History Repeating Itself???

[spare_change]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been counting on support from her man on the case, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), when it comes to thwarting the U.S. war effort in Iraq. It was Fightin’ John, after all, who blustered recently, “We can’t win militarily.” Unfortunately for Pelosi, however, Murtha seems to have changed his tune. “I think the surge is working,” he declared last weekend, adding that it’s “a window of opportunity.” Before we give Murtha too much credit, though, he then insisted on qualifying his support with the latest Democrat talking points: “Unfortunately, the sacrifice of our troops has not been met by the Iraqi government and they have failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide.” In other words, the Democrats have decided that the only measure of success in Iraq is Iraqi politics. We’re sure that if all Iraqi politicians agreed to get along beginning tomorrow, success soon would be defined in another way by American leftists.

Oddly enough, North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap recently published his memoirs, in which he said the American media won the Vietnam war for the Vietcong. “What we still don’t understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it,” he wrote. “But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!” Giap’s words are an important lesson from the past, to be sure.

[Iwantutowantme]

History does repeat itself on the last year of a two term president. What is being done ( which is very little) should have been done in Iraq in the first year US troops invaded. The plan (and I will repeat this).. was and is to make permanet bases in Iraq without any exit stragety because there wasnt any intention to leave once big oil and big corporations got there toes in the door. What better time to create a dislusional (sp) picture of a 'possible' win in Iraq just before the 08 elections. If (and I say this very sadly) another republican (and I am referring to Hillary also) is the next president of the US then we will most likely have an Iran war within the first year of his or her precidency. Otherwise, we can look forward to at least trying to pay off the almost 10 trillion dollar debt and attemp to put the country back on course to slovency..... but it will take alot of courage,,and the dems have it....:)

[tt]

Representative Murtha was the darling of the Republican Majority, until he decided that the failed war in Iraq was a mistake. When Representative Murtha voted with the Republican Majority, he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Murtha was a hero, "A True American Hero We Can Work With." a quote from former Texas Republican Tom DeLay (Now facing criminal charges in Texas).

It was not until after Representative Murtha spoke out against the failed war did the Republican Machine began their campaign to smear him. It never ceases to amaze me that a man who enlisted into the Marine Corps during the Korean War, served in Combat in Korea and Viet Nam, was promoted to Captain and won both the Purple Heart and Silver Star is some how less a hero because he speaks out against a failed war started by a man who failed to complete his military contract.

[cloudrunner]

2

[Huzyerdaddi]

I think it is.....after all, you did just create ANOTHER political thread

[tt]

Oddly enough, there was a plan by then President Lyndon B. Johnson to engage in a campaign of "Carpet Bombing." of Hanoi. His plan would have allowed the U.S. Military to bomb Hanoi around the clock until there was nothing but rubble. "I don't want to see two rocks left standing." or words to that effect.

The plan however was not put into effect due to both the very vocal Anti-War Movement, and concerns of what the effect of such bombing would have had on the international community.

[Sunfiresix]

It seems they all have great plans, after they initiate them then we pay the price of rebuilding and mending lives that were broken.

[tt]

It seems they all have great plans, after they initiate them then we pay the price of rebuilding and mending lives that were broken.

Yeah, makes you Proud To Be An American, don't it?

[spare_change]

I think it is.....after all, you did just create ANOTHER political thread


Is that a problem?

[spare_change]

It seems they all have great plans, after they initiate them then we pay the price of rebuilding and mending lives that were broken.


.. which makes us unique in history. We are the first "conquering force" that does not assume control, or occupy, conquered countries. We battle for ideas, not for land.

[spare_change]

Yeah, makes you Proud To Be An American, don't it?


Yep - it sure as hell does.

[Huzyerdaddi]

Actually it is not. I rather like predictibility in the midst of my otherwise out-of-control, dynamic life.



Is that a problem?

[tt]

Yep - it sure as hell does.

I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not. You prefer to rain death and destruction upon a people, a nation that at no time was ever a threat to the U.S.

[spare_change]

I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not. You prefer to rain death and destruction upon a people, a nation that at no time was ever a threat to the U.S.


Of course, I believe this viewpoint to be naive and tunneled, without considering the overall global impact. If you want to segment the overall war into little pieces, and judge each independently, rather than consider a larger strategy, please do so. But, if we had applied the same logic to WWII, we wouldn't have bothered with little places like Guadalcanal, Wake Island, Okinawa, etc., which were just minor outposts of a more centrally located enemy. I wonder how that would have ended.

[PunkyBob]

Just to be clear...and satisfy my curiosity, Spare...would you mind describing your idea of the long-term strategy needed to settle the middle east question, prevent/defeat terrorism and bring our men and women back from harm's way? I'm not being sarcastic or patronizing, so please don't take it that way. I'm just asking.

[ethans_so_bad]

I noticed recently that even the CBS Evening News had been doing snippets admitting that the surge is working. Which, by the way, it is. Let's see how it goes with CBS (and others) today though after nine died yesterday.

[spare_change]

Just to be clear...and satisfy my curiosity, Spare...would you mind describing your idea of the long-term strategy needed to settle the middle east question, prevent/defeat terrorism and bring our men and women back from harm's way? I'm not being sarcastic or patronizing, so please don't take it that way. I'm just asking.


Like everybody else, I have an opinion, and, like everybody else, I think I'm so smart that my solution is the right answer. So, here goes ...

We have to realize that this is a war of ideas. Capturing Bin Laden isn't going to solve the problem. This effort is unique in that there isn't a single piece of property, or person, that is the focus. In WWII, for example, we knew that if we "conquered" Germany, we would defeat Nazism. There is an old saying - "Cut off the head and the snake will die." That was true, but isn't true any more. There is no "head", though many try to assign that label to a sick old man isolated in the mountains of Pakistan.

So, if the goal isn't to occupy land, what is it? It is to change the mindset of the opposition, challenge and alter their ideas, and their concepts. Some will ask what gives us the right? What makes us think that our ideas are better? Simply - our ability to impose our ideals on them is a matter of survival. Either they win, or we do. They have drawn a line in the sand, and said that there can be no compromise. Their call to kill the infidels who do not convert means "their way or the highway". So, to survive, we have to change that ideal. They won't allow us to co-exist peacefully with them.

We constantly hear naysayers complaining that Iraq was not a threat, that they weren't the right place. But, if you look at it from a geographical, political, and ideological perspective, they were exactly the right place at exactly the right time for exactly the right reasons. Why? Simple.

Geographically, Iraq is situated in the center of the Middle East. Taking physical control of it means that we would exert a direct influence on the borders of most of the problem areas in that part of the world. We are able to disrupt the current flow of arms and materials from the terrorist-sponsoring states, and we are in position to monitor their actions.

Politically, Saddam was a brutal tyrant who had killed millions of people, even using WMDs (OMG - I can't believe he used those words!) not only on his enemies (Iran), but on his own people (the Kurds). He had sponsored, trained, and funded terrorist activities throughout Europe and the Middle East. Iraq was a country whose people wanted out from under the brutal oppression, and who we believed, were ready to be self governing. Removing him from power would generate the least consternation in the global community.

Establishment of a Western-style democracy in the center of the Middle East would serve as a model to surrounding countries, a clarion call to the people of the region that they had a right to a government that supported them rather than suppressed them, that they had a right to a government that assisted them rather than abused them. When the people of Syria, for example, see the resulting increase in style of living, availability of greater economic opportunities, and increase in self determination, it would increase the pressures on the Syrian government to provide the same for its citizens. The resulting increase in personal liberties, increase in the living conditions, the increase in accountability of the governments to its citizens, will help to reduce the standard of living gap between Middle East and Western nations.

So, that's why -- the question is how. The answer is based on three axioms - 1) people want to be self governing. They don't want to be told what to do, 2) the real problem is not a theological problem - religion is used as a control mechanism and an excuse -- but rather, a sociological problem of a people who have been oppressed and denied for thousands of years, who see what others have, and want the same for themselves and their families, and 3) people with power are in no hurry to give it up.

Some choose not to admit it -- but the reality is that the process is working in Iraq. Even though it seems slow, building a government, particularly a government of such diverse social and theological elements, is a long and complicated process. But, if we look at history, we can see that they have moved forward quite rapidly. Our own country took 7 years to write its Constitution; we ran Japan with a military authority for 6 years before they were ready to self-govern, and we exerted military authority in Germany for 40 years!! In Iraq, we have lessened the violence, we have seen diverse groups coming together, we have seen opposition neighborhoods join together to quell the violence, we have acquired allies that were once our enemies. There previously was no internal pressure to create a government that supported all diverse elements - the people had been oppressed for so long, they thought, and some still think, that an oppressive government is the best way. But, as we have seen, the sense of self-determination, and self-government, has been germinating and growing. The percentage of Iraqis who voted in their presidential election was MUCH higher than our own. They risked death to vote -- we won't even drive across town.

Having said all that -- what is my recommended solution? Continue the effort in Iraq. Give the people of Iraq a realistic deadline - one that will apply the pressure for them to get the job done. Do what is necessary to give the people the opportunity to self govern. Help them to build a model that will positively influence the region, that will serve as a beacon of hope for others. It is a long, slow, process, and frankly, has very little to do with military operations in the area. The military is only imposing a modicum of safety and respite in which people can stop worrying about immediate survival, and get on with the process of defining their future, and on with their lives. Iraq needs to become self-determining. Our goal needs to make sure that it is the citizens of Iraq that are doing the self-determining. Just like in the former Soviet Union, we will see great strides made, then some backsliding as individuals try to grab power, to be followed by them being summarily slapped down by their own citizenry because, after all, once you've had a taste of the nectar, you don't want to give it up very easily. Are we nation building? Damn right -- but what's the alternative?

I don't think we need to increase the effort in Iraq - it seems to be working. But, I do believe we need to increase the resources available to be used. We need more soldiers -not to put on the ground -but for greater rotation in order to allow returning soldiers a longer recovery time here. We need to give them the resources they need to get the job done.

If we are successful in Iraq - and we have to be - we will have an ally in the Middle East that will serve as an example of what is possible. The resultant unrest, or discomfort, of oppressed people will put pressure on the Middle East governments to serve their citizens, rather than the other way around. If we aren't successful, or we don't allow ourselves to be successful, we should just call the troops home, and put them to work doing military exercises on our borders, because after Western Europe falls to Islamic extremism (does anybody seriously doubt that Islamic extremism has had a significant political and sociological impact in Europe already?), we will be the next logical target -not for a land invasion, but for a subjugation of our way of life, of our ideals, and of our principles. Due to economic and political pressures, we will be forced to heel to their mandates.

Will it be easy? No - there isn't a single government in the Middle East interested in divesting its power, and its wealth, to its people. Will it be quick? No -it will take a long time for Iraq to show the impact of self-determination, and even longer for neighboring countries to get the word. But, I do believe that Iraq will be ready for self-determination within the next two years. That, of course, is a very non-professional observation.

In the meantime, and for several years to come, we will continue to have to fight the brushfires of extremism, whether it be in Pakistan, or the Philippines, or England, or Spain, or Venezuela. But, we can't let ourselves be distracted from the overarching strategy - winning the war of ideals, of showing oppressed people that it is possible to have the wealth and standard of living that we have, not by taking it from us, but by building it themselves.

Whew!

[tt]

What makes you proud spare? Is it the Four Billion Dollars ($4,000,000,000.00) a month being spent in Iraq, while children stateside cannot get health care.

Is it the over One Hundred Fifty Thousand (150,000) Iraqi Civilians killed so far (This figure is from the World Health Organization and only covers from the start of the failed invasion in March 2003 through 2006)?

Does it make you proud when BlackWater drops CS (Tear Gas) on U.S. Troops in Baghdad?

Does it make you proud U.S. Soliders rape and murder a 14 year old girl, then kill her parents as well?

Does it make you proud when U.S. Soldiers, having arms and legs in Combat are warehoused in rooms black with mold and are issued mouse traps to catch vermin? Does it make your heart go pitter-pat?

Does it make you proud when Veterans Affairs (V.A.) Hospitals across the U.S. closing, so as the men and women who are leaving their moldy rooms will have to travel hundreds and in some cases thousands of miles for the medical after care that they are entitled to?

Does it make you proud to know that those men and women who face dimished V.A. Medical care are having their benefits cut?

Does it make you proud to know that U.S. Forces were sent into combat with adaquate/sufficient body armor? Does it make you proud that U.S. Combat Personnel had to have their family and friends order body armor and then have that body armor shipped to Iraq because they had not been issue the adaquate/sufficient body armor? How many died because of that?

Do the lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction (W.M.D.) that were used as an excuse for the failed invasion were never found? "We Know Where They Are." is a direct quote from former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. To date, none have been found. NONE.

Because I will tell, as a veteran of Viet Nam, and later military service at the Pentagon, I sure as hell am not proud.

[spare_change]

What makes you proud spare? Is it the Four Billion Dollars ($4,000,000,000.00) a month being spent in Iraq, while children stateside cannot get health care.

Is it the over One Hundred Fifty Thousand (150,000) Iraqi Civilians killed so far (This figure is from the World Health Organization and only covers from the start of the failed invasion in March 2003 through 2006)?

Does it make you proud when BlackWater drops CS (Tear Gas) on U.S. Troops in Baghdad?

Does it make you proud U.S. Soliders rape and murder a 14 year old girl, then kill her parents as well?

Does it make you proud when U.S. Soldiers, having arms and legs in Combat are warehoused in rooms black with mold and are issued mouse traps to catch vermin? Does it make your heart go pitter-pat?

Does it make you proud when Veterans Affairs (V.A.) Hospitals across the U.S. closing, so as the men and women who are leaving their moldy rooms will have to travel hundreds and in some cases thousands of miles for the medical after care that they are entitled to?

Does it make you proud to know that those men and women who face dimished V.A. Medical care are having their benefits cut?

Does it make you proud to know that U.S. Forces were sent into combat with adaquate/sufficient body armor? Does it make you proud that U.S. Combat Personnel had to have their family and friends order body armor and then have that body armor shipped to Iraq because they had not been issue the adaquate/sufficient body armor? How many died because of that?

Do the lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction (W.M.D.) that were used as an excuse for the failed invasion were never found? "We Know Where They Are." is a direct quote from former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. To date, none have been found. NONE.

Because I will tell, as a veteran of Viet Nam, and later military service at the Pentagon, I sure as hell am not proud.

Ok -- you asked. I'll answer --

I'll respond to each of your comments --

"Is it the Four Billion Dollars ($4,000,000,000.00) a month being spent in Iraq, while children stateside cannot get health care." A wonderfully connection of non-related issues. By inference, you presuppose that the $4B spent would be used to give child medical care. Great misdirection!

Does the $4B bother me? Not one damn bit -- and why? Because I know what the price would be if we didn't do it.

As for child medical care, as has been documented thousands of times, no child in this country is without medical care. There are children who do not have medical INSURANCE!! That's a whole lot different. If you have a sick child, take him to the nearest emergency room and he will be treated. So, don't obfuscate ... he has medical care, he doesn't have medical insurance.

"Does it make you proud when BlackWater drops CS (Tear Gas) on U.S. Troops in Baghdad?

Does it make you proud U.S. Soliders rape and murder a 14 year old girl, then kill her parents as well?"

Of course, that's detestable. But, to trumpet the actions of a few and ignore the heroic, and amazing, deeds of the many is obfuscation at its finest.

And, now, to the crux of it all --

You complain about the care of the wounded veterans. You bitch because soldiers were inadequately outfitted for war. You rail incessantly about decreased VA benefits. You complain about too many tours in too short a time. Well, I got news for you --

IT'S YOUR FAULT!

You are the one who insisted that the government cut costs, you are the one that demanded that Clinton cut the military in half, you are the one who opposed increasing military spending. You're the one that forced Clinton into redefining the military response parameters so that we can't meet the needs today. You're the one who won't allow Congress to increase funding to the VA, or to the military for its programs, or to the Army so it can increase its manpower pool. You won't elect representatives that are willing to do what's necessary. You are the one who has created a political environment in which it is okay to sit on the sidelines and complain, without having to contribute anything meaningful to the dialog.

Then, when the military is needed, you complain because it costs money to fix all the problems you created. You complain because they aren't prepared; you complain because they aren't properly outfitted.

IT'S YOUR FAULT!

Don't complain because the VA doesn't have new rooms for vets -- you didn't give them the money. Don't complain because soldiers don't have the right equipment -- you wouldn't fund the research or the acquisition. Do you seriously believe that there is some bureaucrat somewhere in the Pentagon who decides one day that he's just going to turn back the tax money and not buy body armor? Do you really think there is a person in the VA who gets pissed off one day and decides to house wounded soldiers in substandard quarters just because he can, or closes VA facilities because it's fun?

It's real easy to blame others, to blame the system, but IT'S YOUR FAULT!

"Do the lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction (W.M.D.) that were used as an excuse for the failed invasion were never found? "We Know Where They Are." is a direct quote from former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. To date, none have been found. NONE."

This is twisting the truth to suit political purposes at its finest -- monday morning quarterbacking of the first degree. You, and others, consistently use the word "lies", as if somebody actually knew that none existed, but intentionally lied just for kicks. There is a significant difference between a decision made on information that is later proven to be erroneous than a decision intentionally distorting known, provable facts. Everybody knows that decision are made on 80% knowledge and 20% gut reaction. It was the opinion of the leaders that the WMDs existed ... by the way, they do (go find the origin of the centrifuges that magically showed up in Iran) ... not just our leaders, but leaders of countries who supported us and leaders of countries who disagreed with us. Now, before you waste your time running off to find proof that somebody in the government thought differently, I have seen those reports, as well. I won't deny that somebody thought differently, or made the case that it wasn't true. All of those would have been weighed, and somebody had to make a decision as to which scenario was correct.

Am I proud to be an American? You damn right I am. Do I believe that the US never makes a mistake? Of course, I don't. Do I bitch when I think it's wrong? Yes, I do. But, I do believe its heart is pure, its intentions are good. I don't believe that the US is trying to dominate the world. I do believe the US is trying to make the world safe for its citizens. But, then, after all, shouldn't that be its goal?

By the way -- you mention you were a Nam vet, and served at the Pentagon. Since I did 2 1/2 tours in Nam (don't ask why only half) and served in and around the Pentagon most of my 20 years in the service, we may have met. Where, and when, were you in Nam? Where did you work in the Pentagon?

[tt]

I noticed recently that even the CBS Evening News had been doing snippets admitting that the surge is working. Which, by the way, it is. Let's see how it goes with CBS (and others) today though after nine died yesterday.

There can be no real military success, without political success, and that remains sorely lacking in Iraq. Unless or until such a time as there can be such political success, whatever meger gains made by the military will continue to be so much smoke and mirrors.

[tt]

Ok -- you asked. I'll answer --

I'll respond to each of your comments --

"Is it the Four Billion Dollars ($4,000,000,000.00) a month being spent in Iraq, while children stateside cannot get health care." A wonderfully connection of non-related issues. By inference, you presuppose that the $4B spent would be used to give child medical care. Great misdirection!

Does the $4B bother me? Not one damn bit -- and why? Because I know what the price would be if we didn't do it.

As for child medical care, as has been documented thousands of times, no child in this country is without medical care. There are children who do not have medical INSURANCE!! That's a whole lot different. If you have a sick child, take him to the nearest emergency room and he will be treated. So, don't obfuscate ... he has medical care, he doesn't have medical insurance.

"Does it make you proud when BlackWater drops CS (Tear Gas) on U.S. Troops in Baghdad?

Does it make you proud U.S. Soliders rape and murder a 14 year old girl, then kill her parents as well?"

Of course, that's detestable. But, to trumpet the actions of a few and ignore the heroic, and amazing, deeds of the many is obfuscation at its finest.

And, now, to the crux of it all --

You complain about the care of the wounded veterans. You bitch because soldiers were inadequately outfitted for war. You rail incessantly about decreased VA benefits. You complain about too many tours in too short a time. Well, I got news for you --

IT'S YOUR FAULT!

how is my fault when BUSH cut the benefits. Georgie is the Prez, Georgie is the one who controls the purse strings. He is the man responsible for the tours of duty that are now Fiftheen Months long.

You are the one who insisted that the government cut costs, you are the one that demanded that Clinton cut the military in half, you are the one who opposed increasing military spending. You're the one that forced Clinton into redefining the military response parameters so that we can't meet the needs today. You're the one who won't allow Congress to increase funding to the VA, or to the military for its programs, or to the Army so it can increase its manpower pool. You won't elect representatives that are willing to do what's necessary. You are the one who has created a political environment in which it is okay to sit on the sidelines and complain, without having to contribute anything meaningful to the dialog.

I didn't demand a damn thing. I would remind you that it was a Republican Controlled Congress to set the agenda and block any reforms proposed by Clinton. Stop Blaming Clinton. He is not in office, BUSH IS.

Then, when the military is needed, you complain because it costs money to fix all the problems you created. You complain because they aren't prepared; you complain because they aren't properly outfitted.


IT'S YOUR FAULT! (NOT IT IS NOT)

Don't complain because the VA doesn't have new rooms for vets -- you didn't give them the money. Don't complain because soldiers don't have the right equipment -- you wouldn't fund the research or the acquisition. Do you seriously believe that there is some bureaucrat somewhere in the Pentagon who decides one day that he's just going to turn back the tax money and not buy body armor? Do you really think there is a person in the VA who gets pissed off one day and decides to house wounded soldiers in substandard quarters just because he can, or closes VA facilities because it's fun?

It the fault of the Man in the White House. Not me. He cut the benefits. he is closing V.A. Hospitals. Last I checked his name was Bush.

It's real easy to blame others, to blame the system, but IT'S YOUR FAULT!
I blame the man who started an illegal war (No War has been declared). It ain't my fault you believe the lies. That's on you.

"Do the lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction (W.M.D.) that were used as an excuse for the failed invasion were never found? "We Know Where They Are." is a direct quote from former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. To date, none have been found. NONE.

This is twisting the truth to suit political purposes at its finest -- monday morning quarterbacking of the first degree. You, and others, consistently use the word "lies", as if somebody actually knew that none existed, but intentionally lied just for kicks. There is a significant difference between a decision made on information that is later proven to be erroneous than a decision intentionally distorting known, provable facts. Everybody knows that decision are made on 80% knowledge and 20% gut reaction. It was the opinion of the leaders that the WMDs existed ... by the way, they do (go find the origin of the centrifuges that magically showed up in Iran) ... not just our leaders, but leaders of countries who supported us and leaders of countries who disagreed with us. Now, before you waste your time running off to find proof that somebody in the government thought differently, I have seen those reports, as well. I won't deny that somebody thought differently, or made the case that it wasn't true. All of those would have been weighed, and somebody had to make a decision as to which scenario was correct.

The Quote is from Rumsfeld. Are you saying he lied as well. No W.M.D. were found. Rumsfeld made what is callled "A Simple Declarative Statement." A statement that means exactly what is meant. "We Know Where They Are." He (Rumsfeld) did not say "We Think We Might Know." Rumsfeld did not say "We believe that we think that maybe We Might Know." "We Know Where They Are." NONE WERE FOUND.

Am I proud to be an American? You damn right I am. Do I believe that the US never makes a mistake? Of course, I don't. Do I bitch when I think it's wrong? Yes, I do. But, I do believe its heart is pure, its intentions are good. I don't believe that the US is trying to dominate the world. I do believe the US is trying to make the world safe for its citizens. But, then, after all, shouldn't that be its goal?

Good intentions should not include the illegal invasion of a country that was never a threat to the U.S.

By the way -- you mention you were a Nam vet, and served at the Pentagon. Since I did 2 1/2 tours in Nam (don't ask why only half) and served in and around the Pentagon most of my 20 years in the service, we may have met. Where, and when, were you in Nam? Where did you work in the Pentagon?

You actually think that bankrupting the U.S. is worth a country that was never, repeat never a viable military threat to the U.S.? Is putting the U.S. debt in the hands of Communist China, Japan, and Mexico (You want to deal with illegals, well first stop borrowing money from Mexico)? All any of these nations have to say is "NO" just one time, and the U.S. economy is in the toilet (not that it isn't there are already).

My service in Viet Nam was eighteen (18) months, I spent time at Pleiku then later at Chu Lai. I was also at Quang Nam, Da Nang and Kontum. Have M-16 will travel.

I re-upped out of Nam and was graduated from Comm School. I was then assigned to the Pentagon TeleCommuncations Support Company. Pentagon TeleCommuncations Center, Room 5A910 (Fifth Floor. Ring A. Ninth Corridor, Room 10) The Pentagon Washington, D.C. I was billeted at Ft. Meyer Virginia, at first a two man room and after being promoted to Sergeant, one man room, not to far from the old TUSAB Building (The U.S. Army Band). My primary assignment was the "MoLink" (which if you served at the Pentagon you might know, I'm not sure if I can divulge certain aspects of my job due to security concerns.) I also monitored the Embassy Lines, and for a very short while was on a ComSec team.

Nice how you manage to revert to "Blame Clinton" I really hate to break it to you, but Georgie Porgie, the Village Idiot is Prez, those troops were maimed under his command (Not Clinton). The V.A. Hospitals are being closed on his orders (Not Clinton). The troops were warehoused under his command (Not Clinton). The benefits to those maimed vets are being cut under his command. NOT CLINTON. BUSH is cutting veterans benefits.

I have always supported the vets. Not so Bush. He is closing hospitals and cutting benefits, not Clinton, BUSH. BUSH is the one who sent men into combat without proper body armor, BUSH not Clinton.

In fact Bush is deserter. He failed to complete his full term of military service. He did request early release, but decided he didn't need wait. He is a deserter. Cheney is a draft dodger.


No W.M.D. was found - Bush lied.

No Nuclear Weapons Program - Bush lied.

YOU believe the lies. (Why is up to you)

I didn't. (I knew better)

You support a liar, you support a deserter.

You support a man who ordered men and women who lost arms and legs to housed in filth. Clinton had nothing to do with it, BUSH DID. HIS ORDERS. YOU SUPPORT THAT.

[spare_change]

From the website, www.discoverthenetwork.org .... "Clinton's most significant failings as President concerned less publicized but far more ominous matters of national security. Clinton's loathing of the American military led to his failure in his primary responsibility: the protection of the American people. His actions with regard to military preparedness speak for themselves. In less than three years, deployments increased while manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million. That decrease was the foundation upon which stood Al Gore's purported "reinvention" of government. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts.The statistics for America's defense during the Clinton years reveal the deep-seated animosity of the administration toward those who served in the military. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50."

So, let's paint the true scenario. In the eight years that Clinton was president, he gutted the military, as shown above. What is even less obvious is the internal damage done. Military leaders, in an attempt to save their personnel, scrimp and cut and whittle away at acquisition and supply programs in an effort to fund troops. But, still, the cuts are severe and painful.

Seven months after Bush takes over, the country is attacked. Political and military strategists determine a military response is appropriate. However, he is faced with a choice. Does he attack with a less than fully provisioned force, or does he not respond?

In those years of raping the military, all programs are stripped to the bone. Clinton's gutting of the military is felt not only in the number of ships on the water, but also in the support programs, and in the compensation to the troops. If you remember, the President recommends funding for the government, but Congress is the one who approves/disapproves/apportions federal funding. In every budget since 1989 (that's as far back as I was able to find data), funding for veterans services has been allocated by Congress at less than requested by the Pentagon. Is it any wonder that services are lacking?

Your histrionics notwithstanding -- the shortcomings of the military, as well as the shortcomings of veterans support services, lie directly at the feet of the Clinton administration.

You claim, rightfully, that soldiers were hurt under Bush's watch. Do you suggest that a military response to 9/11 was not appropriate? Or, is it your position that most of the soldiers were hurt fighting in the wrong place (Iraq), and that if they had been hurt fighting in Afghanistan, that would be okay, and that if we hadn't gone into Iraq, all those troops would have been properly provisioned and the veterans system would have been all fixed and all the sins of the Clinton administration would have been forgiven?

As for accusations of draft dodging and desertion, let's take a look at the military records of the three men in question:

Dick Cheney

From Wikipedia --

Cheney was of military age and a supporter of the Vietnam War but did not serve in the military, having applied for and having received five draft deferments. In 1989, The Washington Post writer, George C. Wilson, interviewed Cheney as the next Secretary of Defense; when asked about his deferments, Cheney reportedly said, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."[14] Cheney testified during his confirmation hearings in 1989 that he received deferments to finish a college career that lasted six years rather than four, owing to subpar academic performance and the the need to work to pay for his education. Initially, he was not called up because the Selective Service System was only taking older men. When he became eligible for the draft, he applied for four deferments in sequence. He applied for his fifth exemption on January 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant. He was granted 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. In January 1967, Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft.[15]

George Bush --

No short, concise list was found, but, as best I can interpret it he enlisted in the Air National Guard, was trained as an F-104 pilot, and served with several units (in Texas, Alabama, and South Dakota). At one unit, he failed to show up for a mandatory flight physical and his flight privileges were revoked. As a result, his performance was not graded for a six month period, and apparently, he did not show up for the monthly meetings either.

In late 1974, it was determined that he had met the requirements of his enlistment contract, and he was honorably discharged.

Bill Clinton --

* Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964
* Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968
* Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969
* Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the military
* Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army Reserves on August 07,1969 under authority of Colonel E. Holmes.
Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment
* Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of Arkansas ROTC, September 1969
* Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) "registrant who has failed to report...remain liable for induction"
* Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1, 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction, is INELIGIBLE!
* Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice under Public Law 90-40
* Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a fugitive from justice

By the way, if you want to read a work of art, here is Bill Clinton's letter to his draft board refusing to report. http://www.gmasw.com/draft_no.htm

[tt]

From the website, www.discoverthenetwork.org (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/) .... "Clinton's most significant failings as President concerned less publicized but far more ominous matters of national security. Clinton's loathing of the American military led to his failure in his primary responsibility: the protection of the American people. His actions with regard to military preparedness speak for themselves. In less than three years, deployments increased while manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million. That decrease was the foundation upon which stood Al Gore's purported "reinvention" of government. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts.The statistics for America's defense during the Clinton years reveal the deep-seated animosity of the administration toward those who served in the military. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50."

So, let's paint the true scenario. In the eight years that Clinton was president, he gutted the military, as shown above. What is even less obvious is the internal damage done. Military leaders, in an attempt to save their personnel, scrimp and cut and whittle away at acquisition and supply programs in an effort to fund troops. But, still, the cuts are severe and painful.

Seven months after Bush takes over, the country is attacked. Political and military strategists determine a military response is appropriate. However, he is faced with a choice. Does he attack with a less than fully provisioned force, or does he not respond?

In those years of raping the military, all programs are stripped to the bone. Clinton's gutting of the military is felt not only in the number of ships on the water, but also in the support programs, and in the compensation to the troops. If you remember, the President recommends funding for the government, but Congress is the one who approves/disapproves/apportions federal funding. In every budget since 1989 (that's as far back as I was able to find data), funding for veterans services has been allocated by Congress at less than requested by the Pentagon. Is it any wonder that services are lacking?

Your histrionics notwithstanding -- the shortcomings of the military, as well as the shortcomings of veterans support services, lie directly at the feet of the Clinton administration.

You claim, rightfully, that soldiers were hurt under Bush's watch. Do you suggest that a military response to 9/11 was not appropriate? Or, is it your position that most of the soldiers were hurt fighting in the wrong place (Iraq), and that if they had been hurt fighting in Afghanistan, that would be okay, and that if we hadn't gone into Iraq, all those troops would have been properly provisioned and the veterans system would have been all fixed and all the sins of the Clinton administration would have been forgiven?

As for accusations of draft dodging and desertion, let's take a look at the military records of the three men in question:

Dick Cheney

From Wikipedia --

Cheney was of military age and a supporter of the Vietnam War but did not serve in the military, having applied for and having received five draft deferments. In 1989, The Washington Post writer, George C. Wilson, interviewed Cheney as the next Secretary of Defense; when asked about his deferments, Cheney reportedly said, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."[14] Cheney testified during his confirmation hearings in 1989 that he received deferments to finish a college career that lasted six years rather than four, owing to subpar academic performance and the the need to work to pay for his education. Initially, he was not called up because the Selective Service System was only taking older men. When he became eligible for the draft, he applied for four deferments in sequence. He applied for his fifth exemption on January 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant. He was granted 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. In January 1967, Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft.[15]

George Bush --

No short, concise list was found, but, as best I can interpret it he enlisted in the Air National Guard, was trained as an F-104 pilot, and served with several units (in Texas, Alabama, and South Dakota). At one unit, he failed to show up for a mandatory flight physical and his flight privileges were revoked. As a result, his performance was not graded for a six month period, and apparently, he did not show up for the monthly meetings either.

In late 1974, it was determined that he had met the requirements of his enlistment contract, and he was honorably discharged.

Bill Clinton --

* Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964
* Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968
* Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969
* Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the military
* Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army Reserves on August 07,1969 under authority of Colonel E. Holmes.
Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment
* Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of Arkansas ROTC, September 1969
* Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) "registrant who has failed to report...remain liable for induction"
* Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1, 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction, is INELIGIBLE!
* Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice under Public Law 90-40
* Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a fugitive from justice

By the way, if you want to read a work of art, here is Bill Clinton's letter to his draft board refusing to report. http://www.gmasw.com/draft_no.htm

Who was President when the horrors at Walther Reed were un-covered? It sure as hell wasnot Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was not in the White House when Bush decided to cut veterans benefits. Clinton IS OUT OF OFFICE. BUSH IS PRESIDENT. He is one who allowed the vets to live in filth, not Clinton. Bush is the one who is closing V.A. Hospitals, Bush not Clinton. Stop blaming a man not in office. Bush is alone responsible for the horrors of rats and moldly rooms that our soldiers had to live in, not Clinton. Bush is President. How about holding him responsible for the massive mal-treatment of men and women maimed in Combat and then coming to diminished health care and reduced benefits, benefits reduced by BUSH.

[PunkyBob]

Thanks for the lengthy response, Spare.

Like everybody else, I have an opinion, and, like everybody else, I think I'm so smart that my solution is the right answer. So, here goes ...
I’m strapped in...let’s go

We have to realize that this is a war of ideas. Capturing Bin Laden isn't going to solve the problem. This effort is unique in that there isn't a single piece of property, or person, that is the focus. In WWII, for example, we knew that if we "conquered" Germany, we would defeat Nazism. There is an old saying - "Cut off the head and the snake will die." That was true, but isn't true any more. There is no "head", though many try to assign that label to a sick old man isolated in the mountains of Pakistan.
Almost totally agree with you...almost. The enemy is indeed disparate and invisible and difficult to identify...and capturing bin Laden will do nothing to stop the issue...it can only be used as propaganda if it happens at a fortuitous moment... Now where I disagree with you, and where you appear to contradict yourself on this point is below, where you state in several places, the strategic importance of Iraq as a nexus for what you see as an imperative US influence in the middle east. I reason from this that there is indeed a single piece of property that the US is focused on--Iraq itself, implying a deliberate and premeditated attempt to control another country for own ends.

So, if the goal isn't to occupy land, what is it? It is to change the mindset of the opposition, challenge and alter their ideas, and their concepts. Some will ask what gives us the right? What makes us think that our ideas are better? Simply - our ability to impose our ideals on them is a matter of survival. Either they win, or we do. They have drawn a line in the sand, and said that there can be no compromise. Their call to kill the infidels who do not convert means "their way or the highway". So, to survive, we have to change that ideal. They won't allow us to co-exist peacefully with them.
Yep...again I agree partially with you. The theory of “hearts and minds” is, on the blackboard, a good one, nothing like getting others to see things our way...but we’ve never really found the right way to go about it. The US has not made the best plans when it comes to its actions in the middle east. It’s overwhelming support for Israel is one of the main reasons why the Arab world is not friendly to us. Added to that, we sponsor regimes like Jordan and Egypt that practice human rights abuses, rule in what is essentially dictatorships and effectively reduce life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and people’s control in their own governments. That takes care of the anti-US resentment... You use the word “they”, but you never specify who “they” is. I will assume you mean the ones engaged in acts of terrorism. The extremists do need to be made redundant...useless...remove the drive to respond with terror...you say that below...and killing them one by one is like throwing bricks in the Grand Canyon or expecting the democrats to grow testicles. But the extremists are not everyone in the middle east...a small fraction, driven by religious fervor and/or desperate and wretched conditions. Many of them start out as just regular people looking to get by...put food on the table...live in peace...have some dignity...get an i-phone...visit chat sites... The extremists will never win...never defeat us...we’re simply too damn big and too far away...9/11 was a holocaust...but it was not the beginning of a concentrated long term attack on American soil.

We constantly hear naysayers complaining that Iraq was not a threat, that they weren't the right place. But, if you look at it from a geographical, political, and ideological perspective, they were exactly the right place at exactly the right time for exactly the right reasons. Why? Simple.

Geographically, Iraq is situated in the center of the Middle East. Taking physical control of it means that we would exert a direct influence on the borders of most of the problem areas in that part of the world. We are able to disrupt the current flow of arms and materials from the terrorist-sponsoring states, and we are in position to monitor their actions.
True...the strategic position is critical...from a theoretical POV only, but just going in and waging war on a country that we had been sanctioning for ten years into a state of third-world poverty simply because it’s in the right place is not acceptable. We could have deposed Saddam anytime before that, by economic means and with a fraction of the death and carnage. And Dick Cheney himself, I think in 1994, set out the reasons why Bush the first didn’t go all the way to Baghdad (it’s on YouTube somewhere). Anyway, just because it suited our geographic purpose does not mean we had the right to attempt a takeover. Neighbors to Iraq will not see our intrusion as a positive thing. By invading, we show the world our tactics and our mindset...brute force...a willingness to do what we want, when we want, without regard...simply because, as you stated “our ability to impose our ideals on them.”

Politically, Saddam was a brutal tyrant who had killed millions of people, even using WMDs (OMG - I can't believe he used those words!) not only on his enemies (Iran), but on his own people (the Kurds). He had sponsored, trained, and funded terrorist activities throughout Europe and the Middle East. Iraq was a country whose people wanted out from under the brutal oppression, and who we believed, were ready to be self governing. Removing him from power would generate the least consternation in the global community.
Yep...Saddam was a sadistic out of control lunatic and needed to go...but that’s not the reason we went there at that time...and he’s only one of how many leaders who are brutal? Look at Burma...other places...the atrocities going on there are equal or worse to what was going on in Iraq. But we attacked Iraq. Reasoning is one thing and can be spun and debated, but it is our actions that reveal our intent. And the intel on WMD and links to al-queda was laundered and selected... testimony from ex-CIA and intel people confirm this. (I believe you worked or had dealings with intel...correct?)

Establishment of a Western-style democracy in the center of the Middle East would serve as a model to surrounding countries, a clarion call to the people of the region that they had a right to a government that supported them rather than suppressed them, that they had a right to a government that assisted them rather than abused them. When the people of Syria, for example, see the resulting increase in style of living, availability of greater economic opportunities, and increase in self determination, it would increase the pressures on the Syrian government to provide the same for its citizens. The resulting increase in personal liberties, increase in the living conditions, the increase in accountability of the governments to its citizens, will help to reduce the standard of living gap between Middle East and Western nations.
Yep...power to the people and all that...give them economic influence and they have some control and ability to self-determine. Iraq up until sanctions were imposed was a very progressive, close-to-western country...probably the most advanced in the area. Self-determination was almost nil, granted, but in large the Iraqi people had it pretty darn good. Socialized medicine and education--for both sexes. So we had Iraq pretty much all the way there...until we pulled the plug on them. And an imposed democracy is no democracy at all...true democracy comes from, as ours did, an uprising/revolution against the dominant system by the people themselves.

[PunkyBob]

So, that's why -- the question is how. The answer is based on three axioms - 1) people want to be self governing. They don't want to be told what to do, 2) the real problem is not a theological problem - religion is used as a control mechanism and an excuse -- but rather, a sociological problem of a people who have been oppressed and denied for thousands of years, who see what others have, and want the same for themselves and their families, and 3) people with power are in no hurry to give it up.
All true.

Some choose not to admit it -- but the reality is that the process is working in Iraq. Even though it seems slow, building a government, particularly a government of such diverse social and theological elements, is a long and complicated process. But, if we look at history, we can see that they have moved forward quite rapidly. Our own country took 7 years to write its Constitution; we ran Japan with a military authority for 6 years before they were ready to self-govern, and we exerted military authority in Germany for 40 years!! In Iraq, we have lessened the violence, we have seen diverse groups coming together, we have seen opposition neighborhoods join together to quell the violence, we have acquired allies that were once our enemies. There previously was no internal pressure to create a government that supported all diverse elements - the people had been oppressed for so long, they thought, and some still think, that an oppressive government is the best way. But, as we have seen, the sense of self-determination, and self-government, has been germinating and growing. The percentage of Iraqis who voted in their presidential election was MUCH higher than our own. They risked death to vote -- we won't even drive across town.
Last bit very true...but they had something tangible to vote for: the future of their country...our situation is not that dire. We are not occupied. We have not been under sanctions for (effectively) fifteen years. We do not feel the same urgency to risk death to drop a slip of paper in a box. Last time that happened was during the civil rights movement in the American south. I know many Iraqis, both here and in their home country...converse with them regularly, break bread, etc... The people are quite ready to govern themselves and must be given time to heal their country...but only when they are truly in sole charge.

Having said all that -- what is my recommended solution? Continue the effort in Iraq. Give the people of Iraq a realistic deadline - one that will apply the pressure for them to get the job done. Do what is necessary to give the people the opportunity to self govern. Help them to build a model that will positively influence the region, that will serve as a beacon of hope for others. It is a long, slow, process, and frankly, has very little to do with military operations in the area. The military is only imposing a modicum of safety and respite in which people can stop worrying about immediate survival, and get on with the process of defining their future, and on with their lives. Iraq needs to become self-determining. Our goal needs to make sure that it is the citizens of Iraq that are doing the self-determining. Just like in the former Soviet Union, we will see great strides made, then some backsliding as individuals try to grab power, to be followed by them being summarily slapped down by their own citizenry because, after all, once you've had a taste of the nectar, you don't want to give it up very easily. Are we nation building? Damn right -- but what's the alternative?
The alternative was to have left them alone in the first place. Is the US so short-sighted as to find no other way to destabilize a country other than outright occupation?
Good question. It kinda looks like we are, actually. I’ve seen no grand plan at work, no exit strategy, no vision or goal besides intrusion. No proposed date for Iraqi assumption of government (my best hope is a year from now after regular troop withdrawal...set the deadline now...begin the troop withdrawals...let Iraq scramble to put itself together... nothing works best like no other alternatives...). Iraq may follow the Soviet Union’s pattern...probably. These things fluctuate with circumstances...no easy cure all here. It will get rocky...but it will have to be up to Iraq itself to find it’s way or perish. Yes, I agree...do what is necessary to help Iraq stand on its own two feet...hell, remove Blackwater for one...the use of mercenaries in war goes all the way back to the first two villages throwing rocks and poop at each other, but that doesn’t legitimize the damage these clowns have done...only a starting suggestion...the propaganda from taking BW outta there will send a clear message that we are indeed serious about this.


I don't think we need to increase the effort in Iraq - it seems to be working. But, I do believe we need to increase the resources available to be used. We need more soldiers -not to put on the ground -but for greater rotation in order to allow returning soldiers a longer recovery time here. We need to give them the resources they need to get the job done.
Hallelujiah. The problem of troop resources has been in question since day one. We are the richest nation in the planet’s history and we have criminally skimped on sending our troops over there without proper or adequate equipment. Rumsfeld can burn in hell for his “not the way you want, the war you get” remark. He oughta be over there for a week on patrol in Sadr City and see what he thinks afterward. Yes give our troops more time to recover...give them adequate...no...better than adequate--expert medical care. Including psychological...so what if it costs? Halliburton’s CEO can live without next year’s yacht. Screw him. In fact send his butt over there with Rumsfeld’s.

If we are successful in Iraq - and we have to be - we will have an ally in the Middle East that will serve as an example of what is possible. The resultant unrest, or discomfort, of oppressed people will put pressure on the Middle East governments to serve their citizens, rather than the other way around. If we aren't successful, or we don't allow ourselves to be successful, we should just call the troops home, and put them to work doing military exercises on our borders, because after Western Europe falls to Islamic extremism (does anybody seriously doubt that Islamic extremism has had a significant political and sociological impact in Europe already?), we will be the next logical target -not for a land invasion, but for a subjugation of our way of life, of our ideals, and of our principles. Due to economic and political pressures, we will be forced to heel to their mandates.
I honestly can’t see Europe falling to Islamic extremists. I’m not being a wussy here, but Europe (even "old Europe") is pretty damn strong. Their security networks don’t piss about. And they have the troops to fend off armed invasions...not that there will ever be one. This kinda reminds me of the domino theory back in the 1950s...fear of the spread of communism...and look where it got us.

Yes, citizen pressure can change governments. I wholeheartedly agree. But what we should have done was after the invasion--immediately--was flood the country with funds to let the Iraqis themselves rebuild--not no-bid contractors. It would have worked and it would have empowered the Iraqis to the point where they’d be strong, united and in our debt forever. With the possible exception of the southern parts where we bombed throughout the 1990s, soaking the joint with depleted uranium... this year’s Agent Orange...thank you Bill Clinton...half life 4 billion years...the cancer rates and birth defects there are nauseating. I know. I’ve seen ‘em. Had we rebuilt from the beginning instead of gone in and looted, we would have had significant control in the region by now (I believe).

Will it be easy? No - there isn't a single government in the Middle East interested in divesting its power, and its wealth, to its people.
There isn’t one in history!

Will it be quick? No -it will take a long time for Iraq to show the impact of self-determination, and even longer for neighboring countries to get the word. But, I do believe that Iraq will be ready for self-determination within the next two years. That, of course, is a very non-professional observation.
I’m thinking the same thing...but only if left to themselves

In the meantime, and for several years to come, we will continue to have to fight the brushfires of extremism, whether it be in Pakistan, or the Philippines, or England, or Spain, or Venezuela. But, we can't let ourselves be distracted from the overarching strategy - winning the war of ideals, of showing oppressed people that it is possible to have the wealth and standard of living that we have, not by taking it from us, but by building it themselves.
Sounds great. But the record shows so far that we weren’t planning that when we went in. It’s been a mess since day one. Extremism only feeds on the desperation of oppressed and poverty-stricken peoples. Winning a war of ideals is iffy at best...takes time, funds and the realization that folks different from us may not see what we see. The Compact For A New American Century clearly stated that exporting American culture was America’s chief purpose. Read it, look who signed it. They’re still around...many of them had a hand in the ‘03 invasion...

Whew!

Yeah...me too. Heard on the radio this morning that Anbar was gonna be turned over to sole Iraqi control...this should be interesting!

[spare_change]

Who was President when the horrors at Walther Reed were un-covered? It sure as hell wasnot Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was not in the White House when Bush decided to cut veterans benefits. Clinton IS OUT OF OFFICE. BUSH IS PRESIDENT. He is one who allowed the vets to live in filth, not Clinton. Bush is the one who is closing V.A. Hospitals, Bush not Clinton. Stop blaming a man not in office. Bush is alone responsible for the horrors of rats and moldly rooms that our soldiers had to live in, not Clinton. Bush is President. How about holding him responsible for the massive mal-treatment of men and women maimed in Combat and then coming to diminished health care and reduced benefits, benefits reduced by BUSH.



Shoot the messenger?

The issue isn't who uncovered the problems .... the issue is who created the problems. We have a documented record of 8 years of intentionally gutting the military and veterans services, and you want to hold the guy who found it responsible? Where is the logic for that?

[forgettable_hero]

Shoot the messenger?

The issue isn't who uncovered the problems .... the issue is who created the problems. We have a documented record of 8 years of intentionally gutting the military and veterans services, and you want to hold the guy who found it responsible? Where is the logic for that?

Amen.

[spare_change]

I’m strapped in...let’s go

Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows. Let me start by saying it's refreshing to be able to have a discussion without emotion, one based in civility and an acknowledgment of honest disagreement between honest men. Thank you.

Almost totally agree with you...almost. The enemy is indeed disparate and invisible and difficult to identify...and capturing bin Laden will do nothing to stop the issue...it can only be used as propaganda if it happens at a fortuitous moment... Now where I disagree with you, and where you appear to contradict yourself on this point is below, where you state in several places, the strategic importance of Iraq as a nexus for what you see as an imperative US influence in the middle east. I reason from this that there is indeed a single piece of property that the US is focused on--Iraq itself, implying a deliberate and premeditated attempt to control another country for own ends.

A valid observation, though I don't see it quite that way. We have no desire to "occupy" Iraq. Our goal is not to take it over, and have it be ours. From a global strategic point of view, Iraq is a key geographical location. We are no more focused on Iraq today than we were on Guadalcanal or DaNang or Inchon. These are battle sites, not goals to be conquered. Just because we will be successful in Iraq does not guarantee global victory. People need to be prepared for the cold reality -- that, as soon as we leave Iraq, we will have to go face the enemy somewhere else. Where? Certainly, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but if I had to guess, I would say Indonesia or the Philippines. I don't believe it will be in the Middle East proper, though I suppose it's possible.

Yep...again I agree partially with you. The theory of “hearts and minds” is, on the blackboard, a good one, nothing like getting others to see things our way...but we’ve never really found the right way to go about it. The US has not made the best plans when it comes to its actions in the middle east.
[COLOR=Black]
Unquestionably. But, then, you must admit that it is a very fluid area, and that which is right today is not necessarily right tomorrow. Personally, I always thought the problem was "goals definition" not "method definition". We continuously change WHAT we want to do in the Middle East, and that forces us to change HOW we are going to do it.

It’s overwhelming support for Israel is one of the main reasons why the Arab world is not friendly to us. Added to that, we sponsor regimes like Jordan and Egypt that practice human rights abuses, rule in what is essentially dictatorships and effectively reduce life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and people’s control in their own governments.

Let's be honest -- the reasons we have unwaveringly supported Israel are three-fold. 1) We do honestly believe that Jews deserve to have a homeland, and that they have first-owner's rights for that area. 2) There is a significant, and influential Jewish community in the US, and, most importantly, 3) Israel has been our only consistent avenue to projecting, and protecting, US interests into the Middle East. At one time or another, we have aligned ourselves with the leaders of other countries, (that is always a case of which one is least bad for us, rather than the one most good for us), but, in the end, only Israel has been consistent in its commitment to US interests. You paint our support of other countries as a black-white issue... those who support human rights get our support, the countries that don't are left out in the cold. Reality is, however, something different. With the exception of Israel, none of the countries support human rights to our satisfaction. So, do you just stand back and watch, waiting for one to act properly before you shower them with support, or do you get involved, get your shoes dirty, and try to influence them to go in the right direction?

That takes care of the anti-US resentment... You use the word “they”, but you never specify who “they” is. I will assume you mean the ones engaged in acts of terrorism. The extremists do need to be made redundant...useless...remove the drive to respond with terror...you say that below...and killing them one by one is like throwing bricks in the Grand Canyon or expecting the democrats to grow testicles. But the extremists are not everyone in the middle east...a small fraction, driven by religious fervor and/or desperate and wretched conditions. Many of them start out as just regular people looking to get by...put food on the table...live in peace...have some dignity...get an i-phone...visit chat sites... The extremists will never win...never defeat us...we’re simply too damn big and too far away...9/11 was a holocaust...but it was not the beginning of a concentrated long term attack on American soil.

Sorry - I thought it was obvious. Yes, I meant those engaged in, or supporting , terrorism as a tool to further their goals. And, I agreed with everything you said, right up until you got to the last part. I believe that the extremists are a significant threat to the US, that they can, in fact, attack us, whether it be dirty bombs placed at O'Hare Field or a release of sarin gas in a New York subway. You're right - 9/11 wasn't the start of a long term attack on America -- that started back in 1993. The current estimate is that the release of 2.6 gallons of liquid anthrax into the water system of Washington DC will kill 88% of the population. You can put 2.6 gallons in an ice cooler. Do that to our six largest cities? How many have died? How badly has our country been crippled? We aren't too big -- and we aren't too far away. How long does it take to fly from Tehran to New York? 6 hours? 8 hours? We used to be safe behind the buffer of the oceans -- that just isn't true any more.

True...the strategic position is critical...from a theoretical POV only, but just going in and waging war on a country that we had been sanctioning for ten years into a state of third-world poverty simply because it’s in the right place is not acceptable. We could have deposed Saddam anytime before that, by economic means and with a fraction of the death and carnage. And Dick Cheney himself, I think in 1994, set out the reasons why Bush the first didn’t go all the way to Baghdad (it’s on YouTube somewhere). Anyway, just because it suited our geographic purpose does not mean we had the right to attempt a takeover. Neighbors to Iraq will not see our intrusion as a positive thing. By invading, we show the world our tactics and our mindset...brute force...a willingness to do what we want, when we want, without regard...simply because, as you stated “our ability to impose our ideals on them.”

And, here is the crux of our disagreement. You use the words "invade", "take over" "conquer" We have no desire to take over, or conquer, Iraq. Our goal is to establish an environment in which the people of Iraq can do whatever the hell they want to do with their country. When they take charge, we go home. We don't take one single piece of sand home with us .... we will have spent an amazing amount of money, lost some very precious lives, and for what? Not what we gained -- but what we did. We will have helped a nation, a people, and maybe a region become free, become self-governing, however they want to do that. Of course, the neighbors don't like it -- because they know that, if we are successful, they're next.... not by us, but by their own people. That's what scares them ... they will have lost control of their own people. As I said in the original, are we imposing our ideals on them? Damn right-- but only in response to their efforts to impose their ideals on us. Do we have a choice? Do we just allow them to continually pick us off, 20 at a time in a nightclub in Germany, 89 at a time in a barracks in Beirut, or 3000 at a time in a high rise in New York? Or, do we respond, react, and try to "impose our will on them"?

[spare_change]

Yep...Saddam was a sadistic out of control lunatic and needed to go...but that’s not the reason we went there at that time...and he’s only one of how many leaders who are brutal? Look at Burma...other places...the atrocities going on there are equal or worse to what was going on in Iraq. But we attacked Iraq. Reasoning is one thing and can be spun and debated, but it is our actions that reveal our intent. And the intel on WMD and links to al-queda was laundered and selected... testimony from ex-CIA and intel people confirm this. (I believe you worked or had dealings with intel...correct?)

You lost the reason for the comments -- Iraq was ideally located geographically and, for the reasons stated, politically, as well. If we had "invaded" Iran, world reaction would have been significantly different. In addition, if you remember, we had UN sanction and international consensus to use force.

As for the intelligence laundering, etc ... as a veteran of that arena, I will tell you that I consider those accusations to be absolutely 100% bullshit that are being fomented by those who have a personal agenda to advance or a career to protect. EVERY intelligence estimate ever presented has an element of filtering (laundering, if you will) involved. Intelligence is not the simple collection of facts and then recitation to the leaders. It is a hint here, an indication there, a sign over there, nothing firm, just a sense, a feeling, of what's going on. When I have an indication that might prove A, and you bring me a hint that might prove B is true, instead, I have to weigh the probably that my indication is stronger than your hint. Once I make that decision, I pass A on to the next level, who has a sign that C might be true, and that level must weigh whether my indication is weaker than their sign. It ain't science -- it's art.

So, let's assume that the intelligence arena did, in fact, make the wrong conclusions about reality (something I'm not ready to admit yet, by the way). Now, we have a bunch of lifelong bureaucrats who are scrambling to protect their jobs, to deflect the shit that is surely going to rain down. And, how do you do that? "I tried to tell them!" "They wouldn't listen to me" "If they had put the facts together this way instead, it's obvious that they were wrong". When you couple that with the pressure being applied by a political party so heavily invested in us losing the war, you have a bunch of people scrambling to cover their ass.

Yep...power to the people and all that...give them economic influence and they have some control and ability to self-determine. Iraq up until sanctions were imposed was a very progressive, close-to-western country...probably the most advanced in the area. Self-determination was almost nil, granted, but in large the Iraqi people had it pretty darn good. Socialized medicine and education--for both sexes. So we had Iraq pretty much all the way there...until we pulled the plug on them. And an imposed democracy is no democracy at all...true democracy comes from, as ours did, an uprising/revolution against the dominant system by the people themselves.

Sounds good. Have you seen any attempt for us to "impose democracy", or have we tried to create the conditions in which they can make the decision for themselves? Of course, I'm suprised that 3 million dead at the hands of Saddam, scraping off the food-for-oil money so he could maintain his lifestyle and his power base, WMDs used against his neighbors and his citizenry, and the disenfranchisement of a whole segment of the Iraqi population, could possibly be defined as "Iraqi people had it pretty darn good." Guess it depends on which side of the street you live.

[spare_change]

Good question. It kinda looks like we are, actually. I’ve seen no grand plan at work, no exit strategy, no vision or goal besides intrusion. No proposed date for Iraqi assumption of government (my best hope is a year from now after regular troop withdrawal...set the deadline now...begin the troop withdrawals...let Iraq scramble to put itself together... nothing works best like no other alternatives...). Iraq may follow the Soviet Union’s pattern...probably. These things fluctuate with circumstances...no easy cure all here. It will get rocky...but it will have to be up to Iraq itself to find it’s way or perish. Yes, I agree...do what is necessary to help Iraq stand on its own two feet...hell, remove Blackwater for one...the use of mercenaries in war goes all the way back to the first two villages throwing rocks and poop at each other, but that doesn’t legitimize the damage these clowns have done...only a starting suggestion...the propaganda from taking BW outta there will send a clear message that we are indeed serious about this.

How do you assign an end date? What's the criteria? We have some -- when the Iraqis can handle their own security, and when they have a functioning government in place. How do you assign a time frame to that?

Blackwater -- I understand your point. But, let's understand why they were there in the first place. We outsourced a lot of military activities because we didn't have the indigenous resources to handle it - not enough troops. Are they going to perform differently than trained soldiers? Of course. You use mercenaries when you don't have sufficient military resources .... and, we know where THAT fault lies.

Hallelujiah. The problem of troop resources has been in question since day one. We are the richest nation in the planet’s history and we have criminally skimped on sending our troops over there without proper or adequate equipment. Rumsfeld can burn in hell for his “not the way you want, the war you get” remark. He oughta be over there for a week on patrol in Sadr City and see what he thinks afterward. Yes give our troops more time to recover...give them adequate...no...better than adequate--expert medical care. Including psychological...so what if it costs? Halliburton’s CEO can live without next year’s yacht. Screw him. In fact send his butt over there with Rumsfeld’s.

Sounds good, but you're blaming the wrong people. I don't see a rush in Congress to fund emergency acquisitions. I don't see a rush in Congress to fund extra troops. I don't see a rush in Congress to get support for those troops. And, more importantly, I don't see Letters to the Editor from the average American insisting that Congress take immediate action. I do, however, see a lot of apathy.

I honestly can’t see Europe falling to Islamic extremists. I’m not being a wussy here, but Europe (even "old Europe") is pretty damn strong. Their security networks don’t piss about. And they have the troops to fend off armed invasions...not that there will ever be one. This kinda reminds me of the domino theory back in the 1950s...fear of the spread of communism...and look where it got us.

I hope we get input from our European members about the impact of the Islamic movement in their countries. Everything I see when I go over there sure indicates differently. We see articles about how the burden on their "social programs" (welfare) is about to bankrupt some of their countries. We see articles where the population of Frenchmen in Paris is actually decreasing as the city is increasingly bombarded with incoming immigrants. Be interesting to see which is true.


Yes, citizen pressure can change governments. I wholeheartedly agree. But what we should have done was after the invasion--immediately--was flood the country with funds to let the Iraqis themselves rebuild--not no-bid contractors. It would have worked and it would have empowered the Iraqis to the point where they’d be strong, united and in our debt forever. With the possible exception of the southern parts where we bombed throughout the 1990s, soaking the joint with depleted uranium... this year’s Agent Orange...thank you Bill Clinton...half life 4 billion years...the cancer rates and birth defects there are nauseating. I know. I’ve seen ‘em. Had we rebuilt from the beginning instead of gone in and looted, we would have had significant control in the region by now (I believe).

I don't agree -- had we flooded the country with funds, it would have been the same old story - corruption, graft, theft, embezzlement (Damn -- sounds like an Enron board meeting), and the people would have been left out in the cold again. The same political infrastructure and power base was still intact. It is more important to dismantle that than it is to dismantle a weapons factory. Believe me, we will get our chance to give them money -- we just want to be assured the money goes where we intend it to.

You say we went in and looted? I guess I need clarification.

Sounds great. But the record shows so far that we weren’t planning that when we went in. It’s been a mess since day one. Extremism only feeds on the desperation of oppressed and poverty-stricken peoples. Winning a war of ideals is iffy at best...takes time, funds and the realization that folks different from us may not see what we see. The Compact For A New American Century clearly stated that exporting American culture was America’s chief purpose. Read it, look who signed it. They’re still around...many of them had a hand in the ‘03 invasion...

No one disputes that we misinterpreted the expected reaction of the Iraqi people. I must ask, though, who created the "desperation of oppressed and poverty-stricken peoples". Was it us, or was it their own corrupt leadership? Did we lift that yoke of oppression? Have we given them a chance?

Yeah...me too. Heard on the radio this morning that Anbar was gonna be turned over to sole Iraqi control...this should be interesting!

I'm excited about Anbar. This is a chance for us to find out if our approach really works. This used to be one of the most dangerous areas. If it works there, it should work elsewhere. Either way, the results in Anbar will go a long way to defining our future, as well.

Again, thanks for a stimulating, and civilized, discussion.

[spare_change]

I’m strapped in...let’s go

Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows. Let me start by saying it's refreshing to be able to have a discussion without emotion, one based in civility and an acknowledgment of honest disagreement between honest men. Thank you.

Almost totally agree with you...almost. The enemy is indeed disparate and invisible and difficult to identify...and capturing bin Laden will do nothing to stop the issue...it can only be used as propaganda if it happens at a fortuitous moment... Now where I disagree with you, and where you appear to contradict yourself on this point is below, where you state in several places, the strategic importance of Iraq as a nexus for what you see as an imperative US influence in the middle east. I reason from this that there is indeed a single piece of property that the US is focused on--Iraq itself, implying a deliberate and premeditated attempt to control another country for own ends.

A valid observation, though I don't see it quite that way. We have no desire to "occupy" Iraq. Our goal is not to take it over, and have it be ours. From a global strategic point of view, Iraq is a key geographical location. We are no more focused on Iraq today than we were on Guadalcanal or DaNang or Inchon. These are battle sites, not goals to be conquered. Just because we will be successful in Iraq does not guarantee global victory. People need to be prepared for the cold reality -- that, as soon as we leave Iraq, we will have to go face the enemy somewhere else. Where? Certainly, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but if I had to guess, I would say Indonesia or the Philippines. I don't believe it will be in the Middle East proper, though I suppose it's possible.

Yep...again I agree partially with you. The theory of “hearts and minds” is, on the blackboard, a good one, nothing like getting others to see things our way...but we’ve never really found the right way to go about it. The US has not made the best plans when it comes to its actions in the middle east.
[COLOR=Black]
Unquestionably. But, then, you must admit that it is a very fluid area, and that which is right today is not necessarily right tomorrow. Personally, I always thought the problem was "goals definition" not "method definition". We continuously change WHAT we want to do in the Middle East, and that forces us to change HOW we are going to do it.

It’s overwhelming support for Israel is one of the main reasons why the Arab world is not friendly to us. Added to that, we sponsor regimes like Jordan and Egypt that practice human rights abuses, rule in what is essentially dictatorships and effectively reduce life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and people’s control in their own governments.

Let's be honest -- the reasons we have unwaveringly supported Israel are three-fold. 1) We do honestly believe that Jews deserve to have a homeland, and that they have first-owner's rights for that area. 2) There is a significant, and influential Jewish community in the US, and, most importantly, 3) Israel has been our only consistent avenue to projecting, and protecting, US interests into the Middle East. At one time or another, we have aligned ourselves with the leaders of other countries, (that is always a case of which one is least bad for us, rather than the one most good for us), but, in the end, only Israel has been consistent in its commitment to US interests. You paint our support of other countries as a black-white issue... those who support human rights get our support, the countries that don't are left out in the cold. Reality is, however, something different. With the exception of Israel, none of the countries support human rights to our satisfaction. So, do you just stand back and watch, waiting for one to act properly before you shower them with support, or do you get involved, get your shoes dirty, and try to influence them to go in the right direction?

That takes care of the anti-US resentment... You use the word “they”, but you never specify who “they” is. I will assume you mean the ones engaged in acts of terrorism. The extremists do need to be made redundant...useless...remove the drive to respond with terror...you say that below...and killing them one by one is like throwing bricks in the Grand Canyon or expecting the democrats to grow testicles. But the extremists are not everyone in the middle east...a small fraction, driven by religious fervor and/or desperate and wretched conditions. Many of them start out as just regular people looking to get by...put food on the table...live in peace...have some dignity...get an i-phone...visit chat sites... The extremists will never win...never defeat us...we’re simply too damn big and too far away...9/11 was a holocaust...but it was not the beginning of a concentrated long term attack on American soil.

Sorry - I thought it was obvious. Yes, I meant those engaged in, or supporting , terrorism as a tool to further their goals. And, I agreed with everything you said, right up until you got to the last part. I believe that the extremists are a significant threat to the US, that they can, in fact, attack us, whether it be dirty bombs placed at O'Hare Field or a release of sarin gas in a New York subway. You're right - 9/11 wasn't the start of a long term attack on America -- that started back in 1993. The current estimate is that the release of 2.6 gallons of liquid anthrax into the water system of Washington DC will kill 88% of the population. You can put 2.6 gallons in an ice cooler. Do that to our six largest cities? How many have died? How badly has our country been crippled? We aren't too big -- and we aren't too far away. How long does it take to fly from Tehran to New York? 6 hours? 8 hours? We used to be safe behind the buffer of the oceans -- that just isn't true any more.

True...the strategic position is critical...from a theoretical POV only, but just going in and waging war on a country that we had been sanctioning for ten years into a state of third-world poverty simply because it’s in the right place is not acceptable. We could have deposed Saddam anytime before that, by economic means and with a fraction of the death and carnage. And Dick Cheney himself, I think in 1994, set out the reasons why Bush the first didn’t go all the way to Baghdad (it’s on YouTube somewhere). Anyway, just because it suited our geographic purpose does not mean we had the right to attempt a takeover. Neighbors to Iraq will not see our intrusion as a positive thing. By invading, we show the world our tactics and our mindset...brute force...a willingness to do what we want, when we want, without regard...simply because, as you stated “our ability to impose our ideals on them.”

And, here is the crux of our disagreement. You use the words "invade", "take over" "conquer" We have no desire to take over, or conquer, Iraq. Our goal is to establish an environment in which the people of Iraq can do whatever the hell they want to do with their country. When they take charge, we go home. We don't take one single piece of sand home with us .... we will have spent an amazing amount of money, lost some very precious lives, and for what? Not what we gained -- but what we did. We will have helped a nation, a people, and maybe a region become free, become self-governing, however they want to do that. Of course, the neighbors don't like it -- because they know that, if we are successful, they're next.... not by us, but by their own people. That's what scares them ... they will have lost control of their own people. As I said in the original, are we imposing our ideals on them? Damn right-- but only in response to their efforts to impose their ideals on us. Do we have a choice? Do we just allow them to continually pick us off, 20 at a time in a nightclub in Germany, 89 at a time in a barracks in Beirut, or 3000 at a time in a high rise in New York? Or, do we respond, react, and try to "impose our will on them"?

[oldandnaked]

Shoot the messenger?

The issue isn't who uncovered the problems .... the issue is who created the problems. We have a documented record of 8 years of intentionally gutting the military and veterans services, and you want to hold the guy who found it responsible? Where is the logic for that?

Assuming Clinton is responsible for the conditions at Walter Reed, wasn't Bush president approximately six or more years when he (actually the press) finally "uncovered" the problem?

If Clinton did reduce the military to such deplorable conditions as you allege, why couldn't Bush remedy the situation? Clinton certainly left him the funds to do so with a budget surplus. Considering one is only allowed to hold the office of president for eight years, and Bush is rapidly nearing the end of his terms, in my opinion, after all the time the Bush administration has had, it is a pretty lame excuse for anyone to be blaming the previous administration.

What has taken him so long to set things right? Ignorance? Incompetence? Poor judgement?

If his handling of the recovery of New Orleans after Katrina and the Iraqi war and a plethora of other issues are of any indication, my guess is all three of the above.

[cherokeered]

An opinion on the media......


It covers what it wants to cover...not necessarily all it knows about a situation....they are politically biased despite saying they are not.....and they use the fact that most people are easily swayed ( read sheep here) to sway the masses and decide what is important at the moment....

The fact that Hollywood garners many headlines on news shows says a lot about us doesn't it???

This is why I never read something believing all of it....:wa:

[cherokeered]

Regardless of whos fault it is as to a problem that exists....why does it take so long to fix it or discover it???


One political party raises taxes....tolls....ends programs.....and the next party points this out but never reverses these "bad" policies....so please, stop all the hoopla about which has a bigger cock cause as far as i am concerned....all political parties are without balls and lack any sense of urgency on our part....it's all about power and who's on top and nothing about us little folks.....the common tax payer worker bee

[oldandnaked]

Regardless of whos fault it is as to a problem that exists....why does it take so long to fix it or discover it???


One political party raises taxes....tolls....ends programs.....and the next party points this out but never reverses these "bad" policies....so please, stop all the hoopla about which has a bigger cock cause as far as i am concerned....all political parties are without balls and lack any sense of urgency on our part....it's all about power and who's on top and nothing about us little folks.....the common tax payer worker bee

You certainly have a way with words Ms. Red and there is alot of truth in what you say. Although I'm left of center, I'm by no means a defender of the Democratic Party with the possible exception of the "which has the bigger cock" issue.

[tt]

The Order to send troops into combat lacking adaquate/sufficient body was NOT given by Clinton. It was given by BUSH. What spare is desperately trying to do is to deflect the all of the failures from that order on to a man who is no longer in office

Bush gave the order. The ultimate responbility for that order, and the effects of that order fall on the shoulders of the man who gave that order, and the man who gave that order was Bush.

Bush is the man who allowed vets to wallow in filth. NOT CLINTON. Clinton is not in office, Bush is. Bush has had years to fix all things wrong, or percived wrong by spare that were done by Clinton, and did zip, zero, zilch, nada, nothing and none. The mess at Reed is the fault of Bush and Bush alone. But because spare, like other Bush supporters cannot bare the thought of their hero being wrong, they reach back and blame the man no longer in office.

Bush is man currently in the White House. NOT CLINTON. Bush has had more chances than one can care to think about to fix Walter Reed and DID NOT ONE THING. He allowed troops to go into combat, on HIS ORDERS. Troops without adaquate/sufficient body armor were sent into combat on the orders GEORGE BUSH. Bush and Bush alone is responsible for those men and women who died because their lack of adaquate/sufficient body armor. Bush gave the order, and having served in military spare knows that the person(s) who give the order are responsible the lives, heath, welfare and morale of those members of military under their command. Bush gave the order to those troops into combat, yet he refuses to admitt that by giving that order, Bush is responsible for sending men into combat without proper body armor.

He just refuses to accept that fact, because that would mean he and others would have to take our deserter and chief off the pedestal they have put him on.

[Affect]

I Think history repeats itself best in music and fashion. Don't you think?

[cherokeered]

I Think history repeats itself best in music and fashion. Don't you think?


yeh it does...cause we never learn from our mistakes....lol

[tt]

The responsibility for the order to Invade Iraq rests with the man who gave that order: George Bush, President and Commander In Chief The responsibility and all that the responsibilty entails rests with the man who have the order to Invade Iraq: George W. Bush. President and Commander In Chief.

Bush ordered men into combat lacking proper, suffficient or adaquate body armor. Once the order was given, the responsibilty for that order rested with the man that gave that order the President and Commander In Chief: George W. Bush.

The men and women who were maimed in Iraq, as a result of the order to Invade Iraq, were put in rooms that walls black with mold and the rooms were infested with vermin. The man responsible sending those men and women into combat where they lost their arms and legs is the man who gave the order to Invade Iraq was and still is the Commander In Chief: George W. Bush.

The men and women who were assigned to the Invasion of Iraq, carried out the orders of Commander In Chief: George W. Bush.

When troops were sent into combat in Iraq, in vehicles that lacked proper body armor, those troops were obeying the orders for the Invasion of Iraq as issued by the Commander In Chief: George W. Bush. Their health and welfare was and still is his responsibility.

Bill Clinton was NOT Commander and Chief, George W. Bush is Commander In Chief.

What spare is trying so desperately to do is avoid blaming the man most responsible for the failures of Iraq, the Commander In Chief: George W. Bush.

What ills suffered by this country under former President Clinton, does not in any way, shape and/or form detract from the fact that George W. Bush is the President, and Commander In Chief. As such any action(s) resulting from the orders issued by George W. Bush, President and Commander In Chief are in fact the responsiblity of George W. Bush, President and Commander In Chief.

It was incumbent upon George W. Bush, acting in his role as President and Commander In Chief, to protect to the best of his ability, the health and welfare of those under his command. To blame another man, to blame a former President of the United States for his (George W. Bush, President and Commander In Chief) failure to adaquately provide necessary equipment to the troops in field is the act of coward.

The lives U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airman and Coast Guardsman killed in combat as a result of the Invasion of Iraq are the responsibility of one man. George W. Bush. President and Commander In Chief. He has yet to attend a single funeral of a man or woman killed in combat.

The health and welfare of those U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airman and Coast Guardsmen who lost arms and legs are the responsibility of one man, George W. Bush, President and Commander In Chief.

There is only one man who can bare the responsibility for the deaths in combat of U.S. Military Personnel in Iraq.

There is only one man who can bare the responsibility for the poor quality of medical treatment of U.S. Military Personnel maimed in Iraq.

That man is George W. Bush, President and Commander In Chief.

But seeing as Bush has no one else to blame for his failure but himself. I can see why spare and other conservatives try to blame Clinton. Because if they had to openly and honestly look George W. Bush, they would in fact see a coward.

[Affect]

yeh it does...cause we never learn from our mistakes....lol
Cherokeered - your outfilt girl is timeless!

[spare_change]

The responsibility for the order to Invade Iraq rests with the man who gave that order: George Bush, President and Commander In Chief The responsibility and all that the responsibilty entails rests with the man who have the order to Invade Iraq: George W. Bush. President and Commander In Chief.

But seeing as Bush has no one else to blame for his failure but himself. I can see why spare and other conservatives try to blame Clinton. Because if they had to openly and honestly look George W. Bush, they would in fact see a coward.


I'm sure you had a message here, but I'm not getting it. What are you trying to say? Does this mean the Republican party can't count on your vote this year?

[tt]

Spare, The President, The Commander In Chief, had the duty, obligation and the responsibility to insure that the lives of men and women he sent into combat were taken care, that includes medical care, which includes how that medical care was carried out, which includes where that medical care was given, how that medical care was given and the standards to which that medical care was given. That means that the Scandal are Walter Reed was and is the responsibilty of the man who gave the order to Invade Iraq.


The man who gave that order, The President, The Commander In Chief, is none other than the current President...George Bush. It is the responsibility of man who gave the order, and Bush has failed, you know Bush has failed, but your too caught up in the whole thing to realize it.

[tt]

I'm sure you had a message here, but I'm not getting it. What are you trying to say? Does this mean the Republican party can't count on your vote this year?

It means that BUSH had the final responsibility for the orders he has given. You just refuse to see that and try to engage in a failed attempt at humor. But with Bush as your hero, I can see where and why you fail.

[Huzyerdaddi]

Congratulations. This thread wins the award for Most Words Per Post.

[spare_change]

Congratulations. This thread wins the award for Most Words Per Post.


Yeah, I know. That's the problem with dialog about an important subject. It requires thought, explanation, and insight.

It can't be reduced to a 15 second sound byte on CNN ... so most of the people can't be bothered.

[Huzyerdaddi]

I like you spare. Subtle insults and all :55



Yeah, I know. That's the problem with dialog about an important subject. It requires thought, explanation, and insight.

It can't be reduced to a 15 second sound byte on CNN ... so most of the people can't be bothered.

[spare_change]

I like you spare. Subtle insults and all :55


No insult intended, my friend. Merely, a commentary on the average American these days.

[Huzyerdaddi]

Wow....now THERE's a thread waiting to happen. People are sheep and there is an every declining population of shepherds.

We are of like minds on this subject, friend.


No insult intended, my friend. Merely, a commentary on the average American these days.