In respect to Foggy and his friend- This space reserved for Iraq comments

Per request, This space reserved for open session on US/Iraq policy. I know there are plenty of other threads listed with different topics regarding this, but this space reserved for bashing Bush or defending him.

I can say that it is very difficult to show support for troops when you strongly oppose the President Bush and his actions. It's just going to turn into a mini-Vietnam, I fear. Half assed support from a war-mongering President is not good.

I've never disliked a President as much as Bush. Time to leave, W. And take all your corporate payoff goonies with you. There, I've said it. I'm done.

thanks for moving it to a new spot, bro. It's appreciated.

:cool:

Respect should be directed to Mike, Mike's family and all the others who have given their lives.

From Andrew Sullivan dot com:

"Iraq has been a free country for a single year after decades of fascism, mass murder, communal paranoia, hysteria, random violence, and economic collapse. Did we expect the place to become Toledo overnight? The closer we get to transferring power, the more the extremist factions need to prevent a peaceful transition and establish their own power bases for the next phase. The closer we get to a self-governing Arab state, the more terrified Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and the rest will be that their alternatives - theocratic fascism and medieval economics - will look pathetic in comparison. There are millions of people in Iraq who need us now more than ever. Their future and our future are entwined. Which is why we have to keep our nerve, put down these insurrections with focussed ferocity, and move relentlessly toward self-rule. It may be dark this Friday, but Christians are told that a new day will dawn. Not in three days. But in time. If we keep our nerve."[end quote]


I don't think christians are the only ones told about new days. However, I think perspective is needed. If you can cut out the static and look at trends over the long term. It is undeniable that the Iraqi's have realized a better existence due to our actions there. by no measure can anyone deem their current situation worse than it was a scant 13 months ago.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Squirrel99
I can say that it is very difficult to show support for troops when you strongly oppose the President Bush and his actions.

---

Why is it so hard to show support for the troops? They aren't the ones making (bad) policy decisions. They signed up to defend us from bad guys, and have clearly demonstrated that they are willing to give their lives so we can live in relative freedom. I'm guessing you didn't have too much trouble supporting the troops when they were kicking Bin Laden and the Taliban out of Afghanistan, right? If their commitment isn't worth supporting, I don't know what is.

What's going on in Iraq right now isn't so cool. Personally, I don't think we ever should have sent our troops in there at all, BUT the troops themselves had nothing to do with that decision. The president says "Go!" and they go. Considering the fact that some of them probably don't want to be their for moral reasons, and most of them don't want to be their because it's hot, dangerous, and away from home, these guys seem to be doing a great job. If these guys don't get enough support from the public now, it's going to be difficult to find people who want to sign up in the coming years. That means the next time we need to defend ourselves from a real threat, there won't be anyone there.

Supporting the war and supporting the troops are two totally different things. Please don't confuse them.

I am rapidly losing patience with the bush white house on Iraq. I cannot stand the democratic response to Iraq ie Miss Hillary Clinton who in a recent speach made the absolutely LUDACRIS statement that Iraqi women were better off under Saddam then they are now?????????????????????????? Are you NUTS?!?!?! I belive that honesty is always the best policy and I'll say it again, if Bill had simply said I had an affair and I'm sorry, or Pete Rose had said that I did bet on baseball and now its W's turn to say that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and either the intellegence was blatently made up as a causus belli or the intellegence community has failed us YET AGAIN. And if the WMDs did exist and now are in Syria/Lebanon HOW THE HELL does that make us safer? If theres a hornet in the room I'd like to have some idea where it is before I go swatting at it Unfortunately we can't leave Iraq we need MORE troops and some help from the UN which can't really do anything because its members are so mad at GW that they'd rather see the Middle East thrown into anarchy then lend a hand to rebuild Iraq into a model of democracy so that it could be a becon of freedom in a totalitarian region, again the arrogence of Rumsfield shows through here, he wants a smaller/more high tech army and this was his opertunity to show off, well we can win with a small army but we can't hold and defend a country without large amounts of troops/MP's this isn't very well though out and probably has gaping holes in my logic/arguments but i just wanted to type something that resembles what I'm feeling having a bunch of friends of mine over in that area


oh and by the way on a somewhat related note

Has anyone noticed that Bush's plan for peace in Israel/Palestine reads a lot like Clintons, which reads a lot like everyone elses who've tried to solve the damn problem. Basically its pray that the two sides sit down to talk so that the fighting stops throw some easy issues out so that we can claim that we're back on the road to lasting peace knowing full well that unless the hard issues are solved we're just going to wind up back at step 1

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AntiSoCalSkier

Supporting the war and supporting the troops are two totally different things.

---

I agree and I support the troops.
I also agree that the Iraqis will be better off without Saddam running their country.
What I do not agree with is that the President put our soldiers in harms way with lies. I can't say for sure why he lied to us, what ther interests he is looking out for (through I have suspicions), but what GWB did was wrong. The defense department's civilian leadership's arrogance also pisses me off. Their planning was so foolish and purposefully ignorant that I blame them for a lot of what isn't going right in Iraq right now.

First, let me say, I will support the troops regardless of any political feelings I may have. My cousin is over there, he's a flight doctor on an Army helicopter. He signed up way back in the 90's, because my uncle was too cheap to pay for him to go to med school. We're the same age and we were really close when we were kids. If, god forbid, he was killed in Iraq I'm not sure I would ever be able to forgive GW. Invading Iraq was a mistake, it is hard for anyone to argue that now, even if Iraq and the rest of the world are better off without Sadaam. We have diverted much needed resources, troops, and money from the war on terror and left ourselves even more vulnerable to attack at home and abroad. Personally, I feel that if we had committed all of these troops and all of our efforts to finding Bin Laden 2 years ago, he'd either be dead or in custody by now. Instead we find ourselves mired in another occupation of a country that doesn't want us there, and as a result of our mostly Christian occupation of a Muslim country we are just feeding the fires of militant Islam and are galvanizing extremists and encouraging the terrorists of tomorrow. I don't know how we're going to get ourselves out of this mess, but I do know who got us into this, and no matter what happens now, GW will forever have this blood on his hands, not just the American blood, but all the Iraqi blood that spills as well.

Foggy, you are right, my apologies to you, especially Mike and his family. A thread like that is no place to place politcal weight and many of us should have left it that way :o I made a mistake.

Quote:

---

What's going on in Iraq right now isn't so cool. Personally, I don't think we ever should have sent our troops in there at all, BUT the troops themselves had nothing to do with that decision.

---

Agreed. Troops do not have a decision. Neither did the Vets in Vietnam and look how that turned out. Yes, Afghanistan was justified- we were going after the terrorists. There were substantial hard leads and evidence. Perhaps our next stop should have been Pakistan? This President needs to be held accountable for his actions. He has lost touch with the actual "War on Terrror." Iraq was a bad country- but not the source. We should have continued to go after the source.

Yes, we are stuck now and need to figure out what the next step is and we can help the troops by electing a more experienced, combat veteran. Not that Kerry is the best choice, but he has experience from Vietnam and I trust he would make the right decision as to whether we seriously increase our presence in Iraq or find a way to bring our troops home safely. We all know we can't change the past- but can make a better future. We need the right people making the right decisions in a crucial time like this. I have friends in the Navy and Air Force and I want to make sure the man calling the shots knows what he is doing.

Quote:

---

And if the WMDs did exist and now are in Syria/Lebanon HOW THE HELL does that make us safer? If theres a hornet in the room I'd like to have some idea where it is before I go swatting at it Unfortunately we can't leave Iraq we need MORE troops and some help from the UN which can't really do anything because its members are so mad at GW that they'd rather see the Middle East thrown into anarchy then lend a hand to rebuild Iraq into a model of democracy so that it could be a becon of freedom in a totalitarian region, again the arrogence of Rumsfield shows through here, he wants a smaller/more high tech army and this was his opertunity to show off, well we can win with a small army but we can't hold and defend a country without large amounts of troops/MP's this isn't very well though out and probably has gaping holes in my logic/arguments but i just wanted to type something that resembles what I'm feeling having a bunch of friends of mine over in that area

---

Well Said. I completely agree. And the response from Hillary is way off base.

http://tetongravity.com/forums/showt...&threadid=9851

Here's what I've got to say about this.

Can't everyone see what is going on? Bush is a charlatan and he and his cronies are driving this nation down a ruinous road. Vote those greedy bastards out.

There should be some kind of INTERNATIONAL organization made up of peace loving nations who cooperate to prevent rogue leaders like Hussein. THE UNITED NATIONS!!!! But the U.S. disregarded the U.N. when it armed Iraq in it's war against Iran, then propped Hussein up in power. The U.S. has been deliquent for decades in paying U.N dues, constantly breaks inernational treaties, now invades a country without consent. I feel deeply for any soldier who put his/her life in the hands of our greedy, corrupt leaders who convince them that they fight for our freedom when they don't because we're not free...

I am very sorry for all those who have died and their families in Iraq, and I support the troops who are over their risking their lives for a cause that I consider to be pointless. We are no safer without Hussein in power, in fact I believe that America be at more risk, whether here or abroad. This war was started as a grudge match, and it continues as one; however, a grudge match has gone too far when it costs 600+ American lives and billions of dollars. If this kind of constant violence in Iraq continues, I honestly believe that there will be a draft. I love this country, but not enough to fight, kill and die for it, especially for a cause that I cannot bring myself to agree with. We need to get someone in the White House who knows what is right for America and it's invovlements overseas. This may not be Kerry, but it sure as hell isn't Bush either.
Iraqi's cannot handle democracy, they have already proven that to us in the short time we have been there, why should we force our system of government upon a nation that clearly cannot deal with the responsibilities that go along with it. Who are we to say that "Democracy is best for Iraq", we have no right to tell people what type of government they can or cannot accept.
RIP to all those who have been lost, and my condolences to families and friends of those lost.

-Ben

This is in regards to KQ's posting about the NSA's testimony in Congress...did you expect straight answers and accountability from a politician? Politicians generally are full of hot air; if it's positive they'll take full credit of it, but whenever something goes south it is the fault of a lackey or faulty intelligence or something, it's never their direct fault. That's not a hallmark of this current administration, it's EVERY one. I don't think I should have to post examples, this is known. When was the last time you saw a polotician take accountability for one of their mistakes? Maybe Johnson not running for re-election due to Vietnam, either way it's been a great long while.

Expecting a straight answer from a politician is like expecting a blowjob from a hardcore Mormon girl on your first date. Not gonna happen, if ever!

Truth: The world is a better place with Saddam Hussein and the Taliban/Al Quada out of power. Iraq & Afganistan will be better places once (if) the violence cools and the rebuilding of the infrastructure begins.

Lie: Iraq has WMD's

The only WMD's Iraq had are the ones we sold them during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80's. We sold 'em mustard gas to use on the Iranians...which Hussein then used on the Kurds.

The war is costing us $87,000,000,000. It was entered into on false pretenses. There apears to be no plan for what to do now with Iraq. Afganistan's cash crop is still opium. The majority of the world's heroin still comes from there. The rebuilding of Afganistan has been put on the back burner while we fight off the resistance fighters in Iraq.

However, anyone who doesn't support our troops is an idiot. They're serving our country with more bravery than I can fathom. They're doing their duty. The war itself can be argued, but there is no debate on whether those men and women deserve our respect. If nothing else, they at least deserve our support to come home alive and well.

The U.N. sucks. It works about as well as an oak spark plug. It was set up after WWII to prevent war and conflict around the world of which it has done a terrible job. They issued a resolution to go to war in Iraq...which seems to be against the principle of preventing war and conflict around the world. They couldn't stop the genocide in Rowanda. They can't bring peace to the middle east. If they really adheared to their principles, all the nations in the U.N. would have declared war on the U.S. for invading Iraq & Afganistan. But we all know that's not going to happen. About the only thing they can do well is criticize the United States. The U.N. is a bunch of whiney Europeans criticizing the U.S. for everything we do or don't do. That's why we went unilaterally because those idiots don't know how to get a single fucking thing done.

- FNG
(...polisci is one of my majors.)

I could go all day on this thread and try to blame someone, but I will instead extend my respects to the Men and Women who protect our rights, the soldiers who are all over the world kicking the shit out of pieces of shit like Saddam and Osama. Keep up the good work, we got you back

Everywhere in the Middle East, Bush is losing.

Manpower starved American forces on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot defend themselves, and are having to cancel campaigns of offense announced only hours ago.

American troops, previously scheduled to leave Iraq within a week, will now only be allowed to leave in a body bag.

There is confusion among a field command left understaffed and stretched thin. The coalition's deputy director of operations, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, told CNN that a unilateral cease-fire was in force. Meanwhile, Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne, commander of the First Battalion, Fifth Marine Regiment, was telling the Associated Press, "I would not describe this as a cease-fire."

Convoys of Arabs have been televised pouring into contested areas eager to sacrifice their lives to "kill Americans." In Iraq, everyone is now a "terrorist."

How could Bush mess up so badly in only one year?

A year ago, Bush promised to "liberate" Iraq as a friend of Iraq. Instead he occupied Iraq as an enemy of Iraq. Bush decided he wanted to tell Iraqis how to live their lives, even though he made a mess of his own life and was preoccupied with the looting Iraq's assets.

Worse than that, Bush played into the hands of militant Arabs by infiltrating aid groups with people whose agenda was to distribute Christian literature and convert Moslems to Christianity. Bush then allowed Gen. Boykin to make speaking tours across the "Bible Belt" describing the struggle in the Middle East as a war between OUR GOD and THEIR IDOL—a war OUR GOD chose Bush to lead. A few loose remarks by Bush about waging a "Crusade" in the Middle East made things worse.

Suddenly, and predictably, the religion war was on.

Moderate Arabs believe Bush has created a terrorist incubator in Iraq—hatching out new terrorists in huge numbers. Arabs believe Bush is paying the price for entering Iraq with no coherent plan beyond toppling Saddam Hussein. The anarchy that Bush let run unchecked at the beginning of the occupation of Iraq never really ended.

Other nations are torn in their emotions—pleased on the one hand that Bush is getting what he deserves; afraid on the other hand by the reality that Bush has delivered the Middle East into the hands of the terrorists.

These new "terrorists" Bush has produced will dictate future policy for all Arab nations in the Middle East for years to come—nations we depend upon for our energy supplies.

So class, a short quiz:

1. As Bush ramps up war spending to avoid total humiliation, will this produce:
A) less deficit spending?
B) same amount of deficit spending?
C) more deficit spending?

2. Will a jump in war spending produce
A) lower inflation and interest rates?
B) no change in inflation and interest rates?
C) higher inflation and interest rates?

3. If Bush's misadventure in Iraq produces higher inflation and interest rates, how will this impact the stock market?
A) The market will move up.
B) The market will not be affected.
C) The market will tank.

(Those who answered all three questions by selecting choice "C", please remain in your seats. Those Bush Sheep People who answered "A" or "B" please go down the hall and take seats in the Special Ed classroom.

Maybe it's purley an aesthetic issue, but wouldn't you rather have some one other then rice in charge of defense? I'd feel a lot safer with some former navy seal commander who talks in a deep growl and is covered in hair. Sure she's intelligent, but does she understand the realities of a fanatic enemy??