even though it might hurt!

[harnesslover]

Only as strong as the idiots at the helm and they are useless warmongering fools.

I hear the same five of six LAME arguments all the time with the people blind to this fool. BE ORIGINAL, think for yourself even though it might hurt!

Regardless of what you think of George Bush, he did not create the US Armed Forces, nor did Clinton, Reagan, whoever...

Its not about who's at the helm, its about the infrastructure in place. I know it's difficult for a short-sighted shallow person such as yourself to look beyond your hatred for Bush and see reality, but we'll all try to get you there.

[46zilzal]

My late father was a great guy. He always believed and instructed me to believe that THINGS CHANGE. What was correct yesterday might not be the same tomorrow.

What was so great about him was that these were not idle thoughts but he lived by them.

He was an expert on the U.S.Cavalry and military types were around the house all the years I can remember. I saw their personalities at close range for years and noted their authoritarian close minded rhetoric.

At first we were on opposite sides of the fence about Vietnam until it really hit home with him as his very close friend lost his 22 year old son in Vietnam and, his friend being a dentist, offered me the chance to get braces on my teeth to get out of the draft altogether. I passed on the chance but thanked him nonetheless.

My father told me it was one of the very first times he had to question the old statement "My country right or wrong" and realized with this wake up call, and the subsequent information coming out about that war, that the entire thing was a sham from start to finish.

One of the last conversations we had before he died he remarked to me :"I just find it hard to believe this is the country I went to war for in the 40's. This lunatic (Bush) is out of his mind."

We are far from being alone in that assessment.

[JustRalph]

PA is right. Air Power Softens them up pretty easily actually.


If we wanted to sweep through killing anything that moves........the war would be even shorter...........but that would allow the u.s. press to go apeshit..........

[46zilzal]

A series about chickenhawks.
http://www.symbolman.com/chickenhawks.html

[delayjf]

At first we were on opposite sides of the fence about Vietnam until it really hit home with him as his very close friend lost his 22 year old son in Vietnam and,

Personal grief is not a valid rationalization for supporting or not supporting a war. If that were the case, certainly the North never would have won the Civil War. Below is a letter from Abe Lincoln to a greiving Mother who lost five sons in the Civil War.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.

Dear Madam,

I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.

I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,

A. Lincoln

[JustRalph]

Personal grief is not a valid rationalization for supporting or not supporting a war.

It is the last reason to oppose a war.......... why this is so hard to understand, I don't know.

[46zilzal]

To even make a remote comparison to the Civil war and this ridiculous misadventure is akin to thinking that crap is Crisco.

[delayjf]

I wasn't comparing the two conflicts - rather I was pointing our that Abraham Lincoln, who shouldered a greater burden / responsibility for war casualties than any of us will ever know, saw the necessity of prevailing in the conflict, despite personal loss.

[46zilzal]

I wasn't comparing the two conflicts - rather I was pointing our that Abraham Lincoln, who shouldered a greater burden / responsibility for war casualties than any of us will ever know, saw the necessity of prevailing in the conflict, despite personal loss.
Within a conflict that had RELEVANCE to anything other than making money for a tiny cabal of insiders.

[riskman]

A very thoughtful assessment, but only one of a plethora of potential futures.
riskman, I mean this with appreciation, you should consider writing a novel based on this scheme. As nature abhors a vacuum, who takes over after the U.S. collapses? China? Cuban refugees? Ants? Chapter 2 Please....


Thanks for your comments. As soon as I can arrange it, I will get together with the writers of "24 Hours" . :D Should be a hell of an ending---We will survive--as always----or ?

[riskman]

Check back with us in a couple of years....you'll then realize how silly this post truly reads (it's amazing how similar these kinds of posts read on almost all the non-horse boards I frequent that have an off-topic section)

This post, in fact, is right up there with the "White House Perp Walks" posts from a couple of years back....hint: they never materialized, and never will....


Washington’s imperial visions and ambitions are frightening. Iraq has not dimmed them in the least. Unrepentant Wilsonian idealism lives on. There is a whole world beyond our shores to be remade in Washington’s image. There are never-ending challenges to the Washington knights to remake it. After William of Arkansas and George of Texas will come Hillary of Chicago or maybe Rudolph of Brooklyn. But if it is Ron of Pennsylvania, then all bets are off.

[PaceAdvantage]

Washington’s imperial visions and ambitions are frightening. Iraq has not dimmed them in the least. Unrepentant Wilsonian idealism lives on. There is a whole world beyond our shores to be remade in Washington’s image.Sigh.....more hyperbole....All of sudden, Iraq and Iran are the world....who knew?

Here's something to chew on for a while....there will be no war with Iran. Iran isn't that stupid.

[riskman]

Sigh.....more hyperbole....All of sudden, Iraq and Iran are the world....who knew?

Here's something to chew on for a while....there will be no war with Iran. Iran isn't that stupid.


A few weeks ago, Israel bombed a alleged nuclear facility in Syria. This could be a warm-up for an attack on Iran.
In the last few days, the U.S. unilaterally tightened sanctions on Iran. Russia and China do not support this move.
A week ago Bush warned Iran that its attainment of nuclear arms would lead to World War III.
Russia, which has been assisting Iran in its nuclear construction program for decades, regards Western military action against Iran as unacceptable.
China has been arming Iran with missiles. Its relations with Iran have been improving for years.
We know that Bush and Cheney are capable of pre-emptive attack. We know that Bush will act if he believes he is right no matter what the costs are. In his worldview, Iran with nuclear weapons is a scenario worth any cost to avoid.
We know that Bush, Cheney, and Rice have repeatedly warned Iran of meaningful consequences if Iran arms itself with nuclear weapons. We know that their terms in office end in 15 months.
We know that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon by the time Bush leaves office. So we have nothing to worry about ? We are not being prepped for another Iraq WMD scenario? (nuclear Iran) Hope you are right? What do we do if Israel attacks Iran? Do we sit on the sidelines?

[delayjf]

What do we do if Israel attacks Iran? Do we sit on the sidelines?

Provide clearance through Iraqi airspace and intel.

[ddog]

Sigh.....more hyperbole....All of sudden, Iraq and Iran are the world....who knew?

Here's something to chew on for a while....there will be no war with Iran. Iran isn't that stupid.


Too late.
Pkk is being "used" by Us as a "terrorist" strike force into Iran already.
"other" things are going on not in the news.
But, yes, not a full out war.

By the way according to Gen.P. Iranain proxies are without a doubt in Iraq a bit and of course supplying those IED,etc. to the insurgents.

That is already a war.
Just not a bombing campaign along with it.

If WE are smart there will never be a FULL on declared war with them.
We don't need it to get what we want. Don't give the vast majority of Iranian young population any overt reason to get rilled up.
They will move closer to where we want them to be on their own.
Not everyone over there is in favour of the radical way of things spouted by the few at the top for now.

[ddog]

Yes, and the military campaign between the US and Iraqi forces WAS OVER before it began. I will give you that the Iraqi armed forces were severely crippled from the first go around in the 90s, so they didn't offer much resistance.

With Iran, they won't be as weak, and they have a huge numbers of ground troops, which is why more air power will be used, but the MILITARY result will be the same. A quick march to the capital after air power (and sea power....you quickly forget about our warships and aircraft carriers, which Iran does not have, save for a few submarines) completely dismantles their military complex. Those warships sitting in the Gulf are probably a lot more devastating than you or I can imagine.

You guys still function under some fantasy that the US lost the war in Iraq. When you eradicate a country's (albeit) weak military, take over their capital in record time, dismantle their government and hold new elections, I'd call that winning, wouldn't you?

If we truly were the evil empire that many of you tout, we would have left Iraq high and dry after defeating their military and taking over their capital. But, being the goody goodies that we are, we always stay behind and help try and build back what we have destroyed (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it....)

Sorry PA, don't know where you find the post that says we lost the war.
If i gave you that impression then I wasn't clear.
What I would have meant to say is that the Iraq "war" was not about winning or loosing of the initial miliatary conflict.
I can't believe you actually think I said that or thought it even.
What is true is that war is just an extension of politics and for all the bluster and harping about carriers this and that(and I KNOW what they can DO, thank you very much), the "IT" over there is NOT about decimating anything.
You guys( to lump you like you did me) just can't seem to see past that.

If that's all it took to "win" then of course that could be done Friday before a late dinner by the pool.

[ddog]

And, if you read back you will see in many other posts I have said we have to stay as we have a moral obligation NOW not to run out.

However it was dumb to do things like we did the first 2-3 years over there.

We may get lucky and through a lot of hard work and money and troop sacrifice we may yet get the thing turned around in the next 5 years.

So, don't bother replying to what I have not said.

:)

[ddog]

Whats stopping the US from telling China to go wipe their assess with the bonds they are holding. Not to mention the economic impact to China of a sudden embargo on Chinese goods.

Well, i would say 200-300 a barrell oil just a guess as no one could predict.
Worldwide financial meltdown affecting all western countries.
Broken monetary trading/currency system.
oil not priced in dollars anymore.
our currency worthless.
countries that still would take our bonds would treat us like a deadbeat and our cost to borrow would go sky high, thus our current accounts deficit would spiral out of control.

Saudi Arabia and other oil flush countries cut the tap and start pushing more oil to CHina and India,etc. while dumping dollars for whatever few cents they could get. After all maybe they are next to get defaulted.
Wall Street types leaping from rooftops , I actually don't mind that one. :)

I could go on and on.

China wouldn't need to send missles anywhere we would be done for and internal overthrow of this gvt and many weaker ones around the world would commence.

Worst of all Lefties vast accumulation of tax breaks from the Bush years would be used to light the fireplace to keep him warm. :lol:



Just say it wouldn't be pretty and more Americans would be in the streets than working in a year or so I suspect.

[delayjf]

Well, i would say 200-300 a barrell oil just a guess as no one could predict.
Worldwide financial meltdown affecting all western countries.
Broken monetary trading/currency system.
oil not priced in dollars anymore.
our currency worthless.
countries that still would take our bonds would treat us like a deadbeat and our cost to borrow would go sky high, thus our current accounts deficit would spiral out of control.

Saudi Arabia and other oil flush countries cut the tap and start pushing more oil to CHina and India,etc. while dumping dollars for whatever few cents they could get. After all maybe they are next to get defaulted.
Wall Street types leaping from rooftops , I actually don't mind that one.

I could go on and on.

I agree it would be a worldwide economic disaster, however, the US does not have to stand by and allow China to collapse the US economy. We could take a lot of economys with us. One of our strength is the US is probably one of the few nations that could sustain itself if required. Not to say it would be a piece of cake, but unlike Saudi Arabia, we can feed ourselves.

[46zilzal]

There was a great prophetic line delivered in the movie Tucker: A Man and His Machine Jeff Bridges. He has lost his contract to make cars mostly due to destructive influences from politicians blocking his access to steel and he is lamenting that in lieu of the great success of WWII.

"Then one day we will be at the bottom of the heap instead of the top wondering how we got there. We are full of ourselves after defeating the Japanese and the Nazis, but one day we just might find ourselves buying THEIR cars and radios if innovation continues to be blocked by the big corporations."

Of course these lines were fiction, but it is not that far fetched: CORPORATIONS are whores to the almighty dollar. They have no nationalisitic pride, they just want more money no matter where it comes from. Hell IBM and many other companies made money on BOTH sides in WWII and these new multi-nationals will go wherever it takes to keep their profits high.

[Tom]

People are vertically oriented, while corporations and governments are horizontally oriented. It is a lot like having rats in your attic.
This is dangerous and cannot be allowed to continue.

We agree here.

[delayjf]

THEIR cars and radios if innovation continues to be blocked by the big corporations.
Curious, what innovations do you feel are currently being blocked by Corp America.
CORPORATIONS are whores to the almighty dollar. They have no nationalisitic pride,
You could say the same thing for the American people - lots of Americans are choosing Toyota over Ford.

[46zilzal]

Curious, what innovations do you feel are currently being blocked by Corp America.

You could say the same thing for the American people - lots of Americans are choosing Toyota over Ford.
They are innovations and that usually means we won't know about them for awhile. I recall the desperate way the pharmaceutical industry tried to discredit the humble GP from Australia who found that most ulcers were caused by a simple, previously undiscovered bacterium, H. Pylori as they had to protect their huge acid blockng med program.

[PaceAdvantage]

Sorry PA, don't know where you find the post that says we lost the war.
If i gave you that impression then I wasn't clear.

This line of yours:

"heard this one before, Iraqi I think they called that one?" implied to me that the actual war between the two nations was not quick and devastating to Iraq's political and military complex. Sorry if I misinterpreted here....

[hcap]

Polls are for strippers and libs.
The fact is, the enlistments and renlistments are the only thing that count.
Not potshots from the back room of a horse board.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/10/ap_armyrecruits_071031/

There are some problems with meeting goals. My guess is the war.

From Army Times:

The bonus program, which began July 25, was part of a last-minute push by the Army to meet its year-end recruiting goal, after having fallen short on recruiting numbers in May and June. It had the effect of getting many of the recruits who signed up after July 25 into basic training sooner than they would have otherwise, thus reducing the number with entry dates after Oct. 1.

“That is of concern for us because the delayed entry program gives us guaranteed enlistees to meter out across the year,” Wallace said. Without that cushion to begin the recruiting year, recruiters are going to have to sign up enough people to meet the existing goal as well as replenish the pool for
next year.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0502/p01s01-usmi.html?page=1

Key US Army ranks begin to thin
The reenlistment rate for mid-grade enlisted soldiers dropped from 96 percent in 2005 to 84 percent in the first quarter of this year.

Washington - Thousands more mid-level enlisted soldiers are leaving the Army than in each of the past two years, forcing the service to increase its use of pay-to-stay programs and find other ways to keep GIs in the fold.

Four years into the fight in Iraq, the Army continues to be successful in retaining enough soldiers overall – "a miracle" to some observers, because the war has lasted so long. But that success masks a growing problem within the ranks: Fewer mid-grade sergeants are opting to stay in the Army as many face yet another deployment to Iraq – and, more important, Army officials say, less time at home.

[robert99]

hcap,

The US Army is now using "hearts and minds" counter insurgency tactics for the first time to great effect in Iraq. This means they learn the local language, know the local politicians, politics and tribesmen; stay to be of reliable assistance when required and also return to same locations after leave periods. All the opposite to the Rumsfeld days. Outside of the luxurious green zone "bubble", it puts a great deal of stress on servicemen and women and their families, but it is working.

Some 10,000 may have not returned and are AWOL up in Canada, perhaps flushing out the 46zilzal.

[riskman]

After all, as of this past summer, 41 percent of the American people still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for planning, financing, and/or carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Gee, I wonder how they got that impression….

[riskman]

hcap,

The US Army is now using "hearts and minds" counter insurgency tactics for the first time to great effect in Iraq. This means they learn the local language, know the local politicians, politics and tribesmen; stay to be of reliable assistance when required and also return to same locations after leave periods. All the opposite to the Rumsfeld days. Outside of the luxurious green zone "bubble", it puts a great deal of stress on servicemen and women and their families, but it is working.

Some 10,000 may have not returned and are AWOL up in Canada, perhaps flushing out the 46zilzal.


We are simply not qualified to sit in judgement and decide the age-old disputes of the Yazidi versus the Muslims, the Arabs versus the Kurds, the Sunnis versus the Shi'ites, not to mention the conflicts between various clans, tribes, and sub-clans. Yet, as the de facto authority in Iraq, that is precisely what we must do, and it can only lead to … a bottomless quagmire. Which is precisely where we find ourselves today.
In the case of our "conservative" planners, who would map out the future of a foreign country on their drawing boards, they are treading on largely unknown terrain, without any first-hand knowledge or experience to guide them even provisionally. This is worse than hubris: it is sheer stupidity.
What's interesting is that this has been recognized by conservatives as contrary to their philosophy(are neocons "real conservatives"?), and a potentially fatal one, when it is exercised on the home front: massive social engineering projects like the so-called Great Society, the New Deal, etc., have traditionally been rejected by American conservatives, who see the dead hand of government as hopelessly incompetent and dangerously empowered by these gestures. Yet, today, they have their own New Deal for the Middle East. Give me a break!

[PaceAdvantage]

and it can only lead to … a bottomless quagmire.If you say so....

[PaceAdvantage]

After all, as of this past summer, 41 percent of the American people still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for planning, financing, and/or carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Gee, I wonder how they got that impression….Really? I find that terribly hard to believe. 41% of the people think SH was responsible for all that? Baloney. Which poll?

[riskman]

TO- PA

I am unable to find the the poll for this summer but I will--and post it. Here is the one for the summer 2006

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=684

[riskman]

Really? I find that terribly hard to believe. 41% of the people think SH was responsible for all that? Baloney. Which poll?


Here is the poll:

http://atlanticreview.org/archives/726-More-Americans-Believe-that-Saddam-Was-Directly-Involved-in-911.html

[delayjf]

We are simply not qualified to sit in judgement and decide the age-old disputes of the Yazidi versus the Muslims, the Arabs versus the Kurds, the Sunnis versus the Shi'ites, not to mention the conflicts between various clans, tribes, and sub-clans. Yet, as the de facto authority in Iraq, that is precisely what we must do, and it can only lead to … a bottomless quagmire. Which is precisely where we find ourselves today. etc. etc.

Sounds like your throwing in the towel for any humanitarian efforts as well, after all who are we to judge or decide how any group treats another. The hell with Rwanda, the Balkans, Somalia, Ethiopia, and as far as aids is concerned - if Africa want to screw itself to death, let them. Who are we to judge, right??

[PaceAdvantage]

Here is the poll: I knew the poll had to be worded differently than what you originally posted.

"Directly involved" is a lot different from what you wrote here:

was responsible for planning, financing, and/or carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

[robert99]

Here is the poll:

http://atlanticreview.org/archives/726-More-Americans-Believe-that-Saddam-Was-Directly-Involved-in-911.html

Expecting someone to ask if GW was amongst the 9 don't knows.

[ddog]

Sounds like your throwing in the towel for any humanitarian efforts as well, after all who are we to judge or decide how any group treats another. The hell with Rwanda, the Balkans, Somalia, Ethiopia, and as far as aids is concerned - if Africa want to screw itself to death, let them. Who are we to judge, right??


If you claim to anykind of Christian belief at all then you should rethink this one.
Judging HAS NOTHING to do with humanitarian help.
If you can provide help without jumping in the middle of everything and forcing help on others then you should do it.

It's a bonus if you can do it without inflicting loss of life by your actions no matter how well intentioned.

That is still what we are about isn't it?

[ddog]

I knew the poll had to be worded differently than what you originally posted.

"Directly involved" is a lot different from what you wrote here:

[/color]

Pa

"Directly involved" was in the question.
It was modifying the rest of the terms.

So, do you believe along with the 41% from the poll that replied to the question:

was SH directly involved in planning,financing or carrying out the 9/11 attacks?

Seems very simple question to me or were the 41% too ignorant to understand that as well?

[delayjf]

If you can provide help without jumping in the middle of everything and forcing help on others then you should do it.

That is a mightly big IF. Sometimes you need to use force to defeat tyranny.
The only other alternative is watch innocent people die.

Evil prevails when good men fail to act.

[PaceAdvantage]

Pa

"Directly involved" was in the question.
It was modifying the rest of the terms.

So, do you believe along with the 41% from the poll that replied to the question:

was SH directly involved in planning,financing or carrying out the 9/11 attacks?

Seems very simple question to me or were the 41% too ignorant to understand that as well?Not to beat a dead Saddam, but here's what riskman originally wrote:

41 percent of the American people still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for planning, financing, and/or carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacksand here's the actual poll:

"Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

Riskman's quote implies Saddam was completely responsible for each and every one of those operations. I know, I'm being picky, but words mean something.

[riskman]

Sounds like your throwing in the towel for any humanitarian efforts as well, after all who are we to judge or decide how any group treats another. The hell with Rwanda, the Balkans, Somalia, Ethiopia, and as far as aids is concerned - if Africa want to screw itself to death, let them. Who are we to judge, right??

I beleive my post was specific as to Iraq--- you are putting words in my mouth. The American Revolution grew out of an authentic national struggle for independence against a foreign power and in support of political rights and was not a political process choreographed by an outside foreign power and conducted under occupation.

[riskman]

Not to beat a dead Saddam, but here's what riskman originally wrote:

[/color]and here's the actual poll:



Riskman's quote implies Saddam was completely responsible for each and every one of those operations. I know, I'm being picky, but words mean something.

Your being picky---I was referring to a poll --not my personal views.

[riskman]

That is a mightly big IF. Sometimes you need to use force to defeat tyranny.
The only other alternative is watch innocent people die.

Evil prevails when good men fail to act.

Among the alternative rationales that Bush, Cheney, and other U.S. officials relied on to justify their invasion of Iraq was to free the Iraqi people from Saddam’s tyranny. Granted, that wasn’t the primary justification – that is, it wasn’t the one that resonated deep within American people, like the threat of a nuclear attack did – but it certainly was one of reasons given for invading. Ask yourself: If our nation was really about to be attacked by an enemy nation, especially with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, what is the likelihood that U.S. officials would be justifying their preemptive strike to take out those missiles by arguing that a collateral benefit of a preemptive strike would be to free the people of the enemy nation from tyranny? Would U.S. officials, including those in the military, really be thinking about such benefits? Not a chance. If our nation was really about to be attacked by an enemy nation, U.S. officials would strike them hard, without considering how this would help the people of the targeted nation.

[Tom]

Not if they were libs. They would put on head scarfs and go to tea with them.

[PaceAdvantage]

Your being picky---I was referring to a poll --not my personal views.Did I mistakenly state that those were your personal views? My apologies....not my intention....

[delayjf]

We are simply not qualified to sit in judgement
How are we judging Iraq, we are simply trying to prevent the Bloody civil war.
to free the people of the enemy nation from tyranny?
No, it was not the primary reason but certainly a positive benefit, what's wrong with that?

[riskman]

How are we judging Iraq, we are simply trying to prevent the Bloody civil war.

No, it was not the primary reason but certainly a positive benefit, what's wrong with that?


When we operate in an Arab country, especially Iraq, we are operating in a culture that places a very high value on vengeance and honor. The significance is that when we kill an Iraqi, if the death is perceived by his family as unjust, then the dead man's extended family assumes an unavoidable obligation to avenge it. The family might not try to avenge it the next day. People in that part of the world perceive time in a different way than we do. But the passing of time will not lessen, much less eliminate, the desire and intention to avenge the death.

The object of the vengeance need not be the particular person who committed the original act. Any representative person will do. In our case, any American will do.

The battle or civil war is still going on. We have killed women and children in the course of it.(collateral damage as "they" like to say) Oh, we can take the city. We can kill or capture a lot of people. We can blow up a lot of houses. But instead of solving the problem, we will be enlarging it, because we will create more enemies than we kill. After the "surge" is over--- Iraq will not be pacified.(IMO) It will be more dangerous than it is today.

This is precisely the problem that has so frustrated the Israelis. They have done a competent job, if you want to call it that, of killing Palestinians, blowing up their homes and uprooting their olive trees, but all they've accomplished is to produce more hate and more violence. Now we are following the exact same path in Iraq, and we will reap the exact same results.

Just because generals are good at moving around tanks, airplanes and troops doesn't mean they know squat about the country or the culture in which they are fighting. Most of our generals are neither intellectuals nor scholars.

There are some people who can be beaten into submission by brute force. Iraqis and Palestinians are not among them.(imo)

I'm sure we have some Special Forces people who understand the Arab culture and could call the right shots. Unfortunately, they are kept out of the loop as far as being able to make the big decisions. They are treated by the brass as gofers. Iraq might not be George Bush's Vietnam, but it's certainly his nemises. I predict a day will come when Bush will wish he had never heard of the place.

No, it was not the primary reason but certainly a positive benefit, what's wrong with that?[/QUOTE]


The war in Iraq itself is now, widely rejected, the basic plot outline embedded in the President's stories remains largely intact. In the mainstream media, and around the country, questions about Iraq are still framed within the narrative of a grand, though badly executed, project to bring democracy and stability to a benighted land (and of the Iraqis' inability to grasp our gift of democracy or an American naiveté in believing an Arab land could possibly be ready for such a gift). The news stories and political debate in Washington are still all about the U.S. somehow being responsible for protecting the Iraqis from chaos (even if it's chaos we've in fact created). They're about fulfilling a responsibility, finishing what we started.

[lsbets]

Just because generals are good at moving around tanks, airplanes and troops doesn't mean they know squat about the country or the culture in which they are fighting. Most of our generals are neither intellectuals nor scholars.


Quite often when people who think they know a lot more than they actually do are discussing a subject they make a statement which reveals how little they actually know. The above statement reveals your complete ignorance of our military and the education of our officers and NCO corps. Whether it be commissions from top schools and academies to continuing education and advanced degrees, the senior ranks of our military have a higher education level than our society as a whole.You might think you know the subject you are discussing, but I think it is fair to say, using your choice of words,you don't know squat.

[Tom]

If anythink, we have been far to considerate of muslem culture. From day one, a snipe shoots out a mosque we should have leveled it. Ditto an city.

Go to war:
1. Kill people
2. Break things
3. Go home

[cj]

You and the other people can support Mr. Dyslexic to any degree you want. An idiot is an idiot no matter what support of lack thereof, he receives.

I try to stay out of these, especially when related to the military.

But seriously, does someone being dyslexic make him an idiot? At the very least, calling someone "Mr. Dyslexic" as a slur is very insulting to those with this learning disorder.

Of course, I guess it could be true. Maybe Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and Michael Faraday were idiots. Ted Turner and Henry Ford were just lucky idiots I suppose. The list could go on and on 46. You should choose your insults more wisely.

[Tom]

And from an alleged doctor, of all people!
At the very least, I would think this violates medical ethics.

[46zilzal]

Of course, I guess it could be true. Maybe Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and Michael Faraday were idiots. Ted Turner and Henry Ford were just lucky idiots I suppose. The list could go on and on 46. You should choose your insults more wisely.
The dyslexia is secondary like having gray hair. At the heart of being a reckless fool, endangering thousands needlessly and getting thousands more dead for nothing, the fact of his verbal dyslexia is comparatively trivial and is just used as a description of one his many attributes.

[cj]

The dyslexia is secondary like having gray hair. At the heart of being a reckless fool, endangering thousands needlessly and getting thousands more dead for nothing, the fact of his verbal dyslexia is comparatively trivial and is just used as a description of one his many attributes.

You compare dyslexia to gray hair? Make all the excuses you want, the original post I quoted was a very insulting one and I'm sure you know it now. I'll bow out of this one.

[46zilzal]

You compare dyslexia to gray hair? Make all the excuses you want, the original post I quoted was a very insulting one and I'm sure you know it now. I'll bow out of this one.
OF COURSE IT WAS INSULTING! The clown is the biggest waste of tissue ever hoisted to major public office.

[cj]

...to dyslexics, as I'm sure you know. Or maybe you don't read well. Hmmm...

[46zilzal]

...to dyslexics, as I'm sure you know. Or maybe you don't read well. Hmmm...
Wow I am going to lose a lot of sleep about pointing out this dangerous fool.

[delayjf]

Riskman,
Most of our generals are neither intellectuals nor scholars.
You could not be more wrong with regards to the above. Here is Gen Pace's bio.
General Pace was born in Brooklyn, NY and grew up in Teaneck, NJ. A 1967 graduate of the United States Naval Academy, he holds a Master's Degree in Business Administration from George Washington University and attended Harvard University for the Senior Executives in National and International Security program. The General is also a graduate of the Infantry Officers' Advanced Course at Fort Benning, Ga.; the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, in Quantico, VA; and the National War College, at Ft. McNair, Washington, DC.

Trust me when I say, his education is typical of any General serving in our Armed forces.

[cj]

You covered it very well Jeff. I've yet to ever meet a general that wasn't exactly as you describe General Pace. I've also yet to meet one that didn't deeply impress me as a person regardless of the rank.

[delayjf]

The battle or civil war is still going on. We have killed women and children in the course of it.
While I don’t deny that the US is responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians, the US does not intentionally target innocent civilians. We are also providing aid, building schools hospitals etc. Right now the tide is turning, more and more, the Iraqi’s are seeing who their real enemy is – Al Qaeda. And they are turning on them. The sectarian violence is another matter, and it doesn’t help that Iran has a stake in the collapse of Iraq.
Iraqis and Palestinians are not among them.(imo)
I disagree, Saddam did just that for years and as hard line as the Israel’s may have been towards the Palestinians, they have not responded on a level equal to Saddam.
The war in Iraq itself is now, widely rejected,
The Colonies and the North said the same about the Revolutionary War /Civil War right up to the battles of Cowpins /Gettysburg. American History clearly demonstrates that a wars domestic popularity is not indicative of its success.
They're about fulfilling a responsibility, finishing what we started.
Agreed, but that might not be the only consideration. The US has an issue with Iran that needs to be addressed. Our presence in Iraq facilitates the US ability to address the Iran issue. Why do you think none of the Dem candidates will commit to a full Iraq pullout upon election?? Maybe they know something we don’t.

[lilmegahertz]

Our brothers and sisters in uniform are doing what they chose to do:defend our freedoms. They know going in that they will be ordered to do things they may or not be proud of yet that is the risk they are willing to take. They take an oath. They try to uphold that oath and their honor the best they can. They even know they may die in doing so. I may not always support the government, but I will always support our troops. And tomorrow, as on every Veteran's Day, I will be going to the parades in their honor while thankful that I made it home alive with all my limbs intact unlike so many others......

[riskman]

Quite often when people who think they know a lot more than they actually do are discussing a subject they make a statement which reveals how little they actually know. The above statement reveals your complete ignorance of our military and the education of our officers and NCO corps. Whether it be commissions from top schools and academies to continuing education and advanced degrees, the senior ranks of our military have a higher education level than our society as a whole.You might think you know the subject you are discussing, but I think it is fair to say, using your choice of words,you don't know squat.

I stand by my statement. I was writing in the context of Iraq and the culture of its people.
I am fairly confident that few neoconservatives understood Middle Eastern culture very well in the years they were salivating for an invasion of Iraq, and even today as they pontificate about the region and what needs to be done. I’m sure few if any have ever lived amongst the people, spoke their language, and have shared their customs.

None of that stopped the overly rosy post-war scenarios which envisioned a "cakewalk" in the words of one Rumsfeld subordinate from 2003. It also didn’t stop the predictions that Iraqis would be throwing roses at the feet of U.S. soldiers. As it actually played out, most officials were completely dumfounded with the aftermath of the war. There is ample evidence that there was no real post-war plan for Iraq before and during the invasion. Apparently, the hope was that everything would just fall into place.

In the past few years the President and other officials have said over and over again that they never said it was going to be easy. They never really said it was going to be this difficult either. Certainly none of the war planners envisioned insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan that have gone this long and caused so much trouble. They were caught off guard and are still struggling for a strategy that spans beyond just "staying the course" and not to "cut and run."

If the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown anything, it’s that military might and foreign central planning is more often than not going to be insufficient to change certain parts of the world. Neoconservatives really did believe in a new 21st century version of the "domino theory." Their hope was that democratizations in Iraq and Afghanistan would cause democratic reforms in the nations around them and eventually lead to peace in the Middle East.

The reality, however, is that imposing Western political systems and ideals on countries with a completely different way of life is inevitably going to lead to the problems we are currently facing. Iraq is not America and never will be. Their history, language, culture, etc, are far removed from our own. It’s not particularly easy to transition a country into the 21st century that is still living in the late Middle Ages.

War supporters and planners would object to these statements and insist that it was never their intention to impose their way of life over there and for the most part they are being honest when they claim that. Unfortunately, that’s not how millions in the Arab nations view it. Instead they view the U.S. as an occupying and imperial force. Their perception is their reality.

[Secretariat]

ICertainly none of the war planners envisioned insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan that have gone this long and caused so much trouble.

This is not completely true. None of the war planners Rumsfeld and the boys wanted to listen to "envisioned" this, but many others did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki

"[General] Shinseki is famous for his remarks to the U.S. Senate Armed Services committee before the war in Iraq in which he said "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for post-war Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz publicly disagreed with his estimate.[1]

When the insurgency took hold in post-war Iraq, Shinseki's comments and their public rejection by the civilian leadership were often cited by those who felt the Bush administration deployed too few troops to Iraq. On November 15, 2006, in testimony before Congress, CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid said that General Shinseki's estimate had proved correct. [2]"

......

Let's face it! Rumsfeld blew it. That's one reason he's out now. He was incompetent like GW, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rice.

[riskman]

DELAYJF SAID:Agreed, but that might not be the only consideration. The US has an issue with Iran that needs to be addressed. Our presence in Iraq facilitates the US ability to address the Iran issue. Why do you think none of the Dem candidates will commit to a full Iraq pullout upon election?? Maybe they know something we don’t.

What they "know," is that we, the voters, are inconsequential.

[46zilzal]

Way to go Riskman! More and more people are catching on: another analogy to Vietnam....... which took awhile as well.

[Secretariat]

DELAYJF SAID:Agreed, but that might not be the only consideration. The US has an issue with Iran that needs to be addressed. Our presence in Iraq facilitates the US ability to address the Iran issue. Why do you think none of the Dem candidates will commit to a full Iraq pullout upon election?? Maybe they know something we don’t.

What they "know," is that we, the voters, are inconsequential.

Delay's conclusion here is misleading. Kuccinich has already committed to a full Iraq pullout before the election. There have been numerous resolutions for a pullout which have faced cloture in the Senate. Obama said on MTP today that he realizes they simply don't have the votes for a full Iraqi pullout before the election due to the difficulty with cloture in the Senate. However, he has promised a 16 month timetable for withdrawal after the eelction which includes a drawdown of almost all battalions over that tiemframe except those needed to guard the embassies and special missions agaisnt Al Queda, not the insurgency. He specifically stated that where he differs from the Hillary Bush is not he will not hold US troops there to deal with Iran. That will be up to the Iraqi army to defend their own country for a change.

But i do agree with Riskman's comment that voters are for the most part inconsequential when it comes to politics anymore.

[Tom]

Way to go Riskman! More and more people are catching on: another analogy to Vietnam....... which took awhile as well.

Not at all anything like Viet Nam. Not even close.

[Tom]

Delay's conclusion here is misleading. Kuccinich has already committed to a full Iraq pullout before the election.

That is, if he gets back from his flying saucer rides in time. :lol:
This fruitcake is a joke, a total joke.

[lsbets]

I stand by my statement.

You stand by your statement? If you note the statement of yours that I highlighted and responded to had nothing to do with Iraq, but only concerned your assertions about the intelligence and education levels of our generals. Your statement which you choose to stand by (if indeed you are standing by it since your whole reply here had nopthing to do with your original assertion) has been shown to be an absolute falsehood by three different members of this board. It is not a matter of opinion one way or the other, your statement was false and revealed how uninformed you are.

Here is your statement:

Most of our generals are neither intellectuals nor scholars.

And now you try to change the subject to "neocons". Face it risk, you don't know what you are talking about.

[Secretariat]

That is, if he gets back from his flying saucer rides in time. :lol:
This fruitcake is a joke, a total joke.

Tom, judging from your avatar and the pix below, it seems there are a lot of non-humans around.

[ddog]

That is, if he gets back from his flying saucer rides in time. :lol:
This fruitcake is a joke, a total joke.


Maybe him and Ronald Regan have more than the UFO thing in common.
:lol:

[ddog]

Not to beat a dead Saddam, but here's what riskman originally wrote:

[/color]and here's the actual poll:



Riskman's quote implies Saddam was completely responsible for each and every one of those operations. I know, I'm being picky, but words mean something.

yes, they do/should.

Still, I am surprised you were surprised by the findings of the question?

[ddog]

That is a mightly big IF. Sometimes you need to use force to defeat tyranny.
The only other alternative is watch innocent people die.

Evil prevails when good men fail to act.


or when foolish and IMPATIENT men do act.

:)

[Tom]

Tom, judging from your avatar and the pix below, it
seems there are a lot of non-humans around.

You been going to the hcap school of debate again?

[delayjf]

"[General] Shinseki is famous for his remarks to the U.S. Senate Armed Services committee before the war in Iraq in which he said "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for post-war Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz publicly disagreed with his estimate.[1]

When the insurgency took hold in post-war Iraq, Shinseki's comments and their public rejection by the civilian leadership were often cited by those who felt the Bush administration deployed too few troops to Iraq. On November 15, 2006, in testimony before Congress, CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid said that General Shinseki's estimate had proved correct. [2]"

Nobody is saying that mistakes were not made, Bush's strategy was political, an attempt to minimize the US foot print in Iraq. But I also strongly suspect that if he had opted for a more heavy handed approach - you would object to those tactics as well, as it probably would have meant more people killed.

Typical liberal response, The left loves to use the imperfect nature of warfare as an augument against any military action. You want the war over in one week with no causulties and everybody home for a ticker tape parade and the Holidays. President Bush said it was not going to be easy, but because he did specify EXACTLY what the problems were going to be - the left brands him a liar and a dolt on one hand, then claim Bush covertly planned 9/11 to drive up the price of oil so he and his buddies rake in millions. Which, by the way, would make him a genious because, if that really was his intent - he pulled it off.

[skate]

I try to stay out of these, especially when related to the military.

But seriously, does someone being dyslexic make him an idiot? At the very least, calling someone "Mr. Dyslexic" as a slur is very insulting to those with this learning disorder.

Of course, I guess it could be true. Maybe Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and Michael Faraday were idiots. Ted Turner and Henry Ford were just lucky idiots I suppose. The list could go on and on 46. You should choose your insults more wisely.

ya and besides, everytime he says that (Dyslexic) i think hes talking about me.:blush:

[Secretariat]

Nobody is saying that mistakes were not made, Bush's strategy was political, an attempt to minimize the US foot print in Iraq. But I also strongly suspect that if he had opted for a more heavy handed approach - you would object to those tactics as well, as it probably would have meant more people killed.

Typical liberal response, The left loves to use the imperfect nature of warfare as an augument against any military action. You want the war over in one week with no causulties and everybody home for a ticker tape parade and the Holidays. President Bush said it was not going to be easy, but because he did specify EXACTLY what the problems were going to be - the left brands him a liar and a dolt on one hand, then claim Bush covertly planned 9/11 to drive up the price of oil so he and his buddies rake in millions. Which, by the way, would make him a genious because, if that really was his intent - he pulled it off.

"Bush's strategy was political, an attempt to minimize the US foot print in Iraq. But I also strongly suspect that if he had opted for a more heavy handed approach - you would object to those tactics as well, as it probably would have meant more people killed."

And thank you for that admission. In other words his strategy was not to tell the american people or Congress the truth and instead downplay the possible sacrifces that would need to be made. To me it isn't about whether I objected to the "tactics", it is about leveling with Congress and the people of the true need of the mission. Instead he short changed taxpayers and those fighting. If it would have meant "more killed" as you state, don't you think Congress and Americans deserve the right to know that?

[delayjf]

And thank you for that admission. In other words his strategy was not to tell the american people or Congress the truth and instead downplay the possible sacrifces that would need to be made.

No, his strategy was to use minimal force in the occuption trusting that the Iraqi's with their first chance to govern themselves, would step up to the plate

Troop levels were no mystery, In fact, with regards to the invasion he was right on. Actually it was probably his Generals, I'm sure President Bush deferred to them for any tactical / troop level decisions.

The Bush Administration made strategic assumptions as to post war Iraq. At this time, WITH THE HELP OF HINDSIGHT, it appears that some of those assumptions were wrong. I say appears, because nobody has any idea if an alternate course of action would have done any better. What we do know, is that a peaceful transition did not occur, partly because of sectarian violence and partly because of the efforts of Al Qaeda, etc. Please point out to me where President Bush claimed this mission would be easy and that there would be minimal casualties. And while your at it, please post the links where yourself, 46, Hcap, Light, and other on the left were urging a bigger more aggressive approach. If they had to do it over again, that’s what they would have done.

[46zilzal]

The Bush Administration made strategic assumptions as to post war Iraq. At this time, WITH THE HELP OF HINDSIGHT, it appears that some of those assumptions were wrong. I say appears, because nobody has any idea if an alternate course of action would have done any better. What we do know, is that a peaceful transition did not occur, partly because of sectarian violence and partly because of the efforts of Al Qaeda, etc.
SOME? in one of the worst executive actions in recent history he got more than SOME wrong.

[delayjf]

SOME? in one of the worst executive actions in recent history he got more than SOME wrong.

Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy..... he's in good company.

[46zilzal]

Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy..... he's in good company.
I fail to comprehend the comparison. Failed policies based upon falsehoods would have to include Johnson and Nixon big time and none of these others.

[delayjf]

The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Bay of Pigs, were all deemed "failed policy" at one time. Yet Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy have all been vindicated.

[ddog]

No, his strategy was to use minimal force in the occuption trusting that the Iraqi's with their first chance to govern themselves, would step up to the plate

Troop levels were no mystery, In fact, with regards to the invasion he was right on. Actually it was probably his Generals, I'm sure President Bush deferred to them for any tactical / troop level decisions.

The Bush Administration made strategic assumptions as to post war Iraq. At this time, WITH THE HELP OF HINDSIGHT, it appears that some of those assumptions were wrong. I say appears, because nobody has any idea if an alternate course of action would have done any better. What we do know, is that a peaceful transition did not occur, partly because of sectarian violence and partly because of the efforts of Al Qaeda, etc. Please point out to me where President Bush claimed this mission would be easy and that there would be minimal casualties. And while your at it, please post the links where yourself, 46, Hcap, Light, and other on the left were urging a bigger more aggressive approach. If they had to do it over again, that’s what they would have done.


From what most of the retired generals say , I am confident that they were saying at the time that many more troops would be required to handle the post-war phase.

No matter the assumptions, would not the prudent course be to use the overwhelming force going in and then if everything turns out good you draw out?
I don't and didn't like the gamble going in.
I will say that I thought the actual combat phase would take half a year at the time.

Nobody can realistically claim that if your plan is to decapitate the leadership and the Baath party that there would be any managerial class to step up.
That isn't redboarding , it was well known and discussed just didn't fit with Rummy feelings on the matter.
I submit it is clearer and clearer that most of the tragic mistakes going in and the first several years were not Bush , but coming from Rummy and Bush signing off on them.

[ddog]

The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Bay of Pigs, were all deemed "failed policy" at one time. Yet Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy have all been vindicated.

what is the vindication for the Bay of Pigs as it turned out,
we did nothing by it that was any good.
If we would have actually tossed Fidel out then something would have come of it.
Pls explain I have missed something on this one.

[skate]

da, when Nikita removed the nukes.



so failed polacy (pigs) was followed by the nukes, which were removed, hence vindication.

[delayjf]

what is the vindication for the Bay of Pigs as it turned out,
IMO, Kennedy was roundly criticized by the failure of the Bay of Pigs. But Given the Cuban situation and histories fond rememberence of JFK, I think many people feel it was the right thing to do ( the idea of the invasion - not the actual execution) I understand not all will agree.

[delayjf]

No matter the assumptions, would not the prudent course be to use the overwhelming force going in and then if everything turns out good you draw out?
That's what they did for the "Major Combat" phase. Given the speedy success of Operation Iraq Freedom, I don't see how anyone could castigate President Bush "for not following the advice of his Military leaders".

Post War Iraq is where the mistakes seemed to be made. I say “seemed” because in reality, nobody knows for sure if a different strategy would have worked or not. I would define “worked” as a peaceful self governing Iraq able to provide the security required to rebuild its infrastructure, economy and see to the needs of its citizens.

President Bush chose to take a more passive stance in post-invasion Iraq. It was his hope that the Iraq’s once out from under the thumb of Saddam would set about rebuilding their country. He and his staff reasonably concluded that an Iraqi reconstruction, led by Iraqis, with Iraqis providing its own security and civil control, would be a better solution than to have the US Military maintain order. No doubt, this course of action would have been seen as not only oppressive by the Iraqis, but by the rest of the world as well.

A heavier hand in Iraq may have quelled the sectarian violence in the same manner that Saddam’s regime did. But it also could have intensified the Iraqi people’s distrust of the US; leading to more military clashes resulting in even more lives lost on both sides. I'm sure the long term desires are to have Iraq as an allies.

[ddog]

da, when Nikita removed the nukes.



so failed polacy (pigs) was followed by the nukes, which were removed, hence vindication.

are you 12 or just playin?

that's part of why the nukes were brought in there in the first place you goof ball.
Castro and buddies were afraid and wanted protection after the many failed efforts to oust/off him.

Plus the quid pro quo of the deal was our misslies out of turkish region for their missiles out of Cuba plain and simple fact.


If we had gotten RID of the pig then instead of running back into the sea then no nukes would have been placed there, we would have had a free cuba and so much less trouble from that island for all these years.

[ddog]

That's what they did for the "Major Combat" phase. Given the speedy success of Operation Iraq Freedom, I don't see how anyone could castigate President Bush "for not following the advice of his Military leaders".

Post War Iraq is where the mistakes seemed to be made. I say “seemed” because in reality, nobody knows for sure if a different strategy would have worked or not. I would define “worked” as a peaceful self governing Iraq able to provide the security required to rebuild its infrastructure, economy and see to the needs of its citizens.

President Bush chose to take a more passive stance in post-invasion Iraq. It was his hope that the Iraq’s once out from under the thumb of Saddam would set about rebuilding their country. He and his staff reasonably concluded that an Iraqi reconstruction, led by Iraqis, with Iraqis providing its own security and civil control, would be a better solution than to have the US Military maintain order. No doubt, this course of action would have been seen as not only oppressive by the Iraqis, but by the rest of the world as well.

A heavier hand in Iraq may have quelled the sectarian violence in the same manner that Saddam’s regime did. But it also could have intensified the Iraqi people’s distrust of the US; leading to more military clashes resulting in even more lives lost on both sides. I'm sure the long term desires are to have Iraq as an allies.


No, we went in lite because that was our policy at the time.
Lite and fast , started with Askin when he was Secdef.

it was dumb, Iraqi would not have resented us and didn't at first.
Once we stood around like statues while the place was torn apart by criminal and whatall after the take down was when the avergae middle class Iraqi had to be saying what is going on here ,what has this brought us.

We went in with at least half of what we should.

When you are dealing with troops lives you should always err on the side of caution.

Plus, just think what the headlines would have looked like if 3 months after Sh was down we had one that said "US to turn over gvt to locals and withdrawing 150,00 troops".

it would have been worth the shot upfront since the whole plan was based on a quick in and out.
Hell franks retired right after the deal all the brain trust was plainning on us moving down to 20-30,000 and the rest leaving.
We built in no margin for errors of anykind.

Seems simple to me and did at the time.

plus I've got to take issue with the resonable part of the Iraqi rebuild, that is preposterous given our policy of purging the Baaths who ran the place and wanting to install a democracy.

Nowhere has that been done , much less in an area that is surrounded on all side by enemies.
It just don't fly and never did.

if that's really what they thought then I should be President by acclamation, i couldn't do any worse in my dreams.

[riskman]

You stand by your statement? If you note the statement of yours that I highlighted and responded to had nothing to do with Iraq, but only concerned your assertions about the intelligence and education levels of our generals. Your statement which you choose to stand by (if indeed you are standing by it since your whole reply here had nopthing to do with your original assertion) has been shown to be an absolute falsehood by three different members of this board. It is not a matter of opinion one way or the other, your statement was false and revealed how uninformed you are.

Here is your statement:



And now you try to change the subject to "neocons". Face it risk, you don't know what you are talking about.

Well, it could be I have no use for Generals aka polticians in uniform. Maybe I should go up to my attic, get my old uniform starched and pressed and the "three PA board members" can convene a court martial for insubordination---I'll take the article 15 instead and shovel shit out of the old cavalry horse stalls for my misdeeds.
When you get to the really high-ranking officers like the generals, they are not even in the same country as the troops. In today's wars they are in air-conditioned offices near the hotel with bar and pool. Just look at Generals uniform. Starched to the max. and no trace of sweat. These guys never even have to see blood on a soldier; everything they see is on a television screen, so it can stay impersonal. Guys getting killed and wounded are just numbers and if those numbers stay below projections then everything is all right.

Generals and those in Washington never have to know that Private Anderson who was killed last night had a new baby daughter, or that Corporal Johnson was a sprinter and that is why the whole unit mourns for the loss of his legs. Even when these guys do come out to the field, you know that there is a hundred times more security for the area they are going to fly into. The whole area is "policed up," even the cigarette butts are gone. Every soldier is looking his best and supplies that were lacking all week are there now.

Generals see no blood or body parts lying around.

Generals only see parts of the war zone that we have already won. High-ranking officers will tell you they put in their time even if it has been over a decade since we had a real war and that only lasted a week. American Armed Forces did have some real glory years where our reputation was built up for being a military power, but think back to WW 2. Even the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight Eisenhower had his headquarters in the theater of operations and General Patton was leading his troops in person. The leaders of today look at projections and talk of things like "Shock and Awe," but when all is said and done it still comes down to one man killing another. War hasn't come that far in the last couple of thousand years. Weapons change, but blood still splatters the victor.

[riskman]

If they had to do it over again, that’s what they would have done.

Knowing what we know now---they would never get the chance.

Now President Bush is doing the same thing all over again, only this time it is Iran he is talking about. He said he could consider using force to press Iran to give up its nuclear programs.You would have to think that Iran would be planning their counter move to George Bush’s threat. If they weren’t before,(AND THEY ARE) you know Iran is going to help the Iraqi resistance as much as they can. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Iran knows, as we do, that it is better to fight in Iraq than in their country.

There was a time when America’s threat of military action could cause a foreign government to do what ever we wanted, but those days are over. Today, every nation can see what a rag-tag group in Iraq is doing to us, and they can see that the warlords, who were running things in Afghanistan before we attacked, are still doing the same today.

[JustRalph]

There was a time when America’s threat of military action could cause a foreign government to do what ever we wanted, but those days are over. Today, every nation can see what a rag-tag group in Iraq is doing to us, and they can see that the warlords, who were running things in Afghanistan before we attacked, are still doing the same today.

Let's hope they are thinking that way. We can level any country we want in a weeks time. Over the last 30 years we haven't dropped a bomb or employed our Air resources in any manner that is even close to what we can do, if needed. We perform surgical strike missions that do very little damage to civilian targets. We could wipe entire cities from the map with a phone call. And if need be........we would. When the German Army began using Dresden as a center for all things moving toward the front, we firebombed the city to pieces in a few days. We could duplicate that anywhere in the world in a weeks time.......with much more sophisticated weapons. We just choose to fight in a different manner today. If need be we can return to those tactics. You think the Iranian government could survive a nuclear attack? When 60 percent of the population is wiped out via traditional bombing or low yield nukes.......those parades in the street burning American flags would stop and the citizenry would turn on their own government who brought the rath upon them...........it has happen before. It can happen again.

[delayjf]

He said he could consider using force to press Iran to give up its nuclear programs.

I would imagine that any military strike into Iran would be much different than our assault into Iraq. We could target Irans nuclear facilities or their army without ever occupying a city. We are not interested in replacing their Government, so there would be no need to go into Tehran or any other cites.

[46zilzal]

Let's hope they are thinking that way. We can level any country we want in a weeks time. Over the last 30 years we haven't dropped a bomb or employed our Air resources in any manner that is even close to what we can do, if needed. We perform surgical strike missions that do very little damage to civilian targets.
Just ask the "war lord" and he will pull out his "I have a license to carry a hidden firearm" and blow you all away.

Kill Kill Kill is the way to make you free.

[delayjf]

Kill Kill Kill is the way to make you free.
I'm starting to like the way you think. :ThmbUp:

[46zilzal]

I'm starting to like the way you think.
No that is the COP's mantra not mine.

[Tom]

No that is the COP's mantra not mine.
No, that is YOUR mantra assinged to a "cop" so that your little fantasy can be fullfilled in your delusional view of the world.

Did some cop kick the crap out your once?:lol:

[skate]

are you 12 or just playin?

that's part of why the nukes were brought in there in the first place you goof ball.
Castro and buddies were afraid and wanted protection after the many failed efforts to oust/off him.

Plus the quid pro quo of the deal was our misslies out of turkish region for their missiles out of Cuba plain and simple fact.


If we had gotten RID of the pig then instead of running back into the sea then no nukes would have been placed there, we would have had a free cuba and so much less trouble from that island for all these years.


you embarrass your family .

not only do you act like a child, but you have a lack of common sense.:cool:

why they had the misslies, has nothing to do with my post.


we were not THERE , so we didnt run back into the sea.

castro was/is no Pig. Batista was the PIG.


And Now, im happy to be the Goof.

[ddog]

you embarrass your family .

not only do you act like a child, but you have a lack of common sense.:cool:

why they had the misslies, has nothing to do with my post.


we were not THERE , so we didnt run back into the sea.

castro was/is no Pig. Batista was the PIG.


And Now, im happy to be the Goof.


skate , you are wrong on every point and retiring the goodball title on this one.
we had advisors there and the force that was sent in was staged and we were to do the air support, CIA had many operatives there as in offshore.

You are as clueless as anyone I have ever seen on any board in 20 years.
You are saying you think Castro was good for that place.
you commie scum!

[46zilzal]

Batitsta was a real puppet put in power by foreign interests.
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/batista.htm

[ddog]

da, when Nikita removed the nukes.



so failed polacy (pigs) was followed by the nukes, which were removed, hence vindication.


Oh, by the way , what part OF YOUR OWN POST do you not now understand?
How does "vindication" the original "point"? not need the nukes to be removed to make any sense from your statement.
I think you were trying to say that the nukes being removed ( look up the meaning of removed) and then slowly repeat after me "to be removed they would HAVE HAD TO BE THERE" and that YOU were equating to the vindication.

Was that too fast for you?

Good God man, check yourself in right now.

good luck.

[Tom]

Batitsta was a real puppet put in power by foreign interests.
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/batista.htm

Butr he earned the title on his own......

[ddog]

:) Butr he earned the title on his own......

[JustRalph]

Just ask the "war lord" and he will pull out his "I have a license to carry a hidden firearm" and blow you all away.

Kill Kill Kill is the way to make you free.

You go out of your way to throw jabs at me.........it is embarrassing for you. I won't engage your flame. Go away...........

[PaceAdvantage]

Just ask the "war lord" and he will pull out his "I have a license to carry a hidden firearm" and blow you all away.

Kill Kill Kill is the way to make you free.One day you are going to wake up and say to yourself, "Man, was I stupid"

[46zilzal]

One day you are going to wake up and say to yourself, "Man, was I stupid"
To do would be to change core values that are HARDWIRED. One does not go into the healing arts without them.....well the majority of us that is.

[Tom]

Take it one step at a time - first, work on "waking up.":p

[46zilzal]

You go out of your way to throw jabs at me.........it is embarrassing for you. I won't engage your flame. Go away...........
You cannot figure out the difference between a concept and your expression of it? Poor intellect at work.

Police are out of control in many examples.

[Tom]

Police are out of control in many examples.

And many, many more instances, they are out there putting lives on the line every day to protect little insignificant weasles like YOU, you ingrate. I hope to HELL you come face to face with some gun-toting nut looking to feed his coke habit and there are no cops around. You are a disgusting excuse of a man.

[skate]

skate , you are wrong on every point and retiring the goodball title on this one.
we had advisors there and the force that was sent in was staged and we were to do the air support, CIA had many operatives there as in offshore.

You are as clueless as anyone I have ever seen on any board in 20 years.
You are saying you think Castro was good for that place.
you commie scum!


you need to go back to your "PlanB".;)

your family request that you turn yourself in.

[46zilzal]

And many, many more instances, they are out there putting lives on the line every day to protect little insignificant weasles like YOU, you ingrate. I hope to HELL you come face to face with some gun-toting nut looking to feed his coke habit and there are no cops around. You are a disgusting excuse of a man.

I have a good friend who is a Mountie. I went one shift with him on a "drive-along." I used to visit he and his wife as well, but her whole family were policemen, and after a bit, like a closed shop or union, "outsiders" were not welcome particularly when we did not have the brainwashed "Because I am risking my life I am above the law" attitude that the majority of them had.

[skate]

I have a good friend who is a Mountie. I went one shift with him on a "drive-along." I used to visit he and his wife as well, but her whole family were policemen, and after a bit, like a closed shop or union, "outsiders" were not welcome particularly when we did not have the brainwashed "Because I am risking my life I am above the law" attitude that the majority of them had.

Please, second line, should be "i used to visit HIM and his wife.:rolleyes:

thanks

as a mater of fact, why not just void the whole mess.

[Tom]

skate:ThmbUp:
skate:ThmbUp:
skate:ThmbUp:

[skate]

watch him now ,Tom, he'll pretend he doesn't notice.


and all that im doing is trying to help the poor soul.


game starts and he keeps sprinting in the out field.

[ddog]

you need to go back to your "PlanB".;)

your family request that you turn yourself in.


yep , when you got nothing post nothing that's all I see.

Oh and by the way only a moral midget and/or a degenerate lowlife drags the word family into a thread like this.
I have a couple of sub 10 year old grandkids that can make more sense out of the world than you and the really frightfull part is that they have been able to since they were 5, you scum, with apologies to the low-life scum of the world.

[skate]

ddog


you aint old enough to have a toe nail.

leave your family alone.

you have no facts, you corrupt dolt.:cool:

[46zilzal]

From a disabled vet at Veteran's Against the Iraq war. "I don’t know another Vietnam Veteran who doesn’t share my perception that the combat dynamics and psychological pressures of this war are virtually identical to Vietnam. Change the jungle for the desert and you have it. Change Vietnamese culture for Iraqi culture and you have it again: nobody knows who the enemy is – until he or she blows you up. But what do the chickenhawks in Washington know?"

NOTHING

[ddog]

ddog


you aint old enough to have a toe nail.

leave your family alone.

you have no facts, you corrupt dolt.:cool:

have a nice life.

I would say you have yourself confused but that would be your normal state it seems.