|
vivalargo
Nov 20, 2005, 12:57 AM
Post #201 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
In reply to: One can only wonder WTF was going through Bush's mind when he declared "Mission Accomplished" ????
What mission? What the hell is it? Anyone? And I'm not good with any silly blather about containing terrorism and so forth. Why are we really and truly there righ now, as I type these words??
JL
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Nov 20, 2005, 1:04 AM
Post #202 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: What mission? What the hell is it? Anyone? And I'm not good with any silly blather about containing terrorism and so forth. Why are we really and truly there righ now, as I type these words?? JL
Danooguy and Thorne will explain shortly.
On a way more serious note: Seventy five Iraq's dead and five US soldiers dead today. It's total madness. There is no mission, just chaos.
You have to be extremely sad that our troops have been put into this position and you have to feel for the Iraq's people who continue to deal with terror as a everyday occurrence .
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 20, 2005, 1:43 AM
Post #203 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: T In reply to: his statement is the most telling so far, as I believe you might be revealing painful experiences from your own past Good grief, rufus, you are dim, aren't you? Do you play the banjo? I hear their going to make Deliverance II. Who said this? Does it even ring a bell for you? In reply to: When I was a kid I was usually one of the smaller ones in class… I'm sure it doesn't. Here's a clue. Read the thread again, Einstein. Go slowly. Sound the words out. Get help from someone with patience. Maybe if they explain it to you...
What he said has no bearing on my observation of you and your statement. You are so impetuous about your desire to flame that you consistently fail to see the bigger picture. You have not only missed the boat; you can't even find the ocean.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 20, 2005, 2:34 AM
Post #204 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: ...You didn't find curt's comment as similarly offensive? Bias can do that I guess.
Well, part of the fine art of debate here at RC.com is only quoting a portion of the OP's quote, in a way that intentionally distorts the OP's meaning.
Neither FDR nor Lincoln decided to unilaterally attack a soverign nation, for false reasons--leading to a senseless and unjustifiable loss of life. WWII and the US Civil War were wars that were waged for some greater moral purpose. Our very existence, as a nation, depended on our ability to win those wars.
The fact that the curent war in Iraq doesn't meet those criteria explains why so many people are disappointed in our current administration.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
lextalion
Nov 20, 2005, 3:29 AM
Post #205 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 216
|
In reply to: bobd1953 wrote: One can only wonder WTF was going through Bush's mind when he declared "Mission Accomplished" ????
In reply to: What mission? What the hell is it? Anyone? And I'm not good with any silly blather about containing terrorism and so forth. Why are we really and truly there right now, as I type these words??
JL
As a guy who got out of the anti-terrorism teams of the Marines over ten years ago.
Mission - Didn't buy what Pres Bush was selling we the public.
As for taking down Hussein - should done it when we were there in 91'.
As for Terrorist containment - impossible!!!! History has proven that many times over, unless some lily bleeding heart sells you on some rewritten shit history.
However no mater what they say, (coming from my training) they do not want to die any more than we do. So hunt the terrorist cells out with a bloody roman iron fist! Pretty soon they start making mistakes and blowup things that other Arabs enjoy - ( weddings & places of worship)
and the people turn against them. It just make hunting them down and eliminating them easier.
Israel did this throughout the sixties and part of the seventies until they got sloppy and killed a few that were mistaken for being part of an organization in northern Europe. Calmed things down until the late 80's when people started hating the US interest for what ever the reason at the time.
War - well the US public doesn't have the stomach for it any more due to being feed to many John Wayne movies where the actors are the same in some films. They can't handle the reality that there is currently 2000 + deaths in a fight that has lasted several years.
God for bid that we have a fight like that of Iwo Jima where a loss of 2000 men probably happened in the 1st hours of fighting. Hell the Japs still have not accounted for all their dead from that fight.
As for the terrorist getting smarter - hell we all because of technology.
The marines have weapon that I have never even seen nor heard of that I only wish I had when I got out in 1992. No Suprise there!!!
My biggest question is why hasn't the bush administration gotten Bin Laden. This fuels things by the man still being out there alive or dead.
- Hunt the vermin until they are dead - this wears the individuals out worse than just taking sides against the US position.
enough of this rant!!!!!
Semper Fi
"Retreat! Hell we just got here!!!" - unknown Marine
Definition: Retreat- a tactical withdrawal according to the Army
|
|
|
|
|
alaskadoug
Nov 20, 2005, 12:14 PM
Post #206 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Posts: 8
|
are terrorists learning more??? by the hour. they follow us, they know our routes they video tape and study our reactions. the terrorists are getting betterlike athletes get better. they study their opponent, they follow, vidoe tape, they even dp physical training. they are totally concealed. one minute they are shooting at you then they put away their ak47 and sit in their house. by the time we get there they are an ordinary person again. we will search a whole block and have no proof that any of them shot at us, but we know that wewere shot at. and as far as blowing things up it takes as little as 13 seconds to implace and conceal and IED (Improvised explosive device) to hit a vehilcle driving down the road.they get lots of practice too. its not all bushs fault that we are dieing either.after a short period of time when nothing happens soldiers become complacent and froget that they are in a war, start walking into houses like they own em and shit. terrorists see this and use this to their advantage. i dont agree with a lot of what bush does or says, but if i take a bullet over here so the women and children in the states dont have to im down. like ive said before dont worry about troops suppourt them, worry about your childrens grades and what your going to have for dinner until you are in my shoes, which are combat boots not climbing shoes
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 20, 2005, 5:14 PM
Post #207 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: like ive said before dont worry about troops suppourt them, worry about your childrens grades and what your going to have for dinner until you are in my shoes, which are combat boots not climbing shoes
This comment sounds refreshingly in line with what I heard last night on NPR, from a commanding officer in Irag.
He was talking about how inappropriate Cheney's statements were, regarding how people, who question this war, are unpatriotic. He said that there are several fundamental rules of protocol to which all soldiers are privy, a few of the most pertinent being that they are always supposed to be given a plan, a time-line, and an exit strategy. He said that Bush has offered no of these. He said that, by what he has experienced in Irag, that he thinks Bush never had one.
Regarding your above statement, he said that soldiers are not little, insecure children. They understand that many Americans have alternative opinions of this war, as do many of them. He said that soldiers have accepted their job responsibilities and are going to execute them regardless of who agrees and disagrees with then.
As I said, it is refreshing to hear rational and reasonable views from people directly involved in the military. It is the citizens, who are being asked to support this war, who have the right to the truth. We are tired of being duped by a corrupt administration, that reprimands us for exercising our Constitutional rights and responsibilities as citizens (keeping tabs on our government officals and questioning them when we believe they are out of line with their elected duties).
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Nov 20, 2005, 5:31 PM
Post #208 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: They understand that many Americans have alternative opinions of this war, as do many of them.
Rufus, you will waffle about and spew and spout whatever suits you to put forth your hamstrung and lame ideas. How could you possibly agree with this unnamed commanding officer? You said on this very thread that our troops are "pawns" because they believe in their commander in chief. So which is it, our troops have "alternative opinions" or they are all pawns as you flatly stated earlier on this thread? It cannot be both. Or is it only the ones that disagree with you that are "pawns?"
That you could post the vulgarity of the "pawn" comment and the follow with the above without even blinking serves to highlight your glaring inherent intellectual shortcomings.
I'm sure your explanation will be brilliant.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Nov 20, 2005, 5:36 PM
Post #209 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
The thing is
Soldiers aren't allow to protest a war, or decide when they come home.
Politicians have to save face to save their jobs. They get desperate and try to keep us in the wrong place even if folks get killed.
It's up to the people to question the war and question authority. If the war is right, it should stand up to scrutiny.
Peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Nov 20, 2005, 5:39 PM
Post #210 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Latest figures:
Military and civilian deaths in Iraq
Nov 20 (Reuters) -One British soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in Basra, southern Iraq, on Sunday and four others injured, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said in London.
The following are the latest figures for military deaths in the Iraq campaign since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, in line with the most recent information from the U.S. military.
U.S.-LED COALITION FORCES:
United States 2,091
Britain 98
Other nations 94
IRAQIS:
MILITARY Between 4,895 and 6,370#
CIVILIANS Between 26,994 and 30,420*
Everyone is losing in this war!
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 20, 2005, 6:04 PM
Post #211 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: In reply to: They understand that many Americans have alternative opinions of this war, as do many of them. Rufus, you will waffle about and spew and spout whatever suits you to put forth your hamstrung and lame ideas. How could you possibly agree with this unnamed commanding officer? You said on this very thread that our troops are "pawns" because they believe in their commander in chief. So which is it, our troops have "alternative opinions" or they are all pawns as you flatly stated earlier on this thread? It cannot be both. Or is it only the ones that disagree with you that are "pawns?" That you could post the vulgarity of the "pawn" comment and the follow with the above without even blinking serves to highlight your glaring inherent intellectual shortcomings. I'm sure your explanation will be brilliant.
Dano,
Murtha, in other words, corroborated my statement. That you aren't able to interpret it correctly is your problem. Rant all you want. It is understandable, because you are limited at best. Your waylays are transparent, and your attempts at trying to traduce me are ineffective. You simply do not have the brain power, although it is entertaining to watch.
Have you ever heard the maxim "Choose your battles wisely."? I try to live by it, which is why I do not engage you in serious debate. There is nothing to gained by it, because you have no idea what you're talking about. Moreover, your sole MO is to troll. Consequently, any attempt at serious debate with you would be a complete waste of my time.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Nov 20, 2005, 11:40 PM
Post #212 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: Consequently, any attempt at serious debate with you would be a complete waste of my time.
Especially when you simply cannot explain your self-contradiction.
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 21, 2005, 3:45 AM
Post #213 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: In reply to: Consequently, any attempt at serious debate with you would be a complete waste of my time. Especially when you simply cannot explain your self-contradiction.
:troll:
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Nov 21, 2005, 1:36 PM
Post #214 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
curtIn reply to: GWB, the arrogant Bush with no good reason to be, decided that invading Iraq would be the best way to get back at that pesky Saddam for having the gall to keep all those nasty WMDs that Bush Sr. gave him a few years back.
Bush decided? Didn't Congress have something to say about it?
In reply to: In my opinion, JL has got it right. Soon, GWB and company will be directly responsible for the deaths of more Americans than Osama Bin-Laden. That isn't to say that sacrifices aren't necessary to protect our interests, but it is something to consider. Is the mission worth the price we are paying, particularly if that mission is not being accomplished?
I would expect that you would be able to discuss the matter without likening Bush to Bin-laden on a death for death basis. However, when this comment is considered against the backdrop of the first, it becomes apparent that you are abandoning your usually balanced approach.
In reply to: Well, part of the fine art of debate here at RC.com is only quoting a portion of the OP's quote, in a way that intentionally distorts the OP's meaning.
It is no distortion to say that you’ve compared Bin-laden and Bush in a distorted way and now you criticize as distortion the recognition of your distortion.
In reply to: Neither FDR nor Lincoln decided to unilaterally attack a soverign nation, for false reasons--leading to a senseless and unjustifiable loss of life.
Was/is Iraq based upon "false reasons" or inaccurate information? Is there no difference? While I agree that this conflict is surely different than others, every war, every conflict, has had some measure of "senseless and unjustifiable loss of life." War is chaos. Only against the backdrop of far more conventional warfare against a more conventional enemy could your yardstick of a death for death analysis be considered as reasonably credible, although I do agree with some of what you are saying otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Nov 21, 2005, 1:55 PM
Post #215 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: ...You didn't find curt's comment as similarly offensive? Bias can do that I guess. Well, part of the fine art of debate here at RC.com is only quoting a portion of the OP's quote, in a way that intentionally distorts the OP's meaning.
In reply to: Neither FDR nor Lincoln decided to unilaterally attack a soverign nation, for false reasons--leading to a senseless and unjustifiable loss of life. WWII and the US Civil War were wars that were waged for some greater moral purpose. Our very existence, as a nation, depended on our ability to win those wars.
Why is everyone on this "false reasons" kick? Fortunately, we can go back to Jan. '03 and read the statements of the current naysayers. DC politics seems to be getting worse and worse.
Lincoln waged the Civil War for a "greater moral purpose"? No kidding. I like to read where Lincoln addressed the plight (or the inhumane treatment) of the black man, anytime prior to the start of the war.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 21, 2005, 2:31 PM
Post #216 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: ...Lincoln waged the Civil War for a "greater moral purpose"? No kidding. I like to read where Lincoln addressed the plight (or the inhumane treatment) of the black man, anytime prior to the start of the war.
The greater moral purpose I am talking about was survival of our Union--not ending slavery.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 21, 2005, 2:33 PM
Post #217 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: ...Why is everyone on this "false reasons" kick? Fortunately, we can go back to Jan. '03 and read the statements of the current naysayers. DC politics seems to be getting worse and worse...
We invaded Iraq to remove Sassam's WMD. There were no WMD, therefore our reason for invading Iraq was false.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Nov 21, 2005, 4:12 PM
Post #218 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: We invaded Iraq to remove Sassam's WMD. There were no WMD, therefore our reason for invading Iraq was false. Curt
And the connection between the Saddam and OBL.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Nov 21, 2005, 4:18 PM
Post #219 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: In reply to: We invaded Iraq to remove Sassam's WMD. There were no WMD, therefore our reason for invading Iraq was false. Curt And the connection between the Saddam and OBL.
And ending torture.
And preventing abduction and imprisonment.
And improving women's rights.
And preventing terrorist attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Nov 21, 2005, 5:03 PM
Post #220 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: We invaded Iraq to remove Sassam's WMD. There were no WMD, therefore our reason for invading Iraq was false.
There you go again. The use of the word false strongly infers deliberate intention to mislead as I am sure you are aware.
The distinction that you have twice failed to make matters more than a little.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Nov 21, 2005, 5:11 PM
Post #221 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: Littlepedro, if you weren't revealed by your slurring of American troops you surely have been in this thread wherein you rally intellectually crippled, inane, one-liner toadies like Boobyboy and sissy. That your only defense is to repeatedly and in the same breath try to dismiss as a lie that which you repeatedly admit to having said is probably more telling. You could restore at least some of your dignity if you'd simply admit that you got caught up in the debating and talk of war and slurred the American troops wholesale...just like your toadie rufus did on this thread. Instead you continue to behave like the child inside you, the scrawny 7th grade boy who was the target of one too many titty twisters in first period gym class... and was likely secretly and badly demoralized for having been subsequently declined for military service because of your physical shortcomings.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Just preserving the above quote. Don't need to say anything else about it, it stands all on its own. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Nov 21, 2005, 5:37 PM
Post #222 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: My exact words were, "there are different ways to serve one's country"
Just preserving the above quote. Don't need to say anything else about it, it stands all on its own
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Nov 21, 2005, 5:44 PM
Post #223 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: In reply to: My exact words were, "there are different ways to serve one's country" Just preserving the above quote. Don't need to say anything else about it, it stands all on its own
Yes it does. Thank you Mr. Liar. Can I get you a breakfast taco?
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 21, 2005, 5:57 PM
Post #224 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: Yes it does. Thank you Mr. Liar. Can I get you a breakfast taco?
Pedro,
Don't you feel a little bit like a bully, beating up on one so emotionally and intellectually challenged? Most of what he says reminds me of an old Steely Dan album. Maybe you remember it.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Nov 21, 2005, 6:01 PM
Post #225 of 481
(7635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: curt In reply to: GWB, the arrogant Bush with no good reason to be, decided that invading Iraq would be the best way to get back at that pesky Saddam for having the gall to keep all those nasty WMDs that Bush Sr. gave him a few years back. Bush decided? Didn't Congress have something to say about it?
Yes, Congress voted to authorize the use of force as a last resort, based on politicized intel that the White House was feeding them. And then Bush made the go/no go decision, rushing in when there was obviously no immediate threat, and when the U.N. inspectors were asking for just a little more time to do their job. Not to mention that he tossed aside the war plans developed by our Generals and went in with a plan (if one could call it that) that hung our military out to dry.
But it's no surprise that a liar such as yourself would try to rewrite history.
And it's no surprise that you are ok with the fact that this man's incompetence has led to needless deaths of our troops. As long as his policies agree with your ideology, it's all good as far as you're concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
