McCain Calls For Escalation In Iraq, Wants 20,000 More Troops On The Ground
McCain Calls For Escalation In Iraq, Wants 20,000 More Troops On The Ground
Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called for sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq. The AP reports:
Republican Sen. John McCain, a possible 2008 presidential candidate, said Friday the United States should send another 20,000 troops to Iraq.
A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain said increasing U.S. forces would require expanding the standing Army and Marine Corps – a step the Bush administration has resisted. [...]
”Another 20,000 troops in Iraq, but that means expanding the Army and the Marine Corps,” he said.
McCain’s call for escalation would exacerbate the deteriorating situation in Iraq and would only further damage U.S. national security. Here’s at least two reasons why:
1) No troops to send. “Sending more troops to Iraq would, at the moment, threaten to break our nation’s all-volunteer Army and undermine our national security.” McCain suggests enlarging the force to send them to Iraq, an idea that is implausible to carry out over the short-term and would damage the military’s ability to recruit over the long-term.
2) The insurgency would grow more inflamed. “A more visible presence of U.S. troops risks further stoking the flames of the insurgency by feeding perceptions of long-term U.S. occupation among many Iraqis.” The recent effort to increase troop numbers in Baghdad has only increased violence. A recent poll of Iraqis indicated that support for attacks on US-led forces has grown to a majority position — now six in ten — a number sure to increase if more U.S. troops are put on the ground.
Phased withdrawal is gaining consensus as the last best option for Iraq. A growing group of experts — including the Iraq Study Group and host of conservative senators — are consolidating behind a redeployment. 63 percent of Americans believe Congress should set a timetable.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
uhhh, dude, there ARE NO extra troops in the US system….Are you suggesting a draft?
October 27th, 2006 at 4:16 pmFeels like a breeze in here. I dare you skippy say it….go on….Condumbs….DRAFT.
BWHAHAHAHAHAAAA
So lost
October 27th, 2006 at 4:21 pmSo impotent
So irrelevent
So out on their ass Nov 8th
This may work out alright
All the Rape-Publi-Cans who piss and moan about losing Nov 8th can move to Iraq.
Now thats a win-win
October 27th, 2006 at 4:22 pmcitizenship in exchange for service? Prisoners ? How? shanghai soldiers?
October 27th, 2006 at 4:22 pmI agree with McCain. We have a standing military of over 1 million and we sent over 500,000 to Desert Storm. We have 20,000 more to send if they need them. If the generals on the ground think they need that many to win, then we should send them. Hell, we should send whatever they need to win even if that takes a draft. Losing the war on terrorism would be profoundly devasting to US interests.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:22 pmTroops to come from where? Redeployed from other stations around the world? Or extend the already overextended?
October 27th, 2006 at 4:22 pmInstitute a draft?
Roger is first up to get on the plane.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:25 pmRoger, if we really have the available troops to send, why haven’t they been sent?
October 27th, 2006 at 4:26 pmFaiz, you either have only two reasons or forgot to post the third.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:27 pmJust WHAT, exactly, are 20,000 more troops going to do?
The only thing I can think of is raise the US military death rate from 3.9 per day to 4.5 per day. Beyond that, it might slow the iraqi sectarian violence a wee bit, so they get to their final partition in a more drawn out fashion, but the end result will be the same. Except, we will have to be there longer, to watch it longer, to interfere for no good reason longer, so that we have more of our people killed over a longer time period.
Boy, that sounds like a brilliant plan, Senator.
McCain has become plain dumb in his lust for power.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:29 pmAnother god damned Christofascist terrorist
Golly. A Christian who wants to step up Christianity’s crimes against humanity and atrocities against innocent people. That’s a first.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:29 pmThanks Yikes. I originally had three, but changed the third point to make it the conclusion.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:30 pmRoger Roger, The Generals haven’t come out and said this, only McCain. Where did he come up with the 20,000? Maybe from the Generals but that question has to be asked by the Generals up their chain of command. I’m glad to see that at least you stand behind asking for a draft. Something that just wouldn’t fly in this country for this conflict.
Explain to me this War on Terrorism. What are the objectives? When will we know we are succeeding? And shouldn’t we have sent more troops early on? I believe several Generals stated that but weren’t listened to then. What makes you think this admin. will listen now?
October 27th, 2006 at 4:33 pmPeople brought up the Draft over the Cold war/Panama/Desert Storm/Grenada/War on Drugs/War of the Roses/Release of War of the Worlds, and those same people keep bringing it up years later. Everytime someone mentions the military the cries of “I told you there will be a draft coming” are heard.
*Yawn*
October 27th, 2006 at 4:34 pmOk, Tiger worrying now.
Would not work. Twenty thousand is a drop in a bucket compared to what would have been necessary at the beginning of the occupation to ensure stability and security. Unfortunately, even a force of 250,000 would be inadequate at this point. It would have made a difference at the start of the occupation. Adequate security anda real reconstruction program would have won the hearts and minds of the population. Now we are the occupiers who failed to protect the Iraqi people or better their living conditions.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:34 pm35% of the population still thinks we should be fighting in Iraq. .35×300million=105million. Extracting children and those over 42, you are looking at a base of millions of warmongering chickenhawks who can fill McCain’s quota. I’ve already served in the army and am too old, but would consider signing up for that enlistment bonus if granted an exception. Bush’s economy just isn’t working for me. Sending more troops into this boondoggle is about as stupid and irrational suggestion presented since the “war” started. If ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:35 pmNo problem Faiz, do I win a t-shirt?
October 27th, 2006 at 4:35 pmLet’s re-institute the draft! That would end this war quicker than ANYTHING!
October 27th, 2006 at 4:37 pm#14,
I agree, the generals are the ones that need to be asking for them. I am just agreeing that we should give the generals whatever they need to win in Iraq and the War of terror.
#7,
I am retired from the military. How many years did you serve sir?
October 27th, 2006 at 4:37 pmMcCain wants to send more targets for the insurgents to shoot at. Bush says he listens to the generals on the ground. If they want more troops, Bish will be more than happy to send them. So McCain is out of line.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:39 pmCount Roger, Roger in the list to Iraq. We now need 19,999 more warmongering chickenhawks to help him end Bush’s boondoggle.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:40 pmI am just agreeing that we should give the generals whatever they need to win in Iraq and the War of terror.
Rogx2 I don’t think you read this morning’s memo: Chimpy says “You can’t distinguish between Saddam and Osama in the War on Terror”. Are you disagreeing with your Dear Leader? Welcome to the reality-based community.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:41 pmMaybe there is something to those ‘rumors on the Internets’ after all.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:41 pmSound similiar
After Bush compared Iraq situation with Tet Offensive, Mc Cain ask more 20,000.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:41 pmSomeone is positioning himself for ‘08…
I used to have more respect for McCain… Not that don’t respect him, just less than when he was running against ‘W’. If one of my ‘teammates’ slimed me the way Rove & W did McCain during the primaries, I wouldn’t be nearly so eager to toe the line.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:42 pmWhat are the objectives? When will we know we are succeeding?
October 27th, 2006 at 4:42 pmHIAB – Halliburton stock price.
Hold onto that McCain photo for 2008, guys. Holy Dukakis!
October 27th, 2006 at 4:43 pmLet’s move the National Guard troops we have on the Mexican border back to Iraq…..
October 27th, 2006 at 4:46 pm#23,
We aren’t fighting Saddam. Last time I checked, that fool was already caught. We are now fighting Osama’s crews and other terrorist organizations in Iraq. It is a war that we need to win, regardless of the cost. I would hope most every American agrees after 9/11. Why would we back away from the war of terror after that event? And yes, I don’t agree with Bush. He hasn’t done anything to Iran, Syria, barely anything in Pakistan, and now he is chickening out in North Korea. We need a leader that will confront these regimes and overthrow them. Bush and the repugs seem to not be interested. Are the Dems interested in getting rid of these dictators and other countries that harbor terrorists?
October 27th, 2006 at 4:47 pm#20 I served 2 years in the US Army. You didn’t answer any of my questions. What is this War on Terror? What are the objectives? Just sending more troops into the area is not the answer.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:49 pm#32,
The objectives:
1) kill every terrorist
2) Install a pro western government
3) Make country secure so the people have freedom and a democracy
How:
Whatever it takes. If they want more money, troops, equipment, etc. we should be sending it ASAP.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:52 pmRoger Roger,
Shall we raise taxes to pay for this war or just continue to
to our children?
October 27th, 2006 at 4:58 pmI’m glad McCain is calling for escalation. I hope he keeps it up until ‘08. That way, Hillary might actually have a chance.
Read: “The farce known as America’s immigration debate“
October 27th, 2006 at 4:58 pm#31 Woh we have more terrorists recruited from Iraq war, now Roger_Roger want more from other countries.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:01 pmRogx2
1) How do you tell who is a terrorist? A clue: if they tell you while you waterboard them or ram a flashlight up their jacksy, then they probably are not telling you the truth
October 27th, 2006 at 5:04 pm2) Let’s see, ‘pro-western’ government – hmm, a few examples might help us understand: are we talking like the Shah or General Pinochet? Or perhaps a Suharto or Castilo Armas? Or maybe Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Egypt?
3) Which country? You just stated that the war in Iraq and the War on Terror were different in post 20. Anyhow, you’ll see from my list above that freedom, democracy and pro-western governments are not a wholly overlapping set. Its pretty obvious that when push comes to shove, the US favors a good old fashioned dictatorship over a democracy everytime (Chile, Venezuela, Guatemala, Argentina, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia). Where were you when the young democracy of Lebanon was being sent back to the Stone Age, Rog?
C’mon McKane, call for the draft too! And while you’re at it, make it 200,000 more troops. Unless every Iraqi household is surrounded, victory sure won’t be a marchin.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:05 pm33.
The objectives:
1) kill every terrorist That will take more than 20,000 troops and in more than just Iraq. Impractical and foolish to think this. Mass killings will bring about more terroists.
2) Install a pro western government Even this administration doesn’t think that’s possible now.
3) Make country secure so the people have freedom and a democracysee #2
How:
Whatever it takes. If they want more money, troops, equipment, etc. we should be sending it ASAP.
So not only are you advocating a draft, but your requesting the repeal of the tax cuts to pay for this massive increase in military spending. Your talk is tough, your logic is flawed.
Retired military? The retired vets I talk to have more empathy for the soldier than you.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:07 pmHell, we should send whatever they need to win even if that takes a draft. Losing the war on terrorism would be profoundly devasting to US interests.
Comment by Roger_Roger
You can send all the chinese if you want. This war was lost before it started. You can go back to play with your GI Joes.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:08 pmWe are now fighting Osama’s crews and other terrorist organizations in Iraq
Oh dear have to call bullshit there sunbeam. 90% of the violence is Baathist insurgents, death squads and so on… sorry the foreigners are not the bit part. You are really having a hard time with your facts today Rog.
Are the Dems interested in getting rid of these dictators and other countries that harbor terrorists?
I think they are, that’s why they are going to try and get them voted out on November 7th
October 27th, 2006 at 5:08 pmFunny thing is, when you look back, say 4-5 years, terrorism out of Iraq wasn’t a problem.
What’s changed?
October 27th, 2006 at 5:10 pm1- Stupid.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:13 pmTerrorism is the thought not human. Only kill terrorists never eliminate terrorism.
2- Stupid.
Pro-western govts which are not supported from their own ppl will never be long lived. And what is the “Freedom” mean? They free to choose their govt.
3- Stupid.
You supported 1(Killing & killing)+2(Puppet govt) how you got Freedom and Democracy
Hell, we should send whatever they need to win even if that takes a draft. Losing the war on terrorism would be profoundly devasting to US interests.
Comment by Roger_Roger
I bet you keep trying to repair that junker of a car that you bought at a good price but it just won’t run.
The war was an idiotic idea dreamed up by fools and thousands are dieing for it. To say that we should throw everything we have into a stupid disaster would bring ruin to this country faster than any terrorist organization could hope to accomplish.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:18 pm1) kill every terrorist
2) Install a pro western government
3) Make country secure so the people have freedom and a democracy
Comment by Roger_Roger
I dont know who the biggest idiot is, Exley or you?
October 27th, 2006 at 5:26 pmWhy do you think you have the right to decide what kind of government should any country have? Are you such a p*ssy that you cant live in a planet with people that think, act or pray different?
Why not put pro western governments (I know, you meant those that buy Coke, KFC, Mickey Mouse, Wal Mart, GM, etc) everywhere? This Big Stick policy, this BS american dream that US is the nation that will lead the world…what a load of crap! You cant even seize one of the poorest countries in the world (Afghanistan), a little island (Cuba) made US army and CIA look like complete asses; an organized, starved and ragged little country (Vietnam) defeated the french and you, US and Great Britain had to drop their armies over Normandy once the russians crushed the Nazis to claim whatever they could of Germany…and you want to mess with NK and Iran…and China? Yeah, right.
Keep up the good military work with Grenade and East Timor…
When, in the entire history of this world, has an invading force been successful in installing a democractic government? The liberals have been blasted for simplistic ideals “helping the needy” and “cost of living increases in wages” but to think we can just whip up some democracy on another country without putting are full support behind the effort has got to be one of the most simplistic, idealistic and shortsided thoughts ever to be put forth.
We can’t keep our borders secure but we want to keep pumping money into a country half way around the world in hopes of a democracy (that they don’t show great interest in).
We want to give freedoms to Iraq while we lose them here.
Where are your priorities, Sir.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:27 pmDidn’t King George III of England try to install a pro-British Crown government in certain North American colonies back in 1776? Didn’t King George III of England call George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Paul Jones, Thomas Paine and others who opposed continued British colonial rule the 18th century equivalent of “terrorists?”
McCain is like the idiots in the American Congress back in the 1960s that called for escalation of the imperial colonial war on Vietnam. These guys seem to be very slow learners…
Cheers.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:30 pmI reluctantly have come to agree with Senator McCain: we do need more troops, at least in Baghdad.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:32 pm50. For what purpose. No clear cut, workable plan has been put forth. They had just added 1,400 additional troops in Baghdad in order to crush the opposition and the violence increased.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:35 pmRoger: “Losing the war on terrorism would be profoundly devasting to US interests.”
That’s right, and the best way we can win that war is to start withdrawing from Iraq immediately. Osama bin Laden has said that the war in Iraq was his best recruiting tool. Our own intelligence agencies say that the Iraq war RESULTS in more terrorists. Roger, you post like you know the facts. But your posts make it abundantly clear that you’ve ignored the facts. I suspect most liberals on these boards like to think they live in a fact-base world. So, you might gain a little traction with your arguments around here if you knew something, anything, about the facts.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:36 pmDad, our best intelligence to date makes it clear that maintaining the war in Iraq adds to our problems with terrorists. Quite a few former Generals in the theater have now come out saying the strategy there is a complete failure and we need to start withdrawing. What does McCain know that our intelligence community, State Department and 5 former theater Generals don’t?
October 27th, 2006 at 5:40 pm#33 Finally, some common sense!
**
Winners win, Losers lose.
Vote for a democrat, and vote for bad news.
You’re liberals are right [sic], the US can’t win.
Of course don’t help, just criticize past sin.
Made some mistakes to win the cold war,
Fixing it now so our kids avoid horror
heads down we leave, from terrorists, thugs, and thieves?
Japan, Germany, seemed to become free.
our armed forced can succeed cuz we’re pretty smart
if liberal senators stop speculating with their mouth farts
just because we have no hindsight time machine
doesn’t mean that we just give up on our team
while democrats pretend there is no social security woes
and sen. clinton says that parents can’t know
with all the liberal special interest bills ready for the inking
not yet, we’re not fooled…with your short sighted liberal thinking
…
BTW, we have standing army of 1+ million…we can increase troop strength. However, this increases troop rotations so reservists have longer deployments. However, it may be better to do I strong push now, then drag this on.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:40 pmHowever, it may be better to do I strong push now, then drag this on.
Comment by JohnG
Allow me to sit while I wait.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:43 pmYou just count how many of your boys come back in a coffin.
This man is an idiot and for someone who went to Vietnam, fought in Vietnam and spent most of his time as a POW in Vietnam, ought to understand more troops will not help.
God help our country if he is elected president.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:44 pmHey JohnG, nice tune. Can you goose step to it?
October 27th, 2006 at 5:45 pmGoose step. That was funny.
Republicans are red
October 27th, 2006 at 5:49 pmDemocrats are blue
Bush dodged the draft
but won’t let you.
Respectfully, Sen. McCain may be trying to refight and win the Vietnam war. With that hat he looks like he is ready to ambush Charlie.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:49 pm#55 You’re changing the topic..and you don’t quite understand the geo political situation at the time in question.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:49 pm#55 War is hell and full of sacrifice, that doesn’t change whether it’s the best thing to do.
#56 Thank gosh we have deep thinkers like you to shape are foreign policy
#57 Care to teach me?
October 27th, 2006 at 5:53 pm60. Whaaaaa? What do you want to push and what do you think will be dragged on?
October 27th, 2006 at 5:53 pm#59 Of course, if I disagree with your views…I’m a Nazi. Makes sense to me :)
October 27th, 2006 at 5:55 pmand you don’t quite understand the geo political situation at the time in question.
Comment by JohnG
And you seem to be Sun Tzu…
Your little Risk game isnt going anywhere. Young poor kids from the poorest regions of US are dying everyday for another lie of US government, just as hundreds of lies before. You are supporting this war so you can feel secure about your masculinity, like it is a pissing game. There is no victory in war, so you cant achieve one.
About the Geopolitical strategy I think I get it. Do you think your government gives a rat´s ass about young soldiers being blown up? The whole purpose of this war is that, to keep soldier being blown up so US has the excuse to stay in Iraq as long as there is oil and to threat unfriendly regimes like Iran. THe whole plan is to surround China with hostile pro Western regimes…and you will fail.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:58 pmThanks Rove, another October surprise, this will surely help the Dem’s win more moderate voters.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:58 pm#63 hellinabucket
Well, I think McCain’s point is to become a bit more harsh in Iraq.
Loosening the Rules of engagement back to pre-major combat operations might be a good step as well.
If america + uk left Iraq, it would be a bloodbath in Iraq.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:59 pmWhy don’t they send his ass there. McCain has become a one-man freak show. I predict a padded cell and straightjacket for him in the very near future. Pity.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:00 pmMcKook chimes in – that’s helpful there, bud – why not take Chuck Norris along as a sidekick next time?
October 27th, 2006 at 6:01 pmWar is hell and full of sacrifice, that doesn’t change whether it’s the best thing to do.
Comment by JohnG
Ask a 13 y/o nicaraguan boy what is hell and what is war. Shut the hell up.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:01 pmAt least I respect you for telling about “War is hell and full of sacrifice, that doesn’t change whether it’s the best thing to do.” without mix with Democracy and Freedom. Yeah it is a war not for Freedom or Democracy for Iraqis. We will kill them all? Right?
October 27th, 2006 at 6:02 pmI’m a Nazi. Makes sense to me :) Comment by JohnGâ€
Well, yeah. You give full support to your State no matter how stupid and degrading are his actions. That is Nazism, radical nationalism.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:04 pmJohnG,
It’s a blood bath there now. And our boys are dying at the fastest rate in a year. Sorry but maybe the best thing would be for this administration swallow it’s pride and ask countries surrounding Iraq for help. I doubt they will, when that doesn’t work, then just leave and eventually, maybe the Iraqi people will get tired of killing each other and come to some sort of agreement.
More US soldiers there = more dead US Soldiers coming home for a freedom these Iraqi people do not generally want. They surely don’t want this “elected” puppet government we have there, or they would be standing up fighting for it.
Just like many of you trolls cannot stop your religious beliefs, these people won’t either.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:05 pm#64 Haha, your name calling and SCREAMING show me it’s really not worth to ready your post.
I still don’t understand all the Dems foriegn policy successes? Pearl Harbor, Clinton letting Osama live, liberal senators yelling that the US condone torture…what?
October 27th, 2006 at 6:06 pmBack to the bamboo cell for you McCain. You have not learned your life’s lessons.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:09 pmJohn G. And it’s not a blood bath now? Because of the failures of this administration we are in a no win situation. We’ve opened the door on 2,000 years of religious tension and since we didn’t come in their with a firm hand (remember the whole “freedom is messy” crap) our window of opportunity is gone.
I don’t want to see any more soldiers going over there to be targets.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:09 pmI still don’t understand all the Dems foriegn policy successes? Pearl Harbor, Clinton letting Osama live, liberal senators yelling that the US condone torture…what?
Comment by JohnG
Who the hell is a Dem? I know Im not.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:09 pmSshhh…dont make this a political issue. It is about justice.
#75 I don’t agree with your correlation of more soldiers = increased deaths. Assuming Iraqi governmnet can make the people want the increase to curb violence, and not have radicals hype occupation fears.
Tactically, more troops equal fewer casualties. Also, this month is the most bloody do to orginized attacks to sway american public opinion (based on gathered enemy info). If terror movements are opperating at maximum tempo, then more troops will provide double the resources to kill said movement…if people don’t feel they are being occupied.
Maybe even double?
October 27th, 2006 at 6:12 pmThe dems are also the ones that brought you a successful 12 days of Oct. Everything after Pearl Harbor to the completetion of WWII (that completed in less time than this unholy cluster f*ck). George Bush is still letting Osama live so that bird don’t fly Johnny G.
No name calling here. Just shooting your sorry ass down.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:13 pm#74 Why those Rupub always spin their topic? They threw some stupid opinions. And when ppl start to debate, they backed to Clinton?
October 27th, 2006 at 6:14 pm“mc-cave”… nuff said…
October 27th, 2006 at 6:18 pm.
#74 I’m actually speaking of fascism, the demonizing of all other views. It’s a liberal disorder that “b(un)truthful” may suffer from.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:18 pmAgain Vietnam War tactic?
October 27th, 2006 at 6:20 pm#84 History will jusdge Rumsfeld, you don’t have the capibility. If you’re opinion is based on only the fact that you believe rumsfeld MAY have made some mistakes.
You obviosly know nothing of the man…instead you spew hate and lies.
And, your post makes no sense since you use specualtion as fact. In other words, you don’t know what you don’t know.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:23 pmJohnG,
Research Vietnam, early on just like now we had a small force there, the more people we put on the front lines, the more people died. Simple logic will tell you this. 200,000 more soldiers would not be enough,it will only anger those who want us home *something like 78% of Iraqi’s want us OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY!
And you idiots keep bringing up Germany and Japan as successful “occupations”, lets not forget the true fact they were defeated countries, they gave up their will to fight. Any “after war” attacks were from one or two people who just hated America and didn’t want to accept defeat, these death rates decreased with time. The death rate there in Iraq now is increasing against our soldiers, as well as Iraqi citizens. The terrorists have not accepted defeat, as a matter of fact proof is they are winning, as our occupation there is increasing numbers of people who hate America. Why do you trolls hate America and want to see more of our soldiers killed for a freedom these Iraqi people do not want.
The logic is simple, sadly simpletons such as yourself and RogerX2 can’t see this.
And the higher casualty rate was because we started going after these groups more, and spending less time in the Green Zone. Christ we can’t even equip those soldiers there now with proper helmets, and armored SUV’s.
A great speech once given by a man we all admire; Churchill said “We will never surrender”, this is the view of those people. So just like N Korea, and Vietnam we better pack our bags and come home now before more Americans are killed HERE and abroad.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:25 pm#74 I’m actually speaking of fascism, the demonizing of all other views. It’s a liberal disorder that “b(un)truthful†may suffer from.
Comment by JohnG — October 27, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
Huh? Here you go John, let’s see what fascism really looks like - read the 14 pts of fascism, check back with us later and let us know how many liberal values you find there.
Meanwhile I leave with the original fascist – over to you Benito:
“The truth is that men are tired of liberty.” – Benito Mussolini – no liberal sentiment there.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:26 pmJohn G,
Historians have already judged this administration as the most incompetent, we don’t need to wait 5,10,20,100 years…
http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html
October 27th, 2006 at 6:28 pm#79 Our armed forces moral is high, they think they can win.
A pacified middle east which will benifit all. Leaving will be easy, and will most likely cause more soldiers death if this is done 25 years in the future with the pace of technology.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:30 pm#83 In every respect, we are doing better in Iraq then WWII. By every measure…except time. Since this is a new enemy that uses time as an ally, obviosly, this will increase time to victory.
Iraq has hope, everything else you hear about how it’s a lost cause, is only speculation.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:34 pm#95 Domino theory in reverse? Didn’t work in Vietnam won’t work now. Its still a delusion.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:34 pm#87 Touche, but I wheter it’s a the same “war”, but can see your point.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:35 pmwe are doing better in Iraq then WWII. By every measure
Except that in the time it took to defeat three fascist nations, utterly, …. well you know where I am going with this….LOL
October 27th, 2006 at 6:35 pmJohnG:
I doubt you saying their morale is high makes it true, from what I’ve read it’s very low, with extended tours, improper equipment, an enemy they don’t even know who they’re fighting. You’re a fool. Most soldiers 78% want the hell out of Iraq
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
October 27th, 2006 at 6:37 pm#95 How do you define winning?(Snow)
October 27th, 2006 at 6:37 pm#88 – If you want to be taken seriously by people who disagree with you, I would suggest you try posting for us a viewpoint you hold that you actually arrived at through thinking it through on your own and isn’t parroted from right-wing neocon talking points. It also doesn’t help when you cast everyone who is of a different political spectrum from you as cartoonish stereotypes, since you’re practically perpetuating one yourself. Not only is it condescending, but it’s arrogant and poisonous towards any potential discourse. I welcome disagreement, but there’s a clear difference between intelligent disagreement and thoughtless political tribalism – right now your rantings fall into the latter of these two categories.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:39 pmoops typo 72% of soldiers want out.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:40 pm#89 Actually, I was accused of being a “goose stepping” nazi. I didn’t start it. I just was giving you the definition of the term, after I #57 accused me, # 58 jumped on the band wagon, then shock me, shock me, shock me, you do too
##############################
Winners win, Losers lose.
Vote for a democrat, and vote for bad news.
You’re liberals are right [sic], the US can’t win.
Of course don’t help, just criticize past sin.
Made some mistakes to win the cold war,
Fixing it now so our kids avoid horror
heads down we leave, from terrorists, thugs, and thieves?
Japan, Germany, seemed to become free.
our armed forced can succeed cuz we’re pretty smart
if liberal senators stop speculating with their mouth farts
just because we have no hindsight time machine
doesn’t mean that we just give up on our team
while democrats pretend there is no social security woes
and sen. clinton says that parents can’t know
with all the liberal special interest bills ready for the inking
not yet, we’re not fooled…with your short sighted liberal thinking
##############################
October 27th, 2006 at 6:40 pm“#83 In every respect, we are doing better in Iraq then WWII.”
The reconstruction after WW2 went smoother than the reconstruction that’s going on in Iraq right now.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:41 pm#91 Vietnam had little technology compared to today, a draft force of non-professional soldiers, and a government who’s people were not elected. Just because it’s kinda the same, when you look at the differences, i just don’t buy the Iraq is vietnam theory
just apples and oranges
October 27th, 2006 at 6:43 pmNot #91, #90
October 27th, 2006 at 6:43 pmOh god not that lame poem again, give it up. BTW social security was fine until you robbed it for your war and replaced its money with a bunch of IOU’s.
And speaking of short sighted, even Bush Sr. knew better than to invade Baghdad.
and short sighted.. “Who knew those levess would break”.
god I could go on all day, but never battle an idiot, they’ll beat you with experience every time.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:44 pm#93 Haha, history is at least +25 years
October 27th, 2006 at 6:45 pm#103 – There’s an unfair stereotype of conservatives that they are petty tribalistic unthinking warmongers that parrot talking points while offering no real views of their own who believe anyone who thinks differently from them to be the enemy, and refuse to hear any critcism of their point of view. Right now you’re doing a very good job of perpetuating that stereotype.
Thankfully though, I know damnned well you do not in any way represent the views of intelligent conservatives. So sorry, I honestly don’t see you as a “real” conservative in any shape or form – just nutcase right-wing extremist no better than any given nutcase leftist extremist, who has nothing to add but their own hate-filled ramblings. After all, extremists like you are always blithering misinformed idiots regardless of what political side they claim to support.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:47 pm#98 Well if the US was still a country that firebombed and leveling cities…we have a complicated rules of engagement over there. Which is a problem.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:47 pm#99 Of course they want to leave, but they choose to serve. Because they believe in the mission.
Also, we have the best equipment in the history of the world…nothing is perfect though. For example the humvee was designed as a light recon vehicle, it was armed force ingnuity that allowed them to armor all those on the field.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:49 pm#100 Safer world for my kids. We already tried doing nothing.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:50 pmAhh like the professional soldiers putting gang tags and hate signs all over Iraq? At least some of the NVA regulars had uniforms and you knew who to shoot. The army has lowered its standards to meet recruiting goals. And since you idiots on the right love drudge here’s a link for our professional army standards:
http://www.drudge.com/news/86408/army-hits-recruit-goal-lowering-standards
Or the professional soldiers raping, and murdering innocent people.
And this battle has doesn’t even have front lines, at least in Nam there were true front lines in most cases. Take a hill here, a river junction there. We could carpet bomb their supply lines, and our superior technology did not help us in Nam either. This isn’t a tank versus a toyota battle, this is house to house fighting, IED’s, suicide bombers no technology short of robots fighting for you is going to help.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:51 pmJohnG,
Many were duped into a war against Osama Been Forgotten. Or Iraq has WMD’s..
You sir are a liar and a traitor just like your president.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:53 pm#104 Correct, because the terrorists specifically target reconstruction. It’s a new tactic, because germans didn’t want to hurt other germans…but these terrorists will kill anyone, just because they want power.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:57 pm#108 Liar or misinformed
October 27th, 2006 at 6:58 pmA few things that will make the world a better place:
A) Ending the violence in Iraq. I don’t care how it’s done as long as someone finds a way to do it. (If we need more troops and have to stay longer to do it, fine. If we need to withdraw to do it, fine. Let’s just get a coherent strategy together for pete’s sake.)
B) Conservatives and Liberals learning to get along with civility in spite of their disagreement.
C) Not listeing to professional village idiots like JohnG here.
D) Ice cream for EVERYBODY. (Except the lactose intolerant.)
October 27th, 2006 at 6:58 pm#106 Actually, they is the same.
it’s wrong comparison. You should compare difference our tech and enemy tech in Vietnam war and Iraq war.
Vietnam war start with professional soldiers but the prolonged war forced us using draft force.
Woh, Roger asked a puppet pro-Western govt. I affair the truely elected govt will ask our troop out in their first day job.
Same to Bush’s Admin, it was a huge mistake.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:59 pm#109 I don’t know why.
Also, I’m not a christian, but it shows your bigotry of people with other views.
I’m done with you.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:00 pm#109 I don’t know why.
Also, I’m not a christian, but it shows your bigotry of people with other views.
I’m done with you.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:00 pm#112 Thank you for telling me how I’m wrong…Oh wait, you just call me unintellegent, great point. Is this the diplomacy I hear about :) (
October 27th, 2006 at 7:02 pm124 – Thank you for admitting that the situation in Iraq is different than WW2. Now kindly retract your asinine analogy about WW2 and Iraq.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:03 pmWE CAN’T AFFORD IT! WE ARE GOING BANKRUPT
October 27th, 2006 at 7:05 pm131 – How was that hate-filled poem you posted in any way ‘diplomatic’?
October 27th, 2006 at 7:05 pm#119
Statiscally, these isolated events aren’t relevant. Typical liberals lack of perspective.
You obviosly think our soldiers are evil. You obviosuly prefer Sadam.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:06 pm#120 Keep name calling, it shows the last throws of an exhausted mind. I’ll just post this every time someone critizes me instead of the topic.
##############################
Winners win, Losers lose.
Vote for a democrat, and vote for bad news.
You’re liberals are right [sic], the US can’t win.
Of course don’t help, just criticize past sin.
Made some mistakes to win the cold war,
Fixing it now so our kids avoid horror
heads down we leave, from terrorists, thugs, and thieves?
Japan, Germany, seemed to become free.
our armed forced can succeed cuz we’re pretty smart
if liberal senators stop speculating with their mouth farts
just because we have no hindsight time machine
doesn’t mean that we just give up on our team
while democrats pretend there is no social security woes
and sen. clinton says that parents can’t know
with all the liberal special interest bills ready for the inking
not yet, we’re not fooled…with your short sighted liberal thinking
##############################
October 27th, 2006 at 7:09 pmJohn G: “In every respect, we are doing better in Iraq then WWII. By every measure…except time.”
John G: Iraq and Viet Nam — apples and oranges.
People, this little bastard doesn’t have the slightest idea what he’s talking about.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:10 pm#133 We are still in Germany and Japan
October 27th, 2006 at 7:11 pmLet’s begin with little Johnny’s strange opinion that we’re doing better in Iraq than we did in WWII. Johnny, the Democratic party controlled congress and the Whitehouse during WWII. We prosecuted a war against two giant industrial powers who had, by force, taken over much of the world. We forced an unconditional surrender of both industrial powers in less time than it has taken us to get where we are in Iraq today. WTF are you talking about?
October 27th, 2006 at 7:13 pm140 – your first post in this discussion thread was that asinine hate-filled poem, which you’ve kept reposting in a hypocritical mantra. Don’t even pretend that you’re trying to contribute to any sort of intelligent discussion, because you’ve done virtually nothing but troll this topic for angry responses.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:13 pmJohn G: “We are still in Germany and Japan”
Gosh, that’s right John. Listen, can you tell us how many Americans have been killed by insurgents in Germany and Japan during the last 60 years? Hint: it’s less than 1.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:15 pm#144 “little johnny”
##############################
Winners win, Losers lose.
Vote for a democrat, and vote for bad news.
You’re liberals are right [sic], the US can’t win.
Of course don’t help, just criticize past sin.
Made some mistakes to win the cold war,
Fixing it now so our kids avoid horror
heads down we leave, from terrorists, thugs, and thieves?
Japan, Germany, seemed to become free.
our armed forced can succeed cuz we’re pretty smart
if liberal senators stop speculating with their mouth farts
just because we have no hindsight time machine
doesn’t mean that we just give up on our team
while democrats pretend there is no social security woes
and sen. clinton says that parents can’t know
with all the liberal special interest bills ready for the inking
not yet, we’re not fooled…with your short sighted liberal thinking
##############################
October 27th, 2006 at 7:15 pmHe thinks he’s the “desert fox”.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:16 pm143 – Yet we’re no longer in Vietnam.
I’m still waiting for your retraction of your bad ww2-iraq analogy after you admitted yourself that WW2’s reconstruction was different than the one going on in Iraq.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:17 pmNow for Johnnyboy’s strange contention that Viet Nam and Iraq are “apples and oranges.” Let’s review some of the challenges our boys had back in the day: no clear objective, no definition of victory, no compelling strategic reason, only political, can’t tell the friendlies from the hostiles, started with lies to the American public, poor morale among the troops, disillusionment with the mission among the troops and the people, puppet government, civil war dynamics which we failed to understand, the people of that country actually preferred guys we didn’t like….. oh, that’s right, Nam was a jungle and Iraq is a desert — completely different.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:19 pmJohnG
I think we can both agree that the context of Germany and Japan doesn’t compare to the situation in Iraq at all. For starters, Germany and Japan chose to be nation states – we Brits forced into existence the Iraqi state by cobbling together three different groups of people who really don’t get on. Liberating Iraq from a dictator was, by any standard, the right thing to do. However, no coherent plan seems to exist to pull together the Shia, Sunni and Kurds post liberation. I’ll be honest; I can’t see a solution that will create a united Iraq. Too much bad blood and too much History still to happen.
I’m not here to start an argument, I’m on the left of the political spectrum but I would be very interested to hear how you think this situation can be resolved.
Thanks
Eddie
October 27th, 2006 at 7:21 pm#140 Hate filled? Read these comments for what I’m hearing from the thinkprogress kool-aid drinkers.
How was my poem hate filled? I just stated my views, while only bashing some senators…How many times has the preseident been accused as a liar, murderer, etc just on this page.
My point is liberals just don’t understand how thugs over there can’t be sweet talked. It has failed, over, and over, and over.
If we stayed in vietnam, we would have won. And all those other people wouldn’t have been slaughtered. All that blood is on the hands of the hippies of the 70s…every one of those that died after the north came down after we left.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:21 pm#149 Umm, we already made it to bagdad…in under 90 days. Technically, we were in Germany for years afterwards…so maybe this will be shorter. Will you now retract your assinine statment?
October 27th, 2006 at 7:23 pmHey look, I can post poems too:
There once was a troll named JohnG
On blog discussions he liked to pee
With urine so callous
That spat from his phallus
An arc from his tiny weewee
October 27th, 2006 at 7:24 pmThe president has got his war
Folks don’t know just what it’s for
Nobody gives you a rhyme or reason
Have one doubt, they call it treason.
— Les McCann, “Compared to What,” circa 1968
October 27th, 2006 at 7:24 pmJohnG: “My point is liberals just don’t understand how thugs over there can’t be sweet talked. It has failed, over, and over, and over.”
Right. Liberals just coddled the hell out of those Nazis and Japanese.
And, those million dead Vietnamese? Coddled.
Clinton coddled those first WTC bombers right into prison where they still sit today.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:26 pmJohnG: “Umm, we already made it to bagdad…in under 90 days.”
Right, it took us a couple years to crush one of the biggest industrial powers the world had ever known, but it only took 90 days to crush no army with almost no equipment or ammo.
JohnG, you are obviously a young man and possibly you have never even known someone who fought in WWII. Believe me. You need to crack open a few history books.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:30 pm#150 ???
no clear objective?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
no compelling strategic reason?
removal of sadaam, wmd suspected by all major intellignec agencies, pacifciation of radical muslims before “pocket nukes” in 25 years, energy reserves
Can’t tell friendlies from foes:
thank those terrorist cowards for using kids…it’s not a reason to give up, it’s the reason we need to win.
Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds working together:
Well you got me there, the missing holy grail of victory…but i’m sure pulling out won’t work in the short term.
Iraqis did not prefer Sadaam, I totally disagree with you there. They have been opressed, and the culture has suffered by allowing only strong, ruthless men in authority figures. It’s all they know….but they deserve better.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:34 pm#154 Hmm, don’t agree with my post, so personally attack me. Last argument of the desperate mind.
##############################
Winners win, Losers lose.
Vote for a democrat, and vote for bad news.
You’re liberals are right [sic], the US can’t win.
Of course don’t help, just criticize past sin.
Made some mistakes to win the cold war,
Fixing it now so our kids avoid horror
heads down we leave, from terrorists, thugs, and thieves?
Japan, Germany, seemed to become free.
our armed forced can succeed cuz we’re pretty smart
if liberal senators stop speculating with their mouth farts
just because we have no hindsight time machine
doesn’t mean that we just give up on our team
while democrats pretend there is no social security woes
and sen. clinton says that parents can’t know
with all the liberal special interest bills ready for the inking
not yet, we’re not fooled…with your short sighted liberal thinking
##############################
October 27th, 2006 at 7:35 pm#159 I called liberals, not you.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:36 pm152 – Please. In your first response to this topic, you posted a poem that badly caricatures democrats into cartoonishly demonized stereotypes, and then attacked people for naturally getting angry at you. You’re a hypocrite through and through.
I do not take people like you as being “real” conservatives. You have done nothing but try to drum up anger from ‘liberals.’ All you are is a troll looking to stir up trouble. Fortunately for myself, I happen to find exposing trolls like you and making them run through their song and dance as they’re exposed for what they really are to be an amusing pasttime.
Dance away, little troll! *shoots gunfire at your feet*
October 27th, 2006 at 7:37 pmJohnG.: “Iraqis did not prefer Sadaam, I totally disagree with you there.”
John, you need to keep up. Saddam is, of course, rendered obsolete. I was talking about the fact that most Iraqis favor radical Shiite leaders which we don’t like or support.
And, the point was not that being unable to tell friendlies from foes is reason to give up — you just keep pounding away with those straw men – can’t help yourself I guess. The point was that it was a situation similar to Viet nam. I can also tell by your remarks that you’ve been fed a steady diet of bullshit about Viet Nam. Do you really think “hippies” had the power to shut down the military industrial complex?? I’ve never heard anyone ascribe so much power to “hippies.”
October 27th, 2006 at 7:41 pm#161
They we’re the third or fourth largest army. Just because it was easy, doesn’t mean it wasn’t hard.
I’m not going to question your knowledge of actually what happend on the ground in Iraq…and I’m no young man. With a long family history in the armed forces, though I, never was able to based on some health issues.
There is no treaty with terrorism…it will just take time.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:42 pm163 – They’re attacking you personally because you have nothing intelligent to add other than “LIE-BERALS LOL” and are acting like a complete putz.
There once was a troll named JohnG
On blog discussions he liked to pee
With urine so callous
That spat from his phallus
An arc from his tiny weewee
October 27th, 2006 at 7:42 pm#166 I agree, but look what I had to view on the way down to my first post…I guess I have to provide some “retort flare” for hate bush/hate rumsfeld/it’s hard and i don’t want to deal with it/hate soldiers/hate U.S. crowd.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:45 pm172 – As much as I am put off by John G’s rather lame attempts at trolling, I’m almost as much put off by you using ALLCAPS and frequently rambling about CRAZY CHRISTIANS and whatnot. Need I remind you that in spite of fundamentalist right-wing christians dominating the political scene, liberal christians are still a strong force of positive change in this country.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:46 pmJohnG: “They we’re the third or fourth largest army. Just because it was easy, doesn’t mean it wasn’t hard.”
Again, John somebody has been distorting the facts for you. Iraq did have an army rated in the top five — before we destroyed it in 1991. In 2002, as we have all seen, he didn’t have much left. Our Army advanced on Bagdad virtually un-checked.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:46 pm173 – You’re using the “two wrongs make a right” fallacy to justify your disgusting behavior? Aces. You really have scraped the bottom of the barrel now, John! Fighting stupidity with stupidity of your own is a GREAT IDEA – for a kindergartner, anyway.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:48 pm#174 PS – I’m not trolling, just trying to actually have someone change my views with usign conspiracy theories and specualtion.
Honestly, I’m offended anytime someone defames the office of the president or our soldiers. And it typicaly comes from the left.
I’m sure everyone here is off to see “death of a president” in theaters tonight.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:49 pm180 – Okay man I hear ya but trust me, you’ll come across as less obnoxioius if you just type normally without CAPS FOR EMPHASIS and heavy use of hyperbole.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:52 pm#178 I don’t think my poem was hateful, it just disagreed with your views. Most democrats think the U.S is evil force internationally, most Democrats want to pull out of iraq regardless of the consequences, most democrats, they opposes SS reform, and are against parental notice (not consent) of 13 year old girls having abortions in California.
I’m basing this on official positions of those elected or about to be elected officials.
I see nobody criticizing the “bush in scum” people, so why are my views attacked by personally attacking me?
October 27th, 2006 at 7:54 pmJohnG: “I’m sure everyone here is off to see “death of a president†in theaters tonight.”
I think I see your problem. You need to believe everyone has a mind as sick as yours. I don’t go to snuff films. I didn’t want to see Jesus tortured to death and I don’t want to see Bush shot to death. And, you know what? I’ve been a liberal for my entire adult life. Strange, huh.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:55 pm#185 Let me tell you, it’s WORKING!
October 27th, 2006 at 7:57 pm#186 Well that’s a good sign.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:58 pm179 – “I’m not trolling, just trying to actually have someone change my views with usign conspiracy theories and specualtion.”
Bull. If that were true, you wouldn’t be name-calling and stereotyping liberals so badly – which you did straight away with your moronic poem and subsequent condescending posts. This does not ‘open up debate’ – it closes the door shut and gets people angry.
“Honestly, I’m offended anytime someone defames the office of the president or our soldiers. And it typicaly comes from the left.”
The president falls to the political right-wing, and he is the commander in chief of our armed forces. Is it really any incredible surprise that the bulk of criticism directed towards these things comes from the political left?
“I’m sure everyone here is off to see “death of a president†in theaters tonight.”
There you go stereotyping liberals again – and yet you claim to wonder why people respond so negatively to you.
And no, I won’t be seeing it because I don’t like to watch crap with a capital C.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:00 pm185 – Well it’s not really funny. It’s kind of dumb.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:01 pmMcCain and his son Jimmy need to go to Iraq first to fight before anybody else has to go there!
October 27th, 2006 at 8:04 pmJay I’m pretty sure McCain has served his country.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:07 pm20,000 ?
try 200,000
October 27th, 2006 at 8:07 pm#197 no
October 27th, 2006 at 8:08 pm195 – Thank you Steve, I coldn’t have put it better myself.
Side note: I’m actually an atheist, but I believe strongly in people of different worldviews being able to get along with one another. Which is why I take offense towards people who are all too quick to call christians “stupid.”
Don’t be hatin’, man. Recognize stupidity for what it is and attack it at its source – in this case, a rogue long-nut troll named JohnG who’s trying to stir up trouble by being a total butt. Broad-brushing with hyperbolic statements about “stupid christians” and the like just makes everyone angry.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:10 pmwhat, is mccain vying for the title of chief republican loon. I realize he has tremendous competition and enormous pressure to out loon the loons, but more troops in Iraq…come on; that train left the station at least 2 years ago.
maybe mccain is just trying to publically declare his insanity. apparentlly sucking up to the cult of republicanism has been too much for him and he cracked.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:10 pm.
202 – What the bloody…You’re almost as bad as John G now.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:11 pmI look at people who have experience with situations with more respect than I do those without. I actually laugh my ass off at people who try to tell me how to raise my children( The so called experts) when they have none of thier own.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:13 pm209 – That’s not what you said. You called him a benedict Arnold – McCain may hold views different from your own but he is no traitor to his country. You need to stop with this hyperbole bullshit, because it’s making you look really stupid.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:16 pm#192 Well at least we know that you condone everything else this nut says. Liberal Christian?
October 27th, 2006 at 8:18 pmDan — anybody who sides with Bush, the Republican party, and the radical right (let’s not forget how McCain has kissed all those particular asses) is a traitor to this country. End of story. Calling McCain a Benedict Arnold is nothing more than truth in advertising.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:19 pmSheesh why do GOPers defend crazy McCain on here? John lost his mind in Vietnam, so he needs mental therapy, and not remain in the Senate nor run for president! It’s time to pull the troops out of Iraq and NOT add more!
October 27th, 2006 at 8:19 pm#206 Well, I was kinda just under the assumption that he wasn’t your poster “monkey boy”.
This is the best reasoning against the GOP the liberal blogsphere has? I will play at your level…at least till the elections.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:22 pm214 – You’re in no position to talk down to anyone.
215 – You’re incredibly stupid and I’m not going to credit your with a thought-out response except to say that if stupidity were cancer you would be a massive inflamed tumor festering with black boils.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:22 pmAnd I LAUGH MY ASS OFF, when parents like you end up on SUPERNANNY!!
ROTFL!!!
Actually I have great kids with lives and goals. My kids are not the soft variety that most parents seem to be raising these days. They have good morals and a strong sense of right from wrong. They have no religous foundation even though it hasn’t been kept from them.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:23 pm217 – I realize that was not your intention – you are fond of using hyperbole, or heavy exagerration, to attempt to get your point across. Unfortunately this backfires when you make broad statements or ones that could easily be deemed as factually incorrect. In other words, think before you post.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:24 pmYo, with those sunglasses and that hat, and the shirt buttoned up to the top; he looks like an albino/ or an elderly “Powder”
October 27th, 2006 at 8:27 pm#216
Decompiling the typical liberal response:
October 27th, 2006 at 8:27 pm1. Preface question
2. Belittle or minimize the person (not the idea)
3. Insert nutty short sighted statement that’s seem cool or witty if you have no context on the real world
I’m not sure why this is even news? John McCain will never be a canidate let alone a president.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:31 pm215 – You’re incredibly stupid and I’m not going to credit your with a thought-out response except to say that if stupidity were cancer you would be a massive inflamed tumor festering with black boils.
Comment by Dan — October 27, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
Oh, I’m wounded! Stupidity, is in fact a cancer — just take a look at what’s happening in the world today thanks to Bush and his lemming supporters. How proud you must be to be one of them. Sleep well, Dan, you’ve got the blood of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and thousands of dead and maimed U.S. troops on your hands. I surely hope you don’t believe in heaven, because you and your ilk aren’t going there. Nighty night.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:31 pm225 – Decompiling the typical JohnG response:
1 – Preface every statement made with cartoonish negative stereotypes about liberals.
2 – Act self-righteous when people naturally get angry.
3 – Rinse-repeat, adding nothing of value at any point anywhere.
Bonus points for hypocristy & condescension, and style points for analogies that reveal a laughable lack of historical knowledge about the contry they’re supposed to live in.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:33 pmThen your wife or their GOOD INFLUENCES must be applauded!!
There may be something to that. You see my kids both have the SAME mother and we have been married 24 years.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:34 pmLOL John G > if you like McCain then you live in a bubble of unreality! John is a complete goofball and gets crazier by the day > he is unfit to remain in the Senate, nor should he be allowed to run for president! He is a far worse warmonger than Bush or Cheney!
October 27th, 2006 at 8:34 pm227 – I don’t think you’re quite grasping my point. If you want to keep looking like a moron while sycophants kiss your butt though, please be my guest.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:36 pmHowever, it never DAWNED on you, that this might DETER children of INCEST from getting an abortion.
How does that help? The childern when asked for parental approval would then inform the proper athorities and Bad daddy goes away. I’m sure the courts would allow for an abortion without dads approval. Lame and sick argument.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:38 pmYeah, 20,000 more troops are going to do the trick. Der.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:39 pm#231 Yopu getting angry because people voice opinions you don’t agree with you is your problem…not mine.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:40 pm#233 Again, you have no “ideas” in your post, just hate.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:41 pm#235 Wow, someone else sees it.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:43 pm229 – Don’t you dare try to condescend your rhetoric to me, you petty little dickwad. You wielding Iraqi deathtolls is as sickening as any given neocon fearmonger wielding 9-11 like a razor blade to slit the throats of their critics. I hope you’re happy that you’ve effectively sunk to the most hypocritical reprehensible of all levels you could possibly sink to.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:43 pm243 – No, I don’t think ALLCAPS and badly executed hyperbole is particularly funny. I’m sorry if this revelation comes as a shock to you, o ‘master of wit.’
October 27th, 2006 at 8:46 pmChildren that are abused are going to be less likely to seek care in this case if the parents are notified.
Hmmm you think no one might notice that the 12 year old girl is pregnant? Sounds to me like you want to protect the Pervert father by allowing the girl to go have an abortion without telling anyone. By having parental notification something would have to happen.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:50 pmWhat is to prevent the father from getting her pregnant again? No solution in your proposal.
250 – I find it unnerving that you keep using “ROFTL” in response to a post where I’m expressing genuine outrage at someone cheapening the tragedy of Iraqi deaths into a means of attacking others out of hand. You’ve not only missed the point – you’ve revealed that you’re just callous towards tragedy as the average neoconservative extremist right-wing asshole. Congratulations.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:51 pm253 – We all have a sense of humor. Some of us have more developed ones than others.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:53 pm#244 20,000 people saw the virgin Mary in their potatos tonight, too.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:54 pm244 – Shut up. You’re just as bad as he is, if not worse.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:55 pm#256 No ideas…just trashtalk.
##############################
Winners win, Losers lose.
Vote for a democrat, and vote for bad news.
You’re liberals are right [sic], the US can’t win.
Of course don’t help, just criticize past sin.
Made some mistakes to win the cold war,
Fixing it now so our kids avoid horror
heads down we leave, from terrorists, thugs, and thieves?
Japan, Germany, seemed to become free.
our armed forced can succeed cuz we’re pretty smart
if liberal senators stop speculating with their mouth farts
just because we have no hindsight time machine
doesn’t mean that we just give up on our team
while democrats pretend there is no social security woes
and sen. clinton says that parents can’t know
with all the liberal special interest bills ready for the inking
not yet, we’re not fooled…with your short sighted liberal thinking
##############################
October 27th, 2006 at 8:57 pm#257 Right, cuz your a regular philospher.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:58 pm#260 Is that you Dennis Miller? Because talking about Dem spending is really funny. Oh, wait, you haven’t been funny since turning to the dark side. Good luck with you *ahem* career.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:04 pm261 – “#257 Right, cuz your a regular philospher.”
I have a stronger grasp of logic, grammar, and rhetoric than you do, that’s for certain.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:06 pm265 – Please, don’t try to imply I would ever side with him. I am a force of nature for progressive thought; I point out stupidity where I see it, no more no less.
People who see the world in terms of tribalistic polarities might see me as “taking sides” but this is never the case, and I am always annoyed but unsurprised by those that do so.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:11 pmHmmm you think no one might notice that the 12 year old girl is pregnant?
Not if she’s home-schooled. Her parents will just think she’s gaining weight at first.
Sounds to me like you want to protect the Pervert father by allowing the girl to go have an abortion without telling anyone. By having parental notification something would have to happen.
Not necessarily. If it occurs in a small, religious community, some might want to avoid the shame it would bring upon them. Some might just try to mitigate the possible damage to the community. I’m speaking of the polygamist Christians, and other religious sects. What if the father is the mayor? Or the Chief of Police? Or a religious leader of the community? The parents might also decide to give the baby up for adoption, and move to another community, if the girl is home-schooled and kept away from others.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:15 pmIf you cannot imagine instances were parental approval would actually make matters worse, you’re not trying hard enough.
262 – He claimed that the blood of innocent Iraqis was on my hands because I called him stupid for saying that John McCaine is a benedict arnold traitor. Now correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you admitted that you do not believe John McCaine to be a traitor in spite of your hyperbole. Therefore you really have no reason to side with him against me other than to satisfy a grudge for me calling you on your overuse of hyperbole and CAPS – which you also claim is part of a sense of humor.
So yeah, what exactly are you trying to attack me about? More importantly, why? I’m not an enemy – I’m a critic, albeit a frequently bitter and cynical one. You can take my criticism or leave it.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:16 pmFor information on how to kill a topic just read the above posts :)
October 27th, 2006 at 9:17 pmDan, would you characterize yourself as a “Reagan democrat?” Because you sound like one.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:17 pmBarfly – No, and I hate Regan. I would categorize myself as a progressive democrat.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:19 pmCongratulations Steve, it is an incredible feat and you have reached the peak. You have derailed a TP thread. You can now die…satisfied.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:22 pm#162
Ok let’s review that strategic.
Wake up! Those Iraqis want the troops out. Keep your promise “That choice belongs to the Iraqi people” and “not a day more”.
It is total wrong. To win, firstly you should end the insurgency, end the civil war. They still think Iraq is full of terrorists? I’m not surprised the insurgency and the civil war will never end.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:23 pmAlso to barfly – where exactly in my posts do I express any views that would lead one to assume I was a “reagan democrat”? The views I have expressed in this thread have been coming almost strictly from a rational-progressive standpoint, barring the parts where I get annoyed enough by other posters to engage in namecalling – that’s just me being a prick.
Pointing out the stupidity on your own side is also one of the many principles of progressive thought, since that’s how we make progress for the better – I advise you do some study on the subject.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:23 pmDemocrats use to support our troops and wanted America to win. In WWII even HollyWood was in full support of our efforts. Democrats of today are not the Democrats of yesteryear.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:24 pmMy appologies. If someone called McCain a Benedict Arnold, it was wrong. McCain is an opportunist, and willing to do or say anything for the Presidency (short of selling weapons to our enemies, like You-know-who), but he is not traitor. But he’s right up there with Colin Powell as someone willing to sacrifice honor for position.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:27 pm277 – I’m a democract of today and I would be one of the ones advocating us to get involved in WW2 sooner than we did, were I to have lived back in the day.
I’m completely against the war in Iraq however, because it was utterly misguided and mishandled. Yes, taking out Saddam at some point is a good idea. No, we shouldn’t have taken him out the way we did, for the reasons we did, and when we did.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:28 pmDemocrats use to support our troops and wanted America to win. In WWII even HollyWood was in full support of our efforts. Democrats of today are not the Democrats of yesteryear.
Well, now. Iraq is no WWII now, is it? If it were then even pussies like you might join up. Back to the point…what difference is 20,000 troops going to make?
October 27th, 2006 at 9:28 pm278 – I agree with this to a degree. He may have insight and at least ATTEMPT sometimes to have integrity moreso than others, but he ultimately is a lapdog to his party.
Regardless I think the country would be in far far far better shape if he were president instead of Bush.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:30 pmDan lets say you were president and and Iraq had WMDs which they had used on thier own people. Then they kick out the inspectors that were trying to make sure those WMDs got destroyed, only after playing cat and mouse with them for years. The UN does nothing…. Congress unilatteraly gives you the green light. Intellegence from agiencies all around the world say not only does he have WMDs but he plans to develop more and use them? What decision do you think you would make without having the hindsight you now enjoy?
October 27th, 2006 at 9:33 pmAlthough I have apologized, I will say further that your tone, as I have followed the thread, sounded distinctly centrist in tone, hence my question.
I advise you do some study on the subject.
Comment by Dan — October 27, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
Please. I’m not interested in a “progressive” dick-measuring contest.
And by the way I’m a liberal, and not afraid to say it.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:33 pmRegardless I think the country would be in far far far better shape if he were president instead of Bush.
Comment by Dan
Dan I have to disagree with you here because McCain is only out to serve McCain. Truth be told he normally chooses a side that gets him the most press coverage.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:35 pmI’m completely against the war in Iraq however, because it was utterly misguided and mishandled. Yes, taking out Saddam at some point is a good idea. No, we shouldn’t have taken him out the way we did, for the reasons we did, and when we did.
Comment by Dan
The Kerry campaign talking points. We had no right to invade – wrap your noggin around it – because we didn’t have world consensus. Your position admits that the ends justify the means.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:38 pmDan lets say you were president and and Iraq had WMDs which they had used on thier own people. Then they kick out the inspectors that were trying to make sure those WMDs got destroyed, only after playing cat and mouse with them for years. The UN does nothing…. Congress unilatteraly gives you the green light. Intellegence from agiencies all around the world say not only does he have WMDs but he plans to develop more and use them? What decision do you think you would make without having the hindsight you now enjoy?
That is all a strawman and some of us actually saw that. Especially those that listened to the UN inspectors. What would I do? Hmm, tough one. Not attack a defenseless country!!! Do I win???
October 27th, 2006 at 9:39 pmOh my godness is it reasonable reasons to start a war kill thound & change million life. Your reason is true WMD.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:40 pmWe had no right to invade – wrap your noggin around it – because we didn’t have world consensus. Your position admits that the ends justify the means.
Comment by barfly
Since when did America have to ask the world for permission to do anything? You must love the UN and are looking for a One world government.
Last time I checked the citizens of this country have more of a say in what we do, then does the world consensus.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:41 pmI think maybe we had less of a reason to go into Kosovo? What was the point of that again? Oh yeah I remember HUMANATARIAN…… Its ok to help the poor helpless arabs being killed by christians…. but those arabs being killed by arabs… that is no consenquence.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:44 pmI’d agree with Steve, but I’d also add “and gets the most campaign contributions.”
McCain-Finegold happened after he got caught in the Keating scandal.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:44 pmGod bless you for speaking up, John McCain. Now will somebody please remove the bamboo shoots growing under his fingernails.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:44 pmSince when did America have to ask the world for permission to do anything? You must love the UN and are looking for a One world government.
Huh? Um, since the UN was founded you idiot.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:48 pm#293
October 27th, 2006 at 9:49 pmActually, UN was invented by American (Franklin D. Roosevelt). US created the rules ask every nations follow, but it break rules for its interest.
If you don’t like the UN you could always move to the Syria. I am pretty sure they aren’t a member. (Note the right wing strawman I use?)
October 27th, 2006 at 9:50 pmSince when did America have to ask the world for permission to do anything? You must love the UN and are looking for a One world government.
Last time I checked the citizens of this country have more of a say in what we do, then does the world consensus.
Comment by Steve
Well slap me for agreeing with you just now.
“Permission” isn’t the word I used, is it? “Concensus” means everyone works from the same book – a book that the Bush administration redacted ten thousand pages from, before submitting to the UN – or did you forget that fact? “Concensus” means letting the UNSCOM finish the job it was doing. “Consensus” means not bribing a few countries and calling it “a coalition of the willing”. “Consensus” means an agreed-upon set of rules to govern the treatment of prisoners. I could go on for hours . . .
October 27th, 2006 at 9:53 pmThat is all a strawman and some of us actually saw that. Especially those that listened to the UN inspectors. What would I do? Hmm, tough one. Not attack a defenseless country!!! Do I win???
Comment by JPark
We’re on the same wavelength, JPark.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:55 pmI would withdraw from the UN and send them on thier way. The money we give to the UN could be better spent to help some of your liberal causes. We pay over 20% of the entire bill at the UN…. can somebody remind me how many countries belong to the UN?
October 27th, 2006 at 9:59 pmI would withdraw from the UN and send them on thier way. The money we give to the UN could be better spent to help some of your liberal causes. We pay over 20% of the entire bill at the UN…. can somebody remind me how many countries belong to the UN?
Of course you would. It is because you are a shortsighting righty neanderthal. You can’t help that…I know. You do know that while we pay the most, we GET the most. The UN is a freaking US subsidiary.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:06 pmI find it curious how you complain about the patriot act and the interception of phone calls from known terrorist, but yet feel free to give up the right of our country to self govern. What if the world via the UN demanded all phone calls be monitored, that we had to destroy all our weapons, or possibly enact a law that parents could only have one child?
October 27th, 2006 at 10:08 pmshortsighted, sorry to insult your intelligence.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:09 pmI know. You do know that while we pay the most, we GET the most. The UN is a freaking US subsidiary.
Comment by JPark
We get the most… hell thats a good one. Our money gets pissed away down rat holes. Corrupt UN officials get the money I work for. We try to deliver aid to places where the crooks steal it and resell it. What does America get in return? Maybe Libya on the Humans rights Council?
October 27th, 2006 at 10:12 pmWhat a lunatic. McCain is a warmonger of the first rank.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:13 pmSteve, my tax money is going to fricking Haliburton. If you really want to whine about where your tax money is going I will whoop your ass. Did you mention Libya, Bush’s new best friend? I suggest you steer clear of THAT one.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:16 pm#309 You dipshit. You say KNOWN terrorist. Who “knows” this? Bush? Because he is the only one who can deciderer this. Won’t you be fricking happy when Hilary can deciderer that YOU are a “known” terrorist. You guys are going to throw a fit when the Dems own your asses.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:18 pmWait, you won’t throw a fit for long Guantanamo-bound.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:19 pmJpark why is Libya now Bush’s best friend? I would like to hear YOUR point of view on this. I’m not being sarcastic.. I really would like your take on this.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:19 pmjpark i see you attacked the Patriot act part but failed to comment on the UN ruling the world idea.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:21 pmWell, let’s see Steve. They gave them amnesty on ALL of their previous terrorist acts. Sound damn giving of your glorious leader doesn’t it.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:22 pm#317 Why would I comment on the UN ruling the world? It has never and would never happen. It is nothing but a red herring.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:23 pmI find it curious how you complain about the patriot act and the interception of phone calls from known terrorist, but yet feel free to give up the right of our country to self govern.
The illegal wiretapping of all Americans should upset a patriot like you as well.
What if the world via the UN demanded all phone calls be monitored, that we had to destroy all our weapons, or possibly enact a law that parents could only have one child? Comment by Steve
We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. Your childish construction ( “What if the world via the UN demanded all phone calls be monitored, that we had to destroy all our weapons“), reveals that you really haven’t thought this position through.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:26 pmAmerica is a sovereign nation – so was Iraq under Saddam. By doing this in this way, we enamble other countries to use our actions as precedent, and in ways that are guaranteed to be against American interests abroad.
But you said we shouldn’t act without the UN approval or world consensus? I trust the leaders of my country more (be they Dem or Rep) then I do the world. I’m pretty sure not all of the nations of the world have our best interests in mind. Many of the nations of the world are still ruled by dictators. I could say your cries of loss of rights and freedom are a red herring as well. Show me proof that a Non terrorist American has had a phone call intercepted and then prosecuted for something outside of terrorism.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:29 pmBarfly we are not illegally wiretapping all of Americans……. the resources for that are so prohibitive. Besides it is not the purpose of the Patriot Act. And yes if it was a blanket wiretapping I would be the first to oppose it.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:33 pmFor information on how to revive a thread read posts 271 to current :)
October 27th, 2006 at 10:36 pm#321 If you are talking to me I would love to see where I said we should never act without UN approval.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:39 pm#322 Prove that Bush isn’t wiretapping political opponents. That isn’t too prohibitive, is it?
October 27th, 2006 at 10:40 pmSince when did America have to ask the world for permission to do anything? You must love the UN and are looking for a One world government.
Huh? Um, since the UN was founded you idiot.
Comment by JPark
I dunno JPark… did I read that wrong?
October 27th, 2006 at 10:42 pmSteve, “consensus” was finding out that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, through UNSCOM. But Bush wanted to invade, and pee-in-your-pants republicans were parroting every nonsensical rationale the PNAC -ers trotted out. And the war cry was useful politically, as a tool in the midterm elections.
No one is advocating surrender to the UN of American sovereignty, but you seem to advocate surrender of Americans’ rights because you’re scared.
Show me proof that a Non terrorist American has had a phone call intercepted and then prosecuted for something outside of terrorism.
Wait until we take back congress, and then we’ll find out.
Comment by Steve — October
October 27th, 2006 at 10:43 pmTalk about red herring and fear mongering. JPark do you think if you throw absurd ideas out there people will buy them? Vote the republicans out because they could be wiretapping political opponents. LOL
October 27th, 2006 at 10:44 pmShow me proof that a Non terrorist American has had a phone call intercepted and then prosecuted for something outside of terrorism.
Comment by Steve
It’s almost Exleyish, the way you try to move the goalposts, like that.
The wiretapping is illegal - it is irrelevant if someone was actually prosecuted or not.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:47 pmWait until we take back congress, and then we’ll find out.
Well once the republicans expose every nasty little secret all the dems are hiding (gathered of course from illegal wiretapping) America will turn on them faster then Liberals do against ABC or Joe Lieberman.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:48 pmOk explain again how it is illegal and who’s rights are being violated?
October 27th, 2006 at 10:50 pmOk explain again how it is illegal and who’s rights are being violated?
Comment by Steve
Fisa. Look it up.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:52 pm#330 If you can’t find them with subpoena power how are you going to do it after being castrated?
October 27th, 2006 at 10:52 pm#328 Ok, you give someone the power to tap people with no oversight and you think it is ridiculous to think they might use it for personal gain? What flavor is that kool-aid?
October 27th, 2006 at 10:53 pm#326 Of course you did. You are a Republican. Yes, if the UN has a point you should probably fricking listen to them.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:55 pmWell once the republicans expose every nasty little secret all the dems are hiding (gathered of course from illegal wiretapping) America will turn on them faster then Liberals do against ABC or Joe Lieberman.
Comment by Steve
Oh Steve, don’t you know they’ll do an “Ollie North?”
Better the info saw the light of day, than it to be used like that good ol’ cross-dressin’ conservative Hoover used info.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:55 pmSteve – want to bet that if republicans lose both the House and Senate, McCain suddenly gets a revalaion that we need to pull out now?
October 27th, 2006 at 11:00 pmBarfly I would agree unless there is another angle that could get him more press time :)
October 27th, 2006 at 11:02 pm#340 Um, you have read the bill right, Steve? If they decide you are a threat you have no rights…whether you are American or not. God, don’t take the talking points to heart. Read the fricking bill.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:10 pmSteve and I agree can at least that McCain is a tool. The gulf isn’t that wide, after all.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:13 pmSteve, diplomacy has no meaning to our current admin. It isn’t even a tool in their belt.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:17 pmJpark If they determine I’m a threat then as an American I do have rights… If I’m not an American I have alot to worry about. The reason these are warrant less is because we cannot know for sure who the terrorist are going to call. By the time we figure it out and go obtain the warrant the phone call is over and we have squat. If an attack occurs here again and then we find out calls had been made and we didn’t intercept them, then someones ass will be on the line.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:18 pm#348 No, Steve, you don’t. Habeas corpus has no meaning if they say you are aiding terrorists, whether you are a citizen or not. Gitmo knows no nationality.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:21 pmOk how many Americans have had thier right to a trial denied? habeas corpus is an international writ that started with the British. Not every country allows for it and it has been suspended before.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:30 pmWell it’s time for me to go. I’m glad you all have had the opportunity to spend some quality time with me. :)
October 27th, 2006 at 11:33 pmThough I may not agree with your points of view I do enjoy the discussion. Goodnight.
#350 You tell me how many Americans have had their right to a trial denied. That is the point. You can’t and neither can anybody but Cheney and his little puppet.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:34 pm#347 What are you talking about? Saddam kicked the inspectors out. UN authorized serious consequences. America enforced. The lesson is, if you don’t cooperate with diplomacy and inspections…prepare to get the next step.
Yet, diplomacy with NK and Iran being pursused…typical bush derangement syndrom…out of the realm of reality.
Please, back up your “no diplomacy” lies…really! Except for Iraq, which was legal, whether or not you agree with it. That’s a a fact, so don’t fall for the “we had no right”. Any other areas where the bush administration closed down embassy’s? Didn’t think so.
Clear and present danger was our reason.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:38 pm#353 Keep eating up the lies. Who kicked out the inspectors? Oh, that would be King George.
If you believe the invasion of Iraq was legal you are not worth talking to. You are dismissed.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:44 pmBarfly we are not illegally wiretapping all of Americans……. the resources for that are so prohibitive. Besides it is not the purpose of the Patriot Act. And yes if it was a blanket wiretapping I would be the first to oppose it.
Isn’t this called the “total information awareness” program? That sounds pretty all inclusive to me. The point is that FISA gave the government TWO WEEKS after surveillance to get a warrant for wiretapping. FISA is a very flexible as far as courts go. If the people are so dangerous is will not be difficult to get a warrant. This guy keeps saying show him instances where people are tapped illegally or prosecuted unfairly but he has yet to provide an instance where the broad wiretapping policies by this administration have made us safer than the previous laws and rules on record. That’s because he can’t.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:47 pm#354 No buddy, the few days of the 15 year dance wasn’t anything…this went on for years. Saddam became stubborn and they got pulled because they we’re being lied to and denied access by Saddam’s goons.
Wake up!
October 27th, 2006 at 11:50 pm#355 You only have to worry about it if you are a terrorist.
If they just tapped someone randomly and heard a murder confession not related to terrorism (and special laws for the mafia too), they could never prosecute because the evidence would get thrown out.
It’s also not his job to prove to you about classified intellegence…it’s to protect americans. I understand you would rather have the information public, even if it hurts us in the long run.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:55 pmSaddam became stubborn and they got pulled because they we’re being lied to and denied access by Saddam’s goons.
Wake up!
Comment by JohnG
And lied to by Bush with cherry-picked intel.
Wake up yourself!
October 27th, 2006 at 11:58 pm#356 I told you you are dismissed. Stop annoying me fly.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:59 pm#358 You’re not cherry picking when every other intelegence agency stated the same thing. You suffer from BDS and 20-20 hindsight.
Wakey, wakey!
October 28th, 2006 at 12:32 am#359 I know in your fascist, “I only associate with those that agree with me” world of yours…your dismissal might be of any weight.
Unfortunately, you can spew your shallow, short sighted, cherry picked comments…just understand most people don’t agree with you.
October 28th, 2006 at 12:35 am#360
Sorry, but the intelligence was presented both to the American people and the UN with all the caveat’s about the unreliability of the source removed. But you knew that.
BDS? Try something original. Sheesh! Is predigested pap all you’re capable of?
October 28th, 2006 at 1:17 am#362 Kinda common sense don’t you think…given clandestine operations are involved.
October 28th, 2006 at 1:25 amTo remove from the “findings” the info that the sources of their material were considered unreliable? Like Curveball?
More like to keep others from knowing that the intel came from someone allied with the INC (like Curveball).
October 28th, 2006 at 1:31 amjust understand most people don’t agree with you.
Comment by JohnG
You mean like the 60% or the 30% youre in?
October 28th, 2006 at 1:31 am#365 Poll questions like “do you want us to get out of iraq?”, hmm, kinda doesn’t quite dive into to the subject eh?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7iOVsYJdmZ4
October 28th, 2006 at 1:36 amYou only have to worry about it if you are a terrorist. Comment by JohnG
which can be anyone…there is no formal definition of terrorist, yet. Oh, well, there is…you can put people like Truman to Negroponte there.
Except for Iraq, which was legal, whether or not you agree with it. Comment by JohnG
Legal? How is so? Again, what was the reason of the invasion? I almost lose count.
October 28th, 2006 at 1:37 amhmm, kinda doesn’t quite dive into to the subject eh?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7iOVsYJdmZ4
Comment by JohnG
Sure, I dont know what I was thinking…so there is big agreement about the war on Iraq…yeah…now, please convince me with a youtube video that Bush can spell CAT.
October 28th, 2006 at 1:39 amJohn is feeling a little shorted: he came for the New American Century, and all he got for his troublewas a lousy quagmire. $2 billion a week to prop up a regime that is riddled with insurgents, with no accountability and no end in sight. Isn’t it time to put the Stratego board away and let the grownups fix it?
October 28th, 2006 at 1:45 amThat’s a good picture of McCain; he looks like a glandular Gilligan.
October 28th, 2006 at 1:49 amDefinition:
somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate others, often for political purposes
Comment by JohnG
mmmmm…Lets see (just to name a few):
1851- Punitive expedition against the City of Smirna, Turkey. Occupation of Johanna Island to defend a drunk captain unwilling to pay some bills.
1852 – Occupation of Buenos Aires to “protect” scared US interests
1853 – Two occupations in a roll of Nicaragua to protect interests. Almirant Perry´s expedition against Japan to open its market.
1854 – Perry occupies with all the fleet the Ryuku Islands to “convince” and impress the Emperor, who gives up and concedes the Okinawa Island as a navy US base. (Im beginning to understand the 300+ US bases all over the world)
You want something more updated? Sure…
1912 – military interventions in Cuba, Honduras, China, Turkey and Nicaragua.
More updated?
1931 – US organized coup d´etats and imposed Gral. Jorge Ubico in Guatemala, Gral. CarÃas Andino in Honduras and Gral. Maximiliano MartÃnez in El Salvador. 15,000 opposing farmers and peasants are slain in this last country.
I have one for each year. What a great country.
Yeah…I know what a Terrorist is. The question is…do you?
October 28th, 2006 at 1:54 am#370 I know you want to lose, and that you can’t fathom the long term benefits of democracy to take root in the middle east.
Sorry, it worked for the cold war…and the liberals still hate to admit they were wrong. A victory in iraq would force liberals to admit all their blathering was hate tactics for the shortsighted. And in the long term ineffective.
October 28th, 2006 at 1:57 amA victory in iraq would force liberals to admit all their blathering was hate tactics for the shortsighted. Comment by JohnG
Ok…lets wait. Can I take a seat?
October 28th, 2006 at 2:03 am#371
I know, we had slavery too. But just because we make stupid mistakes…doesn’t make everything we do wrong or evil today (it’s 2006 fyi).
Forming any opinion based on the your “america is evil” premise would be the same as comparing Germany’s foreign policy in 1940, and today.
It really shows your bias and lack of understanding of the modern issues.
##############################
Winners win, Losers lose.
Vote for a democrat, and vote for bad news.
You’re liberals are right [sic], the US can’t win.
Of course don’t help, just criticize past sin.
Made some mistakes to win the cold war,
Fixing it now so our kids avoid horror
heads down we leave, from terrorists, thugs, and thieves?
Japan, Germany, seemed to become free.
our armed forced can succeed cuz we’re pretty smart
if liberal senators stop speculating with their mouth farts
just because we have no hindsight time machine
doesn’t mean that we just give up on our team
while democrats pretend there is no social security woes
and sen. clinton says that parents can’t know
with all the liberal special interest bills ready for the inking
not yet, we’re not fooled…with your short sighted liberal thinking
##############################
October 28th, 2006 at 2:05 am#373 Keep hoping and praying things go worse…liberal scum
October 28th, 2006 at 2:06 am#374 i mean
October 28th, 2006 at 2:07 am#373 Keep hoping and praying things go worse…liberal scum
Comment by JohnG
Buddy…this is 373:
October 28th, 2006 at 2:10 am#370 I know you want to lose, and that you can’t fathom the long term benefits of democracy to take root in the middle east.
Comment by JohnG
the long term benefits of democracy to take root in the middle east.
Please name an instance when an invader ever successfully installed democracy in a country that had never before known it?
Just one.
Hint: WW2 doesn’t count.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:10 am#378 excellent retort, really sticking to the issues
October 28th, 2006 at 2:14 amHere’s on for you, John G:
Even a boy who’ s pure at heart,
October 28th, 2006 at 2:14 amand says his prayers at night,
can vote GOP went the elections loom,
and the race card’s played just right.
#379 Past failures don’t predict future results…it’s called progress.
pro·gress [ próg rèss ] noun (plural pro·gress·es)
Definition:
1. positive development: development, usually of a gradual kind, toward achieving a goal or reaching a higher standard
making progress in the talks
2. advance of human society: the general advance of human society and industry over time toward a state of greater civilization
Most Victorians believed in progress.
3. motion toward something: movement forward or onward
October 28th, 2006 at 2:15 amHistory
Those who don’t know it, are doomed to repeat it.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:17 am#381 I realize now we’re praying for completely different outcomes of the Iraqi citizens.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:18 amForming any opinion based on the your “america is evil†premise would be the same as comparing Germany’s foreign policy in 1940, and today.
America is not evil. There are good people in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Canada, Ecuador, Perú, and yeah, in the US, also. Grab a map and look down that the whole continent is America, ignorant. Learn geography before trying to lecture about Iraq.
I dont see things as evil or good. Thats medieval, as your thinking. Not very modern, see? Im against US government´s doings whenever they abuse other people´s rights. Even yours.
It really shows your bias and lack of understanding of the modern issues.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:19 amSo, in which part of using cluster bombs against civilian population is my lack of understanding? My bias? US gave chemical weapons to Saddam to gas iranians, then overlooked the genocide of Kurds and then invade a devastated country with no army, killing 600,000 iraqis and in the process almost 3000 of your citizens…and I AM THE ONE WITH THE BIAS??? WTF is wrong in your little head?
#383 Hence the disarming of facist, intolerent nations must be pacified before it’s too late would be a great lesson for you to learn. Try reading something other than your cherry picked, peter pan history.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:20 amJohn G
Progress is only possible if you don’t repeat the mistakes of the past, or fail to anticipate problems in the future.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:21 am#385 your context is so whacked out, it doesn’t deserve a response. You don’t understand the threats of the cold war child.
There is a right and a wrong, whether you “see” things that way or not.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:23 am#387 So leaving Iraq without achieving our stated objectives…would be good for the world now, and in 25 years from now with the pace of technology changes?
October 28th, 2006 at 2:25 amHence the disarming of facist, intolerent nations must be pacified before it’s too late would be a great lesson for you to learn. Try reading something other than your cherry picked, peter pan history.
Comment by JohnG
You seem to not like fascism. Why do you support a fascist regime installed in the US government? Do you know they are radical nationalists? Why do you want the State and Corporations all the public power? Thats fascism.
About fascism: by now it’s just used as a term for abuse, but in the sense in the 1930s, it was used as a descriptive term for a particular form of social organization which involved a powerful state linked to corporate systems, organized society in corporate structures, state — overwhelming rule by state power, but with privateenterprise given tremendous advantages and freedom. The working class crushed, the parliamentary systems crushed.Sometimes the use of violence to control the population, sometimes not.Mussolini was quite popular in the United States over a broad spectrum, including labor. Roosevelt called him “that admirable Italian gentleman.” As late as 1939, he was saying that fascism in Italy was an experiment that was worthwhile and had to be carried out, and distorted later by its association with Hitler, but — in fact, the U.S. business community loved it. Investment in Italy just shot up after Mussolini took over, same after Hitler took over. In fact, if you look back at the records, which are now available, there was really never — what’s now called appeasement is a very misleading term. I mean, it was supported. Hitler was described by the State Department into the late 1930s, 1937, as kind of a moderate standing between extremes of left and right you have heard this many times since — who was protecting the West against the terrible threat of the working class and the Bolsheviks, and a possible revolution which might overturn the core of civilization, meaning capitalist civilization.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:29 am#389 Read my comment at #275 and we can discuss about it
October 28th, 2006 at 2:33 amSo sad to see the name-calling. Perhaps if you came better prepered next time, you wouldn’t have to resort to ad hominems. You are no more patriotic than I, John. You can’t see the dangerous course of events your party has put into motion.
We need someone in command who doesn’t view this as a “crusade,” but a bad situation that needs drastic change – to save the lives of additional servicepeople. The new american century is a bust – get over it.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:33 amYou don’t understand the threats of the cold war child.
There is a right and a wrong, whether you “see†things that way or not.
Comment by JohnG
And you do, you scared bedwetter? You prefer to watch your mother waterboarded for the sake of “security”. Congrats. Old rich people are getting richer thanks to your fear, sheep.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:37 amNazis, Communists, Muslims, Illegals…your government comes up with any enemy so they can keep selling weapons everywhere. US has an economy based on its military technology, you do know that, right? Your government has to put you in such a state of fear so you support every invasion, occupation, or bombing meanwhile those scums you call the political class get rich out of you. Tell me about the Cold War and the threat. Come on.
So leaving Iraq without achieving our stated objectives…would be good for the world now, and in 25 years from now with the pace of technology changes?
Comment by JohnG
Iraq is going to be partitioned. It might take five years of escalating bloodshed, but in the end it will happen. How many American soldiers’ lives do you think it’s worth to achieve that end? How many dead Iraqis? How many will it take before you are no longer frightened?
October 28th, 2006 at 2:40 am#389
Oh!!! Now it’s the evil corporations and the neocon run U.S. government bent on the taking over the world.
Here are the U.S. propaganda films to make us believe we’re the good guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YjfGex5JHY&eurl=
It’s all a big plan hatched in the 80s.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:40 amAbout WWII:
When the US, Britain and Russia occupied Europe, the main thing they wanted to do was to destroy the resistance. So, one of their first tasks was to destroy the antifascist resistance. That’s the first chapter of the post-war period. Actually in the case of US and Britain, it started in 1943: when they moved into Italy from the south, the first thing they did was restore the old fascist order, and crush the partisans and the fascist resistance, which was a very strong thing. In Italy, the partisans had pretty much driven the Germans out of Northern Italy. When the American and British forces came in, they had to liberate Italy from its own people, from the partisans. And the partisans had what they called ‘communist’…
But they weren’t particularly that, they were radical democratic; they had worker-controlled industry and radical democratic programs, which the US and Britain wouldn’t tolerate. So they destroyed them, and restored something like the traditional fascist order. And they did the same in Germany and in France.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:42 amGI Joe A real American Hero – with parts made in China!
October 28th, 2006 at 2:44 am#392
If my mother was a terrorist, I wouldn’t have problem with it. The problem I have is that your “mother getting tortured” scare tactic shows how far you are from the actual law, and the thin propoganda you isolate yourself to.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:45 amJuan C, did you see his link? Comedy gold!
October 28th, 2006 at 2:47 am#393 Separating the country might increase violence.
Same tone as the democrats of the south before civil rights…don’t integrate them…just separate them.
Don’t you believe in diplomacy?
October 28th, 2006 at 2:48 amThe problem I have is that your “mother getting tortured†scare tactic shows how far you are from the actual law, and the thin propoganda you isolate yourself to.
Comment by JohnG
This coming from the guy who posited “But what if the UN declares that the US must disarm?”
Sheesh!
October 28th, 2006 at 2:49 am#400 Not I. I think you are confused or lying.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:50 amDon’t you believe in diplomacy?
Comment by JohnG
I see you ducked my historical query.
Answer that first.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:50 amSee communists love Bush. Now they able to label any opposer as terrorists. America next?
October 28th, 2006 at 2:52 amSeparating the country might increase violence.
Comment by JohnG
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha …
You should do improv!
October 28th, 2006 at 2:52 amJuan C, did you see his link? Comedy gold!
Comment by barfly
No…but I will now! :)
October 28th, 2006 at 2:55 amYou are now answering you own posts, for whatever reason. I don’t find you worthy of debate anymore. Goodnight.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:55 am#403 Must have missed your question, it kind of seemed like you wanted a definite time or figure…progress just doesn’t have that frame of mind.
How many Iraqis, and our future children will you let die by allowing intolerance to thrive? Why don’t you answer how your cut and run plan solves this problem. Because, you know, history…
October 28th, 2006 at 2:57 amThe problem I have is that your “mother getting tortured†scare tactic shows how far you are from the actual law, and the thin propoganda you isolate yourself to.
Comment by JohnG
My scare tactic??? Am I the one suggesting that the Geneva Convention should be reinterpreted??? Ha ha ha!
October 28th, 2006 at 2:58 am#404 sime irrelevent fact + “bush sucks”
sooooo typical
October 28th, 2006 at 2:58 am#404 wow, it’s amazing you can be so sure.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:59 am#408 The Geneva convention specifies terrorists or non-state sponsored entities receive no Geneva convection protections. It is used to govern conventional wars only, try reading the actual text before spewing the liberal misinformation ploy.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:02 am#408 Again read my post #275. We’re going on a wrong way, how you sure the war will save more Iraqis, not kill more Iraqis. How you sure the war will decrease anti-American thought, not boost it.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:02 am#413 I don’t care what anti-american thought is out there because propoganda sways weak minds…Lincoln had it much worse during the civil war…much, much worse than bush.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:09 amNow it’s the evil corporations and the neocon run U.S. government bent on the taking over the world.
Comment by JohnG
Sort of… there are 737 US military bases overseas. A lot of them were put there for fighting the WWII…Pssst, JohnG. That happened more than 60 years ago…and the bases are still there operating.
About the Geneva Convention… whatever makes you happy. I hope the chinese take you to a sweet little dungeon…
October 28th, 2006 at 3:12 am#276
Again, you need to think…just because they say they want America out, doesn’t mean they want the terrorist to stat unmolested.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:13 amThis is common sense, and also the will of the elected head of government of the Iraqi people. So really your fact is not a fact, it’s just your misinfomed opinion based on liberal cherry picked data.
#416 Yup, and they’re all there with the will of those countries. Spooky they all agree thay want us there!!! Maybe we’re not as bad as the Iranian and liberal propoganda you read.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:16 am#414
Oh, so your lie or misconception of the geneva convention can just spew out until your corrected.
And shows you want those who disagree with you physical violence…kind of like socailists, facists, etc.
Hugo? is that you?
October 28th, 2006 at 3:18 am#414 – You know any problem should be solved, you cannot leave it there. Lincoln have a worse civil war but it was really solved after the war. Anti-american thought is worst threat, because it can give birth hundred of BinLaden and thousand terrorists. If we don’t wash out that thought, we’re never safe.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:20 amAgain Terrorism is a thought not human. You kill terrorist not solve the problem. Don’t care about anti-american thought is stupid.
Your posts make no sense…lets see
Your opinion, based on nothing.
SO the alternative is to do nothing, typical
change of subject and distraction from the desperate mind
again, your idiotic opinion, and not the will of the elected iraqi government
Again, your propoganda based only on your opinion. The elected (umm, maybe you haven’t watched the news) governmanet has not said that.
because they specifically target civilians to scare the people into not enjoying their freedom.
Actually, you’re not worth the time.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:29 am#415
Again, they want the troop out because they really mean that. If we are not out, they will fight with us. They don’t like foreigner terrorists either. But you like Bush labeling all insurgents, Sunni militant, Shiite militant as terrorists. The result is we always mishandle the conflicts. Actually, we make the situation worse, we’re in the middle of the civil war. We kill a Sunni, they think you’re side of Shiites. We arrest a Shiites. they think you’re friend of Sunnis.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:33 amThe problem is you think they is the iraqi people, when they are a radical minority bent on murder and facisism.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:41 amYou said about the elected govt which is definitely collapsed if we’re out? So I can say this govt have no support from Iraqis.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:41 amIf it is true, believe in me you don’t need more 20,000 troops. Iraqis ppl will kill them with their own hands.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:43 amBTW, it’s too late here, CA. We stop here and start tomorrow?
October 28th, 2006 at 3:47 amEven in Vietnam we didn’t have to serve more than one tour of duty in Nam unless we volunteered. Why are our troops in Iraq made to serve two and even three consecutive tours? In all fairness to our military let’s bring back the DRAFT and without exemptions for the rich or politically connected kids. You can bet your boots that once a DRAFT is being considered you will see people screaming in the streets to end the war in Iraq. Let the chickenhawks sacrifice their own families and see how they feel when it is their kids in harm’s way. Afterall, it’s OUR country so we ALL should serve right? Sounds very democratic to me.
October 28th, 2006 at 7:25 amThe Army/Marine Corps are stretched to their operational limits with personnel and logistics. There is not enough of the proper equipment or enough fighting forces to send another ENTIRE DIVISON SIZED ASSET into Iraq. My unit got extended because the next available unit for deployment wont even have been back for a year before they deploy again. What are you going to do McCave, start sending people to Iraq for 14 months then give them 3 months at home with 3 months deployed for training then send them back into theater? That will be great for retention. But, I guess they dont have to reenlist because if they are deployed they’re stop lossed so they cant exit the Army anyway. Sounds alot like the Army of the Roman EMPIRE. I cant believe someone who fought in Vietnam and is on the Armed Services Cmte is advocating such a shallow strategy.
You cant just say okay we need to create another division and voila there it is ready to go to Iraq. To create a division takes years of personnel and equipment reshuffling. It takes an existing Brigade at least 3 months in order to train to prepare to go to theater. The Army currently has 40 combat brigades, 15 in Iraq/Kuwait, 15 redeploying or just finished redeployment less than 12 months ago, and 4 or 5 in Afghanistan, and 2 ready brigades (LIGHT/Airborne) as a strategical quick reaction force. My numbers are obviously off somewhere but close enough. There are probably more brigades in theater due to the overlap from one unit to the next.
The Army started the process of restructuring to create 48 brigades from 40 (12 divisions) 3 years ago and wont finish until mid next decade. That is how long it takes to do it correctly. The Army knows what it needs to do but it takes time. You cant just say OK we’re going to draft/enlist 20,000 people and that’s our new division. You have to have Colonels, Lt Colonels, Captains, Command Sergeant Majors, Master Sergeants, Sergeant First Classes. You know all the people it takes to lead soldiers, and these leaders take time to “Create.” A Brigade commander and Command Sergeant Major are both people who have been in the Army over 20 years a piece, you just dont create them overnight like we did in the Civil war. They have to meet certain requirments and finished certain professional military schooling requirments. If the Army had these people just sitting around dont you think they would throw this division together so they wouldnt have to deploy people 3 or 4 times. The deployments are bad for retention and recruiting. There is one soldier at Ft. Bragg I read about the other day that has been deploy NINE, that’s right I said 9, times. The most deployed soldier in the Army. I mean that’s just insane. Of course, logically, they werent year long deployments which means the soldier is probably part of the Special Operations family which has shorter, but more hazardous, deployments.
Senatus Populus Quibus Romani.
October 28th, 2006 at 8:53 amDraft is the only option for doing it quickly. To do it correctly you have to do it the way people way above my paygrade are doing it; even lowly little me can see that.
October 28th, 2006 at 8:59 am#432…When I suggested the Draft I did not imply that would create an instant military fighting force. Read #431. Populus is correct in that we need to properly train our personnel before sending them into a combat zone. My concern is this Backdoor Draft situation and I wonder how well trained our National Guard are who are now serving in Iraq. Did they have the proper training and were they given the proper equipment? Our men and women who serve deserve the best and that includes everything from leadership to proper training to being equipped properly to do the job.
October 28th, 2006 at 9:15 amChicago Dude,
I know you didnt say that but apparently certain members of the Armed Services Cmte think so. I know he was in the NAVY during VN but damn he has to have some idea of how the conventional expeditionary fighting force works.
Most of the equipment forces use in theater is what is called Theater Provided Equipment. It stays here and the next unit that comes in signs for it from the unit that’s leaving. This if for stuff like Uparmored HMMWVs, some tanks, some bradleys, LAAVs, ASVs. But units should come for the most part with their own Tracked vehicles such as tanks, bradleys, and LAAVs but if they dont have them they can request to sign for the departing units equipment.
October 28th, 2006 at 9:29 amAs far as body armor you cant leave the gate unless you have body armor with certain attachments for the best protection. There is a Theater wide standard that must be adhered to as far as protective equipment and the type of armored vehicle you must go out in. For certain routes at certain times only heavily armored tracked vehicles are allowed.
The National Guard and Active Army work hand in hand. They must meet the same standards for equipment as the rest of the theater or they cant come. The unit my brigade replaced in Ramadi was National Guard, and besides the haircuts, you couuldnt tell a difference in equipment. The were from the 28th INF PA NG.
And just 20,000 more troops are supposed to make such a big difference? The Bush administration had enriched their family and friends with this war, they (especially Rumsfeld) failed to do any post-war planning, and now Iraq is such a mess that it will leave a new President with the almost impossible task of rectifying the damage the Neo-conservatives have wrought upon the Middle-east, especially as it regards Iraq.
I don’t envy the next president, as he/she will face a situation that is far worse than the Vietnam War ever thought of being – and the far-reaching implications that Bush’s incompetence have caused will literally take years to rectify – and there aren’t any easy answers.
October 28th, 2006 at 11:34 amIraq and Iran – The tip of an Iceberg that could sink America!
let bush, cheney, rummy, condi volunteer for iraq.
October 28th, 2006 at 12:09 pmRoger Roger:
Repeating lies will not make them true!
There is no winning in Iraq. Murderers, rapists, thieves, liers, are not winners.
Sending more Americans in to get killed only adds to the crimes already committed.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:05 pm#437
That’s a big speculation that the president decided to do this to enrich his family. You obvious don’t know anything about the man except the propaganda liberals regurgitate.
John
October 28th, 2006 at 2:16 pmJohn G.
Hmmmm, your rhetoric is very familiar to me of another John G. I once debated with – and he was the right-wing administrator of a rather large political forum on the Internet…
Is that you John? And if so, why not just say who you are and get it over with?
I’ve always believed that if you write it, you own it, and if you’d take the time to reference the article I supplied a link to – you would see just how much this war has made for the Bush Family and Cheney. Ah gee, bet that is just a coincidence – right?
Iraq and Iran – The tip of an Iceberg that could sink America!
Try reading the section of the piece that references the enormous amount of money that the Bush family and Cheny have made – and then let’s hear your justification for that – if you can think of one.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:02 pm#441 Sorry buddy, not me. Statisitcally, There are hundreds of thousands of people named John that agree with me. Must be a smart guy to disagree with a conspiracy nut like yourself.
Making money is not illegal in america…last time i checked.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:58 pmIt is when you funnel no-bid contracts to your friends and family – but frankly, I think that is the least of Bush’s worries. And I’m not “a conspiracy nut” and what I write is substantiated by many articles and news releases – so save your breath. Like most right-wing neo-cons, you prefer to attack the author rather than the meat of the article.
That’s your choice; however all it does is make it appear that you’re a troll rather than contributing to the subject matter – which is why I post on this forum. Most of the people here appear to be sincere and polite, and usually simply agree to disagree without name-calling and baseless charges. I was just curious to see if it was the same John G. I had known before, as your posts are extremely familiar – and bear the same type of tactic of derailing the topic and attempting to turn a good discussion into a tirade of name-calling and baseless charges.
October 28th, 2006 at 4:19 pmHmmm, my apology John G. – because you definitely are not the John I though you were. You left a perfectly civil remark on my site, and I appreciate the input.
There are times when we have to fight, when it’s necessary to use the military might of the United States. All wars are not unjust, and some must be fought to retain this experiment we love and call democracy.
My main beef with Bush is that in spite of all of the CIA reports (the public one’s I might add) which I read and studied thoroughly, as well as a lot of other documentation in regard Iran, it appeared to me that he attacked the one country that was not a viable threat. To me, it weakened us enormously, it hurt our reputation worldwide, and now Iran looms on the horizon – and they are a real threat to the stability of the Middle-East.
I wrote an article that is still on my site very long ago, approximately two years ago, and did my own threat assessment based on the available public intelligence that was available – and Iraq by all accounts was the least threat to the United States – while Iran and North Korea topped the list.
I misjudged you and you have my apology.
October 28th, 2006 at 4:32 pmYou mean sending more troops to Iraq, like sending troops to New Orleans to help the people there. Hmmmmm I wonder…. They sent a couple of thousand troops to help the victims of Katrinia, but to send these troops they had to scrounge 28 States…. Thats right…. 28 states to find these troops. That would explain why it took so long.
October 28th, 2006 at 4:40 pmNo bid contacts are required to quickly get things started, bidding and red tape take months if not years to push through agencies.
Haliburton is one of the big three contractors that can do multinational, or large national projects. It’s complicated to organize large projects, you need engineers, lawyers, thousands of machine operators, project managers, etc.
“no-bid” contracts (better termed pre-approved contracts, aka contingency contracts) is a term you use negatively, when it’s completely normal, and required tool to quickly react to unforeseen disasters (aka katrina).
Just because bush comes from a successful family, doesn’t make him evil or wrong. They took risks, worked hard, employed a lot of people. It’s a public company, you can read everything on their web site.
October 28th, 2006 at 4:54 pm#445 Well, unfortunately, our military men and women we’re at their homes…these military men and woman don’t instantly telepoort on the scene…they require leaving there family, then traveling, then orginizing…in 2-3 days…everybody showed up…you can’t change physics.
Katrina would have just been another bad hurricane, but nobody could pre-plan for the levys failing.
October 28th, 2006 at 4:58 pm#444 You have to accept, unless you work in the CIA, you can’t know all the information until many years in the future. GW know’s presidential library’s will be judged, and all the information will come out when it’s de-classified.
I truly believe George Bush is a good man, and is not willing to show all our cards to those who think of him as “evil” just to make them feel better. His family knows all about it, and I feel he will have been shown a good president and man 20+ years from now…allbeit not perfect.
October 28th, 2006 at 5:03 pmyou can’t change physics.
Comment by JohnG
Or history.
Name an instance in which an invading army ever successfully installed democracy in a country that had never previously known it.
Just one.
October 28th, 2006 at 5:06 pmGW know’s presidential library’s will be judged, and all the information will come out when it’s de-classified.
That’s a pretty sanguine attitude for an apparent Clenis hunter. Or did you think the hunting of the President went too far?
Bush redacted ten thousand pages from a fourteen thousand page document. If you think those pages will ever see the light of day, you are delusional.
October 28th, 2006 at 5:14 pmI answered that question at #379…typical liberal, history is i not defined as your short term memory losses between bong hits.
#450 Hmmm, your assuming they won’t…when all modern evidence points otherwise…who’s delusional?
You can’t go back to the mindset of the 1950’s…unless you can compare germany today, to hitlers germany.
Times change…conspiracy nuts don’t.
October 28th, 2006 at 5:39 pmI answered that question at #379…typical liberal, history is i not defined as your short term memory losses between bong hits.
#379:
#378 excellent retort, really sticking to the issues
Comment by JohnG
Way to duck a question you can’t answer. Only intellectual frauds do that.
The answer you won’t give, is that there is no precedent. but you, being the fraud you are, refuse to admit the truth. Just like in Iraq.
You’ve demonstrated you know nothing of history, and foriegn policy, what’s next?
October 28th, 2006 at 7:42 pm#452 Past failures don’t predict future results.
and
History shows radical, fascist elements need to be pacified.
You never answer anything…so don’t ever question my occasional attempts to realign your skewed logic…I at least try…you just criticize.
Stop repeating your talking points over and over…you are a propaganda machine. Though honestly, I’m trying to give some anti-prop myself…really I’m on the evil thinkprogress site itself…i know you don’t agree with me. I’m scared some kid will read these comments without hearing a little dose of reality and critical thinking.
October 28th, 2006 at 10:28 pmUP YOURS mccain !!!
DID YOU NOT LEARN ANYTHING AT THE HANOI HILTON ???
DO WE NEED TO SEND YOU BACK THERE FOR RE-EDUCATION ???
WHAT A MORON !!!
COMPLETE WARMONGERING ARSEHOLE !!!
October 29th, 2006 at 12:18 am##############################
Winners win, Losers lose.
Vote for a democrat, and vote for bad news.
You’re liberals are right [sic], the US can’t win.
Of course don’t help, just criticize past sin.
Made some mistakes to win the cold war,
Fixing it now so our kids avoid horror
heads down we leave, from terrorists, thugs, and thieves?
Japan, Germany, seemed to become free.
our armed forced can succeed cuz we’re pretty smart
if liberal senators stop speculating with their mouth farts
just because we have no hindsight time machine
doesn’t mean that we just give up on our team
while democrats pretend there is no social security woes
and sen. clinton says that parents can’t know
with all the liberal special interest bills ready for the inking
not yet, we’re not fooled…with your short sighted liberal thinking
##############################
October 29th, 2006 at 3:30 amI read all your post and debated your post by past failure facts. You yourself ducked the facts and repeatedly parrot your “opinions” without any fact. You are truely propaganda machine, read back your post.
October 29th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
[...] 96. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) wants to send 20,000 more troops into the middle of a civil war in Iraq. [Link] [...]
November 6th, 2006 at 6:20 pm[...] Yet, according to a press aide, this Sunday’s edition of NBC’s Meet the Press will include two interviews: one with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), an Iraq war supporter who defeated Ned Lamont (D-CT), and one with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who recently called for 20,000 additional U.S. troops to be sent to Iraq, and who was not up for reelection in 2006. [...]
November 9th, 2006 at 6:08 pm[...] This morning on Fox News, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) was asked what he thought of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) idea to raise the number of troops in Iraq. (McCain has said he’d like to have “another 20,000 troops in Iraq.”) “I think Senator McCain is on to something,” Cornyn said, adding that an “overwhelming” show of force “could restore some basic semblance of order” to Iraq. [...]
November 14th, 2006 at 11:03 amHey ROGER WABBIT what if the “democratically elected government” of Iraq was one idealogically similar to Hamas? Have you thought about that?
That would make your #2 and #3 goals of your meth addled “war on terror” irreconcilable.
Do you really think that in the process of “killing every terrorist” (while magically not creating more with the collateral damage) you are going to create a friendly, prowestern atmosphere?
Seriously Roger, what do you think of the massive pro Hamas /pro Hezbollah demostrations when IRsrael attacked Lebabnon? Do you really, in your deluded mind, think there is any possibility that a majority of Iraqis are going to support governments that support Israel? About the only thing the Sunnis and Shia agree on is that they hate Jews.
wake up out of your meth dream man…
Roger, go back to Nam and bayonet some more babies, will ya? Honestly people like you are the best argument for abortion there is.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:34 amClarification… ROGER, what do you think of the massive pro=hamas pro=hezbollah demonstrations IN IRAQ when israel attacked lebanon? Let me guess, that was just an anamaly in what otherwise has the potential to be a very pro-western pro-israel country? right?
honestly you deluded flaghumping nitwits neet to stop throwing this “democracy” phrase around like its some sort of panacea for the worlds ills. its far from it. in a radicalized populace (say one fuelled by stories of “statistically insignfigant rapes” perpetrated by occupying troops), democracy is going to give power to the religious extremists who will quickly use the democractic process to destroy democracy and transform it into an islamic theocracy. But maybe that will help the rapture come about so thats why you guys support democracies that are breeding grounds for Hamas-esque idealogies.
Roger dont you have something bettter to do than arguing with us godless sodomites? Like beat your wife or enjoy a nice night of meth and mansex?
November 14th, 2006 at 11:52 am[...] McCain has repeatedly said that he would like to see another 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. As General Abizaid explained, McCain’s plan runs counter towards our goal in Iraq — specifically, the Iraqis taking responsibility for their own country. Abizaid said, “It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.” [...]
November 15th, 2006 at 1:37 pm[...] The Guardian reports that the Bush administration may be heeding McCain’s calls for an escalation in Iraq: President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make “a last big push” to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration’s internal deliberations. [...]
November 16th, 2006 at 12:24 pm[...] The Guardian reports that the Bush administration may be heeding McCain’s calls for an escalation in Iraq: President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make “a last big push†to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration’s internal deliberations. [...]
November 17th, 2006 at 2:44 am[...] As ThinkProgress has noted, McCain’s call for escalation would exacerbate the deteriorating situation in Iraq and would only further damage U.S. national security. Here’s at least two reasons why: 1) No troops to send. “Sending more troops to Iraq would, at the moment, threaten to break our nation’s all-volunteer Army and undermine our national security.” McCain suggests enlarging the force to send them to Iraq, an idea that is implausible to carry out over the short-term and would damage the military’s ability to recruit over the long-term. [...]
November 20th, 2006 at 10:48 am[...] Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a prominent conservative member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said today on MSNBC that Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) plan to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq is “not realistic.” [...]
November 21st, 2006 at 1:08 pm[...] So, naturally, serious foreign policy thinker and all-around dreamboat John McCain wants to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq. [...]
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:29 pm[...] Most congressional Democrats, who were propelled into the majority by an American public tired of “stay the course,” have consolidated behind a plan of a phased withdrawal. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), on the other hand, is clamoring for a phased escalation with the support of some conservative allies. There have been suggestions that McCain’s plan is being given serious consideration. [...]
November 30th, 2006 at 4:17 pmIt’s funny how you democrats bash the republicans when the majority of you dont even know why we went to war!!!
December 14th, 2006 at 12:03 pmRoger, of the 1 million plus members of the US military, how many do you think are war fighters? Of the 512,000 active duty US army troops, some of which are in the army due to stop loss, how many of them do you think are war fighters? Hey jack ass, the army is too small to maintain this current OPTEMPO over an extended period of time. You don’t have any idea of the subject you are speaking about.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:33 amwhat is his problem i think the whole idea is crazy plain crazy more people are dying out there and he just keeps on sending them there to die .whatb is wrong with him !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i will not support this decision NO WAY WILL I DO IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 11th, 2007 at 6:32 pm[...] Also in the interview, McCain continued his back-pedaling from the escalation strategy that he first proposed. After offering a full-throated endorsement of the Bush plan just days ago, McCain opened the door to the redeployment of U.S. forces back to the borders of Iraq should the president’s plan fail. He added, “I don’t know if this is enough troops or not. I can’t guarantee success by doing this.” [...]
January 22nd, 2007 at 5:16 pmCash Advance
Easy cash loan program offering cash loan advances for US residents.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:36 pm