Giuliani Unaware That America Gradually Withdrew From Vietnam
Giuliani Unaware That America Gradually Withdrew From Vietnam
Today, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani delivered a speech to the Jewish Community Relations Council in New York:
[I]f we flee Iraq, if we do what the Democrats want us to do — which is to not only flee Iraq, not only retreat in Iraq, but give them a timetable of our retreat.
Have you ever heard of that in a history of war? Have you ever heard of an army being required to give a printed schedule of its release to the enemy? It makes no sense, does it? Whether you’re for the war or against it, you would never have an army retreat on a six- month, one-year, 18-month schedule explaining, We’ll reduce the forces by 20,000, then by 30,000, then by 50,000. Gee, you can then figure out when the forces are depleted enough so you can really do damage to them.
Giuliani needs to brush up on his history. A publicly-announced gradual reduction of forces is exactly what the United States did in the Vietnam War. On May 14, 1969, President Richard Nixon laid out an “eight-point peace plan” calling for the gradual withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam:
Over a period of 12 months, by agreed-upon stages, the major positions of all U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would be withdrawn. At the end of this 12-month period, the remaining U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would move into designated base areas and would not engage in combat operations.
Some highlights of Nixon giving the enemy a “timetable of our retreat”:
June 8, 1969: Nixon announces the redeployment of 25,000 troops, which would begin in the “next 30 days” and be completed by the end of August.
Sept. 16, 1969: Nixon announces a new “troop ceiling,” meaning that a minimum of 60,000 troops would be withdrawn by December.
Dec. 15, 1969: Nixon calls for a “reduction in our troop ceiling of 50,000 more U.S. troops by April 15 next year.”
April 20, 1970: Nixon calls for the withdrawal of 150,000 troops “to be completed during the spring of next year.”
Oct. 12, 1970: Nixon announces the reduction of the troop ceiling by another 40,000 troops between “now and Christmas.”
Nov. 12, 1971: Nixon announced to the nation, “Over the next 2 months we will withdraw 45,000 Americans.”
Jan. 13, 1972: Nixon stated, “I am announcing today the withdrawal of an additional 70,000 [troops] from Vietnam over the next 3 months.”
Apr. 26, 1972: Nixon announces that “over the next 2 months 20,000 more Americans will be brought home from Vietnam.”
Whether it’s blowing off Iraq Study Group meetings, showing ignorance about the root causes of 9/11, attacking Clinton for 9/11, or fear-mongering about sensible redeployment from Iraq, Giuliani talks big and thinks small.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Giuliani is a crook, and a complete IDIOT.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:14 pmHow did this guy ever convict ANY organized crime figures?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pmThe Iranian-Clinton smear is at work.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pmThink Progress is doing the bidding of it’s Clinton’s masters.
To real Leftists here wake up!
This is a Clinton smearsite!
Caption Contest:
“Sh*t another migraine, damn Viagra!”
July 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pm“So what we decided to do was we’d lay out the 12 things we thought were the most important, and then we would spend the summer discussing it in more detail. They’re all single sentences, easy to read. You look at it, you can decide whether you agree with us on most things or not. If you agree with us on everything, I’d be really surprised, because I don’t agree with us on everything. I agree with us on most things. But if you agree with us on most things, then you can get an idea of whether you want me to be president. . . . .”
- Rudy Guliani, on his own campaign platform
July 6th, 2007 at 3:16 pmOk, so we DID it before…but that doesn’t mean we should do it AGAIN.
It’s called learning from our mistakes.
When we left vietnam, there was a vacuum that the VietCong was only too willing to step in and fill.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:16 pmAnd yes, Giuliani is a dingbat for not knowing that
July 6th, 2007 at 3:17 pmHillary is a crook and a complete IDIOT.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:18 pmWhen we left vietnam, there was a vacuum that the VietCong was only too willing to step in and fill.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
What makes you think this won’t happen whenever we leave? It certainly doesn’t appear that things are getting better in Iraq.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:19 pmWell, Republicans just invent things out of thin air, so why not?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:19 pm#3 Umm, okay then, Valiant Venus, whatever you say.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:20 pmGod Help Us All if this Criminal and Pathological Liar is at the helm of this country.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:20 pmOur withdrawl from Vietnam proves Rudy’s point perfectly.
We handed our friends over to the enemy and they were slaughtered in the millions or placed in Marxist “re-education” camps.
I suppose that’s what you want us to do in Iraq as well.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:20 pmGiuliani - buy a clue!
Dar
DemocracyInteractive.com
July 6th, 2007 at 3:21 pmWhen we left vietnam, there was a vacuum that the VietCong was only too willing to step in and fill.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Umm yah so what… we stopped dying in that stupid conflict, just as we should stop dying in this one.
Don’t ya see SGT, there is no “winning”.. America has already lost 3000 or so, so do we now lose 30,000, or 3,000,000? How many lives are worth this bogus war so that Exxon, BP can rape the Iraqi people of their natural resources?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:21 pmThe Republican Presidential candidates don’t have a half a brain among the entire lot of them…
No wonder they fear the educated…
Republican’s motto “Why think when you can make sh!t up?”
July 6th, 2007 at 3:22 pmWell, Dubya didn’t know the difference between Slovenia and Slovakia, and nobody seemed to care — I imagine that Rudy will get away with this one, too.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:22 pmWe handed our friends over to the enemy and they were slaughtered in the millions or placed in Marxist “re-education†camps. - - My, my, aren’t we subject to hyperbole. Vietnam is now at peace with us and is a favorite economic trading partner with the US economy. How’d that “Domino Theory” of Communism workout anyway?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:24 pmWho the hell goes to war against their friends Ringo?
We never should have gotten involved in Vietnam, as we never should have started Iraq. Bad investments lead to bad losses. You just have decide when to get out of the market and accept that you won’t tolerate further declines… That’s what we should have learned from Vietnam - stay out of similar situations. Yet we didn’t. Probably because Chimp was too busy hiding in Alabama, and Dick-tator was hiding in his dorm room…
July 6th, 2007 at 3:26 pmGiuliani Unaware That America Gradually Withdrew From Vietnam?
Stupid is what stupid does.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:26 pmRUDY, YOU DUMB SHIT, THOSE WHO DONT KNOW THEIR HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT YOU DUMB SHIT!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pmSTFU -
July 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pmUmm yah so what… we stopped dying in that stupid conflict, just as we should stop dying in this one —– All conflicts could be labeled ’stupid’, but that you think there’s nothing worth fighting for is not surprising.
We handed our friends over to the enemy and they were slaughtered in the millions or placed in Marxist “re-education†camps.
I suppose that’s what you want us to do in Iraq as well.
Comment by Ringo — July 6, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Well we have been slaughtering the Iraqi people by the thousands, how come you show no sympathy for those people who’s lives we’ve wrecked, who’s lives have became worse since we invaded. Where’s the sympathy for the 2+ million displaced Iraqi’s?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pmSTFU -
July 6th, 2007 at 3:28 pmAmerica has already lost 3000 or so, so do we now lose 30,000, or 3,000,000? How many lives are worth this bogus war — See, there’s the diference of opinion. You’re of the camp that thinks even ONE is too many, I’m of the camp that believes no price is too great.
Gawd I hope the Republics run him as their candidate. He will be so easy to beat.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:29 pmbut that you think there’s nothing worth fighting for is not surprising.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
He didn’t say that. Stop with the strawmen…
Most of the Progressives here have served in the military. Few of the trolls have. Very few.
Very few here will tell you that WWII wasn’t worth fighting for. It’s the pre-emptive kinds of empire building occupations that we don’t buy into.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:29 pmThe stupidity of GOP candidates is mind-numbing.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:29 pmRudy’s simply pandering to a potential base. He’ll probably flip flop on this one especially after this fall.
He better brush up on US history!!!! Or maybe not. His arrogance will keep him going one way or another.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:29 pmI’m of the camp that believes no price is too great.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Except that you have no right to sacrifice my life, or anyone else’s to your cause - and that is where we will fight you on this matter.
You want to fight - go for it. But don’t force your violent war-mongering in the name of false causes on the rest of us. Clear?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:31 pmunbelievable -
It’s the pre-emptive kinds of empire building occupations that we don’t buy into. — Who’s empire was being built in VN..or Korea?
And btw, I didn’t intend to ut words in your mouth, STFU.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:32 pmunbelievable ,
July 6th, 2007 at 3:32 pmYes only Progressive serve in the Military.
No others of differnt ideologies do right?
SGT
Did I say I don’t think there’s nothing worth fighting for? So don’t even try to put words in my mouth.
But stealing someone else’s oil is not moral. Didn’t your parents teach you morals?
What exactly do you think we’re fighting? Terrorists? HAHA don’t be stupid, if America was serious about terrorists we wouldn’t have wide open borders allowing millions of Illegals in.
If this was anything more than Oil Stealing, and a true FIGHT we would have a draft. But there’s no enemy. There are a few radicals over there, but they don’t scare me. Do they scare you? Most people the world over just want to live in peace, work, have a family, you know the things worth fighting for.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:34 pmWho’s empire was being built in VN..or Korea?
Initially, the French… Ultimately, ours.
And btw, I didn’t intend to ut words in your mouth, STFU.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Then why do you keep doing it?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:34 pmHow’d that “Domino Theory†of Communism workout anyway?
Comment by Badmoodman
—————————————————————–
Let’s see:
Cambodia fell. Loas fell. Upwards of three million killed with more than a million and a half executed in Cambodia alone. Thousands of refugees fleeing on leaking, unsafe boats…
And Vietnam and Laos are still Communist and unfree.
But I guess most American hippies are doing fine.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:35 pmunbelievable -
Except that you have no right to sacrifice my life, or anyone else’s to your cause — No one’s ‘threatening’ to sacrifice your life.
You want to fight - go for it. — Ok, thanks!
But don’t force your violent war-mongering in the name of false causes on the rest of us. — No one is. No one who is in Iraq didn’t VOLUNTEER, no one forced them, and no one’s forcing you either.
Clear? — I hope so.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:35 pmYes only Progressive serve in the Military.
No others of differnt ideologies do right?
Comment by The Joker — July 6, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Go re-read what I said, idiot. Your strawman isn’t it.
We were talking in context to TP.
Sheesh…
July 6th, 2007 at 3:36 pmYou can count on conservatives for a good laugh.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:38 pmGiuliani is ridiculous.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:38 pmF.Thompson is an unethical insider, former lobbyist and mole for the Nixon White House.
Romney is a flip-flopper on issues to the nth degree, who would also have Gitmo expanded.
McCain is dead in the water.
Hunter, Tancredo, Gilmore and T.Thompson are jokes.
The only one left is Ron Paul - and while some of his ideas are worthy, he is so libertarian that he is extreme.
The choices for president put forth by the repugs are pathetic.
Is Giuliani Smarter Than A 5th Grader?
So what we have here is:
July 6th, 2007 at 3:39 pma former mayor
with zero foreign policy experience
and an undistinguished record
except for cavorting with crime figures
and multiple wives
Should we be surprised that he doesn’t have even a grade school grasp of modern history?
Remember when Vietnam fell and we had to fight all those communists over here? Nothing but constant fighting in the streets. The bloodshed was horrendous. Why oh why didn’t we continue to fight them over there?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pmNo one’s ‘threatening’ to sacrifice your life.
You said: “You’re of the camp that thinks even ONE is too many, I’m of the camp that believes no price is too great.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:28 pm”
I disagreed, because the price that’s too great is ALWAYS innocent lives.
No one is. No one who is in Iraq didn’t VOLUNTEER, no one forced them, and no one’s forcing you either.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
No one is forcing them? I call BS. There are many who want out and cannot get out. That’s force.
Yes, the signed up to defend our country, but that’s NOT what’s happened or happeningin Iraq, and they are not allowed to say “Look, this is what I signed up for and leave, even when they have fulfilled their contracts.” That’s not voluntary… Even bad marriages allow for divorce…
July 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pmComment by STFU
What exactly do you think we’re fighting? Terrorists? —– Well, we’re not shooting at oil derricks.
if America was serious about terrorists we wouldn’t have wide open borders allowing millions of Illegals in. —— But haven’t you heard? This country was founded on illegal immigration. How dare we shut our borders to those that wanna get a piece of the pie just like our ancestors did?
But there’s no enemy. —– Nope! Nothin’ but sand & camels.
There are a few radicals over there, but they don’t scare me. Do they scare you? —- scare? Nope. But they make me nervous enough to wanna keep a close eye on ‘em…..and that’s easier to do over there.
Most people the world over just want to live in peace, work, have a family, you know the things worth fighting for. —- You know, the kinds of things those ‘radicals’ want to destroy.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pmRemember when Vietnam fell and we had to fight all those communists over here?
Comment by erock — July 6, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Touche!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:43 pmLet’s not knock JulieAnnie for not knowing his history. He hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the nomination, let alone the, dare I say it, the Presidency!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:43 pmSomebody go back and get a shitload of history books!
Rudy’s not really very bright, is he?
I guess that’s why the trolls support him. What am I saying? They’re paid to support him.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:43 pmThere are many who want out and cannot get out. That’s force.
—- That’s not force, that’s a contract!
Other than the relatively FEW who are stop-lossed.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:43 pmUpwards of three million killed with more than a million and a half executed in Cambodia alone.
And who invaded cambodia and put an end to the slaughter??? The VIETNAMESE ARMY!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:43 pmWow….
Karl Rove was strongly backing Fred Thompson for President because Fred has the IQ of a banana. But now, Rudy is clearly in the lead for getting Karl’s support.
We have a new Contender!!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pmGiuliani needs to brush up on his history. A publicly-announced gradual reduction of forces is exactly what the United States did in the Vietnam War. On May 14, 1969, President Richard Nixon laid out an “eight-point peace plan†calling for the gradual withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam[…]
Nice try TP…but, Nixon was doing this sh!t to save his a$$. He was up for reelection in 72 and was watching war protesters marching in the streets…Nixon kept making these hollow promises to be reelected and not because he wanted to retreat…
After the election the American people turned on Nixon, in bit part, because he misled them going into the election; Watergate was the toss in crime. It took threatening his impeachment to cause Nixon to finally begin the withdrawal of troops that ended in 1975!!!
Put up the entire time-line and in context TP!!!
Nixon did nothing right back then!!!!! Nothing!!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pmYou know, the kinds of things those ‘radicals’ want to destroy.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
In 2001 there were 124 terrorist attacks worldwide.
In 2003, it was up to 204.
In 2005, it jumped to over 11,000.
Last year - it was close to 14,000.
Tell me again how occupying and destroying Iraq is making us safer…
July 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pmYes only Progressive serve in the Military.
No others of differnt ideologies do right?
Comment by The Joker
An interesting statement. I really do wonder how many “non-Progressives” HAVE servfed in the military. (And being AWOL from a NG unit during Vietnam, doesn’t count. OK, Dubya?).
I ask this question quite often and NEVER get an answer back.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pmFact is - we are not going to pull out of Iraq for a long time. We are trapped there, and Trudy knows it.
Repukes know that they can just make sh!t up, and no one (in their audiance) will call them on it because it is exactly what they want to hear. Why do you think so many idiots think that Sadam had anything to do with 911.
The Repukian followers are….well…not the sharpest tools in the shed.
CT_V1 you are gonna post something stupid on this thread…have at it, let’s see some of that awesome brain power.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:46 pmAnd who invaded cambodia and put an end to the slaughter??? The VIETNAMESE ARMY!
Comment by Badger
Good Point! If we hadn’t abandoned VietNam (and just in the nick of time) to communism, Pol Pot’s regime would have gone on unchecked.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pmThat’s not force, that’s a contract!
And when their contracts have expired? It’s force…
Other than the relatively FEW who are stop-lossed.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
A few? Are you serious? Why do you think soldiers were banned from myspace and youtube?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pmTell me again how occupying and destroying Iraq is making us safer…
‘Cause it just is, you communis- er, … I mean “terrorist enabler.”
See how easy that is? Hijacking democracies to perform imperial bungles is surprisingly easy.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:50 pm.
Why do you think soldiers were banned from myspace and youtube?
Comment by unbelievable
It had to do with tying up bandwidth on the servers. Real work was being slowed down considerably due to all the ’surfers’. they weren’t ‘banned’, they’re just not allowed to use it on a DOD server.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:50 pmWhy would we want to retreat anyway?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pmGiulianni was Ignorant for not knowing the History of the Viet Nam Era, but he was STUPID to think that his false statements wouldn’t be discovered, and that Independent Voters wouldn’t care if he was wrong or not.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pm#29
“But don’t force your violent war-mongering in the name of false causes on the rest of us.”
Don’t worry “the rest of us” isn’t fighting this war anyway.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pmGood Point! If we hadn’t abandoned VietNam (and just in the nick of time) to communism, Pol Pot’s regime would have gone on unchecked.
Then again, if we hadn’t bombed Cambodia, there’d have been no Pol Pot regime.
Another half-assed imperial adventure waged by amateurs and frauds, another series of unintended consequences that the adults will have to clean up for them.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pm.
The “annointed one” by the PNAC is “ignorant about the root causes of 911″….hello? anyone with a brain left in NYC?? Of course, Giuliani was “set up” to be the next in line….of course, he was “set up” to run and pick up where Bush left off? Of course, that’s why his city was selected in the first place….now can we please get on with what we do about this poor, broken old bald man who is wasting his money running for President?? He’s rather pathetic now, isn’t he? As a father, he’s shirked his responsibility for his children who will not even speak with him, was a womanizer and an adulterer, was also in bed with Bernie Kerik and his cadre of thugs, helped to illegally prepare Bernie’s homeland security application before it was found out, and finally sits on the board of directors of the makers of Oxycontin who have just been charged with lying about the addictive quality of their drug….of course, Rudy knew it all the time - of course, he did or he shouldn’t be sitting on the board of directors!!
This guy has an addled brain as well and the fact that he can’t recollect the Vietnam days is evidence of this problem. In fact, befuddled Rudy probably can’t remember what he had for breakfast today, if the truth be known.
Sorry, Rudy….although you were clearly the “annointed one”, you don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever getting elected.
The people have your number and you aren’t going anywhere any time soon….just look at your own polls, Rudy. The people whom you served during your self-professed “heroic days” of 911 where you lied to them about the air quality and they’re now all dying won’t even have you. They’ve overwhelmingly selected Michael Bloomberg over you any day of the week!
Go away, Rudy. You’re beginning to resemble that persistant gnat on everyone’s shoulder who gets shooed away but keeps coming back for more of the same medicine!
Take a couple of your infamous Oxy’s and chill out!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:52 pmHe was up for reelection in 72 and was watching war protesters marching in the streets
Comment by dixie blood — July 6, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Protesting works… In SiCKO, and American living in Paris said that the French government fears the people because they protest important issues.
Protesting has gotten them National Health Care, 5 weeks minimum paid vacation, free college education, nanny service, a year of paid maternity leave, etc.
We just want to stop a freaking occupation. Why aren’t we?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:52 pmHow can you hide an army withdrawl news from the Iraqis?…How stupid this Giuliani is..!!!
A huge army,with another huge civilian contractiors’army cannot run and leave the country(Iraq)..un noticed.
Can he tell us how Giuliani will do it?..How Giuliani will withdraw this huge army with all its logistical problems and airlifting without giving the Iraqis a withdrawal schedule?
Of course Giuilani can criticise all day because he never had to serve in the military..
He knows nothing about military,and his foreign policy experience is limited to consulting with his Israeli buddies.
In one of the Republicans debates,he was arguing with Candidate Ron Paul that he never heard that, our support to Israel and our biased foreign policy had anything to do with 9/11…..
He claimed he never heard of such thing…
And here he claims he never heard that an army can schedule a witdrawal from a war after almost 55 months .
July 6th, 2007 at 3:53 pmKarl Rove was strongly backing Fred Thompson for President because Fred has the IQ of a banana.
Well, that and Karl reeeaaalllyyy wants to see a stripper-pole installed in the West Wing.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:53 pm.
Tell me again how occupying and destroying Iraq is making us safer…
Comment by unbelievable
Because we WILL fight Muslim extremists, and I would prefer to do it there.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pmComment by Grand Moff Texan — July 6, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
LOL - yeah, “‘Cause I said so!” is common.
Lazy Repukes… Can’t even form a coherent argument.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pmCaption Contest:
Man, it’s awfully bright out here! Where’d my ass go?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pmUnbelievable: I believe it’s called The Patriot Act.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pmKarl Rove was strongly backing Fred Thompson for President because Fred has the IQ of a banana.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pmYou university educated, smug progressives would like to believe that intelligence is what makes a president, but it ain’t so. The president is the commander-in-chief and a figurehead for the nation. He must be convincing, reassuring and tough. He will have a lot of smart people helping him to formulate policies but being smart is not a requirement.
#64 Well, that and Karl reeeaaalllyyy wants to see a stripper-pole installed in the West Wing..
Comment by Grand Moff Texan
I think maybe ol’ Rover would rather have that stripper pole installed up his ARSE!!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:55 pmAnd what a nifty piece of scheming right-revoling work that document is! How any congressman voted to pass it in the first place is beyond me; how they renewed it when it was clearly being rammed in before the start of the new congress is tantamount to criminality.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:55 pmBecause we WILL fight Muslim extremists, and I would prefer to do it there.
Right. We went into Iraq because of all the Muslim extremists who were there.
Would you like to buy some beach-front property in Oklahoma?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:55 pm.
Because we WILL fight Muslim extremists, and I would prefer to do it there.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
And, by doing it there, you can assure us that you can eradicate it? You can assure us we’re not make MORE terrorists? Overall, our “fight them over there” strategery has resulted in a net INCREASE in terrorists and terrorism. Nice strategery. Nice.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:56 pmI think maybe ol’ Rover would rather have that stripper pole installed up his ARSE!!
No, I think you’re thinking of Michael Savage.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:56 pm.
It had to do with tying up bandwidth on the servers. Real work was being slowed down considerably due to all the ’surfers’. they weren’t ‘banned’, they’re just not allowed to use it on a DOD server.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Oh bullsh!t… That’s the excuse they gave…
The reality is that they were speaking out against service.
I see you skipped my question about how Iraq is making us safer when there wer nearly 14,000 terrorist attacks vs. only 124 in 2001.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:56 pm#69 Fred Thompson’s hopes are dashed since the news that he tried to circumvent and obstruct justice by going behind the backs of his fellow congressmen when they were about to nail Nixon. Can you believe that they have record of his call to Nixon?? They do.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:56 pmRight. We went into Iraq because of all the Muslim extremists who were there.
Damn straight. They also happen to sit on a lot of oil. That’s another reason we went there. Can’t you liberals handle multiple reasons for doing something?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:57 pmA few? Are you serious? Why do you think soldiers were banned from myspace and youtube?
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
And they were not banned from facebook.com!!!
Why???
Officers in the mil. are most likely to be members of facebook.com and not myspace.
The enlisted, where the real truth is spoken, are mostly members of myspace.com…
July 6th, 2007 at 3:57 pm#65 Poor silly SGT Denial. All aiports go through Bahgdad? You are not so simple minded that occupying Iraq prevents them from coming here are you? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!
You have a problem with your own math. With creating 6 new jihadists for everyone we kill tell us again how your occupation is a miltary solution. Fight in perpuity on 12 BILLION a month of borrowed money?
How did your gene pool survive this long?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:57 pmComment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Yeah, ’cause that’s been working just GREAT for the last six years.
Right?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pm.
Where’s the thread about Palfrey today? Just wondering…..
And while we’re at it, when is Jeffie Gannon/Guckert (the white house playtoy) going to air his sleaze??
July 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pmThe president is the commander-in-chief and a figurehead for the nation. He must be convincing, reassuring and tough. He will have a lot of smart people helping him to formulate policies but being smart is not a requirement.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
In other words, he can be a complete phucking phony and he’ll have plenty of people to fix his phuk-ups. Very reassuring.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pmDon’t worry “the rest of us†isn’t fighting this war anyway.
Comment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
We know you won’t go… LOL
Thanks for reminding us that you refuse to fight for an occupation you believe in, and we don’t…
July 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pmI see you skipped my question about how Iraq is making us safer when there wer nearly 14,000 terrorist attacks vs. only 124 in 2001.
Comment by unbelievable
How many of those 14000 were here?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pmFred Thompson’s hopes are dashed since the news that he tried to circumvent and obstruct justice by going behind the backs of his fellow congressmen
I don’t care about Fred. I would never vote for the guy because of his abortion policies. I’m just saying that you over rate intelligence.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:59 pm#73 Overall, our “fight them over there†strategery has resulted in a net INCREASE in terrorists and terrorism. Nice strategery. Nice.
Comment by Lupeyg2
As you can see from Frank’s post #69 about the pres not needing to be intelligent, the current president has caused your comment to be true.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:00 pmGiuliani has marbles for brains; besides, we’re sick of one smirking, stuttering fool as our CIC; I don’t think we could tolerate 4 years of lisping now.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:00 pmCan’t you liberals handle multiple reasons for doing something?
What, you mean like the extremists who weren’t there plus the oil that wasn’t supposed to be the point adding up to a case for war so we can forget the phony WMD propaganda?
Uh, no. We’re not that stupid.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pm.
Bush & Criminals invaded iraq to (1) get revenge, (2) get oil, (3) establish a permanent US base on top of the oil, and (4) to make all their cronies rich. It’s all blatant ego and greed.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pm#69 -The president is the commander-in-chief and a figurehead for the nation. He must be convincing, reassuring and tough. He will have a lot of smart people helping him to formulate policies but being smart is not a requirement.
Comment by Frank M
ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. YOU FOOLS LEARN NOTHING FROM EVEN RECENT HISTORY.
How does your colon look today?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pmI think Rudy needs some speech and diction classes soon.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pmAnd, by doing it there, you can assure us that you can eradicate it? —– Man, that would be great! Eradicate, doubt it….keep it over ‘there’? Hope so.
You can assure us we’re not make MORE terrorists? — I didn’t say that.
Overall, our “fight them over there†strategery has resulted in a net INCREASE in terrorists and terrorism. Nice strategery. Nice. — More terrorists? and they aren’t here? What’s your beef again?
Comment by Lupeyg2
July 6th, 2007 at 4:02 pmWhat, you mean like the extremists who weren’t there
Uh. You mean like the extremists that are blowing up our troops with IEDs every day?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:02 pm#88 That was primo! We’ve been multitasking ten lies per day - on any given day - and every day of the week.
Their “scandals du jour” provide ongoing entertainment.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:02 pmBecause we WILL fight Muslim extremists, and I would prefer to do it there.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Osama and Saddam HATED one another. Osama was a religious zealot, while Saddam was a secular leader. No great Satan was going to bring the two of them together…
Therefore, destroying and occupying Iraq to fight Al Qaeda is dishonest and delusional.
And you failed to acknowledge the increase of world wide terrorist attacks due to our occupation of Iraq.
Making us safer would mean LESS attacks not 13,000 more every year!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:02 pmOfficers in the mil. are most likely to be members of facebook.com and not myspace.
The enlisted, where the real truth is spoken, are mostly members of myspace.com…
Comment by dixie blood
that’s just the craziest sh*t I’ve heard in a really long time. Where do you get YOUR facts from?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:03 pmHow many of those 14000 were here?
None. Bush is exporting Americans to the Persian Gulf for Osama’s greater convenience. This way, they can hurt families all over America and never have to get a passport. Neat, huh?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:03 pm.
He will have a lot of smart people helping him to formulate policies but being smart is not a requirement.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Boy!!…did Bush ever Blow that Myth out of the water!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:03 pmHow does your colon look today?
Look? I apply some colon to smell nice after every time I shave. What’s your point?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:04 pmUh. You mean like the extremists that are blowing up our troops with IEDs every day?
Please name the extremist organizations that were hosted by Saddam’s regime as of March 2003.
That, since you missed it, was the point. Time only flows backwards when conservatives get desperate.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:05 pm.
Please name the extremist organizations that were hosted by Saddam’s regime as of March 2003.
What am I? CIA?
First of all, how come our troops are facing all these insurgent attacks today if Saddam didn’t set up a network of terror to support such operations? The network is there and Iran is feeding it with bullets and bombs now.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:06 pmOsama and Saddam HATED one another. Osama was a religious zealot, while Saddam was a secular leader. No great Satan was going to bring the two of them together…
Unbelievable —- Ever heard “The enemy of my enemy is my ally” ?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:07 pmHe will have a lot of smart people helping him to formulate policies but being smart is not a requirement.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
I think Thomas Jefferson, George Washington et al are spinning in their graves right now…
A president MUST be intelligent. Your Bush experiement on electing a stupid one didn’t work very well, because he feels intimidated by all the smart people around him,so he goes and does something tyannical to prove his competence, but only ends up provinghis incompetence and making a huge flipping mess..
No. No more dummies in the Whit House. I’d favor an IQ amendment to the Constitution of at least 120.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:07 pmSGT Billy Rae: have you gone to Iraq? If so, what did the Iraqi citizens tell you about what they think of what the US is doing to their country?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:08 pm#99: Uh, right. I am amazed at your ability to type.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pmhttp://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3910b26e685a.htm
In case you’re doubting the veracity of my previous post, the url is provided for your reading pleasure.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pmhow come our troops are facing all these insurgent attacks today if Saddam didn’t set up a network of terror to support such operations?
Comment by Frank M
C’mon Frank, work with me here. an ‘insurgency’ means in laymen’s terms….that the attackers ’surge in’….as in from outside to inside. Sadam needn’t have ever lifted a finger for it to happen.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pm#62
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
“Protesting has gotten them National Health Care, 5 weeks minimum paid vacation, free college education, nanny service, a year of paid maternity leave, etc.”
And a bunch of people who think that the government owes them a living.
http://web.france.com/economy
“In fact, France has one of the lowest percentages of its population aged 15-64 years at work among the OECD countries. In 2004, 68.8% of the French population aged 15-64 years was in employment, compared to 80.0% in Japan, 78.9% in the UK, 77.2% in the US, and 71.0% in Germany.[25] This phenomenon is the result of almost thirty years of massive unemployment in France, which has led to three consequences reducing the size of the working population: about 9% of the active population is without a job; students delay as long as possible their entry into labour market; and finally, the French government gives various incentives to workers to retire in their early 50s, though these are now receding.”
July 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pmAnd they were not banned from facebook.com!!!
Comment by dixie blood — July 6, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Exactly! Thanks for the info… You’re a veritable encyclopedia :D
July 6th, 2007 at 4:10 pmI posted a question in #51 for Joker, Michael, Sgt Higgie and Frank over 25 minutes ago and as usual, have had no response.
I asked them to explain their military service records, since they seem to have all the experience and wisdom about serving.
This has been asked of many of these, plus CT6 and a few others, and they can’t provide any information. Guess their silence IS the answer.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:10 pmMore terrorists? and they aren’t here? What’s your beef again?
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
So, you don’t see a problem with MORE terrorists being created by U.S. war policy? Wow. You fail to see the circular reason for keeping troops in Iraq? More terruhist fighting by our current policy = more terruhists = need for more terruhist fight. Durp.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:10 pmMichael Douglas’s corvair smashed by Laura in 1963 and one dead boyfriend. Funny but the article says “she still is unable to speak about it to this day”…. taken one of two ways it means that she’s had a “gag order” put on her regarding that tragic day…
July 6th, 2007 at 4:11 pmSo according to the bright bulbs here, the solution in Vietnam would be to still be there today. And anyone who uses the word “enemy” in reference to Iraq is dumb. Iraqis are blowing up U.S. troops. There will always be Iraqis in Iraq. They want the U.S. to leave. And they will keep blowing up U.S. troops until the U.S. troops leave.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:11 pm#83
Hey just don’t speak for people you have no connection to.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:11 pmUpside00 - Yep, all the draft dodgers and faux patriots vanished when you called their bluff, didn’t they?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pmhave you gone to Iraq? —– yes
If so, what did the Iraqi citizens tell you about what they think of what the US is doing to their country? —- From those I talked with…..honestly, it was about 50/50. Depended on how things were going AT THE TIME. Thhings were going well, they were supportive, as soon as things took a turn for the worse, so did their opinions. Iraqi’s are fickle lke that.
Comment by toxiced
July 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pmFirst of all, how come our troops are facing all these insurgent attacks today if Saddam didn’t set up a network of terror to support such operations? The network is there and Iran is feeding it with bullets and bombs now.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
That’s the dumbest ph*cking thing I’ve heard in 6 years You beat GW Botch for stupidity!!!
Frank you are a complete moron!!! Do you feel cold you pissed soaked troll? I though so!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pmWhat am I? CIA?
Obviously not.
First of all, how come our troops are facing all these insurgent attacks today if Saddam didn’t set up a network of terror to support such operations?
A “network of terror”? I see. So, the Finnish military is a terrorist organization, too? Their entire national defense strategy is based around making their tiny nation too expensive to hold (and it worked, too).
Yes, the only way we could fight a bunch of guys who, in 2003, were just waiting to blow up our troops with IEDs was to send in our troops, so they could get blown up with IEDs. By calling all armed groups “terrorists,” the propaganda about Saddam’s terror connections can be made into a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is pretty convincing so long as you’re dumb enough to be a conservative.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pm.
upside: What? I have no military experience. Do you have any law enforcement experience? If not, does that stop you from talking crap about your local cops?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pmthe upside is, if he wins the primaries, the picture of trump and a cross dressing Giuliani will seem oh so funny… day in and day out.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:14 pmRe progressives serving in the military –
Turns out only a few of the candidates running for prez in 08 have military experience. Here’s a breakdown helpfully provided by a Reuters article dated June 25:
————————————————————-
Republicans Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama had not yet turned 18 by the time the draft was discontinued in 1973.
Democrat John Edwards, who became eligible in the waning years of the war, drew a high lottery number that was not called when the lottery determined who would be inducted into military service.
College and missionary service kept Mitt Romney out of the draft until 1970, when he drew a high lottery number.
Rudy Giuliani also drew a high lottery number in 1970 after receiving deferments as a student and law clerk.
Democrats Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich failed their physical examinations, as did Republican Tom Tancredo.
Republican Fred Thompson, who is expected to formally enter the race soon, received a deferment because he had children.
As a woman, Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton was not subject to the draft.
McCain’s biography as a Navy airman who endured years of torture in a Hanoi prison is a central part of his appeal. Hunter, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has made military issues central to his career in Congress.
Republican Jim Gilmore served in the Army in West Germany, while Ron Paul served as an Air Force surgeon. Democrat Mike Gravel served in the Army in the 1950s.
Democrat Chris Dodd joined the Army Reserve when he left the Peace Corps in 1968. Republican Tommy Thompson joined after law school in 1966.
————————————————-
The article also mentions that military experience doesn’t matter to the American public as much as it once did. The only top-tier candidate with a military resume is McCain, and it probably won’t be the biggest factor in his popularity.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:14 pmSo, you don’t see a problem with MORE terrorists being created by U.S. war policy?
Actually, I have a bigger problem with pissing away the lives of soldiers in a strategy that not only isn’t working, but was never designed to work, only being to provide cover in American domestic politics. Bleeding our military while building al Qaeda is an act of treason by the C-i-C.
Then again, our soldiers’ lives don’t mean a damned thing to a conservative.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pm.
How many of those 14000 were here?
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
I see - it’s only about America for you. So, then you don’t care about the 4,000 Americans killed in Iraq? You just wanna exploit semantics? Okay, fine - then think about this, Einstein - how much will the number expand until there are so many here that you wish it were 2001 and you could have come up with an actual plan against the real terrorists rather than ruining Iraq, and our military - as well as creating a terrorism epidemic? 15,000? 20,000? 50,000?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pmI asked them to explain their military service records, since they seem to have all the experience and wisdom about serving. ——— I don’t figure I owe you a copy of my service record.
This has been asked of many of these, plus CT6 and a few others, and they can’t provide any information. —-Sorry, the need to know just isn’t there.
Guess their silence IS the answer. — Yeah, it says “Bite me”
Comment by upside00
July 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pmIraqi’s are fickle lke that.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Yeah, I mean what a bunch of cry babies. Whaaaa! my leg got blown off. Whaaa! my sons were killed today. Whaaaa! I haven’t had electricity for 3 years. Somebody call the Whaaaaambulance. Oh wait - it was just blown up. Those fickle Iraqis.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pmSaddam …. set up a network of terror to support such operations? The network is there and Iran is feeding it with bullets and bombs now.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Excuse me, but Didn’t Saddam attack Iran, and fight a bitter 8 year war using poison gas for the first time since World War I??
July 6th, 2007 at 4:18 pmAren’t the Al Qaeda sunnis blowing up innocent Shiites in their Markets and Mosques.The Sunnis and Shiites might both hate America’s occupation of their country, but they are not feeding each other anything but Grief and Mayhem.
Sorry, the need to know just isn’t there.
That’s what the garrett troopers always say. Either that or it’s confidential information locked away in a safe somewhere…..
July 6th, 2007 at 4:19 pmUnbelievable —- Ever heard “The enemy of my enemy is my ally†?
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Only in American history books.
Prove they were in cahoots. Oh, that’s right, you can’t, because even the Bush Regime has admitted that there was no connection. I’m sure Georgie got a serious spanking for letting that one slip out!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:19 pmUnbelievable —- Ever heard “The enemy of my enemy is my ally†?
Yes, but obviously Bush hadn’t. It’s been really astounding watching the right, which is supposed to be serious and knowledgeable about national security, lump together secular and fundamentalist, Shi’ite and Sunni, Arab and Persian states as if they’re all one.
A smart strategy would involve dividing different groups but, for the sake of playing politics here at home, the right not only lumps them all together but builds them up as an existential threat. Sometimes they sound like they’re recruiting agents of al Qaeda.
Meanwhile, Osama is not only at peace, Bush gave up looking for him.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:20 pm.
how much will the number expand until there are so many here that you wish it were 2001 and you could have come up with an actual plan against the real terrorists rather than ruining Iraq, and our military - as well as creating a terrorism epidemic? 15,000? 20,000? 50,000?
Comment by unbelievable
Look, i never claimed that it couldn’t have been better thought out, better executed. Are you saying, “Bring the troops home now, so that we can devise a better strategy, then we can go back in and do it right the second time around”? Or are you suggesting, “F*ck, we blew it! Let’s get out of here before someone sees us. “
July 6th, 2007 at 4:21 pmFrank,
I have said NOTHING about my local cops. Actually they are pretty good.
I just find it interesting how many here seem to be so cavalier about how we should use our military and what would make them successful being in the middle of a civil war.
The paranoia I see now is just like the fear I heard in Vietnam: “Fight the commies there or they will be over her on the shores of California”.
As soon as you get over there, you see, that they never wanted to come to the US, they just wanted their country back!
It is the same in Iraq; they just want their freakin’ country back.
But maybe we will have to do to Iraq as we did in Vietnam: “We will have to destroy it to save it”
And you are the ONLY one to even respond to my questions, and I thank you for that.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:21 pmY’all,
Is Frank (b)M a new troll?? Seems dumb enough to be one to me!!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:21 pmSomebody call the Whaaaaambulance. Oh wait - it was just blown up. Those fickle Iraqis.
Yes. The Iraqis should be grateful that Saddam’s “rape rooms” are open under new management.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:22 pm.
about 9% of the active population is without a job
Comment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Hey, their employment rate is a whole point higher than our real one - and theyhave all those cool benefits!
You know Tracy, you can pretend that it’s all about money - but the wealthiest Industrialized nation on Earth is also the sickest. I’d gladly give up rich to be happy. Apparently, so have the French and it is working very well for them. Is it perfect? No. But do the imprfections define the system? Nope. Yet another strawman. Thanks for playing…
July 6th, 2007 at 4:24 pmOsama and Saddam HATED one another. Osama was a religious zealot, while Saddam was a secular leader. No great Satan was going to bring the two of them together…
Therefore, destroying and occupying Iraq to fight Al Qaeda is dishonest and delusional.
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
I know there is really no need to respond to any of your comments.
But I thought that this one was hilarious, and your ignorance… OF EVERYTHING can clearly be seen.
I will keep praying for you students, you fukcing moron. †
July 6th, 2007 at 4:24 pmSgt. Higgins, Iraq is not Vietnam.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:24 pmBecause Iraq is one of the most dishonorable days in the life of America.
Worse than vietnam.
Worse than our occupation of the Phillippines.
Ranking with the Sand Creek Massacre.
America invaded a country who had not attacked us, was never a threat to us, had made no military actions against is or our allies–and we invaded the country and occupied it.
This was not a defensive war. This was not a reactive war. This was an aggressive war of choice.
It’s as deeply dishonorable an act as has ever been done.
This was not the act of the world’s champion of democracy–it was the kind of act that Imperial Britain perormed, that Imperial China did, that Imperial Germany did, that the Imperial Soviet Union did.
The Right has said that we can’t afford honor any more, that we have to torture and spy without warrants, that we can’t afford habeaas corpus or the Geneva Conventions be cause thhere are people who don’t like us. They’ve said thatt civil liberties don’t matter if you’re dead, and that the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact, which spits on the grave of everybody who DID die for liberty and the Constitution–as anyone who has no idea what honor is would say.
Only in American history books. — Really? I always thought that was a Sun Tzu art of war thing.
Prove they were in cahoots. Oh, that’s right, you can’t—- And they may well not have been. But they would both have incentive (the downfall of the West) to work together, or at least be supportive of each other.
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
July 6th, 2007 at 4:25 pm#118: When you’re nation is attacked you should defend it of course. It’s the honorable thing to do. We do not attack nations without a cause, though. So the people fighting us in Iraq aren’t fighting for their nation. They are fighting for the criminals that started the war. They are trying to keep back the freedoms. These people should be made to see that fighting against us is futile and is harming their own citizens.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:26 pmWhat are you suggesting SGT. Higgins? Don’t question? just do and let others think for you? We shouldn’t concern ourselves with faulty intelligence or the strong arm tactics to push an agenda. Just do.
I’ll question authority.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:27 pmWe properly ridicule Republicans for the chorus “But Clinton did it too!” My concern is this article sounds like “But Nixon did it too!” And that is certainly not a standard we want to live up (down?) to!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:27 pmPBG
July 6th, 2007 at 4:28 pmDamned great post. Kudos. Thanks.
Fight the commies there or they will be over her on the shores of California ——– Whoops, that one didn’t work out so well after all.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:28 pmLook, i never claimed that it couldn’t have been better thought out, better executed. Are you saying, “Bring the troops home now, so that we can devise a better strategy, then we can go back in and do it right the second time around� Or are you suggesting, “F*ck, we blew it! Let’s get out of here before someone sees us. “
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Or maybe it’s somthing in between your polarizing suggestions that your little, teeny, tiny brain can’t grasp despite 2 years of posts here at this blog. Something…like…I don’t know…like…an…intelligent…uh…approach to…uh..terrorism!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:28 pmAre you saying, “Bring the troops home now, so that we can devise a better strategy, then we can go back in and do it right the second time around� Or are you suggesting, “F*ck, we blew it! Let’s get out of here before someone sees us. “
I’ll answer that: what’s happening in Iraq is part of al Qaeda’s stated strategy. I knew that back at the tail end of 2001. They hope to repeat their victories against the USSR in Afghanistan. The enemy is only there because we are, and we are only there (as the PNAC plan said) to break the back of OPEC.
When Gen. Petraeus says that not only is there no military solution to the problem there, but that the occupation is so small it violates his own counterinsurgency doctrine, I can’t believe that anyone, let alone anyone with military experience, can truly think that the problem is making the occupation work.
It isn’t and, without a shitload more troops, it won’t. Just read Petraeus’ book.
Our allies in the war on terror have been fighting (and winning) the war against their own domestic terrorists for decades. That’s decades of fighting experience that Bush and Co. turn their noses up to when they say that those tactics aren’t the way.
Iraq is al Qaeda’s trap and Bush won’t leave because of his ego. Any solution begins when we STOP PLAYING INTO THE ENEMY’S PLAN. If keeping America safe is the objective we have to force the Iraqis to seek their own political solution. Continuing to seek political solutions via military means is repeating the mistakes of Vietnam.
As one old veteran said at the beginning of the invasion of Iraq: “the blood, sweat, and tears of the professional fighting man is going to have to bail out the incompetence of civilian amateurs.” Well, this civilian thinks its time to stop working against our own interests.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:29 pm.
Guess their silence IS the answer. — Yeah, it says “Bite meâ€
Comment by upside00
Comment by SGT Higgins
WOW!! That is a very intelligent response. Did your mom teach you that one?
And quit using the “Sgt” name unless you actually are a retired sergeant, it gives the military a bad name to have someone pretending to be something they are not. Unless you are Fred Thompson or ronnie reagan, (bad) tv actors, then you can pretend all you want..
July 6th, 2007 at 4:29 pmHey just don’t speak for people you have no connection to.
Comment by Tracy — July 6, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Don’t worry - I’m not you.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:29 pmWe do not attack nations without a cause, though. So the people fighting us in Iraq aren’t fighting for their nation. They are fighting for the criminals that started the war.
Comment by Frank M — July 6, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Anybody else care to beat there head against this wall?
Nobody…OK.
What again was the cause of attacking Iraq?
What criminals started this war - and where were they from?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:29 pmOFF TOPIC. Damn it. I’m watching Twin Peaks - Fire Walk with Me and I’ve just fallen in love with Sheryl Lee and Molly Kelly.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:30 pmAnd they may well not have been. But they would both have incentive (the downfall of the West) to work together, or at least be supportive of each other.
Why would secular Arab states want to bring down the west? That would be an economic disaster for them! This is ridiculous.
The Islamist types who dream of a caliphate can envision life on the back of a camel, but not regimes like Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc. Does Turkey want to bring down the west?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:31 pm.
#123
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
I thought it was a civil war, i.e. Iraqis killing Iraqis, in Iraq, not terroism.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:32 pmOk. We attacked Afghanistan because they attacked us on 9/11. Saddam supported them and that’s why we went after him and finally, thank God, got the bastard.
Now it is starting to look like that Iran is involved, too. They are supplying the insurgents in Iraq and that must stop.
The criminals that started this war are all over the middle east and they have all sworn allegiance to islamofascism. That’s how you recognize the ciriminals.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:34 pmLook, i never claimed that it couldn’t have been better thought out, better executed.
Good, cause that would lower you to the status of infants like Mr. President who don’t have two brain cells to rub together…
Are you saying, “Bring the troops home now, so that we can devise a better strategy, then we can go back in and do it right the second time around�
No.
Or are you suggesting, “F*ck, we blew it! Let’s get out of here before someone sees us. “
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Again no.
We need to leave because there is NO moral reason for us to still be there. Saddam is dead. There were no WMDs. Iraq was unrelated to 9/11. What’s left besides oil and an excuse for you cowards to claim safety?
We’re just creating more and more terrorists by staying. Leaving will atleast stop that escalation that is sure to haunt us now for generations… Thanks.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:34 pmRanking with the Sand Creek Massacre. — Ifthat’s the one I’m thinking of, you’ll have to explain how Iraq is worse.
was never a threat to us, — untrue, we were a stone’ throw away in Afghanistan.
had made no military actions against is or our allies—-except all those violations of No-fly zones and firing on our planes and our allies.
This was not a defensive war. This was not a reactive war. This was an aggressive war of choice. —- You prefer the defensive kind of wars, do ya?
that we can’t afford habeaas corpus —— he’s not the only President ot suspend habeas Corps in a time of war. Lincoln did it too, for the good of the Union. Seemed to work out in the end.
They’ve said thatt civil liberties don’t matter if you’re dead, —- Ican’t argue with that.
Comment by pbg
July 6th, 2007 at 4:35 pm“Saddam supported them and that’s why we went after him and finally, thank God, got the bastard.”
Where’s your evidence?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:35 pmThere are many who want out and cannot get out. That’s force.
—- That’s not force, that’s a contract!
Other than the relatively FEW who are stop-lossed.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Bald. Faced. Lie. Sir Higgins.
Indirect contradiction to your lie of ‘FEW’, almost everyone over there has had their contract BROKEN BY THE CRIMINALS IN POWER, by way of
–STOPLOSS
–EXTENDED TOURS OF 15 MONTHS INSTEAD OF 12
–FIGHTING ON THE FRONT LINES FOR OVER A YEAR (WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE NOT EVEN IN WWII)
–SHORTENED LEAVES GIVING THEM NO TIME TO RECOVER FROM PTSD BEFORE GOING BACK TO MAKE IT WORSE (HAVE YOU SEEN THE SUICIDE RATE OF VETERANS?)
–CALLING INJURED, TRAUMATIZED AND SERIOUSLY INJURED TROOPS BACK TO ACTIVE DUTY.
–WALTER REED OUTPATIENT ‘CARE’
You blame the troops for wanting to break their ‘contract’ that the government has already pissed all over and lit on fire. Why, how can you defend the indefensible at the expense of the grunt?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:36 pm