A Soldier On Obama

[Brainster]

TG4fe9GlWS8

That's effective; I'd love to see the McCain campaign pick it up and use it as an official campaign ad. Stick around to the end; he's not just talking the talk.

[Wangler]

TG4fe9GlWS8

That's effective.

Brainster, good link, and I don't want to sound like a downer, but I'm not so sure it is effective.

McCain's been riding the IRAQ pony pretty hard. He has repeatedly made clear the differences between Obama and himself on this issue, and I think that the American people understand the difference, as well.

What would be more effective is a discussion of what he is going to do to help that young man prosper in today's economic climate.

Just an opinion from a helpful McCain supporter.................

[leftysergeant]

So freaking what? How are the Iraqi people the least bit more free now with their infrastructure blown to bits and foreign human trafficers crowding them out of their jobs and trying to suck out their natural resources at a bargain price?

It was a mistake going in, regardless what the troops on the ground are seeing now. The troops are doing what they see needs to be done, for the most part, but they are seeing the tactical situation and no more.

Suppose this fool can tell us what the threat was that we had to destroy the country in the first palce? Can he tell us how many cultrues have had democracy imposed on them at the end of a bayonet by a country they had never threatened?

Argumentum ad populum. Nothing more.

Strategicly, it was a mistake. You can't change that by the heroism of those paying for the mistake.

That's part of the problem with Republicans. They can't grasp the difference between strategy and tactics.

Tacticly, we are doing reasonably well inIraq because there are still NCOs and officers trained up under Clinton and Shinseki on active duty to babysit the rejects that the Bush policies have forced the services to start accepting.

Strategicly, we screwed the pooch by appointing a brain-damaged airplane driver with no military expertise to designate the targets.

[Undesired Walrus]

TG4fe9GlWS8

That's effective; I'd love to see the McCain campaign pick it up and use it as an official campaign ad. Stick around to the end; he's not just talking the talk.

Stick around until the end, simply because he has a missing leg? I didn't know you were swayed by such appalling appeals to emotion. He could be missing every important organ in his body, and that still wouldn't change the fact of whether the Iraq War was a terrible mistake or not. This is just as pathetic as when Michael Moore follows around the grieving mother of a dead soldier, seemingly oblivious to the fact that for every anti-war mother there is a pro-war one. Disgraceful.

The Skeptic bus must come to a halt at the same time as the straight-talk express.

[Wangler]

That's part of the problem with Republicans. They can't grasp the difference between strategy and tactics.

Looking at some of the ridiculous threads in this sub-forum, you could say the same thing about Democrats.

Tacticly, we are doing reasonably well inIraq because there are still NCOs and officers trained up under Clinton and Shinseki on active duty to babysit the rejects that the Bush policies have forced the services to start accepting.

Shame on you sir, for shame.

Denigrating the men and women in uniform currently fighting in Iraq, just to further your selfish political agena.

What a disgrace to the Democratic cause.

:nope:

[leftysergeant]

I'm a retired NCO myself. I am saying that the standards in the military have deteriorated badly since I was on active duty, starting wirth the brain-dead move that GHWB made when he started reducing the number of active-duty troops. Dummy decided that the best place to make the cuts was in the ranks of mid-career NCOs. We're still paying for that.

Does the name David Mortari ring a bell?

[boloboffin]

Max Cleland is walking the walk 300% more. Let's ask him his opinion of the Iraq War.

[WildCat]

So freaking what? How are the Iraqi people the least bit more free now with their infrastructure blown to bits
What infrastructure was blown to bits?

[WildCat]

Max Cleland is walking the walk 300% more. Let's ask him his opinion of the Iraq War.
The guy who blew himself up with his own grenade?

[KoihimeNakamura]

I love how when a solider is on the Democrats side, he gets roundly criticized. LOVE IT!

[BeAChooser]

So freaking what?

There you have it, folks. The view of the left.

How are the Iraqi people the least bit more free now with their infrastructure blown to bits and foreign human trafficers crowding them out of their jobs and trying to suck out their natural resources at a bargain price?

:rolleyes: Don't you think you overplayed the hyperbole a bit? :D

Suppose this fool can tell us what the threat was that we had to destroy the country in the first palce?

So when does the spitting begin?

Argumentum ad populum. Nothing more.

Argumentum ad ignorance. Nothing more. :D

You can't change that by the heroism of those paying for the mistake.

Come on lefty. Be honest. You don't actually believe they are heroic. Nor does your candidate Obama. Afterall, he willing accepts large campaign contributions from people (like Jodie Evans of CODEPINK) who called the terrorists in Iraq "freedom fighters" and say vile things about our troops.

That's part of the problem with Republicans. They can't grasp the difference between strategy and tactics.


The problem with Obama supporters is they can't grasp reality and THINK they understand strategy and tactics. :D

[Oliver]

TG4fe9GlWS8

That's effective; I'd love to see the McCain campaign pick it up and use it as an official campaign ad. Stick around to the end; he's not just talking the talk.


I like the way his eyes are strolling as if he's reading a teleprompter or
something. "Good Soldier", indeed. :)

[Whiplash]

Strategicly, it was a mistake. You can't change that by the heroism of those paying for the mistake.

No, the problem is that people on the left decided that Iraq was a certain failure and a huge mistake before we even went in, and ranted and chanted this mantra for so long that it became "fact" in their minds, despite reality. Now you guys exist in a world where "of course it was a huge mistake! Duh?" is just common sense to you, and you don't even consider that anyone could or should feel otherwise without being morons.

The term ivory towers comes to mind again and again with regards to these forums, and lefties in general. You talked down the invasion of IRAQ from day one and until it became undeniable fact in your minds and since then all your arguments are built on that foundation. You all are surrounded by simliar minded sycophants who agree and you are sheltered from reality. I often come to this group to read the latest news and opinions, and leave wondering just what the hell planet some of you live on, where your sides "opinions" are the "reality" of the day. All of them. And anyone who disagrees is a moron to be ridiculed.

[elbe]

No, the problem is that people on the left decided that Iraq was a certain failure and a huge mistake before we even went in, and ranted and chanted this mantra for so long that it became "fact" in their minds, despite reality. Now you guys exist in a world where "of course it was a huge mistake! Duh?" is just common sense to you, and you don't even consider that anyone could or should feel otherwise without being morons.
If someone thought the war in Iraq was a mistake from the start, why should they change their minds? Even if everything went perfectly, and Iraq became a model representative government, it doesn't change that, to them, the initial reasons for the war were still a mistake.

[Lonewulf]

Yet another "No, I have the biggest dick... I mean, machine gun!" thread.

[BeAChooser]

If someone thought the war in Iraq was a mistake from the start, why should they change their minds? Even if everything went perfectly, and Iraq became a model representative government, it doesn't change that, to them, the initial reasons for the war were still a mistake.

Is that argument sort of like Obama saying that even knowing everything we know today about how well the surge and change in tactics worked in altering the situation in Iraq from apparent defeat to utter victory, he'd still have been against the surge and change in tactics back in January 2007? Sorry, but that just sounds like Stuck On Stupid. :D

[KoihimeNakamura]

Er.. no, it.. why am I responding to yo?

[leftysergeant]

What infrastructure was blown to bits?

Water treatment, electrical generation, sewers, hospitals, roads, bridges. you know, the stuff that makes the difference between a functioning modern nation and a Third world disaster zone.

All that stuff the the right wing says we are building for the iraqis? Guess who broke it in the first place.

Guess who shut down all the state industries, including the country's only cewment factory.

Think about it. What good did we really do them?

[elbe]

Is that argument sort of like Obama saying that even knowing everything we know today about how well the surge and change in tactics worked in altering the situation in Iraq from apparent defeat to utter victory, he'd still have been against the surge and change in tactics back in January 2007? Sorry, but that just sounds like Stuck On Stupid. :D
I feel like this may very well be a masochistic post on my part, but I think that's the trend I've been following lately.

Without actually getting into the politics of it: If, hypothetically, Obama was morally opposed to the war in Iraq (I have no idea if he was opposed "Morally", hence hypothetically) wouldn't a change after just because it turned out well be ethically questionable? Must the ends always justify the means? If, instead, the government took a police route and never started the "war on terror", but managed to capture and try Bin Laden, would that make everyone who believed war was the answer automatically wrong and "stupid"?

[leftysergeant]

There you have it, folks.

Yup, a Republican lecturing a soldier on strategy while he believes that Rummy had an occassional rational thought during trhe six years he diddle around with the defense structures.

The problem with Obama supporters is they can't grasp reality and THINK they understand strategy and tactics. :D

Wouldn't hurt you to learn something about military strategy. Trey reading Vom Kriege. I don't think Clausewitz would give W or Gates very high marks right about now.

I doubt McSame ever read Clausewitz, either. He says some dumb stuff about the Vietnam war having been winable. That is stuck on stupid.

[SezMe]

Shame on you sir, for shame.

Denigrating the men and women in uniform currently fighting in Iraq, just to further your selfish political agena.
Lefty didn't denigrate anyone, he stated a fact acknowledged by the armed services. In order to meet recruiting quotas, standards have been reduced and exemptions to those lowered standards have been issued at a record pace.

[SezMe]

Brainster, I'm surprised at your assessment of the OP video. It is filled with strawmen and anecdotes and an appeal to emotion at the end that is totally irrelevant to the point being made. If a truther made a parallel video about 911 you'd be ripping him a new one - and rightly so. Why the lowered standards here?

By the way, Brainster, instead of an anecdote, why not look at some relevant data that just came out a few days ago. Iraq military personnel are donating to Obama over McCain at a ratio of 6:1.

[SezMe]

The guy who blew himself up with his own grenade?
That's a dispicable lie. He picked up a live grenade not knowing it was live. It was not his own. I checked a couple of sites on this including your sweetheart, Ann Coulter's site. She says so so it must be true, right?

[fishbob]

No, the problem is that people on the left decided that Iraq was a certain failure and a huge mistake before we even went in, and ranted and chanted this mantra for so long that it became "fact" in their minds, despite reality. Now you guys exist in a world where "of course it was a huge mistake! Duh?" is just common sense to you, and you don't even consider that anyone could or should feel otherwise without being morons.

The term ivory towers comes to mind again and again with regards to these forums, and lefties in general. You talked down the invasion of IRAQ from day one and until it became undeniable fact in your minds and since then all your arguments are built on that foundation. You all are surrounded by simliar minded sycophants who agree and you are sheltered from reality. I often come to this group to read the latest news and opinions, and leave wondering just what the hell planet some of you live on, where your sides "opinions" are the "reality" of the day. All of them. And anyone who disagrees is a moron to be ridiculed.

Parable time:

Don't hit yourself on the thumb with that hammer. No, don't do it. Stop right now, it will hurt. That is a really bad idea. Undeniably and factually, that will really really hurt.

Ooh, that looks like it really hurt. Trying to talk you down from playing with the hammer didn't work.
What do you mean, you like having a big flat bloody thumb?

[leftysergeant]

Now you guys exist in a world where "of course it was a huge mistake! Duh?" is just common sense to you, and you don't even consider that anyone could or should feel otherwise without being morons.

The term ivory towers comes to mind again and again with regards to these forums, and lefties in general.

Ivory tower my wrinkly old kundingi. How about reading Clausewitz before you start assessing the wisdom of detaching forces from your primary target to attack a secondary target that is utterly inactive? how about starting a "people's war" just because you wanted to invade a country?

Where the hell do Republicans get the idea that they are the party of national defense? They have so few people with any military experience, and those mostly airplane drivers of dubious skill, compared to the Democrats that they should be asking the Dems for advice.

Even our talk radio hosts have more military credentials on the average. There are only two nationally-syndicated talk show hosts that I know of who have served in the military and did not ever get convicted of a felony. (I do not give Olly the usual pass here. We know he did it, but he copped a plea and got immunity.)

Do you think Bush has a clue about winning a war? My toes laugh at you. Rummy? Feather merchant from the get-go. Whales are still dying because he and Cheney sold Jerry ford the idea that the Russians had a super-seekert submarine that could not be detected by ordinary sonar and they needed to develop something to ring the earth's magnetic bell to find them.

Get real. There was never a good reason to invade Iraq. It made as much sense as Hitler's giving up Operation Seeloewe to invade Russia.

Just my professional opinion as a retired Army NCO, mind you.

[PixyMisa]

Parable time:

Don't hit yourself on the thumb with that hammer. No, don't do it. Stop right now, it will hurt. That is a really bad idea. Undeniably and factually, that will really really hurt.

Ooh, that looks like it really hurt. Trying to talk you down from playing with the hammer didn't work.
What do you mean, you like having a big flat bloody thumb?
Fail.

[Upchurch]

Fail.
Who, fishbob or whiplash?

What Whiplash fails to realize is that those of us who were calling saying that going into Iraq was a bad idea weren't saying it because we didn't think we could do it, but rather because it was entirely inconsistent with the needs and goals of our country in relation to 9/11 and radical Islamic fundamentalism. It was a certain failure because it failed to address the problem, both directly and indirectly.

[mrbaracuda]

TG4fe9GlWS8

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/patriot.gif

radical Islamic fundamentalism

That sounds funny.

[Upchurch]

That sounds funny.
Sorry, the proper term should be "extremist", not "fundamentalist"

[mrbaracuda]

No, no, it's okay since it's not getting any better (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extremist). ;)

[Beerina]

So freaking what? How are the Iraqi people the least bit more free now with their infrastructure blown to bits and foreign human trafficers crowding them out of their jobs and trying to suck out their natural resources at a bargain price?

If I were Iraqi I would loathe anyone in the West who was trying to philosophically disable themselves from freeing me.


Choosing not to because it's costly in men and money I can handle.

Choosing not to because you've deigned to decide I'm better off under Saddam than a struggle at freedom, go to Hell, quite frankly, you lucky person in the West.

[Upchurch]

No, no, it's okay since it's not getting any better (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extremist). ;)
Maybe knowing the definition of a word doesn't necessarily mean understanding it's meaning.

[daredelvis]

By the way, Brainster, instead of an anecdote, why not look at some relevant data that just came out a few days ago. Iraq military personnel are donating to Obama over McCain at a ratio of 6:1.
Beat me to it. How does Brainster respond to this reality based fact?
That's a dispicable lie. He picked up a live grenade not knowing it was live. It was not his own. I checked a couple of sites on this including your sweetheart, Ann Coulter's site. She says so so it must be true, right?
Beat me to it again. How far does someones head need to be under the right wing media's sand to not know this?

Daredelvis

[Cicero]

I like the way his eyes are strolling as if he's reading a teleprompter or
something. "Good Soldier", indeed. :)

Almost reminiscent of the old time German soldier who followed orders regardless of the level of depravity that motivated his superiors.

[Cicero]

That's a dispicable lie. He picked up a live grenade not knowing it was live. It was not his own. I checked a couple of sites on this including your sweetheart, Ann Coulter's site. She says so so it must be true, right?

It was an M26 fragmentation grenade that another Marine dropped after existing their Huey. The pin was gone and so was the spoon indicating a live grenade. It has a 4/5 second fuse. Cleland figured it was his so went to retrieve it. A tragic happenstance, but it was not an enemy grenade. Had the Marine who dropped it bent the pin to keep it from accidentally coming dislodged......

[mrbaracuda]

Maybe knowing the definition of a word doesn't necessarily mean understanding it's meaning.

Oh I can guess what 'radical Islamic extremism' means, heh.

[leftysergeant]

Choosing not to because you've deigned to decide I'm better off under Saddam than a struggle at freedom, go to Hell, quite frankly, you lucky person in the West.

They were better off under Saddam, when rival religious fac tions were not blowing each other to hell and a foreign army was not there demanding that they turn over the operation of their only significant source of foreign revenue to our parasitic oil barons.

The only thing we should have done was to encourage an internal revolt. We have made it worse, not better for Iraq.

Learn some basic military science. There was never a way that military action was going to make it better.

That Koolaid Rummy sold you was spiked with a halucinogen.

[Cicero]

They were better off under Saddam, when rival religious fac tions were not blowing each other to hell and a foreign army was not there demanding that they turn over the operation of their only significant source of foreign revenue to our parasitic oil barons.

The only thing we should have done was to encourage an internal revolt. We have made it worse, not better for Iraq.

Learn some basic military science. There was never a way that military action was going to make it better.

That Koolaid Rummy sold you was spiked with a halucinogen.

Right. Gulf War I in 1991 was not enough action to foster an internal revolt, and the subsequent 12 years in between didn't do it either. But three weeks after the attack on Iraq in 2003, Saddam is finally history. The military was never supposed to make life better for Iraqis, it was supposed to depose Saddam. The military did not make life better for the Japanese or the Germans or the Italians in WWII. But it did accomplish the goal of unconditional surrender. A concept Bush 41 never grasped or his son would not be cleaning up his mess a dozen years later.

[Toke]

Last I heard 25% of the Iraki population was either killed or refugees.
Sure they are real grateful for the freedom and democracy brought to them.:D

A volunteer army risk getting the rejects from MC´donals. Low pay and bad work conditions worsens that problem.
You end up with "specialists" who can do exatly what they were trained for, but not think their way out of other problems.

[BeAChooser]

Water treatment, electrical generation, sewers, hospitals, roads, bridges. you know, the stuff that makes the difference between a functioning modern nation and a Third world disaster zone.

All that stuff the the right wing says we are building for the iraqis? Guess who broke it in the first place.

Gee, lefty, I gather you were against the 1991 war with Iraq since that's when most of that stuff was actually *broken*. Were you one of those who said we should let Saddam just go ahead and have Kuwait ... and even Saudi Arabia (since his forces attacked that country, too)?

Just trying to understand your views. :D

[leftysergeant]

In retrospect, it might have been better to have just fortified the Saudi boarder. Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil. Kuwait is no more a democracy that Iraq was.

They had a cement plant and food on the table before our invasion. Any work being done was being done by iraqis. We closed their industries and brought in scab labor working for less than a living wage and put the country out of work.

Where was it our business in the first place to get rid of a man who was no threat to us when we had an actual enemy to deal with elsewhere?

[BeAChooser]

Without actually getting into the politics of it: If, hypothetically, Obama was morally opposed to the war in Iraq (I have no idea if he was opposed "Morally", hence hypothetically) wouldn't a change after just because it turned out well be ethically questionable?

No one is asking Obama to change his (IMO, misguided) opinion about invading Iraq in the first place. He can continue to think that was a mistake until hell freezes over for all I care. But after the invasion happened, he (as President) would have had a responsibility to make the best of the situation as it now stood. After the invasion even Obama should not deny that al-Qaeda and Iranian militants were active in Iraq, trying to create chaos, trying to turn Iraq to their own purposes. And things could either get better or worse at that point depending on what we did.

Now Obama was always consistent in saying we should cut and run. But in particular, when asked if he'd have changed his opinion about the surge and revision of tactics in January 2007 when he authored a bill to force withdrawal of combat brigades by March 2008, knowing what we know now about how successful those things have been in converting what was a worrisome/bad situation into what one might characterize as a victory over al-Qaeda and those militants, he said no. That's what I mean by Stuck On Stupid. He shows an unwillingness to adapt to the situation at hand and that's not a good characteristic in a President or a Commander In Chief.

[BeAChooser]

Yup, a Republican lecturing a soldier on strategy while he believes that Rummy had an occassional rational thought during the six years he diddle around with the defense structures.

You don't know anything about me or what I believe about *Rummy*, lefty.

Wouldn't hurt you to learn something about military strategy. Trey reading Vom Kriege. I don't think Clausewitz would give W or Gates very high marks right about now.

Were those the ones that taught you to wave the white flag, lefty? Somehow, I don't think so. So I wonder where you picked that up? :D

I doubt McSame ever read Clausewitz, either.

Actually, you can be sure he did since it's required reading at the US Naval Academy. You did know he went there, didn't you? And by the way, here's what a professor at the Naval Academy had to say about Clausewitz:

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/PARAMETERS/04spring/fleming.pdf


Can Reading Clausewitz Save Us from Future Mistakes?

BRUCE FLEMING

Answering the question: No, though to read the commentators, we’d
never know it.

An Author for All Seasons

Some works are so broad in scope, so inclusive, even of contradic-
tions internal to themselves, that they can be used to justify almost anything. One such book is that patchwork written over many centuries and by many hands that we call the Bible. For the Renaissance, it was Virgil’s Aeneid, opened at random to provide divination (Sortes Virgilinae). For the Victorian era, it was the works of Shakespeare, a mine of quotable quotes removed from their contexts. For theorists of war in the last several decades, it has been Carl von Clausewitz’s On War.


:D

He says some dumb stuff about the Vietnam war having been winable.

But it was, lefty. :)

In fact, the North Vietnamese commander who accepted the surrender of South Vietnam, General Bui Tin, publically stated (http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/vietnam/north.asp ) that we would have won the war if, instead of letting the anti-war left and left leaning mainstream media characterize Tet as a defeat and thus demoralize the American public, had treated Tet as the great victory for American and ARVN forces that it was and then done what Westmoreland was asking our democrat President (Johnson) to do at the time; namely, close the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos and bomb the north.

General Giap has admitted that the North was so demoralized by the military results of Tet, that he was ready to sue for peace. Giap threw all available assets against every major target in South Vietnam. That was supposed to cause a massive revolt in the South. But instead, Tet just ended up destroying the effectiveness of the Viet Cong for years to come and inflicted serious losses on NVA forces ... with nothing tangible to show for that expenditure. The South Vietnamese people, horrified at the prospect of a Communist takeover, sat tight and did not revolt (a political victory for the south). US and ARVN troops crushed the attack in a matter of days. The VietCong and NVA troops failed to achieve any of their objectives other than capturing the old imperial citadel at Hue, and they lost that just three weeks later. The government of South Vietnam survived the shock; the ARVN did a credible job; and US forces performed admirably.

So suing for peace was what Giap was contemplating doing ... that is until he saw how Walter Cronkite and the rest of the liberal media in the US were portraying the battle. Then he realized that all they had to do was outlast us ... that the American Public, thanks to the lies the American media was feeding it, saw Tet as a military and political defeat. And the democrat President ignored his top general's recommendations for winning the conflict. Good thing Bush didn't ignore HIS generals back in January 2007 ... like Obama would have done. :D

[BeAChooser]

Iraq military personnel are donating to Obama over McCain at a ratio of 6:1.

You're being deceptive again. That statistic is based on a total of 134 overseas military personnel giving to Obama versus 26 giving to McCain. I really doubt that indicates our troops, in general, prefer Obama over McCain. It's more an indication that very few people in our military give campaign contributions. And I suspect that democrats in the military are more likely to give contributions than republican because even in the military those types are somewhat fanatical about their dislike of Bush. :D But you go ahead and think whatever you want to think ... because if you do, I suspect you are in for a big shock come election time.

By the way, if you total up Republican contributions from the military overseas versus democrat contributions, the ratio is closer to 1:1. And if you total up Republican contributions (here and abroad) versus democrats (here and abroad), you find Republicans leading donations by a factor of about 1.7:1. But even then, the number of contributions is tiny. :D

[BeAChooser]

Beat me to it. How does Brainster respond to this reality based fact?

Daredelvis, you might want to look at post #44.

[BeAChooser]

They were better off under Saddam, when rival religious fac tions were not blowing each other to hell

:rolleyes:

Prior to the invasion, the UN, WHO and various individuals on your side of the political fence were insisting that THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children were dying in Iraq EVERY SINGLE MONTH as a result of a lack of clean water, medicines, sanitation and food. While that was happening, Saddam's regime was diverting the bulk of the revenues from oil sales, that were supposed to go to helping meet those needs and rebuild war damaged infrastucture, into rebuilding and maintaining Saddam's brutal military, banned weapon programs, the construction of palaces and monuments to Saddam, several huge mosques (odd, in what you folks continue to claim was a secular state), the hedonistic lifestyle of Saddam's sons, large bribes to certain UN and non-coalition nation members, and various bank accounts owned by Saddam and his top associates.

I guess lefty has never heard of the Black Book of Saddam, either.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12218&R=EC643701F

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20458

:D

[BeAChooser]

Last I heard 25% of the Iraki population was either killed or refugees.

Utter NONSENSE.

The number of Iraqis who fled Iraq was estimated to be about 2 million according to the UN (and they do have a habit of inflating numbers). Another 1.7 million were said to have been displaced internally. AT MOST, a couple hundred thousand people have died in Iraq since the war started. Which gives a total of about 4 million. The population of Iraq was over 27 million in 2007, according to the CIA. So the number of killed and refugees hasn't exceeded 15%. But then Saddam killed millions even before the war began. So ...

You end up with "specialists" who can do exatly what they were trained for, but not think their way out of other problems.

The only one stuck on stupid that I see is Obama.

[BeAChooser]

Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil.

Well, Saddam was CLAIMING that. :D

Where was it our business in the first place to get rid of a man who was no threat to us


And you (and Obama) are claiming that. :rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

The only one stuck on stupid that I see is Obama.Unfortunately, the political arena is chock-full of people like you.

[Toke]

Cool, claiming that only 15% is dead or displaced instead of 25% suddently makes it alright, and they should be real gratefull for the US effords.:jaw-dropp

The OP is still a nasty piece of propaganda.
Waving the flag and screaming freedom is a lame excuse used for almost anything.

Your humanitarian line of arguments overlook all the other countries that does not have democracy, freedom and so on.
Could it have something to do with oil ;)

How is democracy doing in saudi arabia?
How is human rights doing in saudi arabia?

Dont claim to help the irakis, it does not hold water.

[mrbaracuda]

Dont claim to help the irakis, it does not hold water.

Yea, gee, I mean come on! What good could possibly come from the disposal of a long time dictator to let the people have their oil-rich country again? :rolleyes:

[leftysergeant]

Bush idin't do it for the Iraqis. He did it for himself. And his nosferatu-looking puppet master Cheney egged him on to do it for the oil industry and PNAC.

Why do you think he is still trying to get an oil law out of al Maliki that lets ouyr companies drill the oil? Remember who was drilling it before we busted down the country?

[Lonewulf]

Waving the flag and screaming freedom is a lame excuse used for almost anything.Just a form of Jingoism, really.

[leftysergeant]

Actually, you can be sure he did since it's required reading at the US Naval Academy. You did know he went there, didn't you?

Yeah, right. That doesn't mean the dimbulb understood it. I kind of doubt he would even have graduated had someone not been just afrtaid enough of daddy McCain's stars to send the drooling maniac home. You do know how far from the bottom of the class the jerk was, don't you? He was sitting in a seat that should really, in an ideal world, have gone to someone qualified for it. He got there by affirmative action, you know, don't you?

Now tell me what people's war was ever put down by military force without nearly wiping out of enslaving the rebellious people. Giap may have been thinking that Nixon was just enough of a thug to ignore the fact that we would not have tolerated the extermination of the Vietnamese.
As for ignoring generals, don't get so smug. You may recall that Rummy and the dummy thought they were better strategists than Shinseki. Boy were they wrong. The next couple months showed that Shinseki, who built the force that Rummy piddled away, was right. Had they done it right in the first place, there would have been no supply of old artillery shells to make IEDs.


Where do Republicans get the idea that they know best about how to conduct a war? They haven't had a competant war time leader since Eisenhower.

And don't try to feed me that crap about Reagan winning the Cold War. Osama had almost as much to do with that as had old Jelly Brain.

Gorby wanted to make peace, but that was unacceptable to Reagan, because the Republican mindset cannot grasp the idea of a war ending in any other way than the crushing of an enemy. So doofus kicked Gorby in the shins like a schoolyard bully and called himself winning and, as a result, the end of the Soviet Union was the begining of a kakiocracy that in turn has led to the rise of Vladimir Putin and maybe another Cold War.

Of course, if McCain is elected, it may turn into a shooting war because he has never seen a problem he didn't want to shoot at.

[Toke]

Yea, gee, I mean come on! What good could possibly come from the disposal of a long time dictator to let the people have their oil-rich country again? :rolleyes:

Which people?
The oil people?
How many irakis will be left in the country?
Why does that not apply to saudi arabia?

I can´t think of any war without a propaganda smokescreen of justice and humanity.

[BeAChooser]

Cool, claiming that only 15% is dead or displaced instead of 25% suddently makes it alright, and they should be real gratefull for the US effords.

I didn't say it was wonderful that happened ... just wanted to correct a bit misinformation. But even if we hadn't invaded, just as many people would have died by now if we are to believe what the UN, WHO and many liberals were saying was happening in Iraq in the years before the invasion. Several thousand innocent iraqis were dying EVERY MONTH. And while Saddam was in power, Iraqis died in several major wars ... as many as a million died.

As for external refugees, I'm sure that under Saddam many would have loved to leave Iraq's brutality behind ... but could not. And with regard to internal refugees, do you think Saddam's actions had nothing to do with the movement of Iraqis? Those wars he started displaced lots of Iraqis. And post 1991 oppressive government policies led to the internal displacement of nearly million people, mostly Kurds and Marsh Arabs.

So I'm just saying that when all is said and done, probably that 15% statistic isn't all that different from what it would have been had Saddam remained in power ... especially if his actions then led to another major war with a neighboring country. At least NOW, Iraqis can return to an Iraq with a democracy, a system of laws, and a promising future.


How is democracy doing in saudi arabia?
How is human rights doing in saudi arabia?


Are you recommending we do something about that? What? :D

Dont claim to help the irakis, it does not hold water.

Recent polls seem to suggest the Iraqi people are really hopeful about the future. Why can't you be? Oh yes, you're trying to get Obama elected. :D

[Toke]

You miss the point here.
The OP claim the invasion and occupation was/is for the benefit of the iraki.
Done for justice, freedom, democracy, and to rid the world of an EVIL dictator.

Take a look around the world, if those arguments were more than a smokescreen there would be alot of humanitarian invasions going on.

You are repeating the propaganda screen of a major armed robbery.

Recent polls seem to suggest the Iraqi people are really hopeful about the future. Why can't you be? Oh yes, you're trying to get Obama elected
Perhaps because it can´t get worse?
I don´t care much who you elect, they are both paid off, maybe even by the same interrests.

[leftysergeant]

We never could afford the war, the war is going to cost us money we cannot afford to spend on it for decades unless we end the occupation now. The occupation CREATED al Qaeda in Iraq.

Bush actually finished the Iran/Iraq war from the 80s. He gave the victory to Iran.

Republicans have no grasp of military strategy. It was not our war and it has cost us in terms of the only thing we have close to a real war to fight, thousands of miles away.

Military force is a stupid way to fight an enemy with no physical location to begin with.

[BeAChooser]

That doesn't mean the dimbulb understood it.

Well it means you were wrong when you claimed he never read it. He did. As for being a dimbulb ... he still managed to make it through the Naval Academy and that's no small feat. What are your educational credentials, by the way?

I kind of doubt he would even have graduated had someone not been just afrtaid enough of daddy McCain's stars to send the drooling maniac home. You do know how far from the bottom of the class the jerk was, don't you?

Actually, he did fine in most of the course work. The reason he didn't graduate high in class ranking was because he had a lot of demerits and those figure into it. He was a maverick even then.

And since you want to sneer at him, where did you graduate in your class? You did graduate from a university, didn't you, lefty?

Now tell me what people's war was ever put down by military force without nearly wiping out of enslaving the rebellious people.

Off the top of my head? Iraq. :D

Giap may have been thinking that Nixon was just enough of a thug to ignore the fact that we would not have tolerated the extermination of the Vietnamese.

Johnson was president at the time of Tet, lefty. And for the record, after we left Vietnam, it was the North Vietnamese who engaged in extermination. Hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese died. Studies indicate 165,000 people alone died in the *re-education* camps. Conditions were so bad that millions fled, taking their chances as boat people. Between 100,000 and 250,000 died on those boats, lefty. Yet you no doubt voted for John Kerry who assured the public that no more than a few thousand would die when we withdrew from Vietnam. :rolleyes:

As for ignoring generals, don't get so smug. You may recall that Rummy and the dummy thought they were better strategists than Shinseki.

This is sooooooo funny. Here you are championing a candidate who was against the war back in 2003 and that has insisted we cut and run at every opportunity since then. But General Shinseki, didn't object to the invasion and instead of withdrawing wanted to put hundreds of thousands more soldiers in Iraq post war. And I seriously doubt that Shinseki will be voting for Obama. :)

And don't you realize it wasn't feasible ... then or now ... to up the number of US forces by hundreds of thousands? Where were we going to get the forces, lefty? Borrow them from the Chinese? Wait a year to enlist and train them? And during that time, what would Saddam and the terrorists in Iraq have been doing?

Also, Rumsfeld's complaint with Shinseki was that he was fixated on the wrong type of war. Shinseki wanted to maintain the size of the Army at the cost of not enlarging special forces and the Marines ... the type of forces that have turned out to be especially useful in the WOT and in Iraq. Shinseki wanted systems, like the Crusader, which are not relevant to the current threats.

Boy were they wrong. The next couple months showed that Shinseki, who built the force that Rummy piddled away, was right. Had they done it right in the first place, there would have been no supply of old artillery shells to make IEDs.

That's debatable since we found tens of thousands of hidden ammunition caches that Saddam had prepositioned in preparation for the insurgency. Perhaps all you'd have done would been to give Saddam even more time to hide ammunition caches and train terrorists (like it's Fedayeen) in using those caches. Perhaps all you would have done is given the terrorists more targets.

And don't try to feed me that crap about Reagan winning the Cold War. Osama had almost as much to do with that as had old Jelly Brain.

ROTFLOL! There comes a time in every debate with a lefty that one doesn't really need to continue. They've shot themselves in the foot enough times that one can be confident that very few people are going to give that lefty much credibility. I think we've reached that pont in this debate, lefty. :D

[Toke]

There comes a time in every debate with a lefty that one doesn't really need to continue. They've shot themselves in the foot enough times that one can be confident that very few people are going to give that lefty much credibility. I think we've reached that pont in this debate, lefty.

You are amacing.
Guess you would not consider a scenario where the us invade to get a client state in a usefull location, and controll of a huge oil reserve.
Do you really belive in the humanitarian mission propaganda?:eye-poppi

[Cicero]

They haven't had a competant war time leader since Eisenhower.


Gorby wanted to make peace, but that was unacceptable to Reagan, because the Republican mindset cannot grasp the idea of a war ending in any other way than the crushing of an enemy.

Ike was the one who, against FDR's wishes. did not take Berlin, and stopped the Allied advance at the Elbe. The West payed for that decision for the next 45 years.

MacArthur was a true combat veteran and military strategist. His plan captured the entire Korean Peninsula from the North.

Gorbie wanted to make peace with the U.S.? You mean when Reagan told him to tear down the Berlin Wall and he did just that 2 years later.

[leftysergeant]

So, Cicero, did you ever hear of the Yalta Conference?

Would you have preferred OPatton's idea of just going on and invading Russia after Germany capitulated?

Gorby didn't tear down the wall. The Germans did,

And yes, Gorby did try to make peace. Reagan just wanted to be seen as winning and screwed up the peace.

[Cicero]

So, Cicero, did you ever hear of the Yalta Conference?

Would you have preferred OPatton's idea of just going on and invading Russia after Germany capitulated?

Gorby didn't tear down the wall. The Germans did,

And yes, Gorby did try to make peace. Reagan just wanted to be seen as winning and screwed up the peace.

First off, FDR was a shell of his former self by February 1945, and Stalin had NKVD head Beria bug FDR's residence in the Livadia Palace near Yalta.

Contrary to those whose mantra is that the Allies joyously gave Stalin all of eastern Europe to do with as he pleased, Germany was not divided at the boarder that FDR originally mapped out in 1943 on the U.S.S. Iowa. The American and Russian occupation zones met at Berlin with the American zone occupying northwest Germany, including Hamberg, Bremerhaven, Lubeck, and Rostock. The Soviets were to get a fraction of the eastern portion of Germany that they eventually got.

If SHAEF actually believed Patton was going to start up WWII with the Soviets, they would not have made him governor of Bavaria and commander of 15th Army after he continued to be outspoken about Soviet/U.S. relations.

So you are saying that even though the East Germans had the support of Russian tanks, 10 times the number of U.S. tanks, in 1989, Erich Honecker went against the wishes of the Kremlin and opened up the boarder because he feared the U.S. more than his Soviet controllers?

[leftysergeant]

No,, we didn't scare Honecker. The Germans did.

[mrbaracuda]

Would you have preferred OPatton's idea of just going on and invading Russia after Germany capitulated?

I know I would.

[leftysergeant]

I know I would.

Yeah, right. Achieve one of Hitler's objective after defeating him. Brilliant.

[Cicero]

No,, we didn't scare Honecker. The Germans did.

The West Germans, who had the backing of American missiles.

[Cicero]

Yeah, right. Achieve one of Hitler's objective after defeating him. Brilliant.

The time to do it was before the Soviets got their A-Bomb in 1949 from their WWII spies in Los Alamos.

[leftysergeant]

The West Germans, who had the backing of American missiles.

Do you honestly think that the rest of NATO would have let president Jelly Brain start a war with East Germany? Do you think they would have thought it worth the effort and the blood and the nuclear fallout all over their food supply to satisfy a senile old acrtor's fantasies of being a military genious?

I sort of doubt it.

[BeAChooser]

The OP claim the invasion and occupation was/is for the benefit of the iraki.Done for justice, freedom, democracy, and to rid the world of an EVIL dictator.

Just go reread Bush State of the Union Address in January 2003 where Bush laid out the case for toppling Saddam. All the above were listed as reasons Saddam needed to go. All were listed as reasons "we were coming." And there was bipartisan support for all those reasons.

We also, importantly, went in because Saddam wasn't coming clean with respect to WMD and long range delivery system programs and had not given up his ambitions to acquire more of both as he had agreed to do back in 1991 in order to end that Gulf War attacks on his regime. And that is precisely what the ISG found after the invasion.

Take a look around the world, if those arguments were more than a smokescreen there would be alot of humanitarian invasions going on.

None of the other dictators are violating WMD related agreements (although Iran may be coming close to doing it). That was the trigger for the 2003 invasion. Had he not done that, Saddam would probably still be around. But once he did that, the other reasons came into play as further reasons to take Saddam and his government down. Reasons that were just as motivating to our troops as the other reason was.

You are repeating the propaganda screen of a major armed robbery.

Wow! This is the first armed robbery I've heard of where the robber rebuilds and strengthens the vault, puts more money in it, and leaves the bank better off than it was before the robbery. Maybe you are the one spouting propaganda, Toke. :D

Perhaps because it can´t get worse?

NONSENSE. Haven't you heard? Things are looking up in Iraq. The strategy proposed by McCain back in 2003 and finally adopted in late 2006 is clearly working. Violence is down. Iraqis are working together. Oil is flowing. Even Obama is starting to admit that's the case. And things could have gotten much worse had we done what Obama proposed in January of 2003. Then Iraq might now be in utter chaos. And even now things could get worse if Obama's current cut and run proposal were enacted. We could return to the violence of 2005 and 2006.

[leftysergeant]

Just go reread Bush State of the Union Address in January 2003 where Bush laid out the case for toppling Saddam. All the above were listed as reasons Saddam needed to go. All were listed as reasons "we were coming."

The yellow cake and stores of chemical weapons was a lie. bush had stated while he was governor of Texas that he wanted to invade Iraq toi gain political capiutal. PNAC wanted us to establish hegemony in the region. PNAC wanted hegemony. Saddam was screwed no matter what he did, and we had no real causus belli to take unilateral actions.

We also, importantly, went in because Saddam wasn't coming clean with respect to WMD and long range delivery system programs and had not given up his ambitions to acquire more of both as he had agreed to do back in 1991 in order to end that Gulf War attacks on his regime. And that is precisely what the ISG found after the invasion.

Not so. Saddam was destroying the missiles that had a range 15 miles too great. The rest is utter BS.

[Toke]

WMD was a lie, it was known before the invasion. The niger uranium fake show a strong desire to make up something to back up a humanitarian invasion argument.

Wow! This is the first armed robbery I've heard of where the robber rebuilds and strengthens the vault, puts more money in it, and leaves the bank better off than it was before the robbery. Maybe you are the one spouting propaganda, Toke.

Are you taking about rebuilding by cost plus contractors with no oversight?
An iraki goverment with no meter on the oilvalve?
Bremers kapitalist paradise with full unemployment?
Dissapering billions for rebuild efford?

[BeAChooser]

We never could afford the war

NONSENSE, lefty. You are simply reciting bogus, leftist, anti-war talking points. We've spent less as a percentage of GDP on the Iraq War than we have almost all our previous wars. The Congressional Research Service gives the current cumulative cost of the war as being about $550 billion dollars. The GPD over the 5.5 years the war has been going on has been over $10 trillion a year. So the Iraq War has cost about 6% of one year's GDP. In comparison WW2 cost over 130% of GDP. The Civil War cost 100% of GDP. The Revolutionary War cost 60% of GDP. WW1 cost the US 20% of GDP. And both the Korean War and Vietnam War cost over 10% of GDP. So we can afford this level of expenditures because we already have many times over.

the war is going to cost us money we cannot afford to spend on it for decades unless we end the occupation now.

Nonsense. As you can see from the above statistics, we can afford to see things through to a successful conclusion. We can't afford not to do so. What you anti-war leftists want to do is throw away what has been accomplished by forcing premature withdrawal. That's what General Patreaus warns could happen under Obama's plan. That would waste most of the SPENT cost of the Iraq War and all the lives that have been spent getting to this point. And that's, frankly, a LOSER *strategy*.

And you fail to realize that there were and are costs associated with not invading or now letting the Iraq experiment fail. An excellent case can be made (because I've made it many times on this forum with no successful challenges from your side) that had we not invaded the cost to the US would be in the trillions of dollars over time. Even now, a premature withdrawal could unleash a civil war in Iraq. Even Obama's running mate, before he became Obama's running mate, advised against the type of foolhardy withdrawal that Obama has advocated for 5 years now.

The occupation CREATED al Qaeda in Iraq.

NOT TRUE. al-Qaeda was present in Iraq before we invaded. As proof, a dozen al-Qaeda terrorists, who were convicted in Jordan of entering the country with the vehicles and materials needed to carry out a chemical bomb plot that could have killed tens of thousands of Jordanians and everyone in the US embassy in Amman, admitted to being members of al-Qaeda and admitted to having met al-Zarqawi in BAGHDAD BEFORE THE INVASION to get their marching orders and the money needed to carry out the plot.

Now al-Qaeda certainly used the instability in Iraq after the invasion to expand their operations but they were expanding them even before the war began. And Obama was not smart enough to see that once that happned and al-Qaeda made Iraq it's top priority, we needed to stop them. He would have pulled out in 2003 and let al-Qaeda gain control through terror. That's just Stuck On Stupid if you ask me. :D

Bush actually finished the Iran/Iraq war from the 80s. He gave the victory to Iran.

Wrong, again, lefty. The Iranian backed militias in Iraq have lost most of the power they had in Iraq thanks to the recent actions against them by the Iraqi government and because of their use of terrorist tactics (the same reason al-Qaeda lost its support amongst the Iraqi people). Iraqis do not want to be part of Iran and have tired of terrorism. That is clear from all the polls. The militia's leadership has even fled the country. Or course, Iran is still sending some arms into Iraq and providing haven for some die hard terrorists, but this is going to backfire. It has already polarized most of the Iraqi population against them and the time is coming when Iran is going to pay a VERY steep price for its interference and support of global terrorism. In fact, it has already begun to pay that price.

Military force is a stupid way to fight an enemy with no physical location to begin with.

How would you fight them, *general*? Send in the clowns ... I mean lawyers? You know ... that's one of the refreshing things about McCain and Palin. Neither of them is a lawyer ... the only occupation where one is taught it is ethical to lie. :D

[BeAChooser]

Guess you would not consider a scenario where the us invade to get a client state in a usefull location, and controll of a huge oil reserve.

We don't control Iraq's oil and they are not a "client" state. You need to stop listening to whatever socialist propaganda they are feeding you over in Denmark. In fact Iraq's President recently said he wants us out once Iraq is stable ... and we've readily agreed to do that. In fact, we've never said we'd do anything else. And their oil revenue is going to them and we in the United States of America pay whatever is the global market price for oil ... just like you. And you really should be thanking the US for saving your country from tyrants THREE TIMES in the last century without ever asking for a dime to cover our expenses (not to mention the lives lost doing it). I guess some folks are just borne to be ingrates. :D

[leftysergeant]

I do not want to waste another life trying to build a Friedmanite dystopia in a foreign country jusdt to prove that idiots like the PNAC thugs had a good idea. We tried to impose Friedmanite government on one other country and it pretty well destroyed their ecconomy.

The whole humanitarian arguement for the invasion went in the toilet the minute Bremmer started polluting the air of Baghdad with his BS.

[BeAChooser]

Do you honestly think that the rest of NATO would have let president Jelly Brain start a war with East Germany?

I love it when someone like lefty insults our most popular President in this manner. Thanks for the votes, lefty. :D

[leftysergeant]

Reagan's brain sprang a l;eak before he became governor of California. He caused a lot of the homeless problems by closing down the out-patient mental health facilities, then just shrugged off the untreated zanies roaming the street as an intractible problem and not that big a deal, since we had the cops.

I don't give a rat's how poular the dimbulb was. Hitler was kind of popular at one time, as I recall.

[BeAChooser]

The yellow cake and stores of chemical weapons was a lie.

No, just bad intelligence. Bush relied on what the intelligence communities was telling him. And the truth is that we still do not know what Iraq had in the way of WMD. If you want to claim we do, you need to tell us:

- the contents of those trucks that were observed going to Syria before the war (that a "credible" source told the ISG was WMD related)?

- the contents of the concrete bunker that was built under the Euphrates in 2002 (that locals said contained WMD) and that was looted before the CIA (in all it's *wisdom*) decided to take a look at it in 2006?

- why Iraq selectively sanitized files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD? What were they hiding?

- where that binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED actually came from and how you *know* it was the only one?

- what the documents dated 2002 from Saddam that were found in Iraq but not translated until recently meant when they ordered "special" materials to be hidden ("special" materials was the way Iraq referred to WMD)?

- and, of course, why you think invading Iraq was only about finding completed WMD munitions, and not precursors and the means to produce WMD as well (you see the ISG concluded that Iraq had not given up it's pursuit of WMD and that Saddam planned to reconstitute his chemical munitions within six months to a year after the UN gave Iraq a clean bill of health and sanctions ended)?

But you aren't able to explain any of that, are you? :D

bush had stated while he was governor of Texas that he wanted to invade Iraq toi gain political capiutal.

Challenge. I'd like to see your proof of this claim. Or is this another claim you won't be able to back up?


Quote:
We also, importantly, went in because Saddam wasn't coming clean with respect to WMD and long range delivery system programs and had not given up his ambitions to acquire more of both as he had agreed to do back in 1991 in order to end that Gulf War attacks on his regime. And that is precisely what the ISG found after the invasion.

Not so. Saddam was destroying the missiles that had a range 15 miles too great. The rest is utter BS.

I see you didn't actually read the ISG final report, lefty. :rolleyes:

Because the ISG did indeed conclude that Saddam had not given up his ambitions vis a vis acquiring WMD. It's there in black and white. They said they believe Saddam had every intention of reconstituting his chemical and biological weapon arsenal as soon as the UN gave Iraq a clean bill of health and sanctions ended. The ISG said that Iraq had retained the equipment, materials and personnel needed to reconstitute his mustard gas warheads within 6 months of an order from Saddam to do so. They concluded nerve gas warheads could be in production in one to two years.

They also said Iraq violated more than just the allowed range limit on the one missile they were FORCED to destroy. Iraq agreed not to even research delivery systems with a range more than 150km. But quite clearly they did and they hid the mere existence of any documents that might lead to that conclusion. They provided none of them. Yet the ISG found many ... even complete CAD drawings of such systems dated 2002. Saddam was pressuring his scientists to start production of intermediate range missiles within a few years and was trying to purchase them from abroad. You did hear about his deal with North Korea, didn't you? Or are you just willfully uninformed, *general*? According to the ISG, they found “written evidence of a contractual negotiation” between North Korea and Iraq for the purchase of 1,300 km-range No Dong missiles. Iraqi documents indicate that Baghdad made a $10 million down payment in late 2002 for a single No Dong missile but North Korea failed to deliver the missile allegedly “because they were being watched too closely by the Bush Administration”. The ISG also uncovered Iraqi plans or designs for three long-range ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000 km and for a 1,000 km- range cruise missile, although none of these systems progressed to production and only one reportedly passed the design phase. So don't try to claim that Iraq wasn't trying to seriously violate its agreement not to research, develop, test or stockpile long range delivery systems. They clearly did. And if we'd not invaded Iraq in 2003, they might by now be testing or even fielding those systems. And I'd bet you they'd be tipped with WMD. To believe anything else would be supremely naive given Saddam's history, *general*.

By the way, the ISG also quotes the head of the UAV program saying that he expected that the UAV program was to be used to deliver WMD. And it is incontrovertible that Iraq violated the agreement it signed not to research, develop, test or deploy UAVs beyond a certain range. The UAVs that Iraq was discovered to be actively working on in 2003 had already been tested to well beyond that range. In fact, they'd been tested out to a range of 500 km — 350 km beyond the UN-permissible limit. In short, they lied about that to the UN in their declaration. So what else did they lie about, lefty?

Just keep digging the hole for your and Obama's credibility. Our side thanks you.

[KateHL]

TG4fe9GlWS8
Oh, man. It must be patriotic. He even invoked Lee Greenwood. There's only one other songwriter I can think of who's more patriotic than Lee Greenwood and that's this guy (nsfw):

skch4zKdKbc

[BeAChooser]

WMD was a lie, it was known before the invasion.

FALSE. If you honestly believe that, then answer the questions I asked in post #78. Bet you can't, not in any rational way. And the war was about more than weapon STOCKPILES.


Quote:
Wow! This is the first armed robbery I've heard of where the robber rebuilds and strengthens the vault, puts more money in it, and leaves the bank better off than it was before the robbery. Maybe you are the one spouting propaganda, Toke.

Are you taking about rebuilding by cost plus contractors with no oversight?

And whose money was it doing the rebuilding? Iraq's or the US'?

An iraki goverment with no meter on the oilvalve?

Are you claiming they pumped more than what was made available to the global commodities market and then gave it to the US below the global market price? I bet you believe 9/11 was an inside job, too. :rolleyes:

Bremers kapitalist paradise with full unemployment?

I take that as an admission you are a socialist? Which of Denmark's parties do you belong to, Toke? :D

Dissapering billions for rebuild efford?

Whose billions disappeared? Iraq's or the US'? And if you think any of Iraq's oil revenues *disappeared* in to US hands, PROVE IT. Again, this notion that the US is *robbing* Iraqi is akin to 9/11 woo. I suggest you take it to the conspiracy forum where it belongs.

[Cicero]

Reagan's brain sprang a l;eak before he became governor of California. He caused a lot of the homeless problems by closing down the out-patient mental health facilities, then just shrugged off the untreated zanies roaming the street as an intractible problem and not that big a deal, since we had the cops.

I don't give a rat's how poular the dimbulb was. Hitler was kind of popular at one time, as I recall.

This is the type of intended (it is intended, isn't it?) liberal satire that even Gore Vidal would be too embarrassed to use during his battles with William F. Buckley.

[leftysergeant]

And whose money was it doing the rebuilding? Iraq's or the US'?

We owe the Iraqis that much. We were not invited to liberate them. A group of our industrialists decided it was a good idea and then sold the idea to the Moron-in_Chief.

I take that as an admission you are a socialist? Which of Denmark's parties do you belong to, Toke? :D

Better a Socialist than a Friedmanite pirate like Bremmer. Those morons have screwed up every country they have touched. You don't need to be a socialist to consider Milton Friedman an international criminal.



Whose billions disappeared? Iraq's or the US'?

Ours, because lamebrain Bremmer didn't keep records.

And stop whining about my calling Reagan a jelly-brain.

The left was calling him senile when he became president and the right got their panties all in a bunch and called it mean-spirited and baseless. It became clear by the end of 1989 that we had been right all along.

BTW, he was a rotten president. Second worst in my lifetime, by far. I hope it stays that way.

Barack and roll.

[Toke]

As a beliver in wmd and humanitarian invasion, you belong in the woo section.

Yes I am a socialist.
What difference does that make to bremmers dismantling of irak?
It sounds just like when you tried to write off iraki civilian dead/displaced as unimportant by claming it is only 15% not 25% of the population.
It must be a fallacity by itself

The rebuild disappeared around 20 billion of iraki money from their oil fund, the rest comes from american taxpayers.
American Taxpayers, hallo.

I assume it is a republican´s patriotic duty to rip off taxpayers on behalf of private contractors.
How else can you say tax is theft.
And the rebuild efford still does not work.

[BeAChooser]

He caused a lot of the homeless problems by closing down the out-patient mental health facilities, then just shrugged off the untreated zanies roaming the street as an intractible problem and not that big a deal, since we had the cops.

As usual you have the facts wrong and are only telling a fraction of the whole story. The truth is that mental health and developmental professionals (who are notoriously liberal and in the vast majority vote ... well ... democrat) wanted the State of California out of the business of incarcerating the mentally ill and chronically homeless. Reagan merely acted on their recommendations.

The law that Reagan signed was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. The idea was to "stem entry into the state hospital by encouraging the community system to accept more patients, hopefully improving quality of care while allowing state expense to be alleviated by the newly available federal funds." It also was designed to protect the rights of mental patients.

It was considered landmark legislation at the time ... by liberals -- a positive change in the attitude towards the mentally ill. The law restricted involuntary commitment, among other things. It allows people to refuse treatment for mental illness, unless they are clearly a danger to someone else or themselves.

State Senator Frank Lanterman was a Republican, but he was addressing a need vocalized by the left in california. He's also the author of the 1977 Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Act, which expanded protections that developmentally disabled people enjoy. He didn't see eye to eye with Reagan on many things. State Senators Nick Petris and Alan Short were both Democrats.

Reagan's role, besides signing the bill, was using it as a reason to cut his budget (which was crippling California's economy at the time thanks to the previous democrat policies). At the same time, reduced the budget for state mental hospitals. The law presumed that the people released from hospitals or not committed at all would be funneled in community treatment as provided by the Short Doyle Act of 1957. That was "was designed to organize and finance community mental health services for persons with mental illness through locally administered and locally controlled community health programs." It also presumed that the mentally ill would voluntarily accept treatment, if it were made available to them on a community basis.

However, because of the restrictions on involuntary commitment, seriously mentally ill people who would not consent to treatment became a community dilemma. Once released, they would fail to take their medications or get counseling and went right back to being seriously ill. Also, unfortunately, at the time LPS was implemented, funding for community systems either declined or was not beefed up. Many counties did not have adequate community mental health services in place and were unable to fund them. Federal funds for community mental health programs, which LPS assumed would pick up the slack, began drying up in the early 1980s, due to budget cutbacks in general. Funding for county mental health programs also suffered due to Proposition 13.

The truth is that Reagan was not involved in this movement, nor was he symbolic of it. Quite the contrary. The people who 'liberated' the inmates tended to be on the opposite end of the political spectum. Yours, lefty. In fact, it was the ACLU who provided legal representation to force the VA to release patients.

On last point, lefty. Who do you think is fighting reform now? The Coalition Advocating for Rights Empowerment and Services. That's a liberal organization. The federally funded Protection & Advocacy, Inc., the California Network of Mental Health Clients and the California Association of Mental Health Patients Rights Advocates. All of them liberal. Civil rights lawyers and the defense bar that supply the bulk of hearing officers under the LPS Act. They are all liberal too. So you best clean your own house, lefty, before you go barking at Reagan for being the cause of your problems. Stop trying to rewrite history to suit your political agenda. :D

[WildCat]

Water treatment, electrical generation, sewers, hospitals, roads, bridges. you know, the stuff that makes the difference between a functioning modern nation and a Third world disaster zone.
Please show where we bombed water treatment plants, sewage plants, hospitals, etc. and also which bridges we destroyed haven't been rebuilt.

All that stuff the the right wing says we are building for the iraqis? Guess who broke it in the first place.
Why don't you tell us? Be sure to provide sources!

Guess who shut down all the state industries, including the country's only cewment factory.
There are no cement factories in Iraq today?

[BeAChooser]

We were not invited to liberate them.

And who do you think would have done the "inviting" if someone had, lefty? :rolleyes:

Better a Socialist than a Friedmanite pirate like Bremmer.

I take this as an admission that you also are a socialist. Which socialist party do you belong to lefty? :D

Quote:
Whose billions disappeared? Iraq's or the US'?

Ours


So how can Toke believe we went into rob the Iraqis? Isn't that just woo, lefty?

And stop whining about my calling Reagan a jelly-brain.

I didn't whine. I just proved you were spouting woo too.

The left was calling him senile when he became president

And yet he turned out to be a fabulous President in the opinion of most. Even democrats at his funeral swooned over his legacy. And now democrats are claiming that McCain is senile. See where I'm going with this, lefty? :D

It became clear by the end of 1989 that we had been right all along.

Reagan left office in 1989, lefty, at the age of 78. And his actions the second term were in large part the reason the Soviet Union collapsed. So you haven't been right about anything, so far. McCain is only 72 and has stated he will not run for a second term. So your allegations of impending senility may be a bit premature. And Reagan didn't die of senility. He died of Alzheimers, which was diagnosed in 1994. All four of Reagan's White House doctors said that they saw no evidence of Alzheimer's while he was president. Dr. John E. Hutton, Reagan's primary physician from 1984 to 1989, said the president "absolutely" did not "show any signs of dementia or Alzheimer's". Can't you get anything right, lefty?

Barack and roll.

Gee, that's almost as catchy as "lipstick on a pig". :D

[Toke]

So how can Toke believe we went into rob the Iraqis? Isn't that just woo, lefty?
You can rob the irakis of their oil by giving your own companies* good contracts, at the same time you rob the american taxpayers by wasting money on mostly useless rebuild.

Tax is theft.:D

*The ones contributing to republican coffers.

[WildCat]

That's a dispicable lie. He picked up a live grenade not knowing it was live. It was not his own. I checked a couple of sites on this including your sweetheart, Ann Coulter's site. She says so so it must be true, right?

Beat me to it again. How far does someones head need to be under the right wing media's sand to not know this?

Sorry if I made an error in my recollection. The real story isn't any better for Max. How the hell does a trained soldier not know a live grenade from one with the pin intact? And I've never been a consumer of "right wing media".

They were better off under Saddam, when rival religious fac tions were not blowing each other to hell and a foreign army was not there demanding that they turn over the operation of their only significant source of foreign revenue to our parasitic oil barons.
Ah, shades of the old "blacks were better off under slavery" argument.

[WildCat]

You can rob the irakis of their oil by giving your own companies* good contracts, at the same time you rob the american taxpayers by wasting money on mostly useless rebuild.

Tax is theft.:D

*The ones contributing to republican coffers.
Ah, the old lie about stealing oil.

Can you quantify how much oil was stolen Toke? And while you're at it, explain this article: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5grnNTt753b5YuvnQ3ldeRK7D4omg

[jmercer]

Folks, I believe the subject of this thread has something to do with Obama. Let's try to get back to that, shall we?

[BeAChooser]

As a beliver in wmd and humanitarian invasion, you belong in the woo section.

Wow, what a comeback to the fact filled post I offered. :rolleyes:

Yes I am a socialist.

And which socialist party in Denmark do you belong to? And are you championing Obama because you see him as a fellow socialist? :)

It sounds just like when you tried to write off iraki civilian dead/displaced as unimportant by claming it is only 15% not 25% of the population.

I did no such thing. I suggest you go back and actually CAREFULLY read what I posted.

The rebuild disappeared around 20 billion of iraki money from their oil fund

In April 2007, Radi al-Radhi, who runs Iraq's Public Integrity Commission, said that $8 billion was wasted or stolen in the previous 3 years. Are you now claiming that another $12 billion was stolen in the last year? Prove it. And prove that any of these lost funds ended up in US hands ... especially those of Bush's cronies. That was your initial claim. That we are robbers. So back it up or admit your dishonesty or woo. :D

And the rebuild efford still does not work.

And how do you know this for a fact?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/11/the_untold_story_of_iraq_recon.html


The Washington Times’ Rowan Scarborough chronicles the heroic efforts of military, civilian, and private contractors in completing over 4,000 projects since the 2003 invasion. The Army is the executive agent for Iraqi reconstruction, and the effort is led by Dean G. Popps, who is the principal assistant secretary of the Army for acquisitions, logistics and technology. According to Popps:

“Most Americans don’t understand something equivalent to the Marshall Plan has been accomplished in Iraq.”

Under the supervision of the Army Corps of Engineers, electric grids, health care centers, schools, water and sewage treatment facilities, and police stations have been refurbished or built from scratch. This huge program has been extremely successful, while receiving largely negative press coverage with an emphasis on corruption and mismanagement. But the latest assessment from Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, notes that the vast majority of projects have “proceeded as required.”


That was in 2006. And read the rest of that article, Toke. It contains a numerous facts about the poor condition that Saddam's infrastructure was in before the war (contrary to leftist thinking) and what had already been accomplished in rebuilding it since the invasion. The facts certainly don't support your assertion that the US went in to rob the Iraqis.

Now admittedly, there were many setbacks. In large part because of insurgent efforts and Iraqi corruption. But now, thanks to the surge, and a greater focus both externally and internally, reconstruction efforts are getting on track. As the recent Bowen report noted "Improved security across the country has helped reduce attacks on oil pipelines, and the electricity sector's expanded operations and maintenance programs have helped increase production." Iraq oil production is now above pre-war levels and climbing, as are many statistics. In fact, things are going well enough that there is now talk of Iraq carrying the bulk of the expense.

You want to see signs of success:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_gallery2&Itemid=&g2_itemId=6013

And Obama's proposals vis a vis Iraq would endanger that.

[BeAChooser]

Folks, I believe the subject of this thread has something to do with Obama. Let's try to get back to that, shall we?

Sorry, but Obama supporters are the ones who claimed what the soldier in the video said about Iraq is not true. I think this discussion has been very useful in showing the lack of knowledge and misinformation on which Obama's supporters, here and abroad, are basing their choice.

[Nogbad]

I love how when a solider is on the Democrats side, he gets roundly criticized. LOVE IT!

Everything is good until you support the wrong side. It is the rules dontcha know ;)

[leftysergeant]

There are no cement factories in Iraq today?

I have not heard of its being reopened since the idiot Bremmer ordered it closed and put up for sale.

[leftysergeant]

Sorry, but Obama supporters are the ones who claimed what the soldier in the video said about Iraq is not true. I think this discussion has been very useful in showing the lack of knowledge and misinformation on which Obama's supporters, here and abroad, are basing their choice.

How many of the people saying that the soldier is wrong are both Obama supporters and veterans? How many agreeing with the soldier and supporting McCain are veterans?

I live in a town that is full of veterans and active duty soldiers and I am seeing about ten Obama bumper stickers for ever McCain.

[BeAChooser]

How many agreeing with the soldier and supporting McCain are veterans?

lefty ... you don't know anything about me. Because this isn't about me.

I live in a town that is full of veterans and active duty soldiers and I am seeing about ten Obama bumper stickers for ever McCain.

Shall we agree to a bet? That more active duty soldiers vote for McCain/Palin than Obama/Biden? What should be the stakes? A month's silence on this forum? Here's a preview of the outcome if you accept. :D

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/military_favors.html


August 19, 2008

While troops deployed abroad might be giving more money to Barack Obama, a poll released today says that John McCain will get the vast majority of votes from members of the military and veterans.

According to Gallup, McCain leads Obama 56 percent to 34 percent, with 11 percent expressing no opinion or picking someone else.

[volant]

The best part was "God Bless the USA" at the end. I also like how/when we discover he is an amputee, presumably 'cause of the war, another excellent touch. Only a great soldier would put himself to use by making a piece of political propaganda.

For a factual account of how many Marines and Seabees feel about the war, read "No True Glory" by Bing West. Great read.

[BeAChooser]

Say, where did Toke go?

http://www.syvnews.com/articles/2008/09/09/news/news03.txt


‘Sister City’ Danes working in U.S. election

... snip ...

Forty-four members of the Danmarks Socialdemokratiske Ungdom (Danish for Social Democratic Youth of Denmark, known as DSU) have traveled more than 5,000 miles not only to visit the United States, but to attend the Democratic National Convention and support Obama’s candidacy.

... snip ...

“In the state of Virginia (just outside of the capital) we coordinated with the U.S. Democratic Party to make telephone calls for the Obama campaign to help register new voters,” Ingstrup said.

[Roadtoad]

I just hate the direction threads like this take. Both sides have some solid information, but neither is willing to listen to the other.

I have friends like those LeftySergeant describes, good NCOs who found themselves forced out because of troop reductions which we now see were ill considered. I also see the point that we were misled when it came to going into Iraq. I don't believe it was all for profit, (though it sure has been profitable for Halliburton), and that a number of people went in expecting to lose money simply because there was a belief that we were doing a good thing for the Iraqi people.

At the same time, there is significant evidence that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism, including backing Abu Nidal. At one point, he ordered Nidal out of Iraq because Nidal represented a significant threat.

There's also the long list of atrocities committed by his thuggish brood, particularly Ouday and Qusay.

No, the Iraqi people haven't been as well served as they could have been. There's no reason why we should have shut down their own businesses and industries, but at the same time, it's a mistake to claim that we did no good at all by going in. Yes, it should have been the Iraqi people who overthrew Hussein. We should have concentrated our efforts on Afghanistan and eliminating Bin Laden, while helping the Afghans rebuild their nation.

Unfortunately, that's not where things are now.

So, which candidate is going to do the best job in rebuilding the damage GWB and crew did to us? Personally, I think the person who could do it isn't running. (No, I don't know who it is, but I'm tempted to write in Leiberman as a protest vote.) But I know it sure as hell ain't Obama, who hasn't a clue what a military force is for, which Rush Limbaugh (quoting MacArthur, one of the very few things he's gotten right) has described as "Killing people and breaking things."

Sorry. Thanks to the past few administrations, our military has gone from being a genuine force of destruction to our enemies to becoming a phony force of philianthropic fallacy.

[Oliver]

Almost reminiscent of the old time German soldier who followed orders regardless of the level of depravity that motivated his superiors.


Well, I don't make a difference between soldiers in 1935 and soldiers
in 2008. They tend to believe in the same crap their leaders tell them.
And regarding the soldier in question, he seems to read a tele-promter,
something a nazi-soldier would've done in the same naive way, wouldn't
he?

[Roadtoad]

Well, I don't make a difference between soldiers in 1935 and soldiers
in 2008. They tend to believe in the same crap their leaders tell them.
And regarding the soldier in question, he seems to read a tele-promter,
something a nazi-soldier would've done in the same naive way, wouldn't
he?

Strikes me as an Ad Hom.

Sorry, Ollie, but I've got kids who were in service. Illegal orders are to be reported, ignored, and prosecuted. The guys who were in Nazi service in 1935 were a far different breed than they are now.

And comparing that young man on the video with a Nazi because he used a teleprompter or idiot cards is a smear. When I worked in radio and TV, I used them, and did so because it made it possible to get my message across with better clarity. Did that make me a Nazi?

I don't agree entirely with the young man on the video, but you have done more to make his point with your slam than anything else I've read on this board. If that was your goal, bravo. If not, perhaps you should reconsider your methods.

[Cicero]

Well, I don't make a difference between soldiers in 1935 and soldiers
in 2008. They tend to believe in the same crap their leaders tell them.
And regarding the soldier in question, he seems to read a tele-promter,
something a nazi-soldier would've done in the same naive way, wouldn't
he?

Fascinating.

During the Vietnam Mai Lai Massacre, Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, a chopper pilot, landed and told his crew that, if the U.S. soldiers shot at the Vietnamese civilians while he was trying to get them out of the bunker, they were to open fire on them.

Could you tell about any WWII atrocity committed by German soldiers where other German soldiers stepped in and stopped the criminal activity?

Barbara Walters was reading the TelePrompTer when she was grilling McCain on Friday's "The View." Why did she need coaxing on what to say and ask in a supposed spontaneous and informal setting?

As much as the shrikes on The View resemble Ilse Koch, I don't think they would pass the Ubermensch racial purity standard.

[Roadtoad]

Fascinating.

During the Vietnam Mai Lai Massacre, Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, a chopper pilot, landed and told his crew that, if the U.S. soldiers shot at the Vietnamese civilians while he was trying to get them out of the bunker, they were to open fire on them.

Could you tell about any WWII atrocity committed by German soldiers where other German soldiers stepped in and stopped the criminal activity?

Barbara Walters was reading the TelePrompTer when she was grilling McCain on Friday's "The View." Why did she need coaxing on what to say and ask in a supposed spontaneous and informal setting?

As much as the shrikes on The View resemble Ilse Koch, I don't think they would pass the Ubermensch racial purity standard.

I've read a great deal about Thompson. In some circles, CWO Thompson was regarded as a traitor, while in others, he's considered the hero that he is. He ultimately received the Soldier's Medal for his courage and ethics. He represents the best in our service people.

As to Barbara Walters, I fail to see how using a piece of low-tech equipment makes her a Nazi, particularly since she's Jewish. If anything, her use of video equipment, which makes editing an event for telebitchin' broadcast a relatively easy exercise, might qualify, but that's in use across the political spectrum.

Perhaps Joan Ganz Cooney of "Sesame Street" fame might have some insight into this, given her role as a mentor to people such as Diane Sawyer. Or not. I doubt it would change Oliver's attitude.

[leftysergeant]

Apparently, the soldier and the Republicans see themselves as doing a Marshall Plan for Iraq.

It is actually closer to Friedman's Chicago boys raping Pinochet-era Chilean.

Idiot boy Bremmer wrote the new constitution for the specific purpose of taking the door off the hinges to let the entrepreneurs in to have their way with the country.

[WildCat]

I have not heard of its being reopened since the idiot Bremmer ordered it closed and put up for sale.
So you think Iraq is importing cement? :boggled:

And I take it by your omission you now admit you just lied made up all the stuff about how we bombed sewage plants, hospitals, etc.?

[WildCat]

Idiot boy Bremmer wrote the new constitution for the specific purpose of taking the door off the hinges to let the entrepreneurs in to have their way with the country.
Reality and you aren't on a first name basis, are you?

Attack the argument, not the person making the argument.

[Cicero]

As to Barbara Walters, I fail to see how using a piece of low-tech equipment makes her a Nazi, particularly since she's Jewish.

Well, I said she wouldn't pass Ubermensch muster, as neither would Whoopie, Shepherd, or Behar, who married a Jew. If Oliver believes the soldier in the video is a martinet/automaton of the Bush Administration because he apparently read from a TelePrompTer when asked to give his own opinion, then Walters must be a martinet/automaton of her boss for using the same technology when she was supposedly offering her own opinions.

[leftysergeant]

Reality and you aren't on a first name basis, are you?

Bremmer closed the cement plant and put it up for sale. No takers, last I heard.

The foreign companies doing the work that Iraqi companies should be doing import their own cement, along with their slave labor.

Bremmer was there to build a Friedmanite test bed.

[Oliver]

Strikes me as an Ad Hom.

Sorry, Ollie, but I've got kids who were in service. Illegal orders are to be reported, ignored, and prosecuted. The guys who were in Nazi service in 1935 were a far different breed than they are now.

And comparing that young man on the video with a Nazi because he used a teleprompter or idiot cards is a smear. When I worked in radio and TV, I used them, and did so because it made it possible to get my message across with better clarity. Did that make me a Nazi?

I don't agree entirely with the young man on the video, but you have done more to make his point with your slam than anything else I've read on this board. If that was your goal, bravo. If not, perhaps you should reconsider your methods.


Well, I had to serve in the German Bundeswehr as well - but it doesn't
make a difference if you served in the 1930's or in the year 2007. The
guys back then didn't have any bad patriotism in mind, either.

However: If the guy in this clip - and it certainly looks like that - is
reading a tele-promter, the whole discussion is nothing but bull.

In other Words: Election-based patriotism my ass. I served as well.
[Added: And German soldiers aren't even allowed to make political statements. ;)]

[Oliver]

[Added: And German soldiers aren't even allowed to make political statements. ;)]


I should add that this particular policy is about: "You serve the Republic
of Germany, not a single party". A soldier serving his country for one party
over another is a fool - IMHO.

[Roadtoad]

Well, I had to serve in the German Bundeswehr as well - but it doesn't make a difference if you served in the 1930's or in the year 2007. The
guys back then didn't have any bad patriotism in mind, either.

So you served in the Bundswehr. Yip-dee sh**.

I worked with guys in the Bundeswehr. Honest, dedicated, honorable. At some point, someone in '35 should have figured out that what was going on was simply wrong.

That doesn't give you the right, however, to smear the men and women I knew in the 1980's in Wuerzburg, Ansbach, Frankfurt, and other places throughout Germany.

However: If the guy in this clip - and it certainly looks like that - is reading a tele-promter, the whole discussion is nothing but bull.

It's only bull to you. To someone who's done some work in front of a TV camera, it's making sure you've got everything you want to say clearly expressed before you commit it to video. You have no evidence that the soldier didn't write that himself. Chances are pretty even that he did.

Using a teleprompter is actually pretty smart when you want to make sure you get it right, regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

Keep going. You're continuing to make the point for McCain.

In other Words: Election-based patriotism my ass. I served as well.
[Added: And German soldiers aren't even allowed to make political statements. ;)]

Too bad. I knew a lot of German soldiers who were better informed than their American counterparts, and could tell us a thing or two.

As to your service, precisely how well did you serve given your penchant for smear?

This is not election based patriotism. This was one man's opinion. In this country, we're allowed to express what we believe. That's a strength. Don't like what the man had to say? Fine, but don't look to slander and defame those who serve(d) honorably, because there are many of them, including your fellow soldiers in Europe. I'm willing to be that when they go the polls to vote for who represents them in the Bundestag, they take the time to carefully consider the issues and challenges of the day, particularly the military threats the FRG faces, regardless of their role in NATO.

[Drysdale]

Tacticly, we are doing reasonably well inIraq because there are still NCOs and officers trained up under Clinton and Shinseki on active duty to babysit the rejects that the Bush policies have forced the services to start accepting.



This has got to be one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever seen.

Have anything to substantiate this ridiculous claim?

[SezMe]

So, which candidate is going to do the best job in rebuilding the damage GWB and crew did to us? Personally, I think the person who could do it isn't running. (No, I don't know who it is, but I'm tempted to write in Leiberman as a protest vote.) But I know it sure as hell ain't Obama, who hasn't a clue what a military force is for, which Rush Limbaugh (quoting MacArthur, one of the very few things he's gotten right) has described as "Killing people and breaking things."

Sorry. Thanks to the past few administrations, our military has gone from being a genuine force of destruction to our enemies to becoming a phony force of philianthropic fallacy.
Why do you think that is? Here is my thought. Bush has denigrated diplomacy as an international force, taken a you're-with-us-or-against-us attitude toward others and has glorified military services. He is joined in this generally by the right and enthusiastically by the hard-right and neocons. This attitude can be seen in the huge growth in the military budget.

In this environment, the military becomes the dominant, if not only, force that has power and influence. Thus, it increasingly has to take on non-traditional military roles that you rightly disdain.

I would suggest to you that Obama's approach to reemphasizing diplomatic and NGOs in the international arena will allow the military to return to their traditional job.

Let me put it another way. You say Obama doesn't have a clue as to what military force is for. Maybe. But I would assert that he does know what it is NOT for, namely for nation-building and diplomacy. So if you want to return the military to its usual killing/destroying role then vote for the guy who wants to remove all the other roles that have been assigned to it.

Sure, you can write in Lieberman - or Bozo the Clown for that matter. But why bother? Why bother to vote at all?

[WildCat]

Bremmer closed the cement plant and put it up for sale. No takers, last I heard.

The foreign companies doing the work that Iraqi companies should be doing import their own cement, along with their slave labor.

Bremmer was there to build a Friedmanite test bed.
http://www.iraqdevelopmentprogram.org/idp/news/new1744.htm

leftysergeant<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reality

Far, far away...

[SezMe]

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever seen.
I'm not lefty, but I'm not sure which claim you think is ridiculous. The one that the army has reduced its recruiting standards? The one that army middle management (so to speak) has been leaving in droves? Or some other point lefty made.

If you can be more specific, I'm sure lefty can respond to your request for evidence.

[mrbaracuda]

I worked with guys in the Bundeswehr. Honest, dedicated, honorable. At some point, someone in '35 should have figured out that what was going on was simply wrong.

That doesn't give you the right, however, to smear the men and women I knew in the 1980's in Wuerzburg, Ansbach, Frankfurt, and other places throughout Germany.

Decent enough? (http://c.imagehost.org/0378/2006-04-09_tacos.jpg) ;)

[Roadtoad]

Looks to be a taco short.

[leftysergeant]

http://www.iraqdevelopmentprogram.org/idp/news/new1744.htm

leftysergeant<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reality

Far, far away...Yeah, right, Bremmer's iron collar would not let them run their own factory, sop they have to lease it oput to foreign companies. Where's the Iraqi ownership?

You got something against a country not allowing foreign ownership of stuff they used to do for themselves? You want them to sell their rights of way to foreign toll-road operators, too?

Why did it take five years to get back on line? As i understand, it was operable when thug boy Bremmer shut it down.

[Cicero]

[Added: And German soldiers aren't even allowed to make political statements. ;)]

That's because the world is still recovering from the political statements of a certain Austrian Corporal that served in the Deutsche Armee.

[WildCat]

yeah, right, bremmer's iron collar would not let them run their own factory, sop they have to lease it oput to foreign companies. Where's the iraqi ownership?

You got something against a country not allowing foreign ownership of stuff they used to do for themselves? You want them to sell their rights of way to foreign toll-road operators, too?

Why did it take five years to get back on line? As i understand, it was operable when thug boy bremmer shut it down.
pds
qed

[leftysergeant]

pds
qed

Have you adopted the twoofers' Martin/Sweeney tactics now? Have you run out of logical support for your positions?

Have you caught McCain's dementia?

[Oliver]

That's because the world is still recovering from the political statements of a certain Austrian Corporal that served in the Deutsche Armee.


That might have been the origin of that rule - but todays intention
is to avoid splitting comrades into left- and right comrades. Something
the guy in the OP is doing pretty well.

In other Words: The Soldier in the OP is supposed to serve his country,
that's what he swore under oath. No matter what party leads, am I wrong?

Anyway: I still assume that he's reading the text he speaks. And if this
is the case, his words are meaningless by default.

[mrbaracuda]

Come 'round and join me when I delve into Oliver's mind for a second here!

Anyway: I still assume that he's reading the text he speaks. And if this
is the case, his words are meaningless by default.

How so?

[Oliver]

Come 'round and join me when I delve into Oliver's mind for a second here!

How so?


While you most probably didn't serve yourself - the guy in that
video is strolling* with his eyes as if he's reading the text. Take
a look yourself. And watch it in Full-Screen mode if your resolution
sucks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8&eurl=http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122974

*Translation: Sein Blick wandert hin und her als würde er ablesen,
ich frag mich nur ob du anständig genug bist, dieses zu bestätigen
- ohne wieder vom gesagten abzuweichen.

[Lonewulf]

I think he meant, how does this make his words meaningless?

Edited for civility.

In any language, please be civil.

[mrbaracuda]

Excuse me, but there are two things I have to ask:

- Why are you avoiding my question?
- Who are you translating.. your own text.. into.. German for?

Or could it be a matter of you sucking at English and easy comprehension?
Let me rephrase for the impaired:

Why are "his words [...] meaningless by default"?

[mrbaracuda]

I think he meant, how does this make his words meaningless?

In any language please be civil.

:jaw-dropp Easy, easy. We don't want to lose one of its kind, do we? :D

[Oliver]

Excuse me, but there are two things I have to ask:

- Why are you avoiding my question?
- Who are you translating.. your own text.. into.. German for?

Or could it be a matter of you sucking at English and easy comprehension?
Let me rephrase for the impaired:

Why are "his words [...] meaningless by default"?


Because a 7 year old child could read the text the soldier said.
It doesn't mean that these are his own words. Therefore it doesn't
matter what he said unless it's his own words.

You do understand such simple things, don't you?

[mrbaracuda]

No no no! Hold on. You said:

"I still assume that he's reading the text he speaks. And if this
is the case, his words are meaningless by default."

There's nothing about "It doesn't mean that these are his own words. Therefore it doesn't matter what he said unless it's his own words."


You do understand such simple things, don't you?

Oh don't worry about me, worry about yourself instead.

[Oliver]

No no no! Hold on. You said:

"I still assume that he's reading the text he speaks. And if this
is the case, his words are meaningless by default."

There's nothing about "It doesn't mean that these are his own words. Therefore it doesn't matter what he said unless it's his own words."

Oh don't worry about me, worry about yourself instead.


Ehm, it's the same thing. If it isn't his own opinion, the whole
Video is meaningless.

What exactly don't you understand? :confused:

[Lonewulf]

:jaw-dropp Easy, easy. We don't want to lose one of its kind, do we? :D

Ich habe keine Sorge, jemand wie er zu verlieren. ;)

[mrbaracuda]

What exactly don't you understand? :confused:

Your brilliant, flawless and even shining logic!

[Oliver]

Your brilliant, flawless and even shining logic!


Well, just ask. Your point is that the video is valid, even if a 7 year
old with an uniform would read the text [...someone else gave him], right? :rolleyes:

[mrbaracuda]

Don't you JAQ off now young man!
But no, that's not my point. Try putting your blinding logic to use.

[tarrou]

Say, where did Toke go?

http://www.syvnews.com/articles/2008/09/09/news/news03.txt

Actually BeAChooser, the subtle differences between the political parties here in Denmark, are not visible from waay over there in America. I am sure you will view all political parties in the Danish parliament as 'socialist'.

As for the video in the OP, it appears to be perfectly suited for propagandist purposes, appealing to emotion rather than reason. Clearly not suited for the skeptic mind..

[Roadtoad]

Ehm, it's the same thing. If it isn't his own opinion, the whole
Video is meaningless.

What exactly don't you understand? :confused:

How about if you explain how you know those aren't his own words. You have precisely ZERO evidence those are or are not his own words. Frankly, without that, your argument is meaningless, and is reduced to a miserable slur.

[Lonewulf]

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference. -- Thomas Jefferson.


OH CRAP! I just relied on someone else's words! Even though my opinion entirely corresponds with Thomas Jefferson's, that must mean that the words meant nothing! No!

[mrbaracuda]

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference. -- Thomas Jefferson.


OH CRAP! I just relied on someone else's words! Even though my opinion entirely corresponds with Thomas Jefferson's, that must mean that the words meant nothing! No!

Why, yes! By default even!

[Lonewulf]

Translate: Ich verlor das Internet. D:

[Damien Evans]

Ike was the one who, against FDR's wishes. did not take Berlin, and stopped the Allied advance at the Elbe. The West payed for that decision for the next 45 years.

MacArthur was a true combat veteran and military strategist. His plan captured the entire Korean Peninsula from the North.

Gorbie wanted to make peace with the U.S.? You mean when Reagan told him to tear down the Berlin Wall and he did just that 2 years later.

:eye-poppi

McCarthur was to a military strategist as McDonalds is to a high class restaurant. If he'd had his way, New Guinea would have fallen to the Japanese.

[Cicero]

:eye-poppi

McCarthur was to a military strategist as McDonalds is to a high class restaurant. If he'd had his way, New Guinea would have fallen to the Japanese.

First off, it's MacArthur.

MacArthur captured all the key positions in New Guinea. His plan did not call for a long campaign along the northern coast of New Guinea. He realized he needed to capture only a few strategic points in order to control the entire island. FDR considered the Pacific theater of war as secondary to the war in Europe, which meant that at no time was MacArthur given priority for equipment and replacements.

He also developed the Island hoping campaign that enabled air bases to be built for attacks on Japan.

He managed to turn the rout of U.N. forces by the North Koreans in 1950, that had them holding on by their teeth at Pusan, into a complete take over of the entire peninsula after the Inchon landing.

If MacDonald's is MacArthur, they would be getting 5 stars in the Michelin guide.

[WildCat]

First off, it's MacArthur.

MacArthur captured all the key positions in New Guinea. His plan did not call for a long campaign along the northern coast of New Guinea. He realized he needed to capture only a few strategic points in order to control the entire island. FDR considered the Pacific theater of war as secondary to the war in Europe, which meant that at no time was MacArthur given priority for equipment and replacements.

He also developed the Island hoping campaign that enabled air bases to be built for attacks on Japan.

He managed to turn the rout of U.N. forces by the North Koreans in 1950, that had them holding on by their teeth at Pusan, into a complete take over of the entire peninsula after the Inchon landing.

If MacDonald's is MacArthur, they would be getting 5 stars in the Michelin guide.
And let's not forget how critical he was in rebuilding Japan after the war.

[Damien Evans]

First off, it's MacArthur.

MacArthur captured all the key positions in New Guinea. His plan did not call for a long campaign along the northern coast of New Guinea. He realized he needed to capture only a few strategic points in order to control the entire island. FDR considered the Pacific theater of war as secondary to the war in Europe, which meant that at no time was MacArthur given priority for equipment and replacements.

He also developed the Island hoping campaign that enabled air bases to be built for attacks on Japan.

He managed to turn the rout of U.N. forces by the North Koreans in 1950, that had them holding on by their teeth at Pusan, into a complete take over of the entire peninsula after the Inchon landing.

If MacDonald's is MacArthur, they would be getting 5 stars in the Michelin guide.

You really don't know anything about the New Guinea Campaign, do you? If the Australians on the kokoda trail had done what MacArthur wanted them to then Port Moresby would have been eating sushi in 1942. Ordering a battalion strength unit to frontally attack a whole division? Madness, pure madness. We can only be thankful that brigadier Potts did not follow those insane orders, and instead continued his excellent fighting retreat.And don't even try to talk about Buna, Gona and Sanananda. The Japanese had 6 times as any troops there as Mac claimed they did, the whole thing was a tactical and strategic mess and we wound up having to send in part time militiamen to rescue the situation at Gona, then we had to re-send in just recalled troops to Buna because the Americans couldn't handle it!