600 enlisted cheered Bush

[American]

:usa:
It's a given that officers would cheer, but these were mostly enlisted men and women.

Thanksgiving dinner (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/11/iraq-031127-afps01.htm)

Liberals, do us a favor when the troops return-- go ahead and spit on them. See what happens. Seriously, be yourself and hate them for who they are- proud warriors.

When you do, it won't be the same ugly scene as 30 years ago when your dim-headed parents were spitting at our vets. This time around, you know you will get something back for it, something so fast you won't see it coming. Not from the soldiers, but from the buddies and good citizens at their side.

:uk: :au: :den:
Forty-eight countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, including:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

[Zep]

Originally posted by American
:usa:
It's a given that officers would cheer, but these were mostly enlisted men and women.

Are you implying that those of us expressing our opposition to the US intervention in Iraq would automatically expect that the US enlisted troops, as opposed to the officers, would somehow express derision for their commander-in-chief? Or that if they DID cheer him that we would think that this is wrong somehow? I don't follow your thinking... Or are you just inventing strawmen again?

Liberals, do us a favor when the troops return-- go ahead and spit on them. See what happens. Seriously, be yourself and hate them for who they are- proud warriors.

Well, it does seem that you are inventing strawmen. Perhaps you might like to point out ANYWHERE where liberals or Liberals or "commies" or any of the other dastardly groups you loathe have indicated any desire or instruction to "spit on the returning troops." No? How about the same groups expressing their concern and pride for their troops? That's a bit easier, isn't it...

When you do, it won't be the same ugly scene as 30 years ago when your dim-headed parents were spitting at our vets. This time around, you know you will get something back for it, something so fast you won't see it coming. Not from the soldiers, but from the buddies and good citizens at their side.

Hey, siddown, pal! Some of those "dim-headed parents" could well have been yours. And if you mean VIETNAM then say it out loud and clear instead of just inferring it, OK?

:uk: :au: :den:
Forty-eight countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, including:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

Gee, that sounds like the whole United Nations already. Wait a sec...! I thought Bush didn't like the UN because they voted in opposition to the US invasion of Iraq earlier this year.

Q1: So what changed Bush's mind all of a sudden? An attack of reality?

Q2: How many of the above countries have got troops on the ground in Iraq?

Q3: Who is in charge of them all? Is ANYONE in charge of them all?

[The Fool]

American...
You show the flags of GB Australia and Denmark?? I didn't realise the danes were so heavily involved..... Anyway....Its good to see you showing Solidarity .

[Suddenly]

Thing is... I could swear that there are a lot more enlisted than 600. If only 600 were cheering that isn't much of a percentage. Especially when some of them may have just been being polite...

I guess while the liberals are spitting on the troops the conservatives will be out stealing from poor people when they aren't at a KKK rally. Is that how the world works?

[Mr Manifesto]

Your question for 1 point... How many of the above countries can American point to on a map?

(some major players in that list... Who wouldn't want to make sure they're on the same team as the Marshall Islands and the Dominican Republic?)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Your question for 1 point... How many of the above countries can American point to on a map?

(some major players in that list... Who wouldn't want to make sure they're on the same team as the Marshall Islands and the Dominican Republic?)

Slightly off-topic but a question for you; what makes the involvement of France and Germany so important that with out them USA is the only country in the process against "The World's" wishes?

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by American
:usa:
It's a given that officers would cheer, but these were mostly enlisted men and women.

Thanksgiving dinner (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/11/iraq-031127-afps01.htm)


This thread is so stupid, I don't even know where to begin. Yeah, those troops who see their friends die, those citizens who have their friends/family die, those Iraqis who die, those people who have lost what little hope they had for a democratic government, the 3/4 of the U.S. voting population who did not vote for Bush truly care that Bush was in Iraq for 2 and 1/2 hours.

What you think about the war aside... it is very disrespectful to accuse a liberal of 'spiting on troops' metaphorically or not. Aren't some troops who have die and will die in Iraq liberal?



Researchers from Oxford Research International, a private organisation affiliated with Oxford University worked alongside researchers from Baghdad and Kirkuk University to produce the most widespread survey of Iraqi public opinion since the invasion of Iraq.

A team of 46 researchers interviewed 3,244 Iraqis across the country over the age of 15, the overwhelming majority of whom said that they were happy that Saddam Hussein had been removed, but not in the way that he was removed.

Democracy

Dr Christoph Sahm, Director of Oxford Research International told Aljazeera.net that Iraqis were thirsty for democracy, but not the model that the US is keen for Iraq to follow.

"The people have a strong commitment to democracy, but not necessarily in the western sense. Iraqi people have a clear idea of how they want their country to be run, and that's in a fair way where people have a choice and where the country is run by the people for the people."

Dr Sahm told Aljazeera.net that many policy makers were concerned that Iraqis would want to establish an Islamic government, similar to the government in neighbouring Iran. But the results of the survey revealed this fear to be unfounded.

" Iraq is a secular country and even though 70% of Iraqi's surveyed said that they had confidence in the country's religious leaders, the overwhelming majority were not interested in the establishment of a Islamic state."

Media

Dr Sahm criticised media coverage relating to Iraq, saying that the country was often painted in an untrue light perpetuating stereotypes of Muslims and Arabs.

Dr Sahm told Aljazeera.net that he hoped the findings of the survey would help the media to understand Iraqi people better.

"There was a fear factor that came through a lot in media coverage relating to the war. Many journalists held the view that Iraq was a country at rock bottom, and that these crazy Iraqi Arabs would elect another bunch of crazy Muslims to represent them on the governmental level."

Lack of trust

Among those Iraqis surveyed 73% said that they lacked trust in the US occupiers, and 73% had a similar lack of trust in the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), led by Paul Bremer.

Over half of those surveyed said there was no room for the CPA in any future Iraqi government and the establishment of security in the country was their main concern.

The findings of the survey indicate that the US led occupation forces currently in control of Iraq are failing to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis nearly nine months after the US-led invasion of the country.

"The very troops which liberated Iraqis from Saddam are the most mistrusted in Iraq today", says Dr Sahm.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3AA19C1A-57F8-4716-B9B1-894AACE46614.htm

[fishbob]

Liberals, do us a favor when the troops return-- go ahead and spit on them. See what happens. Seriously, be yourself and hate them for who they are- proud warriors. Twerp.

[The Don]

Let us examine the coalition of the billing shall we ?

The following aren't providing any troops or other military support :

Afghanistan, Angola, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary,Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania , Macedonia , Marshall Islands , Micronesia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan

How does one overfly Honduras on the way from the U.S. to Iraq ?

Many of these nations have give their support freely and completely in order to obtain favourable trading relations with the U.S. (Angolan Oil for example)

Of the remaining countries, Bulgaria, Czech republic, Romania, Ukraine and providing NBC experts. There isn't any NBC to be found.


If we're using the list to compare the size of our "Nixons", the coalition misses the following minor countries

France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Canada and about 150 others representing 90(ish) percent of the world's population.



Oh, and the Solomon Islanders may not be that willing
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3300727&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

[Jon_in_london]

600 septics cheering an idiot?

Thats not so rare, look at this example:

http://www.media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=microsoftdance.mpg

[Crossbow]

There are about 100,000 enlisted troops in Iraq right now,
so finding 600 of them that would be enthused at a visit from the president would not be terribly difficult to arrange.

At least that is the way these sorts of things worked when I was in the military.

:rolleyes:

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Slightly off-topic but a question for you; what makes the involvement of France and Germany so important that with out them USA is the only country in the process against "The World's" wishes?

Let me rewrite your question and thereby turning it into another question: what makes the involvement of France and Germany (and Russia and China) so important that with out them USA is having a pretty damned hard time stopping its "best trained and equipped soldiers" getting killed on a daily basis by a bunch of shoe-less illiterate camel jockeys?

Perhaps if that unelected talking chimpanzee you refer to as 'President' had bothered to get France, Germany, Russia and China on side instead of insulting and alienating them there wouldnt be quite so many dead, maimed and crippled US soldiers.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by The Don
Let us examine the coalition of the billing shall we ?

The following aren't providing any troops or other military support :

Afghanistan, Angola, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary,Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania , Macedonia , Marshall Islands , Micronesia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan

How does one overfly Honduras on the way from the U.S. to Iraq ?

Many of these nations have give their support freely and completely in order to obtain favourable trading relations with the U.S. (Angolan Oil for example)

Of the remaining countries, Bulgaria, Czech republic, Romania, Ukraine and providing NBC experts. There isn't any NBC to be found.


If we're using the list to compare the size of our "Nixons", the coalition misses the following minor countries

France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Canada and about 150 others representing 90(ish) percent of the world's population.



Oh, and the Solomon Islanders may not be that willing
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3300727&thesection=news&thesubsection=world


Actually the coalition amounts to something like 1.23 billion people, far more then just 10 percent of the world's population.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030327-10.html

http://www.areporter.com/sys-tmpl/thecoalitionofthewilling/


And though it is true very few countries have given us direct military support, many have given us much political and indirect military support.


Nature of support
The criteria for inclusion in the coalition, as defined by the White House, are very broad, including mere political support.
Combat troops

* United States - hundreds of thousands of troops, weaponry, money, etc.
* Britain - 45,000 troops, aircraft, tanks
* Australia - about 2,000 personnel: a squadron of F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets, three ships, 150 special forces troops, and other weaponry. See Australian contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.
* Denmark - submarine & warship, and a medical team
* Poland - 54 combat troops, 74-member chemical decontamination team, supply ship with 56 sailors; total troops - up to 200; See Polish contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.
* Iraqi Kurdish peshmergas militia - 50,000+

Note: While the Government of Canada does not support the invasion of Iraq without United Nations approval, Canada has military personnel serving under the U.S. command in Iraq, provides six hi-tech frigate escorts for U.S. & British ships in the Gulf, and numerous other technical services. U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, stated that Canada in fact is providing more support that virtually all other members of the "Coalition of the Willing".

Military support (no combat troops)

* Kuwait - hosts invasion force
* Qatar - hosts U.S. Central Command regional headquarters
* South Korea - 700 non-combat troops (However, the Parliament vote to provide such troops continues to be postponed)
* Japan - refueling Canadian and Greek warships in the Arabian Sea

Chemical, biological, and nuclear specialists

* Bulgaria - 150 specialists (and airspace use, bases, use of Black Sea port)
* Slovakia - 69 anti-chemical warfare specialists in Kuwait
* Czech Republic - sent 400 anti-chemical warfare specialists to Kuwait (and airspace use)
* Romania (and airspace use)
* Spain - 900 non-combat troops for medical support vessel for treatment of contamination
* Ukraine - 532-man 19th Army Battalion deployed to Kuwait, but will not enter Iraq

Defense

* Netherlands - three MIM-104 Patriot missile batteries and 360 soldiers for defense of Turkey

Use of bases and airspace

* Ethiopia
* Eritrea - use of Red Sea port of Assab
* Hungary (hosts U.S. base)
* Italy (not for direct military attacks)
* Portugal - Lajes Field air base in Azores

Airspace use

* Albania
* Azerbaijan
* Georgia (possibly airfields)
* Lithuania
* Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
* Turkey (after failed negotiations to permit troop deployment)

Political support only

* Afghanistan
* Colombia
* Dominican Republic
* El Salvador
* Honduras
* Iceland (has no military)
* Japan
* Latvia (may deploy some troops)
* Marshall Islands
* Micronesia (has no military)
* Mongolia
* Nicaragua
* Palau (has no military)
* Philippines
* Rwanda
* Singapore
* Uganda
* Uzbekistan




http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq#Invasion_coalition


Lastly though there are 515 confirmed coalition casualties: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/


I would like to remind people of two things. One: Under Saddam over 250,000 were killed directly, and 400,000 indirectly.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030404-1.html


And that we lose an estimated 30,000 people a year do to firearms injuries in the US.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe


Considering that, we do then lose almost 60 times as many americans in the US by firearms then we have so far in Iraq.


And that we in the US have an estimated

[Jon_in_london]

Lastly though there are 515 confirmed coalition casualties:

I would like to remind people of two things. One: Under Saddam over 250,000 were killed directly, and 400,000 indirectly.

And that we lose an estimated 30,000 people a year do to firearms injuries in the US.

Considering that, we do then lose almost 60 times as many americans in the US by firearms then we have so far in Iraq.

And that we in the US have an estimated


Deaths unde Saddam took place over the course of several decades, not 6 months. And you lot arent even keeping track of how many Iraqis are killed directly or indirectly as a result of the US led invasion and subsequent appalling mishandling of the situation.

There are 150,000 US troops in Iraq at the most. Much less than 1/60th of the population of the US so your analysis is terminally flawed and quite transparent as a clumsy, ham-fisted stats bodging. While that kind of thing might work on the average Republican voting inbred trailer park trash, its not going to convince anyone else.

You have an estimated what?

[The Don]

I stand corrected

Afghanistan 28.7
Albania 3.6
Angola 10.8
Australia 19.7
Azerbaijan 7.8
Bulgaria 7.5
Colombia 41.7
Costa Rica 3.9
Czech Republic 10.2
Denmark 5.4
Dominican Republic 8.7
El Salvador 6.5
Eritrea 4.3
Estonia 1.4
Ethiopia 66.6
Georgia 4.9
Honduras 6.7
Hungary 10.0
Iceland 0.3
Italy 58.0
Japan 127.2
Kuwait 2.2
Latvia 2.3
Lithuania 3.6
Macedonia 2.1
Marshall Islands 0.1
Micronesia 0.1
Mongolia 2.7
Netherlands 16.2
Nicaragua 5.1
Palau 0.1
Panama 3.0
Philippines 84.6
Poland 38.6
Portugal 10.1
Romania 22.2
Rwanda 7.8
Singapore 4.6
Slovakia 5.4
Solomon Islands 0.5
South Korea 48.2
Spain 40.2
Turkey 68.1
Uganda 25.6
Ukraine 48.1
United Kingdom 60.1
United States 290.3
Uzbekistan 26.0
Coalition of the billing 1251.8
World 6320.3


The billing account for a shade under 20% of the world population, and those taking an active part around 5%


Whichever way you cut it, it's still a minority of the overall world population. When you figure in levels of support in some of those countries as well

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Slightly off-topic but a question for you; what makes the involvement of France and Germany so important that with out them USA is the only country in the process against "The World's" wishes?

And Canada. And China. And Russia.

So... Out of the eight G8 superpowers, two support the US. These super powers control most of the world's economic wealth. The other countries are really just non-entities. And, yes, I include Australia in that statement.

[The Don]

Underestimate Iceland, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and the Solomon Islands at your peril :D

or perhaps don't fail to misunderestimate them as GWB would say

[DialecticMaterialist]

The billing account for a shade under 20% of the world population, and those taking an active part around 5%


Whichever way you cut it, it's still a minority of the overall world population. When you figure in levels of support in some of those countries as well [/B]

That is correct. However the rest of the world does not necessarily oppose us.


A list of countries among the willing include, accurate as of March 28, 2003, (1991 participants are in italics): Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain [1], Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica [2], Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, United Kingdom, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait [3], Latvia, Lithuania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau [4], the Philippines, Poland, Portugal (but parliament may censure the PM), Qatar [5], Romania [6], Rwanda, Slovakia, South Korea (but Parliament won't vote on whether to send troops), Spain, Republic of China (on Taiwan), Turkey, Uganda, the United States, Uzbekistan. Total: 37 confirmed; 10 not confirmed.

Nations unwilling include (1991 participants are in italics): Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada (but some Canadian troops on exchange programs are involved)[7], Cape Verde, People's Republic of China, Comoros [8], Croatia (but is providing airspace), Cuba, the Czech Republic (but is supplying anti-chemical specialists), Djibouti [9], Ecuador, Egypt [10], France, Germany (airspace use), Greece (airspace use), Guinea-Bissau, India, Iran, Iraq, Jordan [11], Lebanon [12], Malaysia, Mauritania [13], Morocco [14], Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway (but will provide humanitarian aid), Oman [15], Pakistan, Palestinian Authority [16], Russia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia [17], Slovenia (providing air space), Solomon Islands [18][19], Somalia [20], Sri Lanka, Sweden (but will provide humanitarian aid), Switzerland, Sudan [21], Syria [22], Tunisia [23], Ukraine (providing anti-chemical weapon troops to Kuwait), United Arab Emirates [24], the Vatican, Venezuela, Yemen [25], Zimbabwe. Total: 57 confirmed.

Nations declared neutral or with a non-aggressive stance: Ireland (declared neutrality), Singapore (declared itself a member of the 'coalition for the immediate disarmament of Iraq,' not the 'coalition of the willing'), Thailand (declared neutrality) Total: 3 confirmed.

Nations that have not announced a stance or whose intentions are yet unclear (1991 participants are in italics): Andorra, Argentina, Austria, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia, Botswana, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Chechnya, Chile, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland (but see: Anneli Jäätteenmäki), Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, the Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico (flip flopping), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of the Congo, Saint Kitts, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Sahara, Zambia. Total: 93




http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq

[headscratcher4]

Troops, in most instances, almost always cheer the President...They cheered Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ford & Carter. They cheered Bill Clinton (I was there in one instance). It is what troops do. It is what commanders want them to do. And, I suspect that it would be, if you were on the ground in Iraq, pretty cool to see the President show up.

However, troops cheering the President, or even trying to figure out what Azerbijan contributes to this war (in terms of population and use of airspace) really does little to get to the heart of the problem with this war....

Did Saddam have weapons of Mass distruction? To date, the answer remains "no" -- though I am willing to wait for more conclusive evidence.

Could Saddam have attacked the United States? THe answer seems to be a more difinitive "no".

Was Saddam in bed with Al Qeda? The answer seem to be "no" and every time Bush (or one of his chicken-hawk flunkies asserts it) they have to back off the statement publically.

Was Saddam close to a nuclear device? No.

Was Saddam a murderous barbarian to his own people? Yes -- but, how is this different than many countries on the planet...including some in the list of coalition allies?

Was the US prepared to manage a post-Saddam Iraq?
The answer would appear to be "no"

and on and on....

When Bush started this war, even as a "liberal" I was prepared to support it. I couldn't believe that the Administration didn't know more than I did, or that they would publically make claims about Saddam's capabilities that they couldn't justify or support.

This has been a smoke and mirrors opperation. Not from our troops on the ground, who I believe are doing well in a difficult situation that is not of their making. I am proud of our troops and believe that no other (or few) armies would behave half so well under these kinds of difficult circumstances.

But, cheering troops do not get away from the fact that this Administration has created a fantasy about the Saddam threat that it has yet to justify or prove.

The fact that Bush went to Iraq is great. The fact that he had to do it in secret, and could only stay two hours, and that he met no Iraqis suggests that something is very wrong...both with policy and with implementation. This is not the troops fault...it lies on higher shoulders.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by American
:usa:

Liberals, do us a favor when the troops return-- go ahead and spit on them. See what happens. Seriously, be yourself and hate them for who they are- proud warriors.



Im a liberal in a liberal state. The last Iraiq troop who came home, well I wasnt able to spit on him. He was in a coffin and the streets were lined wh people paying their respects. Of course looking at his fatherless children cry I know now more than ever that this Iraq thing is f-uped.



ps: Denmark sent a submarine? What good is that?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by The Don
Underestimate Iceland, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and the Solomon Islands at your peril :D

or perhaps don't fail to misunderestimate them as GWB would say

OMG... I didn't notice Iceland was on the list! That's where Bjork comes from, isn't it? Gawd, don't unleash her on me! I take it back... I TAKE IT ALL BACK!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tmy

ps: Denmark sent a submarine? What good is that?

Either minesweeping or trying to intercept oil smugglers, I'd imagine. Although, using a sub to intercept an oil cruiser sounds an awful lot like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

[Jon_in_london]

Isnt Palau a type of rice?

[Landis]

I find it mind bogling that Bush keeps going to military bases and getting such a rousing reception. After all, he's a ChickenHawk who is sending these young enlisted men to die when he himself went AWOL at a time of need. I'm surprised they don't shoot him!! I understand why the Generals love him, after all he has committed over $400 billion dollars to defense spending. Great news for the Generals, but the enlisted men get jack and I haven't heard of any Generals dieing in Iraq yet.

Isn't AWOL a criminal offense? Why haven't they arrested GW and put him in the brig, or is there a time limit on that?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Landis
I'm surprised they don't shoot him!! I understand why the Generals love him, after all he has committed over $400 billion dollars to defense spending. Great news for the Generals, but the enlisted men get jack Do you know why the military recruits men as young as they possibly can? Aside from the obvious physical benefit?

edited to add and answer
Because people are easier to mold when they are younger. They are trained to respect the chain of command and not question orders.

[American]

Originally posted by Landis
I find it mind bogling that Bush keeps going to military bases and getting such a rousing reception. .... I'm surprised they don't shoot him!!

Then you don't know who those individuals are as human beings. It has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with how one lives and makes decisions (or doesn't), and why the difficult path is often the best choice one can make.

That you really think they might shoot him and not love to shake his hand shows how far your world has sunk into Disneyland, along with Michael Jackson, Michael Moore, and all the rest.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by American


Then you don't know who those individuals are as human beings. It has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with how one lives and makes decisions (or doesn't), and why the difficult path is often the best choice one can make.

That you really think they might shoot him and not love to shake his hand shows how far your world has sunk into Disneyland, along with Michael Jackson, Michael Moore, and all the rest.

: points: You have some dribble on your chin, there.

[Tmy]

Of course they cheered him. HES THERE BOSS!!! They have to. Hell being in the military they can getin trouble for not cheering him. Plus they were star struck. I cheer for my boss even though I thik hes a fudge-up.

What do you think all these guys are happy about being Iraq. Mostof them are reservists. Now theyre on the other side of the planet away from familes and jobs. THese guys signed up for some collge money or soem benefits. They didnt expect this.

[American]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


: points: You have some dribble on your chin, there.


Get out of my country.

[American]

Originally posted by Tmy

THese guys signed up for some collge money or soem benefits. They didnt expect this.


No, they signed up to win wars and nothing else.

[Landis]

Originally posted by American


That you really think they might shoot him and not love to shake his hand shows how far your world has sunk into Disneyland, along with Michael Jackson, Michael Moore, and all the rest.

I was exaggerating to make a point, which seems to have flown over your head. Basically, Bush would not risk his life for his country in Vietnam and yet he will send these young men to risk theirs. (his admin also tried to cut their combat pay but that's digressing). And will someone please tell me why Bush is not being punished for being AWOL.

And American, I think my world (which doesn't include Michael Jackson or Michael Moore) is far more based in reality than yours.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by American



No, they signed up to win wars and nothing else.

What!?!? Please, I bet over 90% of the soilders joined prior to 911 when we were in peaceful times. These guys arent Rambo wannabees just looking to fight.

[headscratcher4]

How are Michael More and Michael Jackson comparable...one is a politicaly comentator/showman who is in the Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Franken world...you can agree or disagree, but he is talking about policy and its effects...

The other is a strange man/pop-singer who may be guilty of child abuse/molestation (so far, only accused...and accusation is not conviction), not very political (so far as I can tell).

Why put them in the same catagory? What is your point of putting them in the same catagory? Has Michael Moore been accused of child molestation? Is he a pop singer?

Does Michael Jackson make subversive political documentaries?

Is it just that you don't like either and so in your mind, in some warped way, this comparison makes sense?

[Zep]

Originally posted by American
Get out of my country. (Blinker time for American?) We ARE out of your country. And so are the troops that cheered The Shrub.

Y'know, maybe they cheered because they thought he had come to tell them they could go home now... Ever consider that?

[TillEulenspiegel]

How many people cheered Saddam...or worse?
The fact that the President of the United States visited the troops in that god forsaken country, gave a brief respite to thier miserible existance and does not mean that they , agree with his policies, think that the reasons he sent them to war are valid, the course or conduct and policey is reason enough to keep them in harms way...................................

The only thing it meant is that they had a bit of home , a touch of George II, the current god of war and thier master , and nothing else. A viset from joey Hetherton and Bob Hope would have been met with less awe prahaps but would provide more lasting and enjoyable entertainment and at least we know Bob Hope is SUPPOSED to be a clown.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Landis
I find it mind bogling that Bush keeps going to military bases and getting such a rousing reception. After all, he's a ChickenHawk who is sending these young enlisted men to die when he himself went AWOL at a time of need. I'm surprised they don't shoot him!!

Calling Mr. Peabody.. calling Mr. Peabody.. where's the outrage here? Such an ignorant, un-American comment. What a disgrace...

[BTox]

Originally posted by Landis


I was exaggerating to make a point, which seems to have flown over your head. Basically, Bush would not risk his life for his country in Vietnam and yet he will send these young men to risk theirs.

Same goes for Clinton. Did you feel the same during his admin when he sent U.S. soldiers into harm's way?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
A viset from joey Hetherton and Bob Hope would have been met with less awe prahaps but would provide more lasting and enjoyable entertainment and at least we know Bob Hope is SUPPOSED to be a clown.
I disagree, a visit from Bob Hope would be met w/ INCREDIBLE awe. :p

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by BTox


Calling Mr. Peabody.. calling Mr. Peabody.. where's the outrage here? Such an ignorant, un-American comment. What a disgrace...

You mean... He's not a chickenhawk who went AWOL?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by American



Get out of my country.

There's your geography skills shining through again.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


You mean... He's not a chickenhawk who went AWOL?

You're Mr. Peabody? You look more like Sherman...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


: points: You have some dribble on your chin, there.

I suppose its better than what you have on yours. ;) :D

[Landis]

Originally posted by BTox


Same goes for Clinton. Did you feel the same during his admin when he sent U.S. soldiers into harm's way?

Clinton didn't go AWOL! Why do you and American keep missing the point. I am not anti-military or against our troops. I am saying that for the average enlisted man it is a disgrace to be lead by a man who was derelict in his military duty when he was in the military. This seems to send a message to me that it is okay for anyone who wants to go AWOL to go AWOL, after all if the Commander in Chief did it without any penalty why should the average enlisted soldier be punished?? Don't you guys see the discrepancy??

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by BTox


Same goes for Clinton. Did you feel the same during his admin when he sent U.S. soldiers into harm's way?

WHile I don't think the analogy holds...Bush was actively in the military reserves and than just sort of disapered...Clinton was never in the service but may have made some fast moves/dancing to keep out of the service.

However, given how much Clinton is hated by the GOP and Bushies, is that the standard you want to set. Bush ran, in part, on a platform that he had more integrity than Clinton. So here, you are suggesting that whatever low standard Clinton might have set regaring his own service or avoidence of service, justifies Bush's lack of having to explain his own AOWL status. An odd argument, I think.

[Evolver]

This morning's local news said that the soldiers didn't get to eat the turkey that The Turkey held up for the photo op. Apparently all the enlisted got was some gray steamed turkey rations.

The nerve of that guy.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Landis


Clinton didn't go AWOL! Why do you and American keep missing the point. I am not anti-military or against our troops. I am saying that for the average enlisted man it is a disgrace to be lead by a man who was derelict in his military duty when he was in the military. This seems to send a message to me that it is okay for anyone who wants to go AWOL to go AWOL, after all if the Commander in Chief did it without any penalty why should the average enlisted soldier be punished?? Don't you guys see the discrepancy??

That's right, Clinton was never in the military, was he? He shirked it totally. At least Bush served 4-5 years. Sheesh, what's so hard about this?

[BTox]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
However, given how much Clinton is hated by the GOP and Bushies, is that the standard you want to set. Bush ran, in part, on a platform that he had more integrity than Clinton. So here, you are suggesting that whatever low standard Clinton might have set regaring his own service or avoidence of service, justifies Bush's lack of having to explain his own AOWL status. An odd argument, I think.

No, the argument is silly. I was yanking that other guy's chain who seems to know (read hope) that enlisted men hate Bush because of whatever happened near the end of his NG service. I really don't think it's relevant what either Bush or Clinton did or did not do 30 years ago. Now regarding integrity, the idea you seem to be missing is more integrity in the office of the Presidency, not in their distant past. Last time I checked, there were only 2 U.S. Presidents ever impeached. Clinton was one of them.

[American]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

There's your geography skills shining through again.

Oh. Then stay out of it.

Originally posted by Tmy

What!?!? Please, I bet over 90% of the soilders joined prior to 911 when we were in peaceful times. These guys arent Rambo wannabees just looking to fight.

Then they signed up to die, if that's the case.

Maybe they were fooled by the glam and all the goodies, but their single objective is to win wars. If they didn't know it then, they do now.

You act like being a surgeon is about driving nice cars and owning a big house. Aw, I didn't sign up to do operations! I didn't know I'd have to work 12 hours a day and have no family or personal life!

Originally posted by Landis
I understand why the Generals love him, after all he has committed over $400 billion dollars to defense spending. Great news for the Generals, but the enlisted men get jack and I haven't heard of any Generals dieing in Iraq yet.

So it's all satan's generals and stupid enlisted people who are dumb enough to believe in Bush, or they were cheering because you have to cheer your boss...

And what about the lieutenants, captains, and other officers. What does their judgement count for? Are they half-way between light and darkness? Stuck between Bush's generals and the sheep they command?

The point of this thread is that the left can't reconcile the fact that the soldiers not only need to believe in the mission in order to win, but also that they do believe in it.

Therefore, they must be either stupid or evil in your view. You won't bring the issue to a head (it takes me to do it!), because you know what people thought of you the last time you called them baby-killers to their faces. I encourage you to be yourself and show the contempt you have for who they are. More likely you'll ignore the issue and go back to packing your bowl or whatever you do for fun.

Originally posted by Evolver
This morning's local news said that the soldiers didn't get to eat the turkey that The Turkey held up for the photo op. Apparently all the enlisted got was some gray steamed turkey rations.

The nerve of that guy.

He is a b@stard. I'll give you that. That's why we love him.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Deaths unde Saddam took place over the course of several decades, not 6 months. And you lot arent even keeping track of how many Iraqis are killed directly or indirectly as a result of the US led invasion and subsequent appalling mishandling of the situation.

There are 150,000 US troops in Iraq at the most. Much less than 1/60th of the population of the US so your analysis is terminally flawed and quite transparent as a clumsy, ham-fisted stats bodging. While that kind of thing might work on the average Republican voting inbred trailer park trash, its not going to convince anyone else.



Irrelevant the fact is hundreds of thousands died and millions had nothing to look forward to but a dictatorship, whether this was over decades or a year wouldn't matter to you if you were living there. In any event then, those killed in the war are but a fraction to those killed under Saddam and those saved (in terms of both their actual life and quality of life) by our intervention.


Second, I am not controlling for population because again that is irrelevant. I am simply comparing loss of life there with here in order to point out how the reaction of positing those deaths as some sort of serious crisis is pure hyperbole. Sure it is a great tragedy that anyone has to die, but it is hardly a military disaster or something akin to Vietnam. I was thus just putting the deaths into a broader context for proper examination.

Sure 500 deaths looks huge in a vaccuum, but compared to how much life is lost in the US a year anyways, it seems far less impressive.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by BTox
Calling Mr. Peabody.. calling Mr. Peabody..You rang? ;)..where's the outrage here? Such an ignorant, un-American comment. What a disgrace... Well, let's look at his comment:Originally posted by Landis
I find it mind bogling that Bush keeps going to military bases and getting such a rousing reception. After all, he's a ChickenHawk who is sending these young enlisted men to die when he himself went AWOL at a time of need. I'm surprised they don't shoot him!!"I'm surprised they don't shoot him!!" Hey, it's over the top, I'll give you that. But the comment is basically an observation on their past behavior. Contrast it with yours (from the thread "President Bush Visits Baghdad!"):Originally posted by BTox
Wow, Hillary is really brave. She'd be in more danger from the U.S. military than any terrorists in Iraq.Your tense is future; yours is not an observation of what did or did not occur, but speculation (though the distinction is narrow).

Look, my issue with your comment had nothing to do with Mrs. Clinton. I simply took offense at your presumption that our soldiers (as some collective body, no less) would wish harm upon a current senator and former First Lady. The apology I believed you should have given was not for HC's benefit but to show respect for the military's honor.

All that being said, since Mr. Bush's current position supercedes his former military rank (and we're talking about the speculative behavior of uniformed troops anyway), I concede that Landis' comment above is as similarly disrespectful as yours. Apologies from both of you would be stand-up.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
What you think about the war aside... it is very disrespectful to accuse a liberal of 'spiting on troops' metaphorically or not. Aren't some troops who have die and will die in Iraq liberal?

While I do not share the rah-rah tone of this thread, it is important to point out that 30 years ago, this did happen. There was a great deal of public shame over that, the perception that the most abuse was hurled upon the people who were the least able to resist the policies.

During the 1991 Gulf War (or phase of the Gulf War, depending on your inclinations), people made it a point to wear yellow ribbons and support the troops, and they made it clear that this did not mean that they supported the war.

I've seen very little of this kind of thing this time around, save for a few "Support Our Troops/No Blood For Oil" bumper stickers.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by epepke


While I do not share the rah-rah tone of this thread, it is important to point out that 30 years ago, this did happen. There was a great deal of public shame over that, the perception that the most abuse was hurled upon the people who were the least able to resist the policies.

During the 1991 Gulf War (or phase of the Gulf War, depending on your inclinations), people made it a point to wear yellow ribbons and support the troops, and they made it clear that this did not mean that they supported the war.

I've seen very little of this kind of thing this time around, save for a few "Support Our Troops/No Blood For Oil" bumper stickers.

Yes, the far left showed a lot of disrespect for Vietnam vets. But in a way, isn't it worse for the far right (Bush) to cut veteran's benefits? That probably does more damage than spitting on them.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by WildCat

I disagree, a visit from Bob Hope would be met w/ INCREDIBLE awe. :p
hehe well maybe but don't forget Joey...she was a hot number in her day =)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Evolver
But in a way, isn't it worse for the far right (Bush) to cut veteran's benefits? That probably does more damage than spitting on them.

Yes, this is true. Whatever one's political views, soldiers are asked to risk dying on command and are trained in such a way that it damages them. They are also paid very little. They deserve compensation.

It is also worth pointing out that cutting veteran's benefits was also a left-wing cause celebre. Especially during the 1980's, a lot of feminists considered them patriarchal perks.

[headscratcher4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57870-2003Dec11.html

They may have been cheering, but like the Turkey it may have been more about show than substance....and, not everyone was cheering (or got to eat).