Iraq: I Rack my brain for a solution. [Archive]

libmind79

08/30/04, 10:01 pm

I fear we are in too deep. I was totally against the invasion, but it would be a bad idea to pull out now. If we did, some extremist sect would use force to gain a foothold, and we would have the same situation all over again, except that terrorism would really have a place to thrive. Sadam was without question a piece of garbage, but he was not a worldwide terrorist threat, and he did not allow terrorist groups to form in his backyard (like a typical power obsessed tyrant). So, once again someone else will have to clean up the mess of the irresponsible Republicans who went charging into this mess without a fully realized (even half realized) plan. Unfortunately, when our children are adults, this will probably still be an issue they will have to deal with, as truly free democracies do not form overnight (and never if religion cannot be separated from goverment).

JamesP

09/01/04, 09:22 pm

As Al Sharpton said in one of the debates: "You can't get right from wrong".
The invasion of Iraq was wrong, is wrong and will be wrong tomorrow.
We should not have taken one Iraqi life or sacrificed one American life. It only gets worse. Sacrificing more lives to try to justify the deaths of those who went before lead to 50,00 American lives lost in Vietnam (and over 1 million Vietnamese in the overall conflict). Bring them home now. Turn Iraq over to the U.N.

libmind79

09/04/04, 12:31 am

Of course it is wrong, but you can't just create a huge mess and then leave, or that mess will come back to haunt us later in the form of terrorist attacks and another war. What we need to do is elect Kerry so he can rebuild alliances all over the globe and we can get another half-million troops in to Iraq to create a true lockdown on any radicalism until Iraq has a stable government and a big enough police and army force to deter hostile coup attempts. But who knows, we may pull out too soon and Iraq could fall into civil war and probably split back into the three sects it used to be. I know Bush wants our troops out of Iraq soon, so he can get them ready for the upcoming war in Iran that he will wage if he is re-elected. Iran is just asking for it, and it will soon occur since our nation can be so easily duped into war.

maquah01

09/14/04, 03:02 pm

REgardless of the way we extract ourselves, we will somehow always be involved. If you have done via the UN, remember as one of the security council members, and the only one with the biggest armed forces, we will still be there.

I agree we screw up going back into Iraq. I think the first war was stopped to soon. Although I disagree with war, having been there myself, once we got stuck in it, we should have finished it off in the first place.

Now we are in the quagmire, just like in my war of Vietnam. WE are involved to deeply to completely pull out.

Maquah

JamesP

09/19/04, 11:22 pm

I understand the point of view that "now that we're in, we can't just pull out". On the other hand, I think it plays so beautifully for the war profiteers in, and associated with, the Bush administration. Unless we can see a reasonable outcome in a reasonable amount of time, I am not willing to commit more American lives and to feed the beast with more American $ billions. We can "lower" our investment in this "lost cause" by turning it over to the U.N. Such action will also signal to the world that America will not continue in the unilateralist, imperialist path blazed by the war & greed-mongers of the Bush administration.

Badandy

10/02/04, 09:36 pm

James-

Come on, you don't really believe we are imperialistic do you? Why would we turn over reconstruction to the UN? They didn't help us with troops in the war, why should they get the econimic stimuli that the US will probably get?

You don't believe the Haliburton stuff do you, or the "oil connection"? The Bush administration will not personally profit by reconstruction.

PatriotforPeace

10/09/04, 04:12 pm

Liberate both Iraq and America!
Stop building American bases in Iraq.
Bring American youth home to their families.
Free the Iraqi people from foreign occupation and grant them self-determination!
Liberate the American people from the costs and moral decay of imperialism.
Free America from the lies, distortion and corruption of the Bush administration.
Return America to it's role as a leading force for justice and peace in the world.
The American policy of not counting Iraqi casualties doesn't make them any less real.
Support for Bush is support for murder. End extremism and terrorism: both on the part of radical Islam and the radical American right.

Badandy

10/12/04, 07:57 pm

PatriotforPeace- Nice talking points, but you clearly showed you are full of one-liners but no substance.

Come on, if you were well versed in history, you would know that Bush is not that right wing. Many people say "ya right but if you actually look back at history and know something about politics, you would see that Bush is barely a republican. He is against abortion, yes, but he is not a republican in other respects.

Wise up. Vote for Nader.

EDIT: O, and you said let the Iraqi people have self-determination. Might have to rethink that statement.

JamesP

10/12/04, 10:59 pm

How unique! Another Republican for Nader!

PatriotforPeace

10/24/04, 11:42 pm

The Republicans new found "concern for the people of Iraq" is an abominable falsehood. As an occupied people now, average Iraqis must choose between cooperating with the occupation to earn a living (considered treason by the insurgents - punishable by death) and deep poverty for their families. Liberation! 50 American-trained Iraqis were liberated from their lives this week by their countrymen. 20,000 were liberated from life by the invading Americans and many thousands have been liberated from their own limbs. We've created a hell for these people under the guise of bringing them freedom. They don't "hate us for our freedom". They hate us because we kill them and, now, we cause their neighbors to kill them.
Many of you will remember that we tried to save Vietnam from communism. Before we withdrew a million Vietnamese had lost thier lives.

rimbaud402003

10/25/04, 08:22 pm

I have been thinking about this a great deal and I don't really know what to say. We never should have gone to Iraq. Not like this. Not based on lies.

My heart says pull out. My soul says stay until we can turn it over to the UN. My balls say pull out and then charge Bush, his henchmen and every repub and democrat who put us there for the WRONG reasons with HIGH CRIMES.

I don't know. I am open to arguments on both sides. The only position I cannot tolerate is staying there with no exit strategy while we continue to lose American lives and continue to take Iraqi lives or cause Iraqi lives to be taken.

Bush has created a Terrorist factory over there. If I was there and had no political affiliation and my baby died in my arms from an American bullet...I would be looking for a way to get revenge. Damn betcha.

JamesP

10/25/04, 11:42 pm

Did anyone see the clip of Jerry Falwell on the news yesterday? Referring to "terrorists" (one can only guess how he defines "terrorists" - everyone has their own convenient definition these days), he actually says to his television audience:
"Blow them all away...in the name of the Lord".
Another "Crusader" for Bush. 9/11 has reversed human evolution in the United States.....set us back hundreds of years to a more savage era.

rimbaud402003

10/26/04, 08:12 pm

Falwell: "Blow them all away in the name of the Lord"

Bin Laden: "Blow them all away in the name of Allah"

God must laugh at us...

when she's not crying.

JamesP

01/23/05, 02:46 pm

Analysis: Iraqi Insurgency Growing Larger, More Effective
By Tom Lasseter and Jonathan S. Landay
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Sunday 23 January 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The United States is steadily losing ground to the Iraqi insurgency, according to every key military yardstick.

A Knight Ridder analysis of U.S. government statistics shows that through all the major turning points that raised hopes of peace in Iraq, including the arrest of Saddam Hussein and the handover of sovereignty at the end of June, the insurgency, led mainly by Sunni Muslims, has become deadlier and more effective.

The analysis suggests that unless something dramatic changes, the United States won't win the war. .. insurgencies are especially hard to defeat because the insurgents' goal isn't to win in a conventional sense but merely to survive until the will of the occupying power is sapped.

The unfavorable trends of the war are clear:

- U.S. military fatalities from hostile acts have risen from an average of about 17 per month just after President Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003, to an average of 82 per month.

- The average number of U.S. soldiers wounded by hostile acts per month has spiraled from 142 to 808 during the same period. Iraqi civilians have suffered even more deaths and injuries, although reliable statistics aren't available.

- Attacks on the U.S.-led coalition since November 2003, when statistics were first available, have risen from 735 a month to 2,400 in October. Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, the multinational forces' deputy operations director, told Knight Ridder on Friday that attacks were currently running at 75 a day, about 2,300 a month, well below a spike in November during the assault on Fallujah, but nearly as high as October's total.

- The average number of mass-casualty bombings has grown from zero in the first four months of the American occupation to an average of 13 per month.

- Electricity production has been below pre-war levels since October, largely because of sabotage by insurgents, with just 6.7 hours of power daily in Baghdad in early January, according to the State Department.

- Iraq is pumping about 500,000 barrels a day fewer than its pre-war peak of 2.5 million barrels per day as a result of attacks, according to the State Department.

"All the trend lines we can identify are all in the wrong direction," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, a Washington policy research organization. "We are not winning, and the security trend lines could almost lead you to believe that we are losing."

mikeike

01/26/05, 03:36 pm

We need more troops to get out so that means a draft . We really have no choice in the matter . We must put all the active duty people in Iraq . Shut the county down.

mikeike

01/26/05, 04:02 pm

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country." --- Teddy Roosevelt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

republicantx

01/28/05, 10:13 pm

-V-

01/29/05, 05:15 am

that sell out hippie that you wanted to be president made me sick Kerry was a hero when he fought in Nam, even more of a hero when he spoke out against Nam, and heroic again in his efforts to unseat the corrupt simpleton and his cronnies presently in power so that people like you would not have to kill or be killed to fulfill his self serving agenda.
to the Democrats, we have become nothing but a number Just the opposite. To Bush you are faceless pawns. Your lifes and Iraqi citizen's lives are the acceptable cost of doing business overseas. He'll cut your benefits if you live and won't allow you to be publically honored if you die. To Kerry and the Dems you are a precious human being who should never be placed in harms way unless America is under imminent danger, all other options have been exhausted, and you are supported by the world community.
Very few soldiers have died compared to every other war in history you only have to look back a few years to his daddy's Gulf war
You won't be happy unless we go to war and not 1 person dies you got that right!
Stop disgracing my fellow soldiers and me Your leader disgraces you and your blind support of him disgraces yourself.
ignore everything these dead soldiers have fought for if it is an unjust war one soldier should not have been sacrificed, let alone, another 1400+ in honor of the first one. How many more Americans would have died in Vietnam to honor the pawns that died before them if it had not been for couragious "hippies" like John Kerry speaking out for true justice.

Welcome to our progressive discussion, Mr or Ms. Lane (this is civilian territory so I hope you don't mind if I drop the rank). Anyone can write you right here, so that we all may benefit from the conversation. I hope you will continue to participate. I'm sure there is much we can learn from each other.

republicantx

01/30/05, 03:32 am

I must say that I disagree. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it IS the democrats who have turned us into a number. Everyday when I watch the liberal media, it is nothing but numbers. When Kerry ran, all he talked about was numbers. He did not speak out about the war in Vietnam as a hero. He did it as a coward. He is a self proclaimed hero. Bob Dole, George Bush, John McCain. These men are heros, but they did not base their campaign on it. Kerry did not even finish one full tour in Vietnam, let alone the navy. He requested to be let out early, and very soon after, he announces that he is going to begin a career in politics. He wanted to do it while his name was still fresh in everyones' head. All he did was bash the soldiers on our side, and commend the Vietnamese. Now he refuses to honor Condaleeza Rice's appointment as Sect. of State. Its over, we won, move on. The Democratic Party needs to do a serious evaluation of where they are and make some big changes. Do you think that they are all really against Iraq? You are ignorant if you do. They have to be against the Republicans in every way.

JamesP

01/30/05, 11:23 am

Hi Repub: Welcome. Glad to have you join us.

I see Democrats as mostly supporting the troops.
I see Republicans as mostly supporting GWB.

Democrats value the lives, well-being and families of the young men and woman who serve.

Republicans use patriotic slogans to justify the exploitation of our service people for their own benefit (mostly unrelated to the interests of the American people as a whole).

For example, We would never be able to rationalize huge tax cuts for the most wealthy people in the U.S. while the troops are undersupplied, their benefits reduced and their tours of duty extended.

We take war very seriously and feel we should all bear it's burdens. Cocktail parties, lavish coronations, huge tax cuts and the obscene enrichment of "friends of the Bush administration" corporations don't feel right to us when young, idealistic men and women are sacrificing so much.

We think "support our troops" means bringing them home safe and rewarding them for their service with excellent benefits for having served...
and not putting them at risk unless the threat is real and absolutely unavoidable.

Why is this wrong?

republicantx

01/31/05, 08:20 pm

Only one democrat pretended to care. John Kerry. Why? Because he has to if he wants to be president, but he is weak. He has to say Iraq is a disaster so that he has a reason to be against Bush. To say that Iraq is a disaster is slamming the troops. Do you think Bush decides everything in Iraq? NO. We make it happen. I saw so much accomplished while I was there. Children who had never set foot in a school were carrying backpacks and textbooks, and going to school everyday. Kerry lied. I had armor, plenty of bullets(which were never used on civilians like a lot of DEMOCRATS say they are), and 1 and a half gallons of bottled water everyday. It was our president who gave us 10% in payraises in 1 year. It was our president who sent us there, and it was me who gladly fought. Why? Because an Iraqi's life sucks. I saw Saddam's beautiful palaces in Tikrit, and the ugly, run down mud houses across the street. The majority hates Saddam. They praise us.

IF ANYONE OUT THERE IS STILL HIPPIFIED, AND THINKS SOLDIERS ARE BABY KILLERS, COME OUT AND SAY IT. DON'T BE SCARED, BECAUSE A LOT OF YOU SOUND THAT WAY(not all of you)!!!

One more thing: When I filed my taxes while in the army-I got an increased tax refund, plus a tax relief check. That was the most I have ever recieved in my refund. So I don't understand where the tax relief to the richest class comes from. The reason I voted for Bush is because he took care of me. Let's not get divided along party lines. Say what you like. Don't disagree just because he is a Republican.

the_liberal_weiner_warrior

02/01/05, 11:39 am

:eek: Baby Killer! :eek:

republicantx

02/01/05, 12:29 pm

Thank you for supporting your soldiers Liberal Weanie Warrior. Thank you for having as much compassion as you do?

As for the rest of the LIBS on this page. Messages like the one below are the ones that the American people see. This is why Bush got reelected!

mdbasement

02/01/05, 03:19 pm

The reason I voted for Bush is because he took care of me.

That's because he sent you there. He had an obligation to take care of you, very good care of you. How do you justify, in your own mind that he sent you there under false pretenses? There were no WMD’s, no nuclear threat, no ties to Al Qaeda, and even with Saddam in jail, his family dead or scattered, there are no plans for withdrawal. Don’t you feel he betrayed your trust?

the_liberal_weiner_warrior

02/02/05, 02:36 pm

Thank you for supporting your soldiers Liberal Weanie Warrior. Thank you for having as much compassion as you do.

I guess some people cannot handle or comprehend the concept of sarcasm... :rolleyes:

RedHeadLiberal

02/07/05, 09:18 am

Bob Dole, George Bush, John McCain. These men are heros.

Which GB are you talking about in this statement? Sr or Jr?

JamesP

02/08/05, 11:37 pm

Repub:
Just a couple of fun facts on the gap between the Bush administration's "professed" love of our military personnel & the "reality".

Bush No Friend to Veterans: Co-Payments Designed to drive vets from the VA

According to the Administration’s own figures, raising fees will drive about 200,000 veterans out of the system and discourage another 1 million veterans from enrolling.” [Department of Veterans Affairs, 9/03]

Bush Failed to Fully Fund Veterans Health Care: Bush's 2005 budget falls more than $2.6 billion short of the amount needed to fully fund quality veterans' health care, according to The Independent Budget, an annual collective assessment by four veterans’ service organizations of the funding levels and policy changes needed at VA. [AMVETS Release, 2/3/04; VFW Release, 2/2/04]

Bush Administration Calls for Total Closure of Three Veterans Hospitals, Partial Closure of Eight Others. In May 2004, the Administration decided to push for the closure of hospitals in Brecksville, OH; Gulfport, MS; and, Highland Drive, PA. Eight VA hospitals will be partially closed. In most cases, inpatient care will move to larger hospitals, leaving behind an outpatient clinic or long-term-care beds. The Administration is planning partial closures in Knoxville, IA; Canandaigua, NY; Livermore, CA; Montrose, NY; Kerrville, TX; Saginaw, MI; Ft. Wayne, IN; and Butler, PA. In 2003, the Bush Administration proposed the closure of seven hospitals in its efforts to “restructure” the Department of Veterans Affairs. [USA Today, 5/7/04; Associated Press, 8/4/03, 10/28/03, 12/16/03]

Much more to come if you'd like. Don't be fooled into selling your soul for the pathetic little tax refund you received. It was just a crumb thrown at you to divert your attention from the huge, budget-busting windfall GWB gave to the rich that will result in cuts in everything from veterans benefits to police and fire departments to social security:

gratelady1

02/21/05, 10:35 pm

It was our president who gave us 10% in payraises in 1 year. It was our president who sent us there, and it was me who gladly fought. Why? Because an Iraqi's life sucks. I saw Saddam's beautiful palaces in Tikrit, and the ugly, run down mud houses across the street. The majority hates Saddam. They praise us.

IF ANYONE OUT THERE IS STILL HIPPIFIED, AND THINKS SOLDIERS ARE BABY KILLERS, COME OUT AND SAY IT. DON'T BE SCARED, BECAUSE A LOT OF YOU SOUND THAT WAY(not all of you)!!!

One more thing: When I filed my taxes while in the army-I got an increased tax refund, plus a tax relief check. That was the most I have ever recieved in my refund. So I don't understand where the tax relief to the richest class comes from. The reason I voted for Bush is because he took care of me. Let's not get divided along party lines. Say what you like. Don't disagree just because he is a Republican.

Repub: What do you call a person you pay to do your bidding- with weapons, against an inferior enemy, in thier country?
How can any of our troops know who they are shooting at and who is who in Iraq and what kind of proof can you submit to support your claims?
Why would you need a pay increase to serve your country?
How many Iraqis have been killed since GWB payed to invade Iraq?
How many of those Iraqis where innocent people, and how could you personally know?
How many were babies? Or is it your contention that no babies have been killed by U.S. forces in Iraq? And how can you prove either way?
I support our troops- my son is one of them, but I will ask him these same questions when he comes back, as I told him before he went- that he will be held accountable for his actions- even if it's just to his own conscience- I know, because I am a vet myself- but I can sleep at night- and when I was in the service I was expected to just shut up and serve.

-V-

02/22/05, 06:32 pm

gratelady, I salute you and your approach to the war, and my heart goes out to you, your son, and the Iraqi citizens.

gratelady1

02/22/05, 07:53 pm

-V-; I return your salute, but am not looking for any simpathy, My son chose his path without any input from me and I would have rathered he went into the airforce and joined my baby brother over there, but he at least is attahced to an apache suad out of Fort Hood.

liberallandon

02/28/05, 03:11 pm

On the basis of tax refunds for the rick is an extremely appalling subject for me to bear. When the richest of the rich receivea an average of $85,000 and we are ever reciding into deeper and deeper debt something has to be done. and know the elemination of programs such as Even Start or the repeal of veteran benefeits is, to me not even close of being fare.Perhaps if the bush machine would stop paying for the support of such bills as No Child Left Behind than mybe Id be a little less judgemental.

gratelady1

02/28/05, 06:55 pm

The Bush machine is a perversion if not an out right oxy-moron, but putting that aside, there is a simpler solution- try winning back your local municipalities and county, state and other local offices. only through more local control, can we finally rid ourselves of federal control and all the liabilities that go along with it.

mikeike

03/09/05, 05:07 pm

For this guy's information I was a soldier once myself. I can recall the draft. We all know that Congress would have to voted on the draft. At some point this may have to be done.

gratelady1

03/09/05, 09:09 pm

Draft? Do you hear that sucking sound? Thats many intelligent Americans getting ready to take advantage of the good graces of non-violent countrie's open-ended invitations to live there (true freedom). It is also banks accounts being drained, with funds being channeled to overseas accounts because intelligent folks know when the tit has gone dry, and its time to vamos. Its all the rich conservatives who bought their own personal islands sending their children to register to boarding schools abroad, and thus cant register for selective services. Oh and it's all those Bush supporters who after spending trillions of dollars and trillions of man hours defending the idiot, saying "it was fun, it was real, But now time to go have some real fun!" And finally its that perverbial feeling one gets when he realized he been made of sucker and your being yanked out of the mouth of the villan that took you.

JamesP

03/10/05, 12:41 am

I feel more and more every day like a stranger in a foreign land. I don't understand the people, the culture. I had no idea how simple, selfish, unsophisticated and gullible Americans are.
It's astounding to me that so many could be deceived and mislead by the likes of the Bush administration. It could never have happened without the recent media consolidation. The corporate-owned media is this week planting the idea in the fertile soil of the feeble American mind that "Bush was right" in terms of middle-east policy. Invasion, mass-murder, the use of weapons of mass destruction on civilians, torture, all based on lies about a threat that never existed.
Somewhere, on the way to the mall, America lost it's heart, it's soul, it's greatness. It's a struggle to "keep hope alive" that we will find them again someday.

gratelady1

03/10/05, 06:59 am

I feel more and more every day like a stranger in a foreign land. I don't understand the people, the culture. I had no idea how simple, selfish, unsophisticated and gullible Americans are.
Somewhere, on the way to the mall, America lost it's heart, it's soul, it's greatness. It's a struggle to "keep hope alive" that we will find them again someday.

I feel you!
But the fact is time always tells the truth, though it is 20/20 hindsite.
Many people dont remember George Mason and why he refused to sign the Constitution, though he was one of it's main inspirational contributors
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/gmason/mason.htm
He basically felt the way the Constitution was set up, that the wealthy would take advantage of the poor, ect. and when you take into consideration all of the current events (with corporations being able to basically do what they want, when they want and not be held accountable) well the rest is history. But enough with the wining, where are the solutions?

JamesP

03/18/05, 01:14 am

Have Joe & Jane America had enough vengeance? Is it time to reach out to them to join us in supporting an end to the Iraq war?

Vengeance and the Butcher’s Bill

By WilliamPitt,

Wed Mar 16th, 2005 at 10:02:05 AM EST :: War on Terror ::

In the days following the ‘Shock and Awe’ attack on Baghdad, I wrote an essay titled ‘The Lords of Vengeance.’ The essay was directed at those who supported the invasion. The essay argued that the war was not about weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda connections in Iraq. The war was about revenge for September 11. It read:

I understand why you support this engagement. At bottom, you do so because you are loyal. The President has said it must be so, and so it must be so. The loyalty of this nation's citizenry is now and has always been our greatest strength. Many of you who support the war are veterans of other conflicts, and so your support is based upon a desire to stand with the troops now in harm's way. This is more than honorable.

At the end of the day, though, I think I know the true reason why you support this war. You still see September 11th when you close your eyes. You still fear blue skies and airplanes. You tremble when your subway dives down into a tunnel, you grip the wheel tighter when you drive across a bridge, and your stomach sinks when you know that, again tomorrow, you must face a day of work in a high-rise office building. You, a mighty American, citizen of the greatest nation that has ever existed, have been made to fear on your own soil. Somehow, somewhere, someone has to pay for that.

George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and the generals and soldiers who now wage war in Iraq are your lords of vengeance. They bring the hard fist of retaliation down upon a nation we have despised for over a decade now. You speak of fearing chemical weapons, you speak of standing with the troops, you speak of bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, but when all is said and done you watch the terrible blooming of fires and explosions in Baghdad and a voice whispers within you, ‘There. Payback. Finally, payback.’

It has been two years almost to the day since I wrote that. The butcher’s bill for our vengeance includes over 5,000 civilians in Afghanistan and something on the order of 200,000 Iraqi citizens, not to mention 1,518 American solders killed and over ten thousand more wounded in Iraq, along with 158 American soldiers killed in the forgotten Afghan war, one of whom died yesterday after stepping on a land mine.

When will it be enough? If we kill a million innocents to avenge the murders of 3,000 of our own, will that be enough? Two million? Ten million? How many of our soldiers must die? 2,000? 5,000? 10,000? How many must be maimed? What will the butcher’s bill read when all is said and done?

My essay two years ago was directed at supporters of the war. Two years ago, a lot of people were about vengeance. Now, perhaps, the edge has come off that blade as the true cost of revenge begins to make itself felt. Once again, I direct a message at supporters of this war. If that is you, or that is someone you know, perhaps the time has come to find the place where you can make your voice heard. 574 towns and cities in all 50 states will have a place for you to do just that, if you decide that there has been enough vengeance.

gratelady1

03/19/05, 05:08 am

Your essay was so good!
But preaching to those that are already on your side is paramount to Jesus preaching to souls already in heaven. How can we get your message to the opposition?

The Whig

04/26/05, 06:44 pm

This draft controversy is stupid. It takes Congress to reenact the draft you ignorant liberals. I fought in Iraq, and that sell out hippie that you wanted to be president made me sick as well as the rest of the guys in my company. It makes me sick that to the Democrats, we have become nothing but a number. Bush is doing everything right in Iraq. Very few soldiers have died compared to every other war in history. You won't be happy unless we go to war and not 1 person dies. Stop disgracing my fellow soldiers and me. Stop saying we should pull out and ignore everything these dead soldiers have fought for. You should be ashamed.

Write me at lane1981@forpresident.com
Sgt. Lane

I hope they re-enact the draft. I think it would mean fewer deaths in the long run (Iraqi that is). Any reason he makes you sick? Perhaps because he voted for a war keeping that is currently tying down our forces so much we can't stop the genocide occuring in Sudan? Bush is doing everything right? That couldn't be your patriotism (nationalism) speaking could it? I personally am interested in total deaths (soldiers+everybody else) and have to say, there have been more than a few, however, if this ends up saving lives in the end I'll support it. But with the current death rate for Iraqis being so high and the situation being so far from stable I don't see that. I think that war is a valid tool against racial pride, nationalist pride, and religious fanaticism and thier horrible side effects, however I see many better places to use it than Iraq (Sudan comes to mind). I love how people say, "if your against the war your against the soldiers." If this is true, what is bad about disagreeing with soldiers? Are you holy and sacred? Maybe we should institute a military dictatorship to avoid disgracing you?

JamesP

04/30/05, 07:28 pm

Excellent points, Mr Whig!

Most all of us appreciate the sacrifices and service of those in the military, but "supporting them", in current Bush-speak, simply means giving blind support to any corporate war our corrupt leaders choose to engage us in. Bush has put our military in the hands of giant oil companies. Mega-corporations now have their own military through which they can export capitalism and seize assets. And we're supposed to keep silent about it to "support the troops".

Those of us insisting that they only put put in danger to defend against real threats are the only ones really "supporting" them.

gratelady1

04/30/05, 09:44 pm

Today I saw programs about the Vietnam War on the history channel, it brought back so many memories that I had hid away in my guilty conscious. Guilty because as a teenager I was very idealistic and like any youngster, felt that just maybe, I and those around me could make a difference in the world. We viewed the world through innocent unblemished eyes and made excuses for our parents and the decisions they had made (mostly political), and how when I came home from school, after watching, the regular afterschool programs on TV, had to nerve myself for the "reality check" we called the evening news. How I had to endure the numbers every evening, how hundreds went to thousands, thousands to tens of thousands, and then hundreds of thousands. The death and carnage probably made my psychi, what it is today- and typical as an average American- Apathy- disdain- distrust- pity, what kind of life is this to grow up under. When the conflict was over, there was a relief in my chest as my older brothers came back, and my term was to come, and me and my 2 brothers were still in school, prepped by joining ROTC, with the hope of at least of good placement, and the buddy system, they had in place. No more draft, and no more conflict, and with the "Shared mutual distruction" theory in place to ward off the "Reds", we were safe to enjoy the golden age of "No government propoganda" control over our lives- Nixon's blunders, Ford's blunders, all led people to distrust the Repubs, Funny how everyone forgot, how we got to were we are now. I wonder how this is affecting my daughter- what she thinks about her brother, and other family members serving now. I hope she does not try to make excuses in her mind for the decisions our generations are making- or failing to make today.

The Whig

05/02/05, 06:09 pm

If anyone is interested I have some ideas on changing the nature of politics. So far the only section I've finished is the economic one (there will be 8 sections when its finished). However its quite large and I can also provide you with my broader overview. I call it Meritocracy. Anyway, if you'd like to see it I can email it to you.

gratelady1

05/03/05, 09:55 am

If your ideas are good, why not just post them here, for us to enjoy?

The Whig

05/03/05, 12:13 pm

Because 30+ pages would be overwhelming on a message board.

A very very broad overview:

1. Financial inheritance's role in dumbing down society.
2. Inheritance's stiffling effect on a groups power
3. Inheritance's role in destroying upward mobility
4. The absolute imperative for social downward mobility
5. Why socialism decreases power and thus cannot hope to survive
6. Why pure capitolism (and the culture of poverty theory) also decrease power.

gratelady1

05/03/05, 12:51 pm

Ever heard of turn-it-in.com

The Whig

05/03/05, 07:02 pm

or I could just email it to anyone interested.

gratelady1

05/04/05, 08:26 am

You could, but if you only if dont have copywrite issues to worry about.

MAGI

05/20/05, 05:21 pm

I'm hoping someone can cut & paste an article which appears in our Hartford Courant today.....05/20/05 on page A11, ("Our Pink Panther President?" ) because it appears our servicemen/women will soon be on their way home. (:-? )

Hi -V-,
I'm hoping you can......because we have great issues in our editorial section: For instance.."Our Pink Panther President?", written by......Victor Davis Hanson who "is a syndicated columnist, classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution.Stanford University."

MY NOTE: NOT Satirist!

I post on this thread particulary because we can breathe a sigh of relief because. The Iraq, (not to mention the whole Middle East problems), problem is solved......????????

We can brush off our hands, stick out our chests thumbs under our arms and bring our servicemen/women home! .......Says Hanson at the end of his article; "Had the president promised or even predicted such things after Sept 11, most of us would have dismissed him as utterly unhinged. But that is precisely what has come to pass. It is now time to concede it was not entirely a co-incidence, and that President Bush was not a "Pink Panther"-like Inspector Clouseau who bumbled about the Middle East and ended up accidently accomplishing what legions of "experts" never could.

I do not have a scanner/printer or a program that can do it on my old pc with windows 95. Hope someone can help. I sure would appreciate your thoughts.

This is exactly what I mean when someone witnessing the same facts sees things ENTIRELY differently....and Hanson is a historian................
Magi

MAGI

05/21/05, 08:55 am

Well Folks,
I went hunting for the "Pink Panther" column ..didn't find it.yet.
Google has lots.

If you're interested here's two articles I thought enlightening:
Nobody Knows Anything: On Victor Davis Hanson:
http://www.nobody-Knows- anything.com/mtarchives/2004/05/on_victor_davis_davis.html

and Watch/news Giles Whitlell meets the hawkish academic calling the shots in Washinton's war on terror:
http://watch.windsofchange.net/themes_66.htm did I forget the l ?

What an awful situation! Will SOMEBODIES GOD help us!

MAGI

05/21/05, 11:54 am

Our Pink Panther President?

I found a few by posting the above/Victor Davis Hanson

Here's one almost verbatim of the article I have:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0505/hanson.php

-V-

05/22/05, 02:50 am

I'm hoping someone can cut & paste an article which appears in our Hartford Courant today.....05/20/05 on page A11, ("Our Pink Panther President?" ) because it appears our servicemen/women will soon be on their way home. (:-? )

Magi, the best thing to do with a good article is sum up the main points in your words, cite the source and include a link to the site/article. I often include an excerpt from the article and put it in quotes (by copying and pasting it, then highlighting the text and clicking the quote icon).

gratelady1

05/23/05, 09:32 am

Are we in too deep or is it time to protest until our troops come home?

Before the war I had decided that it would not be beneficial to engage someone we already had under control, in a street to street battle. There were at the time, many arguements as to why we should not go to war and many have been realized. Now the Sunnis, are gathering their persective power and are going to attempt the one I feared the most. They will realize that they will tend to benefit the most by being "free", to be free to have the government they want, and the type of country, where they can control the populace as they see fit.

How many millions have we wasted there?

I think now the biggest mistake we could make is to bring our troops home. My son is due to be shipped over there anytime now, and I changed my mind, I want him to go, along with all the other troops we can muster, for other reasons though- We could launch a good offensive against the Saudis, and take them out, and follow soon after with Iran, all other Arabs states, will fall right into line with whatever we want.

The only problem, GWB and his butt-kissing of the Arab princes.

JamesP

05/24/05, 12:04 am

Lose not one life, not one limb, nor orphan one child....
- for Bush's oil wars,
- for the religious right's new crusade.
- or for whatever it is that Grate Lady seeks by spilling more & more blood in the middle-east

Bring them home safe now.

gratelady1

05/24/05, 12:49 pm

James, I dont want to see a single life taken, for a non-justified reason, anymore than you do- probably less, But- at some point we have to be able to look ahead, to realize the arena which we find oursleves in and probably the most important- Know when our lives, and those of our sacred loved ones, are in danger. The key to survival is being able to know when you are in danger.

We find ourselves in a situation that we are not in control of, one where your President and Saudi princes, will decide, with a burb, while scratching their butts, and holding each other hands- what will become of your life and those around you. You dont see this danger, because you may live in an idealistic world far removed from the reality of what the end result of the past 5 years have seen. It does not effect you directly, so you tend to accept what is wrought upon you, the whole while yelling for peace.

Peace must be fought for, people will die, and it may be and include everyone, but dont think you are in control- your not, my thesis is built on certain premises, divide and conquor GWB and his buddy Arab princes. Make GWB justify not taking out the bastards! This will finally gain us some control. My belief is that we are the Arab's play things- pawns if you will, but we are not in control.

I know I sound like a nut, and that I am promoting hatred of a certain demographic- but GWB did the same thing and he got re-elected President!

-V-

05/26/05, 12:03 am

Peace must be fought for, people will die

Peace must be negotiated for.

Fighting for peace is like f**king for chastity!

gratelady1

05/26/05, 09:47 am

A negotiated peace? Sounds like something out of an Idealistic comic book. You can negotiate a peace, there is no doubt, but when you have no enemies, you have peace-is logical- Israel and Palestine, have been negotiating a peace for over fifty years now, and how many folks have died and will die? My premise leads to an end resut of "no viable enemy", either he is incapacitated beyond affectiveness, or eleminated completely.

What I want to know, is what is more important to you? A "real secured peace", peace through some type of positive or negative re-enforcement (as the aforemention Israeli-PLO problem) or one where you dont have to worry about future threats?

And you can F**K for chastity- the end result of much F**King is a virgin child.

-V-

05/28/05, 06:06 pm

A negotiated peace? Sounds like something out of an Idealistic comic book.

no, Spiderman and the Justice League of America are out of the comic books. The history books give us real heroes like Ghandi and Martin Luther King to name a few.

What I want to know, is what is more important to you? A "real secured peace", peace through some type of positive or negative re-enforcement (as the aforemention Israeli-PLO problem) or one where you dont have to worry about future threats?

It is the killing that perpetuates killing in the Middle East not the negotiations.

If you invade someone's country, blow up their homes, enforce your version of freedom and culture (not theirs), and kill their father, brother, or child you better watch your back for the rest of your life. It is far more efficient to stop creating enemies than to try and kill every one of them.

gratelady1

05/29/05, 02:57 pm

-V-, I agree with what you are saying, but you have to agree- if you kill everyone that is considered your enemy, no one will be left to be your enemy- right?

-V-

05/30/05, 01:32 am

if you kill everyone that is considered your enemy, no one will be left to be your enemy- right?

that might work if you and your enemy were isolated on an island but even then what would give you the right to kill at all. Are you "good" and the enemy is "evil"? Is God on your side, their side, or both sides? If your enemy is a potential criminal isn't it for the courts to decide and dispense justice? Or is it for the ones with the bigger bombs to lay all questions to rest in a pile of blood and rubble.

I don't know of any historic example of any group succeeding in wiping out their enemies. And many have tried, for a host of reasons ranging from simple greed to religion and ethnicity. You only have to look at the endless cycle of death and distruction in the Middle East. Not only did W not negotiate a resolution, like Clinton almost did, he created another endless cycle in Iraq.

Many of your ideas, Gratelady, are progressive and independant but on this one it seems that you have taken a sip of the "cool aid". I know the conditioning is strong in the military of any country but your spirit is stronger. Look there for the answer. And if you are a Christian, let Jesus be your role model not George S. Patton or George W. Bush.

Lasting peace requires communication, compromise, education and ultimately, understanding. Killing cannot create peace. It can only create killers.

MAGI

05/30/05, 09:43 am

"Message of Memory", a column written by Frank Harris 3rd, is found on A7 in the Htfd. Courant, on this Memorial Day 05. He is chairman of the journalism dept. at Southern CT. State University in New Haven.

"Long ago, Memorial Day rose from the bones of battle with the day's memories percolated through the blood of war."

He writes how as a child it meant having the last Monday of May a day off from school, a time to reunite with family; "A good time. "

He relates the history; "Decoration Day in 1868, a day when people would decorate the graves of Civil War dead, according to the Library of Congress."

"After a succession of wars, the day evolved into a commemoration for dead American soldiers from all wars before morphing into the current commemoration for all dead, regardless of how and when they died."

He speaks of today; parades and "old soldiers marching in step to the ghosts of soldiers they salute." He never went to war but has "memories" of what others have told him...about Uncle Joe, who his Mom told him looked like Joe Lewis, who was killed in World War 2. "He knocked out a tank with a bozooka before another tank got him."

He mentions others..."Like my high school classmate, who couldn't wait to get to Vietnam but sang a different tune years later, describing how the Viet Cong "just kept coming" and how he and his fellow solldiers pushed prisoners out of helicopters "because of what they did to our guys." "

"On the news each day are memories being made for Memorial Days to come. And for every war story ever told and every war story never told about the pitiful and the pitiless, about killing or being killed, I recall memorable anti-war songs: "What's Goin' On?" "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?' "Blowin' in the Wind," "One-V-Soldier," "We Gotta Have Peace." "

After 1975 and Vietnam, at Southern Illinois U., a group of protesters chanted "NO more wars!" "It seemed quaint and unnecessary- Protesters without a cause.", he writes.

He sums up his article with: "But on this 137th edition of Memorial Day, the years have simply proved that peace is temporary; war, persistent; memory, short."

When will we learn???

gratelady1

06/09/05, 09:30 pm

that might work if you and your enemy were isolated on an island but even then what would give you the right to kill at all. Are you "good" and the enemy is "evil"? Is God on your side, their side, or both sides? If your enemy is a potential criminal isn't it for the courts to decide and dispense justice? Or is it for the ones with the bigger bombs to lay all questions to rest in a pile of blood and rubble.

I don't know of any historic example of any group succeeding in wiping out their enemies. And many have tried, for a host of reasons ranging from simple greed to religion and ethnicity. You only have to look at the endless cycle of death and distruction in the Middle East. Not only did W not negotiate a resolution, like Clinton almost did, he created another endless cycle in Iraq.

Many of your ideas, Gratelady, are progressive and independant but on this one it seems that you have taken a sip of the "cool aid". I know the conditioning is strong in the military of any country but your spirit is stronger. Look there for the answer. And if you are a Christian, let Jesus be your role model not George S. Patton or George W. Bush.

Lasting peace requires communication, compromise, education and ultimately, understanding. Killing cannot create peace. It can only create killers.

All the above is true, but only applies in an ideal world. I was trying to make a point and you overlooked the obvious- that just the threat and or rumor of the U.S. being interested in taking out the leaders of Saudi Arabia, much like Saddam in Iraq, would be enough to turn the Saudis against GWB, and you might agree with the amount of power and moola they have, GWB would be waste- in short order, if the Saudis believed GWB could not keep us under control (not keeping his end of their bargain).

I wonder why you were so quick to rule out the promotion of interdiction and the ultimate dividing (divide and conquer) of the Saudi-Bush alliance, and wonder that any support of GWB is in effect to his advantage.

If a good portion of the population of the U.S. started yelling "Lets take out the Saudis"- what do you think the ultimate conclusion would bring?
Let me remind you that shortly after 911- the Saudis spent lots of money on air-time to convince us that they in fact were our greatest friends and that they had nothing to do with 911- if you were to listen in Rush's language- that translates to- they were the main ones behind the whole thing and that they were afraid we would find out.

But I want to turn it over to you- what ideas would you present to break up the love affair between the Saudis and GWB?

At this point I would listen and support anything.

MAGI

06/11/05, 09:43 am

So long as we are dependent on foreign oil as we are presently, our corporations and investment firms will do what they feel is necessary to make big bucks from their energy investments. Only if Iraq stands up and gets rid of the U S occupancy, will we get out...unless we, the people start protesting !!!!!

Go on Google and put in Carlyle Group. on the very first site http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html see George Herbert Bush as one of the six (I think) top men pictured,in this INVESTMENT group. What is available on Google about the Carlyle Group is enough to keep a person busy for some time. I urge you all to take a look.

gratelady1

06/29/05, 09:28 pm

It's interesting that at the Fort Bragg speach, the soldiers and folks in attendance were so quiet. I have a buddy who was in the 82nd airborne and whom jumped out of many a good plane, and I can tell you those folks are a roudy and rucous lot and hoop and hollar as much as they can. Some spin doctors refer to the fact that thier silence was quite odd and even orchestrated. I think maybe more happen there then we will ever know- maybe we actually made a difference and the tide is starting to turn.

Hope is still alive!

-V-

06/29/05, 09:55 pm

clearly their audience participation was prepared. They only applauded when Bush said they would stay the course, and America is supposed to believe they'd be excited about that. :rolleyes:

Dale I.

06/30/05, 02:14 pm

This is where I part ways with my progressive friends. I support the war in Iraq. I think we should enlist the aid of other countries with a stake in the out come. There are a variety of ways that diplomatic efforts could be made to turn the conflict in Iraq into a more noble struggle. Indonesia is a moslem country with a successful democratic government. I think that it would have been wise to enlist their aid to help iraq fashion a wroking democracy. China has a vested intrest in a more secure middle east since they will shortly surpass the U.S. in oil consumption. It's shouldn't take a diplomatic genius to convince the chineese to participate in reconstruction and stablization efforts in Iraq. Turkey also has an incredible intrest in helping to stablize Iraq becasue their greatest fear is an Iraqi civil war that results in a kurdish state on their border.
I think instead of whining about what has happened progressives should help articulate a plan for success through a specific plan of enlisting international support for the Iraqi people. Run away and let the U.n. handle it isn't going to win any elections and it simply isn't helpful.

By the way I voted republican for the first time in my life in the last election and I know alot of others who did too but can't admit it to their friends because of the viscious retoric.

Michael DeM

06/30/05, 02:44 pm

Why do you support the war in Iraq? How has killing thousands of people in the invasion of a country that posed no threat to the U.S. made us safer? In fact, the invasion of Iraq has been a recruitement tool for terrorsists. Terrorism has gone up since we invaded Iraq. As you probably know, there are no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorists. So why do you support this war, Dale? And don't tell me this was a war of liberation unless you're going to be consistent and propose that we invade every other nation that has human rights abuses as well.

gratelady1

06/30/05, 03:21 pm

This is where I part ways with my progressive friends. I support the war in Iraq. I think we should enlist the aid of other countries with a stake in the out come.
I think instead of whining about what has happened progressives should help articulate a plan for success through a specific plan of enlisting international support for the Iraqi people. Run away and let the U.n. handle it isn't going to win any elections and it simply isn't helpful.
By the way I voted republican for the first time in my life in the last election and I know alot of others who did too but can't admit it to their friends because of the viscious retoric.

Dale man, dont be disconcerned about this whole issue, it's ok that you are a victim of Group-think and believe all that GWB has told you. And dont be too embarassed about voting for the idiot from Texas- hell I voted for him the first time- but then I learned how much he is a liability to the U.S..

But I want to address a few facts that you may want to think about;
a) What is the end result, you talk about, in your post or what do you think that will be?
b) Do you remember- at all, what the concerns were, of those few folks, that were against the war (before we went in) and how true the current status is (For instance that there could never be stability in the country), as you know noone alive to day can predict when, if ever, there will be stability in Iraq- ever again.
c) Who is in control of security in Iraq and Afganistan?
d) How much do you think we have spent in money and lives (Americans only) in both fronts and remember "(a)" is your proposed end result, and you still think it's worth it?

The problem with being in iraq is that you give terrorist an easy American target, they would not otherwise have- GWB knows this and it provides him unlimited perpetual justification for continuing his offenses there, imagine like witch-hunting- how do get the witch to prove she is not a witch, without her casting spells?- alas a no-win situatuion for the witch- by comparison if U.S. troops keep up offensive action and break down doors- any defensive action by the homeowner will mean he is a terrorist- thus take him out! And since they are dead, we can just call them "insurgents" and noone here ever asks for proof or ID of those dead.

If we are in control in Afganistan, then how come it took so long for our troops and rescue personnel to help the recent downed chinnook? There was a battle and it took a while to even assess what had happened- clearly we are being mislead by the Bush administration at all fronts, as to the political accomplishments in both countries.

If you support the war in Iraq and Afganistan where we are loosing troops constantly, and your premise is something like "proposed peace some day, or security for the U.S.", may I remind you of one fact you are overlooking- If I came to your house and decided I needed to kill you and your family, because some day your religous or political idealogy may some day, pose a threat to me and mine, what would you say would be the title of my psychosis? What ever title you give it, it is the answer to all your questions, because GWB is basically saying for the whole world to hear- "We will fight them over there before they have a chance to come here and fight us here." The problem is he never defines who they are- beyond "the terrorist", and yet we can go over there and take out who ever we want, whenever we want, and we are justified, but we are not terrorizing anyone-right?

And one other point- the over 400 billion dollars we have paid for this worthless war, in a worthless land- to date (according to Dumbsfelt, we will be there another 12 years), which theorically, we will never benefit anything except "security", could have bought how much actual border security here at home? But then again how could we get instability in the Middle East if all our money is spent here at home?

gratelady1

08/03/05, 08:41 am

In case anyone still cares about the American serviceman here are the latest stats according to MSNBC;

At least 1,815 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 1,396 died as a result of hostile action. The figures include five military civilians.

Click for related coverage
U.S. freelance journalist killed in Iraq
WP: WP: Papers tell of brutal U.S. improvisation
Iraqi women turn to U.S. envoy for help

ntx_orchid_gardener

08/10/05, 06:13 pm

treehugginliberal

08/13/05, 04:09 pm

I have been racking my feeble little brain, trying to figure out how we will eventually extricate our troops from Iraq. Recently I saw the numbers: 1850 American troops, dead (96% since the famous "MIssion Accomplished" thingy), 200 coalition troops, dead, approximately 23,000 Iraqi civilians (apparently largely women and children), dead. I read somewhere that about 36% of the civilian deaths were attributed to military action and another 40% or so were a case of Iraqis killing Iraqis for one reason or another. Seeing these huge numbers of civilian deaths leads me to believe that that our policies are certain to be providing more fodder for terrorist recruitment, after all if one person decides to become an insurgent or terrorist because of the death of a friend or relative then I foresee this as a neverending loop. It was then that I was struck by what could possibly be Bushco's exit strategy, genocide. As awful as that sounds, think about this, after the US quit propping up the government of the Shah of Iran, it was overrun by Islamic fundamentalists, when US troops pulled out of Vietnam, what happened to South Vietnam, the "enemy" took over and united the country and there are countless examples like this throughout our recent foreign policy history regardless of who has they keys to the white house. I foresee the same thing happening in Iraq, should we try to leave with a puppet government in place. Therefore, as I see it, Bushco has painted themselves into a corner which leaves them little alternative. They have already shown that human life means nothing to them (unless it is of the single-cell variety) and besides these people are Iraqis, not like they were Euro-centric caucasian types (not that this would make any difference mind you, but it would make it more palatable to what I perceive as a still somewhat racsist America).
Am I advocating this? Not in the least. Am I mad (as in insane)? Perhaps. Leaving Iraq with a duly elected government in place is not going to leave any warm and fuzzys among those personally touched by this war (which by the end of this will likely be 99% of the citizenry). I have no doubt that the US will never totally leave Iraq, but if one has a military base there, one would like to have it secure and if there are any insurgents left, it could never be secure. So the only solution I can forsee is a Hitlarian one. It's enough to make me cry.

gratelady1

08/14/05, 07:57 pm

So the only solution I can forsee is a Hitlarian one. It's enough to make me cry.

Hey treehugger, I like your post, it is be all means a summation of this entire thread. But I cant help but think your in line with the Bushco, but not in the Hitla sense, or the rag heads racial genocide sense, but in the "all or nothing" thinking corner. What I mean is, why do you suggest that there are only limited options, Bush and co, has been saying all along "that we will not leave till the job is done", his oponents have been saying "get our guys out of there". And many on either side or in between, have been taking sides of these two options not even allowing for any other options.

Here is what I suggest, leave our guys in Iraq, but out in the middle of the dessert (this will stop the inocent killing of civilians by our side and the accidental running over of mines and such), and protecting the precious oil wells and refineries. Take them out of the populated areas, and tell the Iraqis "It is your baby now", just like we promised. We took down Saddam insane, and now it is up to them- to defend their country, and put down their insurgency, or have their civil war, and in the end if we dont like what they have ended up with, will take them down just as easy as the nut before.

Sound pretty simple, dont you agree?

The problem is Bushco will not allow any end to the strife and problems in the Middle East, there is no money in stabilty, and there is no profit in the secured flow of oil, checked your car fuel bill lately?

bld56

08/28/05, 11:54 pm

kick a little more arab butt and the world will fall into line?

here are some miscellaneous, relevant, inconvenient facts.

the army met last quarter recruitment goals only by halving their stated objective. they didn't fully meet those recruitment goals in the past 2-3 quarter, either.

there are somewhere in the vicinity of 35,000 private security coorporation operative on the ground in iraq.

despite the extensive (and expensive--special forces officers are reportedly getting over $100,000 for re-enlistinga) attempts at retaining sufficient force to take on the conflict you're advocating are failing.

if we can't meet our current obligations, how are we supposed to engage in a larger and more protracted conflict?

bld

ps and by the way, the figures on US combat dead only count those who die in the field of combat from combat=related costs.

the april new england journal of medicine ran a summary of the current state of the mental health of iraqu war veterans. the current estimate of returning military that will require psychiatric care is about one-quarter. it's likely that that figure will rise with time.

gratelady1

08/29/05, 08:34 pm

"Kicking Arab butt" is a simple solution, but hardly effective. You and everyone must remember those folks over there live in a 12th century reality. Dumbsfelds "Shock and Awe" mentality and strategy, was very impressive for the American audience, but those poor folks over there were just left wondering what Alah was doing to them now. The worst thing you could do to folks in the Middle East is ignore them, this is what angers them most, and emotionally hurts them, this includes, Arabs, and Israelis- they refuse to be ignored, they will kill each other, themselves, their own, and fly planes into buildings, and nuke anyone, if you dare to ignore them. If you want effect a change, it is best to take American lives out of their cross-hairs, and tell them you just dont believe they are worth paying attention to, and you wont waste our time, money and lives on them- they just cant handle that, but at this time we could get away with doing just that. I love to see them go absolutely insane when you ignore them, it is a site.

-V-

08/30/05, 07:18 am

kick a little more arab butt and the world will fall into line?

I believe they're still teaching that strategy in Caveman 101 class and in parts of Texas under Intro To The Wild, Wild, West.

The Israelis and Palastinians have believed, for decades, that if they just kicked a little more of the other's butt they would fall into line.

Kick one more butt, make 10 more enemies of the friends and family who bury the body!

gratelady1

09/01/05, 09:54 am

Whoop!!, you hit it on the head again -V-.

StevieRayVaughn

09/11/05, 11:08 am

The only soluttion is an immediate withdrawal. Iraqis don't want us there, Al Qaeda wants us to stay so they can destroy our army, and we don't have the money as a nation to keep spending $$$ on wasteful, needless wars. If people don't demand an immediate withdrawal the country is doomed. Look at the Katrina response. If we're attacked by terrorists we are all going to be living like characters in the movie Mad Max. BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW.

gratelady1

09/11/05, 10:47 pm

StevieRayVaughn

09/12/05, 07:13 am

True, Gratelady, true. We must all get mohawks and start wearing leather. Thank you, apathetic ones. You've lead us straight to Thunderdome.

MAGI

09/12/05, 07:26 am

What's wrong with living like characters in a "Mad Max movie"? I think it would be superior to living under the Bush regime. Get used to it, with all the apathy today we will get to "Thunderdome" before you can say "W" sucks!

:rolleyes:
I'm seeing the greater populance is getting the message! They are learning Bush had his eyes on Iraq from day one of his election.(we know better,,,,it was long before that.) They see the people he chose are on the same page.

Iraq was his target from day one of his manipulative win....thank our Supreme Court! ......Although he had all the information of the danger of Al Quaeda from the Clinton administration, he chose to put that at the bottom of his list and would NOT listen to Richard Clarke, and, as a matter of fact didn't allow him to take part in meetings of this nature! He shut out all President Clinton's main sources of Al Quaeda! Even people in his (Bush's) own administration resigned and warned of this (one, O'Neal, I believe he wrote a book as did Richard Clarke. Unfortuately our media made little of these warnings.)
We now know "they" (Condi, Rumsfeld, Cheney, GEORGE TENENT....the CIA?/FBI? man who briefed Bush daily on the info Bush WANTED to hear......anyway, he was awarded a wonderful medal for his Yes Sir messages ), fed manipulated intelligence to Colin Powell, one who knows ALL about the devastation of war.
I'm sorry he is so brainwashed on following the "Commander in Chief" that he will NOT spill all the story! Much to the detriment of our loved ones doing their duty currently in Iraq.

I would NOT be writing this if the Iraq War was a just war! The evidence of going to war was ALL a SHAM! We must speak out and get our loved ones out of THERE!

Sentiment against the Iraq War IS GROWING HOURLY!

I Thank You, for speaking out, especially so, because our troops took an oath to do their duty and dare not say their true feelings!

Let Iraq know NOW to use dipomacy among themselves (Kurds, Shites & Sunni's)
and establish their own government.......... however....THEY WISH.....because we are leaving and their future depends on themselves!

I read somewhere today, our gov't is NOW looking to see WHAT will happen if we pull out NOW! Let's tell them!

THE VERY SAME THING THAT WILL HAPPEN WHENEVER WE FINALLY DO LEAVE!

LETS DO IT BEFORE MORE LIVES ARE LOST AND ONE MORE TROOPER WOUNDED!

It is IRAQ'S call! WHEN WILL WE SIT DOWN & TELL THEM THIS??????????????

StevieRayVaughn

09/12/05, 07:51 am

Magi, you are right, the tide has turned. We must distance ourselves from people who believe Iraq can be "fixed" by our remaining. They are wasting time and putting our country in jeopardy. We need the National Guard in America. We need to stop sending billions of $$$ to Iraq asap.

Read the paragraph below. Note how Bush thought Katrina's damage could be "fixed." Citizens who aren't demanding an immediate withdrawal have the exact same delusional, uneducated perspective as our president. We can "fix" Iraq by staying, they say. No, Thunderdome enthusiasts - we will never FIX Iraq. Take heed:

Jindal later told NEWSWEEK that "almost everybody" around the conference table had a similar story about how the federal response "just wasn't working." With each tale, "the president just shook his head, as if he couldn't believe what he was hearing," says Jindal, a conservative Republican and Bush appointee who lost a close race to Blanco. Repeatedly, the president turned to his aides and said, "Fix it."

gratelady1

09/12/05, 09:21 pm

Today some idiot in charge of diplomacy in Iraq, warned "that if we pulled out now the entire Middle East would be thrown into chaos, and that America was looseing it's patients with Syria's allowing insurgents into Iraq".

Let me put this as diplomatic as I can, for any simpleton other than Bush, who cant think with a clear mind, The Middle East has been in Chaos for over fifty years, ever since emperialistic governments, have tried to dictate to the 12th century peasants there, how to live and how to let them (the emperialist) run thier countries and lands. So how could the Middle East get any worse? Oh am I missing or overlooking some sort of actual organization there or something? Do we have everything under control? Can we predict- with some kind of certainty what will be the final outcome in the Middle East? AHH- NO!

And as for the Syria issue- If you are in charge of security, how can you blame outside entities for allowing outside forces into your secured area? Of course unless you are not in control, and not secure! Let me put it this way, it would be paramount to me blaming my neighbor, for allowing a muderer or thief to break into my house- the one im supposed to be in charge of protecting and securing. what kind of psychosis would you think I was suffering from to make my neighbor responsible for my security?

Prior to the 2004 election, my most sincere arguement against Bush, was that he was in charge of security on Sept. 11, 2001, Not Clinton, not me, not you. As the figurative head of the Excutive Branch of our government, he, and he alone, was reponsible for the national intelligence, and determining what policies, and what procedures would be needed to protect us from our known enemies- he did not do his job then, how could he still be in the position he is in and respectfully put, how can he still be breathing!

If you hired me to be in charge of your home security and I promised you the best, money could buy, and then one day you come home and someone blew up your house, killing your family, taking all that you owned, would I still be working for you today? If I had a concscience, and scrupples, would I be able to live with myself, knowing I failed in monitoring and assessing your enemies, and costing you your family and all your personal belongings. And how would you feel about the fact that my excuse was "I could not foresee that type of thing happening", and all because I did not ask you who your enemies where, and I never personally checked them out.

A conservative friend counter argued with me, that "this was a poor analogy". When you think about the Middle East, New Orleans, and picking folks like Micheal Brown to be in charge of FEMA, I ask all conservatives out there now, to rethink my analogy- is it comparable- after the fact.

If Conservatives, neo-cons and even Dems, want thier revenge for Sept. 11, then they should allow the Middle East to fall into any percieved Chaos, it is far better that they kill each other, then we risk our guys, and kill them, and make even more enemies. And as for any arguement, like "they wont ever trust us again, or no other country will trust us, because we keep runnig out on them", let me repeat "W"'s and othe repubs arguement- "they hate us, they want us dead, they cant stand our lifestlyes", so what is the arguement for not letting them kill each other- since in the long run it is inevitable anyway!

I rate how good a President is by how many broadcast hours "Conservative radio talkshow hosts, like Rush limbaugh, Hannity, Laura ingram, and the like, have to waste defending their guys. They have been blowing 90% of thier airtime defending Bush, so the that guy must be the absolute worst president to ever be allowed to take on the title, and the number of Americans dead under his watch, to date will be the ultimate legacy to ditate his history.

StevieRayVaughn

09/13/05, 02:50 pm

GRATELADY: "Today some idiot in charge of diplomacy in Iraq, warned "that if we pulled out now the entire Middle East would be thrown into chaos, and that America was looseing it's patients with Syria's allowing insurgents into Iraq". Let me put this as diplomatic as I can, for any simpleton other than Bush, who cant think with a clear mind, The Middle East has been in Chaos for over fifty years....."

Exactly, and Iraq is already a mecca for insurgents, as you already know. The simpleton-targeting propaganda that yoyo is spewing will not be accepted by the majority of Americans. We are demanding our troops and money be used here at home.

I'm a Republican, so not all of us disagree with you, gratelady. Yes, it's pathetic to see how many Republican Iraq War supporters waste time on the airwaves defending the disaster, for sure. It's equally pathetic to see how many Democrats squander time "pondering a solution".

Iraq is going to be chaotic whether we leave or stay, as you point out. Our remaining encourages insurgents to beseige the country; common sense dictates we must withdraw. The world will applaud us for doing so, too. Only armchair warriors who are safe back home will say it's "allowing terrorists to win." Smart people realize al qaeda wants us to remain in Iraq; it helps further their cause.

Rather then waste time educating simpletons of both political parties....we must reach out to wise Americans who support immediate withdrawal.

gratelady1

09/14/05, 11:22 am

I agree in principle, with you whole-heartly, but I have asked in the past, "why cant we just position our troops around the oil wells, out in the middle of the desert, where we can pick-off on-coming insurgents, without harming innocents, and protect the oil and pipelines? In other words why cant we have a plan "C", why just an all or nothing pull-out plan? Why cant we allow for a different "more-rational" idea?

I would love to kill many of the insurgents- but out in the middle of the desert, where we could set a trap, like get our troops to entice the enemy to come and get us.

StevieRayVaughn

09/14/05, 03:58 pm

MAGI

09/14/05, 04:40 pm

StevieRayVaughn

09/15/05, 03:28 am

Magi, thank you for the undying support. Those who cannot grasp "immediate withdrawal" are every bit as scary as Mr. Bush himself. They are wolves in sheep clothing!

The majority of Americans DO want the troops home. We must take care of our own kind before strangers in foreign lands, afterall. Thankfully Cindy Sheehan, that courageous Irish American who is demanding an end to the Iraq Disaster, is coming to the New York City area. Please attend the meeting if you can. The "bring them home now" tour is underway! Take care, Trusted Magi...and don't let the dimwits drain your brain juice.

Join Cindy Sheehan, Military Families and Veterans in Manhattan
Monday, 9/19, 6:30 p.m. Riverside Church 490 Riverside Drive @ 120th St. NYC

gratelady1

09/15/05, 10:27 am

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Staying in Iraq & stealing their oil is exactly what al-qaeda wants us to do. Please learn about the "gripes" muslim extremists have against the US before you attempt to engage in discussion. Start with the PLO and work your way up. "Hanging out in the desert and waiting for bad guys to come so we can pick them off" may sound good, if you're a video game creator, but there's something called reality which throws a wrench in the scenerio.

Americans would have to work with Iraqis, silly one, in this "desert oasis" plan of yours. That means they wouldn't quite know who to trust. That's happening now...with the Iraqi police. Reports say insurgents have infiltrated their ranks. I suppose you know nothing of Vietnam, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan or other wars, either. Working "peacefully" amongst occupied natives seldom works. Oh, and please etch this into your bedframe: foreign armies cannot fight guerilla warfare.

To think 60 thousand U.S. soldiers died in Vietnam and our nation didn't learn a thing from it!

Alas, I fear America is doomed. The people are simply too dumb. :(

"All or nothing" is your only input here, thus no rational solution in it's premice- in other words, you know "the other side" will not agree with you, and thus your arguement allows for no alternatives- thus no solution, thus your just blowing wind and not allowing for any remedy, would you not agree?

You want it your way-or no way! Is that really a smart appoach to a "political problem?

Politics; is getting someone (in this context your political rival) to do something they dont want to do, or would not otherwise naturally do. So the way you want to solve the problem is to go full force in the alternate of your political opposite, and you know that will have no effect, thus you are going to realize what? The "status quo"- thus no change, thus, who here is really just living in an "idealistic not rational world".

The sad part about this, is I am on your side, but will ask for moderate, realizable, unargueable change- alas if the Neo-cons, repubs want the oil, and you want our troops safe, and dont want innocents killed, what is a good, rational, attainable, middle ground? At least I am willing to conceed something, to gain somekind of peace, if not apeasement, where you and those like you, have attained what?- nothing, and are not soon to get anything, because of your "all or nothing", emotional, unrational, but deliberate- idealistic arguements.

Now I ask you why wont you settle for a piece of anykind of success, verus the whole idealistic pie? I can argue that it is because you dont want ANY resolution!

StevieRayVaughn

09/15/05, 04:20 pm

Silly Gratelady - it IS all or nothing. There is no middle ground. The debate is over. Katrina blew it out the door.

America is dying. The Gulf is a corpse strewn wasteland. Oil spills abound. Terrorists will hit us here again. They know we're basically bankrupt. Just because they haven't nuked Hollywood or Chicago doesn't mean we're safe. These terrorists are patient. All of our resources must be used here in America to soften the blow when we are hit again. Yes, Bush and his crew want Iraq's oil. Democrats aren't exactly saying no to it, either. Americans with a clue will join the Sheehan crew and get fiesty, demanding our money be spent here at home. The movement is going to grow. Too many people are suffering for it not too. And if, as many fear, America's fate has already been sealed, those who stood with Sheehan's crew will be rewarded in the afterlife. This is a cosmic biggie. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's not essential to take a stand.

Take a look at this video of the president of Jefferson Parish (Katrina survivor) and tell me Americans shouldn't be demanding we leave Iraq now: http://www.truthout.org/

There is NO resolution to Iraq. Nothing good will come from us going in. Violence will continue whether we stay or leave. So the obvious solution is to pullout. Now.

StevieRayVaughn

09/16/05, 08:33 am

THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE OF LOCATION FOR CINDY SHEEHAN IN NYC

Monday, Sept. 19, 6:30 p.m. The Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine, Amsterdam Avenue at 112th St. (1 train to 110th Street and Broadway, or B or C to 110th Street and Central Park West, Cathedral Parkway).

gratelady1

09/16/05, 09:54 am

Silly Gratelady - it IS all or nothing. There is no middle ground. The debate is over. Katrina blew it out the door.

There is NO resolution to Iraq. Nothing good will come from us going in. Violence will continue whether we stay or leave. So the obvious solution is to pullout. Now.

I am proud to be silly, if that means not being so absolute- like yourself.

I do not agree with your conclusions and I know the realizations you are hoping for, are not going to happen. The fact is we are in Iraq, right now, in moderate force. Your solution is in direct confrontation with the already realized ambitions of the Bush admin. and it wont be changed by your emotions- this is a political issue, which means you must address it politically-
Politics is getting some one to do something they would not normally or naturally do otherwise.
Now we need you to calm down and remember who is in political control of our government, we need you to realize that Cindy and her cause, are but one avenue for change, we need you to realize that the best we could hope for, is moderate change, we need you to realize we need to control the oil, and it does not matter who gets the money in the end. The quickest way to protect our troops- over there (tactically and realistically) is to move them out of the urban-dangerous areas, which could be done in a matter of days, and in a quick colvert manner- thus safe manner. If anyone attacks our troops- out in the middle of the desert- I can guarantee they will be insurgents and deserve to be picked off.

Change is inevitable, but a controlled-safe change, is what we and our troops deserve- not irrational, emotional, idealistic, hot-headed, blind, non-addressed political rage, which can only incite counter-productive out-comes.

Now if you can agree with any of the above, you may be ok, otherwise I must assume you dont want change and are part of the broader Neo-con, Repub- facist
politcal movement to guarantee no progression whats so ever, and thus what does that make you in the grand sceme of American Freedom?
Im silly, I must admit, but if your idealism is intelligent, and thought out, then I want to be silly.

MAGI

09/16/05, 11:00 am

I am proud to be silly, if that means not being so absolute- like yourself.

I do not agree with your conclusions and I know the realizations you are hoping for, are not going to happen. The fact is we are in Iraq, right now, in moderate force. Your solution is in direct confrontation with the already realized ambitions of the Bush admin. and it wont be changed by your emotions- this is a political issue, which means you must address it politically-
Politics is getting some one to do something they would not normally or naturally do otherwise.
Now we need you to calm down and remember who is in political control of our government, we need you to realize that Cindy and her cause, are but one avenue for change, we need you to realize that the best we could hope for, is moderate change, we need you to realize we need to control the oil, and it does not matter who gets the money in the end. The quickest way to protect our troops- over there (tactically and realistically) is to move them out of the urban-dangerous areas, which could be done in a matter of days, and in a quick colvert manner- thus safe manner. If anyone attacks our troops- out in the middle of the desert- I can guarantee they will be insurgents and deserve to be picked off.

Change is inevitable, but a controlled-safe change, is what we and our troops deserve- not irrational, emotional, idealistic, hot-headed, blind, non-addressed political rage, which can only incite counter-productive out-comes.

Now if you can agree with any of the above, you may be ok, otherwise I must assume you dont want change and are part of the broader Neo-con, Repub- facist
politcal movement to guarantee no progression whats so ever, and thus what does that make you in the grand sceme of American Freedom?
Im silly, I must admit, but if your idealism is intelligent, and thought out, then I want to be silly.

I have suspected for a long time that silly gratelady is working for Karl Rove and company. NOW I AM ALMOST POSITIVE! WHAT NONSENSE!

Her (?) reasoning is beyond belief and really doesn't deserve response, although you, StevieRay do a really fine job!

I am sorry I cannot be in NYC on the 19th but my heart and soul will be there. I went to a candlelight service in a nearby town when we last held a vigil for calling for peace & will participate again if there will be one close by on the 19th. Otherwise I'll have a lighted candle in my window that evening. Long live our heroic people for standing tall on moral prinical!

May we be on THE speedy road to ending this war and ridding ourselves of dependency on mid East OIL!

gratelady1

09/16/05, 11:28 am

I have suspected for a long time that silly gratelady is working for Karl Rove and company. NOW I AM ALMOST POSITIVE! WHAT NONSENSE!

May we be on THE speedy road to ending this war and ridding ourselves of dependency on mid East OIL!

If I work for Karl, I think we all know- I need to get paid!! Something, even a bone!

As for a response, please dont respond, if you really dont want progessive change! It is far better to be embattled in a polar arguement- till Jesus comes back- aint it?

MAGI

09/16/05, 12:40 pm

I have suspected for a long time that silly gratelady is working for Karl Rove and company. NOW I AM ALMOST POSITIVE! WHAT NONSENSE!

Her (?) reasoning is beyond belief and really doesn't deserve response, although you, StevieRay do a really fine job!

I am sorry I cannot be in NYC on the 19th but my heart and soul will be there. I went to a candlelight service in a nearby town when we last held a vigil for calling for peace & will participate again if there will be one close by on the 19th. Otherwise I'll have a lighted candle in my window that evening. Long live our heroic people for standing tall on moral PRINCIPLE.

May we be on THE speedy road to ending this war and ridding ourselves of dependency on mid East OIL!

Instead of waiting for a possible 2nd coming, I prefer to speak out NOW of my beliefs and.............. do my best to speak for the benefit of humanity NOW...., instead of just waiting until November 2006 & 2008!

StevieRayVaughn

09/18/05, 08:37 am

As it turns out, Cindy Sheehan made a few comments regarding National Guardsmen in New Orleans over the weekend I don't agree with in the least. They came as a total surprise. Many people who support immediate withdrawal no longer agree with her views. It's very sad and disappointing. There are many good people in the anitwar movement. Hopefully they will acknowlege Miss Sheehan's errros and allow a veteran to replace her. Don't feel too badly, Magi. And thanks for the warm words :)

gratelady1

09/18/05, 01:47 pm

Instead of waiting for a possible 2nd coming, I prefer to speak out NOW of my beliefs and.............. do my best to speak for the benefit of humanity NOW...., instead of just waiting until November 2006 & 2008!

That is hilarious! You want to speak of changes NOW!, but you wont agree to at least- agreeing to a pull-back- versus a total pull out of Iraq. If you knew that a pull back to a safe zone in Iraq (lets say around the oil wells and pipelines to protect all the above) would immediately (TODAY) save American GI lives, why would you not also include it as an immediate show of good politics/faith by the Bush Admin..

Politically GWB and co. would look like complete idiots and incompetents- much like their preformance in the Katrina fiasco, if they would not at least do something to stop the American bleeding.

If he would not agree to any compromise to save American lives, then we could all agree to begin to demand of our Congressmen and Senators to commence impeachment proceedings- But instead you demand I be ignored, you act as a Neo-con and Repub or more precisely, you are the one literally in bed with Karl, You dont want any stability in Iraq now or anytime in the near future, because you are afraid of the free, secured flow of oil, and you dont want that anymore than Bush. You know that by perpetually argueing the extreme, there will never be any solutions- just screaming and finger-pointing.

Why the all or nothing attitude? As Mr Rove's But Bunny, why do you want perpetual strife in Iraq? Why never a compromise? Why never a logical immediate solution? And more importantly, why do you demand only a single polarizeing solution?
Why wont you allow for multiple solutions or alternate solutions along with your single polarizing solution? I tell you why, because you dont want change, just like an old antiquated, lizard backed, greedy, slimey, no-toothed Conservative.

StevieRayVaughn

09/22/05, 07:17 am

For all you immediate withdrawal fans out there: seems there's some friction in New Orleans regarding how the National Guard is being used. Cindy Sheehan addressed this friction; many took her views as being "anti National Guard." She has since clarified her views.

Politicians, it seems, aren't allowing the guard to be used to their full potential in many areas down South. The Guard has done a tremendous amount of good, though, too. New Orleans issues aside, the Sheehan crew is continuing their mission to bring the troops home. Now. They are in Washington DC. They are encouraging Americans to pressure ALL politicians to demand immediate withdrawal.

Gratelady: it's immediate withdrawal or nothing because "repositioning" the troops will not help matters. If it did you wouldn't have adversaries. Mechanized units cannot leave Iraqi cities "covertly." (Picture long rows of tanks, everyone. Gratelady claims entire army units can drive into the desert without anyone noticing. Gratelady obviously has no military experience).

Mechanized units cannot roll out in secret. Saying so is rediculous. How, may I ask, can entire units depart Iraqi cities...without insurgents knowing about it?

ANSWER MY QUESTION, GRATELADY. PLEASE. I NEED A LAUGH.

StevieRayVaughn

09/22/05, 08:04 am

gratelady1

09/22/05, 07:53 pm

[QUOTE=gratelady1]Why the all or nothing attitude? As Mr Rove's But Bunny, why do you want perpetual strife in Iraq? Why never a compromise? Why never a logical immediate solution? [QUOTE]

Logical??? :confused:

What is logical about entire military units departing for the desert without anyone noticing?

Are the units going to be covered in magical invisibility cloaks? Are you a wizard?
Is Harry Potter in charge of this "exodus to the desert" plan of yours?

Are native Iraqis going to be put under a sleeping spell so they aren't awakened by thousands of ground troops, tanks and humvees departing for the desert?

Don't the engines of tanks make noise? Don't they rumble? Won't anti US insurgents notice all these military vehicles & infantry soldiers departing stealthily in the night....and throw bombs at them? Don't you know military convoys are falling prey to IEDs (improvised explosive devices) weekly in Iraq?

Don't insurgents see the roads our military vehicles travel on? Won't they be able to plant bombs on these roads?

I really believe you are doing a better job of proving your narrow mindedness, than I could ever hope to accomplish.

You know what a DD-214 is? If so then maybe you may know wether I have military experience or not, but I never claimed to be a expert miltiary tactician, I only argue that some folks are more narrow minded and never allow for alternate solutions.

You seem to be stuck on the word "covert", you seem to want to argue that if I cant prove that a relocation of our troops can be covertly, then it should not be done at all, what kind of thinking is this?

Let me explain to you some basic strategy, If you attempt to leave covertly, and your enemy sees you, and thus you fail to be "covert", does that mean you dont have him where you want him? The most vulnerable of our forces would have to relocate as colvert as possible, this will allow for the safest transfer possible, the mechanized units can move one way, but really end up somewhere else, but the goal is to let the enemy know where you want to kill him- away from populated areas. Another goal is to stationalize our troops and stop the stupid patrols, which allow our troops to run over IEDs, Another goal is to protect and stabilize the free flow of oil, and thus fustrate GWB and his friends. But of course, you dont want that do you? You would rather babble about a word- you would rather try and denagrade the messenger, versus seriously look at and analyze the message. Which political party excutes that strategy the most? I'll give you a hint, they are in power right now!

StevieRayVaughn

09/23/05, 05:46 am

Gratelady: The quickest way to protect our troops- over there (tactically and realistically) is to move them out of the urban-dangerous areas, which could be done in a matter of days, and in a quick colvert manner- thus safe manner.

Gratelady - you made the above statement last week. The realistic way to protect the troops, you said, is to move them out of cities covertly. Covert means "in secret;" without anyone knowing. The CIA does "covert" stuff. Meaning, the public doesn't know about their operations. Special Forces units oft times go on "covert" missions, as well. You cannot move mechanized units and thousands of infantry soldiers out of cities without anyone noticing.

As I said earlier, if your plan made sense you wouldn't have adversaries. Iraq is like Vietnam. It's a lose-lose situation which incites al qaeda's "mission". Since you don't appear to know anything about our own military I doubt you know much about al qaeda, and I'm not going to waste my energy educating you about them. Not at this late stage of the game. The only logical option is immediate withdrawal, which could be accomplished in a matter of months. Only militaristically ignorant people disagree. Please learn about Vietnam, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and our own revolution. You have no business creating delusional "plans" if you know nothing about history or cannot properly define "covert."